Schafer should resign ...

[Al DeFlorio]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait?  Bated (contraction of abated), not baited.  Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

[Trotsky]

it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year

By fiat?  In all seriousness, what is it that makes you think Cornell isn't already operating at full potential?  How can you measure a "what should be"? other than by a comparison with like programs operating under like circumstances?  Michigan, North Dakota and Minnesota aint like programs -- they have huge systemic advantages.  Anybody who wants in gets in, and they don't pay a dime.

There's also no reason in principle Cornell couldn't go right back to being a middle of the pack conference team with a handful of ECAC F4 appearances per decade and one NCAA win every generation.  Joe Marsh, arguably the best coach in the ECAC and one of the most respected half dozen in the country, has that at SLU.  Clarkson and Harvard would love to just get back to that.

Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time, but your "we should win" seems to be predicated mostly on "we have won," which is a function of Schafer and his coaches.  Losing is quite possible, too, and a non-scholarship school with Ivy admissions requirements has systemic hurdles working against it which indicate that losing is the likely overall expected value.

We all want the team to be a perennial champion, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[ursusminor]

Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time,

Nope. :-P

[Trotsky]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

Jesus T. Christ, doesn't anybody watch Star Trek TOS re-runs anymore?  

[Trotsky]

Everybody here wants Cornell to win 100% of the time,

Nope. :-P

Yeah, well, the world needs ditch-diggers too...  

[ajh258]

it's definitely possible for us to reach that top-10 NCAA goal year after year

By fiat?  In all seriousness, what is it that makes you think Cornell isn't already operating at full potential?

...

We all want the team to be a perennial champion, but wishing doesn't make it so.

For starters, we can start lobbying the Ivy League to make rule changes in regards to recruitment and season schedules, or make strategic changes in the way we handle offense. Isn't the purpose of this discussion to explore what we could do differently to make this team better? At no point was I simply "wishing" us to win more, and the view about how we're already good and shouldn't expect much more is just counterproductive. If you think there's no incentive or possibility to improve, then just sit back and enjoy the status quo.

[Josh '99]

There is always someone who can do better, and if Schafer doesn't have the class to step aside and allow the program to return to prominence, the Athletics department owes it to us to find a coach that will.

I'm sorry, what?  Take a look at where the program is now, versus where it was when Schafer took over in 1995, and tell me that a "return to prominence" isn't exactly what he has brought about?  Jesus, we won the conference tournament last fucking season, and because the team is in third place in what everyone expected would be a rebuilding year, Schafer needs to step aside?
 

In my opinion, Schafer is too edgy to be head coach for Cornell.  You don't want a guy who punches the wall so hard after a tie with BU that he  seriously injures himself.  After that incident, I lost a lot of confidence in him.  Moreover, his anti-fish comments now just don't hold any water.  He's been very fish tolerant the whole time he has been at Cornell.

Forgive me if my sarcasm detector isn't calibrated, is your comment here serious?  Nothing Schafer said should reasonably give rise to the belief that he isn't still very fish tolerant; what he's vocally opposed to (and what any of us with a brain should also be opposed to) is throwing things on the ice at the wrong time and getting the team a penalty.  Maybe he overstated his case due to a visceral negative reaction to what happened; I know I would have.

[Towerroad]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait?  Bated (contraction of abated), not baited.  Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

I was thinking of red wigglers and definitely trolling.

[Trotsky]

If you think there's no incentive or possibility to improve, then just sit back and enjoy the status quo.

I have been enjoying it.

And we're all just sitting back, unless you're a player posting.

[Jim Hyla]

Good Long Term Performance
Win the ECAC Regular Season 1 year out of 3
Win the ECAC Tournament 1 year out of 3
Make the Frozen Four 1 year out of 4 or 5

There is no stronger argument for keeping Schafer than that he has improved Cornell to the level that these are metrics for "Good Long Term Performance." :-) :-) :-)

C- Interesting argument but did not really answer the question. Is your position that because we are discussing what good long term performance is that we have met the long term performance goals? Come on, you can do better than that. Also you did not answer the second part. What is good performance in 11-12?

I suggest a rewrite.

Sure, kid.  What you suggest is noted and logged.

I wait with baited breath.

What are you using for bait?  Bated (contraction of abated), not baited.  Unless you're trolling for mackerel.

I was thinking of red wigglers and definitely trolling.

Well, for some, I'm not trying to name anyone in particular, the Urban Dictionary holds some truth.:-D

[Trotsky]

the Urban Dictionary holds some truth. :-D

Hey, I remember this from The Soup!  (NSFW)