Should He Stay or Should He Go

[Jordan 04]

Facetimer was a much better troll.

[ursusminor]

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

Wait until you see TBRW's prediction for next season. ::banana::

[Ben]

My concern is not so much the losses this season, but the manner of the losses. Giving up leads, inconsistency of performance from period to period, taking stupid and goonish penalties, and not doing the small things correctly (blocking shots, winning battles on the boards, etc.). Losing to a more talented team that executes well is understandable. Losing to a team of similar or lesser talent by making the same, very preventable mistakes, is not acceptable.

In spite of this, I can't fire Schafer after one bad season. Two or three more years of poor performances and underachievement, then we can consider changing the coach.

[KeithK]

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.

At some point if there ae enough losing or mediocre seasons you can identify a trend.  If relative lack of success becomes a trend then maybe you consider making changes. We're not there yet, at least not in my mind (one year does not make a trend).  Even then, as others have mentioned, you have to consider the alternatives. What's the likelihood that a new coach would have any more success than the old?  Things need to be pretty bad before you make a change just for the sake of change, IMO.

I suspect it's the other stuff that is bothering Towerroad the most.  He doesn't like the undisciplined play on the ice and schafer's attitude/bearig in many situations. I can see wanting to make changes if you don't think the team represents the University well anymore.  That's a different question from whether the won-loss record warrants a change.  but of course, perception are usually rosier when the wins are piling up.

[MattS]

My take on a potential coaching change, especially when the current coach has done a good job in the recent past, is always to question: Who can be brought in that is thought would do better?  If that question cannot be answered with a decent amount of certainty then I am in favor of keeping the current coach. With that being said I think that an evaluation of that question should be done every 2-3 years depending upon performance.

For me it comes down to who can CU realistically bring in that would do better in the long run? I don't know of anyone. That person might be out there I just don't know who it is. Add to it, that while this season certainly was a disappointment, it was only one real bad season. If CU has 2 more years of similar results then I would certainly reevaluate my position.

I am not so much concerned with one bad season as I am with what I perceive as the college game evolving and the Cornell coaching/recruiting not evolving to keep up. Add to that an apparent reluctance to change the way the PP is run and a commitment to play a defensive style even when the situation doesn't warrant it. (Yes, I understand the Schafer scheme, but sometimes it needs to be abandoned/changed as the season/game/period warrants) Those are little complaints for the moment but if they are not solved then they could sway me to change my mind about the coaching situation as I think the inability to adapt will lead to more seasons like this past one.

[scoop85]

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.

This

[flyersgolf]

Mike Schafer is more than a hockey coach.  He is part of the Ithaca community.  He is fiercely loyal to his team mates, players and friends.  He seldom has a bad thing to say about anyone other than officials.  He has turned down some of the top jobs in the country over the years for much more money to stay in Ithaca.  Sure he has his moments, but I think his heart is always in the right place. He is someone parents want their kids to play for.

[Jim Hyla]

Currently 43-3, nuff said.

[BearLover]

I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

[ugarte]

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.

I like this. It is a good reminder that every contrary view isn't "trolling". ScrewBU is a troll. towerroad is a fan who IMO is overreacting to a bad season but isn't crazy for taking the time to ask the question.

Of course Schafer shouldn't be fired. If a season that includes an NCAA bid, a first-round win and a finish a hair's breadth from the Final Four is part of the evidence that "there have been two bad years in a row" you need to reexamine your premises. It is also hasty to diagnose locker room issues as pathological or incurable after a single season. Yes, this year saw far too much goonery. It is not yet a pattern.

[Jim Hyla]

I am more disappointed in this year's season than almost anybody on this forum.  I would rather watch exciting offensive hockey than defensive hockey.  I think think Cornell has been slipping these last few seasons.  I feel entitled to an NCAA tournament berth every year, or close (and with Cornell's history and fan base and the amount of time I invest following the program, I do not think this is unreasonable).  With all of that said, firing Schafer at this point is ludicrous.  As previously mentioned, firing successful coaches following a poor year or two is not a good policy.  You also imply there have been multiple recent bad seasons...and yet if Axell's stick doesn't break last year Cornell might be have been playing in the Frozen Four.  If Cornell doesn't hit multiple posts versus Q this year who knows what happens?  Overall, this year sucked, but Schafer's track record is far too good to even think about firing him after a single poor season.  Beyond the wins, he truly cares about the program and the school and the recruiting classes on paper have been strong recently.  And, as others have asked, who would be better?  When Schafer was hired it was not clear whatsoever he would be a great coach.  The program is in better standing now than it was then, but I still highly doubt Cornell could bring in some big name with a great history of success.  Basically, we got lucky with Schafer, and there's no reason to think we'll get lucky again.  

Still, I do appreciate some negativity on this forum.  I don't want Schafer to go, but I do not think anybody should be content with this display this season.  If this season is repeated for another couple years, which I doubt, then I would argue he should go.  But not yet, not even close.

I don't think anyone is content with this season. However, I have to disagree with the idea that any of us have a right to feel entitled to anything regarding our program.

