Schafer should resign ...

[Facetimer]

As discussed elsewhere in this forum, Schafer's post game comments after the surprising Harvard loss were inappropriate and reflect poorly on the University and the hockey program.  Accordingly, I think the time has come for a coaching change.  Schafer is a good coach, but not a great coach.  He's delivered a lot of bridesmaids, but never the bride. With all the talent he's had over the years, he's the only constant. It's time to move on.

Many on this board are quick to come to Schafer's defense.  I admire your loyalty, but I think your trust in Coach Schafer is misguided.  Some defend Schafer because the Ivy League restrictions make success prohibitive.  This is nothing more than a red herring.  He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men.  The talent is there, but Schafer doesn't know how to effectively coach this talent.

Others on this board will defend Schafer's "successes."  I won't deny he's had his moments and a decent overall record, but I wouldn't call his coaching career a success.  Success only comes in winning the NCAA championship – a feat Schafer has failed to accomplish.  Do you think Mike Krzyzewski is content winning an ACC tournament, or making a Final Four appearance?  This year, the team is particularly mediocre.  They are a poorly coached, undisciplined team that can't even beat a woeful Harvard squad in their own barn.  Schafer's response to this loss was to blame the fans.

Schafer ought to be ashamed of himself, and out of respect to the hockey program and the Cornell community, he should tender his resignation.  Short of resignation, I call on the University's Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title.  As students, alumni, townies, boosters and supporters of the program, we do a disservice by blindly placing our trust in Mike Schafer – a coach who is content in falling short of a national title, year in and year out.  I welcome a changing of the guard, and know others agree.

[semsox]

.

[brealy_myers]

As discussed elsewhere in this forum, Schafer's post game comments after the surprising Harvard loss were inappropriate and reflect poorly on the University and the hockey program.  Accordingly, I think the time has come for a coaching change.  Schafer is a good coach, but not a great coach.  He's delivered a lot of bridesmaids, but never the bride. With all the talent he's had over the years, he's the only constant. It's time to move on.

Many on this board are quick to come to Schafer's defense.  I admire your loyalty, but I think your trust in Coach Schafer is misguided.  Some defend Schafer because the Ivy League restrictions make success prohibitive.  This is nothing more than a red herring.  He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men.  The talent is there, but Schafer doesn't know how to effectively coach this talent.

Others on this board will defend Schafer's "successes."  I won't deny he's had his moments and a decent overall record, but I wouldn't call his coaching career a success.  Success only comes in winning the NCAA championship – a feat Schafer has failed to accomplish.  Do you think Mike Krzyzewski is content winning an ACC tournament, or making a Final Four appearance?  This year, the team is particularly mediocre.  They are a poorly coached, undisciplined team that can't even beat a woeful Harvard squad in their own barn.  Schafer's response to this loss was to blame the fans.

Schafer ought to be ashamed of himself, and out of respect to the hockey program and the Cornell community, he should tender his resignation.  Short of resignation, I call on the University's Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title.  As students, alumni, townies, boosters and supporters of the program, we do a disservice by blindly placing our trust in Mike Schafer – a coach who is content in falling short of a national title, year in and year out.  I welcome a changing of the guard, and know others agree.

OK, let's complete this thought experiment.  Let's say Schafer resigns the day after the end of the season.  Then what?  What would be a reasonable scenario for what's next?  I don't mean some pipe dream like "Ken Dryden will come back and coach for free".  If Schafer isn't good enough, then what scenario are we missing here that would have a reasonable chance of being better?  Is there someone out there where you can make a reasonable case that they'll be better at recruiting?  At developing the players in practice?  At being a game tactician?  Who?

[Facetimer]

There are guys out there that would take the Cornell job in a heartbeat.  How about a guy like Mark Dennehey of Merrimack College.  Great recruiting, experience in the Ivy League, his team is very competitive in a tough conference.  Imagine what he could do at a school people want to go to.

[Jim Hyla]

So now we have 2 anti-Schafer threads. I feel sorry for all of you, you spend your life finding ways to put others down. Yet none of you seem to have any concrete suggestions other than Schafer is not doing enough. Well as I have posted on the other anti thread, show me someone who has done better. Who and when was the last ECAC coach to win the NCAAs. Who was the last coach to actually get an ECAC team the possibility of winning the NCAA crown. So to all of you, find me something better, then I might start to listen to you. Otherwise you just seem like a bunch who like to sound important by posting complaints. Maybe you shouldn't all be lumped together, but I find it hard not to when no positive suggestions come out. Good night.

[Trotsky]

Wait.  Where are they going?  Are they hopping back in his mouth?  EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!

[brealy_myers]

So Schafer should resign so that we can hire a guy with a career coaching record of 70-141-26?  Who's enjoying his first season with a winning record as a coach - ever?  Schafer, in a building year, has a team currently tied for 3rd in the league and gets a bad quote in the Sun (I don't happen to believe that myself, but let's go with it), and for that should get taken out back and shot.  But another guy who has lost twice as many games as he has won gets the benefit of the doubt?

You say "there are guys out there" and this is the best example you can come up with?  I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it.  If you want to get taken seriously, make a serious case and convince me with a realistic scenario, rather than just hopes and dreams of a mythical better future beyond the horizon.  What you've said so far is beyond absurd.  Make a case - convince me.

[Facetimer]

Your putting a little too much emphasis on his record, wouldn't you say?  His abysmal record makes his accomplishments at Merrimack College that much more impressive.  Your asked for a name of someone who could do a better job recruiting, developing talent, etc.  Not who has the best record among active coaches.  You're gonna have a bad record if you coach bad teams in a good conference.

