Should He Stay or Should He Go

[Josh '99]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

I expected at least one Mausoleum reference.  Traid!  :-(

To their credit, they are actually remedying that.  Leaving Nassau County: not just for the cool kids anymore!

[Trotsky]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

I expected at least one Mausoleum reference.  Traid!  :-(

To their credit, they are actually remedying that.  Leaving Nassau County: not just for the cool kids anymore!

I like that the map on our crest does not reach far enough west to show the location of the new building.  It's part of our strategy to confuse the opposition.

[adamw]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

[Trotsky]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

[adamw]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

40-42 and an 8 seed is not what I meant by decent .... they snuck in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004 too, which were equally useless years. But yeah.

[Trotsky]

The Islanders have been miserable for 20 years. I defend the fact that their attendance is lousy. The forthcoming jokes from Josh notwithstanding, there are a lot of Islanders fans.

... said 1985.

(OK, it's not great, but it's tough when you're put on the spot like that!)

20 sellouts in 2002 - only time in the last 20 years they had an actual decent team

We were decent in 2007, too.  40-42 ignoring Bettman Bullshit, just 2 games worse than 2002.  Gotta go all the way back to 1993 and real records (40-37-7) for the next glimmer.

40-42 and an 8 seed is not what I meant by decent .... they snuck in the playoffs in 2003 and 2004 too, which were equally useless years. But yeah.

It seemed decent at the time.  Relative deprivation -- Marx was right.  (Don't tell Keith.)

[Tom Lento]

Since it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

[redice]

I'm gonna give my usual short answer to this question, when it comes up each year ... and sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think it deserves anything more than this ...

--> If you think Mike Schafer should be fired, you are a complete idiot

Damn you, Adam!!    I hate it when you beat around the bush!!    ;-)

I am not on the "Fire Schafer" side of things.   Yes, I am disappointed each year when they are eliminated and fall short of an NCAA title.    But, under Schafer, each year begins with real hope that a title is within reach THAT SEASON!!    That's good enough for me.     I can recall some of the pre-Schafer teams where there was no hope.   That's when it's time to change coaches!

[adamw]

One other thing to keep in mind ... high turnover of assistants. Cornell is still regrouping after losing Brent Brekke, Jamie Russell, Scott Garrow and Casey Jones in short order. New guys are less experienced, or at least less experienced in Cornell's ways.

[Trotsky]

I'm gonna give my usual short answer to this question, when it comes up each year ... and sorry if this offends anyone, but I really don't think it deserves anything more than this ...

--> If you think Mike Schafer should be fired, you are a complete idiot

Damn you, Adam!!    I hate it when you beat around the bush!!    ;-)

One of my favorite things about this forum is no matter how blunt I am there's always somebody who makes me look tactful.

[Trotsky]

One other thing to keep in mind ... high turnover of assistants. Cornell is still regrouping after losing Brent Brekke, Jamie Russell, Scott Garrow and Casey Jones in short order. New guys are less experienced, or at least less experienced in Cornell's ways.

While it could matter, it's been two years.  If the change in assistants had a lot to do with it, it probably would have shown up last year.

We may have "escaped" a big discontinuity because the arrival of the new guys coincided with the arrival of a big class.

I found the seniors' lack of leadership... disturbing.  That may have just been the mix of personalities, or you may have hit it with a disagreement between the assistant coaching style of the first two years and the latter two.  If so, then we should expect an improvement since 5 of the net 6 returning years of all classes (seniors' 3, juniors' 2, etc...) will now have been spent under the same staff.

[Ben]

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

Actually, Cornell does pay coaches for things other than wins and championships. Historically, the AD has been willing to keep coaches with frankly terrible records around provided they were under contract and running the program the right way. In light of this, think about the facts of Schafer's current position:

1) Whatever the naysayers claim, his record is incredible. Cornell has been the class of the ECAC and Ivy League for most of the last 15 years, and has been nationally competitive at a level of consistency few teams achieve. That's a hell of an accomplishment from a W/L perspective. Even if you only consider 5 year windows, Cornell was pretty damn good prior to this season, and only an eyelash behind Yale and Union in terms of overall record and post-season accomplishments in the 5 years ending in 2012. The team is quite a bit further behind Yale and Union over the 5 seasons ending in 2013, but this amounts to 1 rebuilding year and 1 bad season (and this was a bad season - let's not sugar-coat it). That's hardly the sign of a massive decline. Even in the go go years of the 70s Cornell wasn't *always* the best - or even the second-best - team in the league. Not over a 10-15 year window.

2) Under Schafer's watch this team has had more news about humanitarian and senior CLASS award finalists than even minor scandals regarding off-ice behavior. That doesn't mean these guys are all angels, but it's at least a sign of a clean, disciplined program. If that trend continues, and assuming Schafer still enforces class attendance and academic performance the way he used to, it'll take more than a couple of .500 seasons for the AD to make a change.

3) According to something I read around here Schafer has ~4 years left on his contract. Given points 1 and 2 Cornell would be insane to fire him during that term. Even if this year is finally the start of the kind of decline the "Fire Schafer" crowd has been carping about around here for the past 6 years, they won't fire him. They'll simply decide to part ways at the end of the contract term, and split as amicably as possible.

Barring a major scandal, Schafer isn't getting fired any time soon. At this stage I think I have sufficient perspective to realize that this is as it should be. Feel free to disagree and focus solely on the record in these conversations, but remember - Cornell athletics is, at least to all appearances, about more than just winning.

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

[KeithK]

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

The "journey" bit was a reference to how fans should approach watching sports.  It's related to how programs/coaches should be viewed, since ultimately fan interest drives the commercial success of teams, but not the same.  Poor juxtaposition on my point. (A paragraph break might have helped.)

[Rita]

Since it directly applies, here is the commentary I just wrote on the Gwozdecky firing:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2013/04/03_rocky_mountain_low.php

My favorite bit from your piece: "But the cutthroat, winning-is-the-only thing mentality has infiltrated college hockey as it has other big-time college sports." The older I get the more I understand that winning is fun but it's the journey that makes sports fun.

Are we paying coaches for journeys? If so, Schafer had better be leading Senior Week rafting trips.

I do give Ben points for the comeback. It is an interesting image.

[Ben]

That's not the point. Coaches are not paid for a "journey." They are paid to win games and titles. They are also representatives of the university/team/club and have obligations to represent that entity in a responsible way. This is not a comment on whether or not Schafer should be behind the bench in October, I addressed that on the first page of this thread. It's about how coaches are evaluated. If you want to talk about how coaches ought to be evaluated, that is a different discussion.

The "journey" bit was a reference to how fans should approach watching sports.  It's related to how programs/coaches should be viewed, since ultimately fan interest drives the commercial success of teams, but not the same.  Poor juxtaposition on my point. (A paragraph break might have helped.)

I agree on our side of the boards, but in terms of the way in which results are achieved, I'm reminded of something De Gaulle wrote:

The result having been attained, everything that had preceded it and led to it was proclaimed glorious and reasonable.

As a fan, it's great to see your team win a game coming back from 3-0 down, but an excellent coach makes sure his team doesn't have to dig themselves out of that hole.