Should He Stay or Should He Go

[Towerroad]

A decent interval has passed. I think it is time to ask the big questions:

A coach is only as good as his last season or 2. If you do not believe me ask Joe Torre or Terry Francona. Both raised their teams to the heights and were then ousted a few years later. Mike Schafer has done great things for Cornell Hockey but let's face reality, last season was a major disappointment. Between the losing record, goonish play, and the Coaches whining I was very disappointed.

I am not sure if Schafer is the man to right the ship. If I were the AD I would be inclined to let him try but make it clear there was a short leash. So, let me ask the question: Should he stay or should he go? If you are a Schafer fan tell us what would change your mind. If you are not do the same.

[marty]

So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

[Trotsky]

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

[Towerroad]

So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

Don't over think it.

[ursusminor]

If he goes, just don't steal our coach again. :-}

[Towerroad]

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

[Trotsky]

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

[CAS]

Cornell was one goal away from the Frozen Four just last year.

[Towerroad]

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

[Chris '03]

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

It bears noting that "the last one" involved a road win over a #1, a broken neck to a (likely) future captain, and ended a handful of bounces away from an NCAA appearance (or at least very near miss).

[Trotsky]

Good poll but wrongheaded approach.

You take "a coach is only as good as his last season or 2" as if that ought to be the measure.  In fact, it's typically just an unfortunate side effect of the irritainment media, gullible ownership, and entitled fans.

1.  There is no reason to assume anybody else out there would do a better job.  

2.  There is reason to assume that Schafer's body of work and reputation attracts prospects we would not otherwise get.

As long as those two statements hold, he should stay.  Frankly, I have a hard time imagining either changing for years to come.

I am not sure these statements hold. They are difficult to verify at best. If we had 2 more years like the last one would you change your tune?

Probably not.  3 mediocre years would not undo 17 good and/or great ones.

Losing sucks, but panic is not effective.

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

Now for somebody who became a Cornell fan during the 105-5-2 stretch, or even during the 2002-10 stretch, their baseline is probably much higher and they assume ECAC byes fall from heaven and NCAAs bids are a civil right.  For them, finishing .485 is unforgivable.

I understand that.  I just think it's bonkers.

It is always hard to give up the "devil you know" for a new one. So, to summarize, you would keep the coach even if he posted 3 consecutive sub 0.500 seasons and lead the nation in penalties each year. That is more loyalty than I could summon.

An anxiety attack is not a business plan.

[cbuckser]

This all comes down to what one thinks the "baseline" of Cornell hockey is, absent any extraordinary effect either constructive or destructive.  That in turn likely comes down to how they were during one's formative Lynah Faithful experience.  So, for example, my first three years we missed the ECAC playoffs entirely with what in today's ECAC would translate into a 6th or 7th place team.  When we perform better than that, I'm happy.  When we get to the ECAC final and/or the NCAAs, I am ecstatic.  Given that Schafer has delivered both those things regularly, I think he has "earned" the right to stay, essentially, forever.

I have joked on Twitter that Cornell and Michigan both had a Hillel sandwich of a season. Twenty years ago, I was a junior when Cornell had a shit sandwich of a season: 6-19-1, including an 11-game losing streak. The 1992-93 season was a formative experience. It made the 1996 and 1997 ECAC Championships particularly special. No later than March 1997, I also concluded that Mike Schafer had earned the right to stay forever.

Since Mike Schafer took the job, Cornell has been the premier program in the ECAC. Although the 2009-10 and 2012-13 seasons fell a little and far short of expectations, respectively, I cannot fathom that replacing Mike Schafer would improve the hockey team.

[Rita]

Though very disappointed with this season, I think Coach Schafer should stay. I,like Trotsky, think making it to the ECAC Finals and earning a NC$$ bid is very successful season. Schafer has delivered on that more times than not.

Given the constraints of the academic index, lack of scholarships and limited schedule, we are not going to get the blue chippers and need hope that under the radar 16/17 year olds we recruit develop into solid 2-way players and with some luck a goal scoring touch. Getting to the frozen four and winning a championship takes a lot of luck (staying healthly), puck love in addition to skill and team work. For Cornell, I think that means being healthy, being very strong defensively and getting some puck love.  

I also imagine there is quite a bit of skill and art to managing 18-23 year olds who have a full load of classes, raging hormones and every thing else that kids that age go through. Most years, the team comes together and the whole is better than the parts. Then there are some years like this one, where things are very out of sorts (at least on the ice). It is cyclic, kids come, kids graduate, and some years the mix of players is better than others. I'm willing to bet this year was an anomaly.

So, can someone post a link to the "Fire Red Berenson" thread on the Michigan boards. The maize and blue must be lining up to fire him after failing to get to the NC$$ this year.  ::rolleyes::

[DisplacedCornellian]

If he goes, just don't steal our coach again. :-}

Given his astonishing levels of success at RPI so far...I don't think you have to worry about that:-P

[CowbellGuy]

So when I reply "Should he stay", am I voicing my opinion or posing a question? ;-)

Don't over think it.

Fair enough. Obviously you didn't.