It seems to me like you are content settling with Schafer because you're afraid of change.  It's the same mentality as Jim Hyla, and it's a crap argument.  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.

[brealy_myers]

Your putting a little too much emphasis on his record, wouldn't you say?  His abysmal record makes his accomplishments at Merrimack College that much more impressive.  Your asked for a name of someone who could do a better job recruiting, developing talent, etc.  Not who has the best record among active coaches.  You're gonna have a bad record if you coach bad teams in a good conference.

It seems to me like you are content settling with Schafer because you're afraid of change.  It's the same mentality as Jim Hyla.  And it's a crap argument.  There is always someone who can do better, and the Athletics department owes it to us to at least entertain the option of a coaching change.

I'm not at all afraid of change.  All I ask is for some rationale that makes sense, that suggests that there's a reasonable expectation that change will yield a future that's better than the present.  As Giuliani said, hope is not a strategy.

As for whether or not I'm putting too much emphasis on record - I don't know what to say to that.  Call me a simpleton, but I want Cornell to win.  Whether or not a coach has been able to win in the past seems to me to be the best measure of their ability to win in the future.  Even if you give this guy a break for being at a lower profile school (albeit one with scholarships and MUCH lower admissions standards) and in a tougher conference, you've got to almost double his winning percentage to match Schafer's in the same time.

You're grasping at straws here.

[RatushnyFan]

But another guy who has lost twice as many games as he has won gets the benefit of the doubt?

Do they have athletic scholarships there as well?  He'll probably do even better once you take those away and impose likely higher academic standards.  Good idea.

[Facetimer]

I refer you to my original post about playing the scholarship/academic standards card.  I'm obviously not tied to Dennehey - you asked for a name, and he was the first one that came to mind.  Like I said, however, somewhere in the Athletic department, somebody should be having a conversation just like this.  I doubt they are satisfied with Schafer's performance this year, nor should they be.  Heck, at this rate, Scott Mayer '03 would be a better coach than Schafer.

[brealy_myers]

I refer you to my original post about playing the scholarship/academic standards card.  I'm obviously not tied to Dennehey - you asked for a name, and he was the first one that came to mind.  Like I said, however, somewhere in the Athletic department, somebody should be having a conversation just like this.  I doubt they are satisfied with Schafer's performance this year, nor should they be.  Heck, at this rate, Scott Mayer '03 would be a better coach than Schafer.

At this point, you've provided zero evidence that there are better options out there.  I honestly did not want to be one of the crowd simply dismissing you out of hand; I agree that it's always appropriate to look at the evidence and ask the question "could we be doing better - is there a better way to go?"  Unfortunately, you aren't answering that question.  All you're saying is "I don't like Schafer", which is only half an answer.  I don't know what Schafer did to pee in your oatmeal, but unless you can make a cogent argument that there is a reasonable potential for a better future beyond just "waaahhh Schafer said not nice things in the Sun and there are penalties and we lost to Harvard and we don't win every single game ever boo hoo hoo" it's clear that the status quo remains the superior alternative.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

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.

[Robb]

I call on the University's Administration to replace him with a coach whose priority is to ensure Cornell hockey is a perennial favorite for an NCAA title.

You lose any chance at a rational discussion when you hyperbolize like this.  No team is, or has ever been, a perennial favorite.  Perennial contender, perhaps, but even then the BCs, BUs, UNDs, and UMinns of the world have their down years.  

He's coached tremendous talent (8 former Cornellians presently on NHL rosters), and had no problem recruiting, matriculating and (in some instances) graduating these young men. The talent is there, but Schafer doesn't know how to effectively coach this talent.

In the seasons ending in 2001-2010 (Hockeydb.com doesn't put up stats for the season in progress), Cornell had 12 guys who played a total of 1220 games in the NHL.  Of course, nearly half of those games were played by Nieuwendyk and Chartrand, both of whom retired in 2004.  The list also includes illustrious NHL heroes like Iggulden (12 games), LeNeveu (21 games), Pelletier (6 games), and Underhill (1 game).  In 2010, we had 5 players who played, 3 of whom were glad just to get a cup of coffee: Bitz (7 games), Sawada (5 games), and Vesce (9 games).

Over that same span, UND has had 32 guys play 6122 NHL games - not even close.   In 2010, they had 14 players in the NHL, and the "worst" one of them played 23 games - more than our worst 3 combined.  To say that we have had "tremendous" talent speaks volumes of your ignorance of the hockey landscape outside of Ithaca, NY.  Our talent has been tremendous when compared with previous decades of Cornell teams, but is nowhere near the talent levels of true NCAA contenders.  To think otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous.

Oh - and you know what?  Cornell has exactly as many NCAA championships since 2000 as UND. If that is your only benchmark for success or failure, then my advice to you is to give up your interest in hockey altogether, because you're just setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment.

[Towerroad]

I am  not sure rational discussion is possible on items like this. Any coach can have a bad year or a rebuilding year. To measure coaching performance you have to take a longer view. Some are unhappy about the current coach, some have doubts, some are confident. How about we try to define, in measurable terms what good long term performance is and if the coach was your employee what would you define as good performance (with clear metrics) would be for next year. Here is my list:

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

2011-12 Goals
1 or 2 in the ECAC Regular Season
1 or 2 in the ECAC Tournament
Make it through the first round of the NCAA's
20% reduction in 2 and 5 PIM's
3.0 Goals/Game

This is a mix of results and means to results.