In my view the only ones who should feel entitled are those whose lives are directly involved with the program. The administration has a right to feel the coaches will act in the best interests of the school. The coaches should feel they have administration support. And most importantly, and also different than most Div. I sports, the players have a right to feel, within some limitations, that the coaches and school have the players best interests at heart. I don't know the inner workings of the school, but from what I see happening, I think those values are basically being reached.

As fans, I think our rights are just that all of the above are putting out their best efforts. Win or lose, I want to feel that the effort was there. Obviously at times this year not everyone, including the coaches, felt that was true. I doubt that we will, or should, ever know why that happened. However, we should take some solace that the coaches were able, to some degree, to modify that behavior. Am I happy with this season, no. Do I see signs that suggest it won't be repeated, yes.

I don't think it matters a hoot how much time any of us are investing into following the program. Unless we are actively involved with helping the program, all we get to do is to watch and hopefully enjoy. Expecting more, it seems to me, is to be acting like we are a big donor at a large Div. I football program, and I don't ever want to think we are headed in that direction.

Finally, I don't think we got lucky in finding Schafer. Before he came many had been hoping for some time that the U would find some way to bring him back. It was known how much he cared about Cornell and the program, and his reputation as a great recruiter preceeded him. I certainly didn't know anything about his X and O ability, but I suspect that was also known by those to whom it mattered. I have said it before, and will repeat it now, I think the AD has generally done a very good job in picking coaches. I just hope he can finally right the football, and maybe the basketball, program.

[Towerroad]

Jim

Thanks for the excellent reply. I agree that we should not feel entitled to any specific performance with respect to any Cornell team. The best Lacrosse game I have seen in the last 20 years we lost. However, you put your finger on something we should feel entitled to. You expressed it as the team and coaches best efforts.

We are an Ivy League team. For all the limitations that being a member puts on our athletic endeavors I have never heard a serious discussion of leaving the Ivy League so we could be free of the athletic restrictions that come with membership. As members of this elite club, we are supposed to keep athletics in their proper perspective. Cornell is a great instituion of higher learning, scholarship and charater building first and an ice hockey team second not the other way around like far too many universities. I can safely assume that no one on this board wants to trade places with Kentucky.

So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team. My biggest fear is that, in order to recruit better players, we are becoming more focused on preparing players for the NHL than preparing student athletes.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I can accept never winning another NC$$ title or even making it to the frozen four. I have a real problem with what I saw this year. I am not calling for the coaches head. However, if I were the AD I would want to sit down with the coach and understand what happened this year and to make sure he had a serious plan to right the ship. I would also make sure he knew that there was a leash and that the AD had a firm grip on it regardless of how long it was.

Two years in a row of this sort of performance and I would be rummaging around my tool shed for my pitchfork and torch.

[Trotsky]

So, when I see a player skate to the face off circle and jam the end of his stick into an opposing players nuts, when I see that we lead the country in goonery by 1.5 minutes per game, when I see the coach repeatedly whining about officiating and badgering an opposing coach for winning a lopsided game I think that we have crossed an unwritten line about what it means to be an Ivy League team.

Fair enough. Most of us were bothered by the penalties and Schafer's reaction that it was the officials' fault, not our players'.  Most of that may have been nonsense to feed the media, while a very different message was delivered in the locker room.  We can hope.

"Leading the league in penalty minutes" is in a way misleading because the bulk comes from two extraordinary games.  Notice that on that list #2 was Quinnipiac and #3 was Denver.  Now, granted, the common denominator in those two games was Cornell.  I don't want our school represented by that, either.

Sorting the players by PIM, the top 8 are all returning.  Ferlin and Lowry are among them, and they may have often been retaliating against goonery directed their way.  The top three, McCarron, Mowrey, and de Swardt, are less, in the immortal words of R. J. MacReady, "even tempered."

So we'll have a perfect chance next year to test the hypothesis that this was an aberration and not a game plan.

[Josh '99]

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.

Well said.

[ursusminor]

Looking at this as an outsider, I see there being two related, but separate, problems that the Ivies face. One is the lack of athletic scholarships, and the other is the academic standards. The first could be changed if the school Presidents or whoever decides on these things want to, but the second I doubt that you even want to change. The only reason that the Ivies and some other schools are able to compete at the level they do in hockey is the presence of the Junior leagues in Canada which syphon off the hockey players who are not interested or even capable of higher education. The lack of such as an alternative in basketball and football gives IMHO no hope in those sports.

Many other schools face one or both of the same problems, perhaps at a lower level, but also perhaps additional problems. Union, also without athletic scholarships, got to the the FF last year. Their academic standards are lower than Cornell's, but they do have academic standards. If they can get to the FF, than so should any other ECAC school. Speaking from RPI's point of view, we do offer scholarships, and although the academic standards are not at the level of the Ivies, there are players who otherwise might be of interest, who wouldn't be admitted. In addition, we have other significant problems that Cornell doesn't have: being a technical school with a limited choice of majors, the male/female ratio, and beautiful downtown Troy. (I was told that the m/f problem is not real because the players all have girlfriends already, but I think it is.)