Should He Stay or Should He Go

[Rita]

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.)

Maybe this will help. And the Islanders have a chance to pull off something similar 20 years later.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Keith didn't respond back about this, so I will. No one ever said that I keep my mouth shut.

I hope, and I do think, that in the Ivy League coaches are paid to do more than win games. Winning is an important thing, but it's not the only thing. And sometimes those other things can trump a less than stellar record. I'm OK with that, and all the things that have been said about the direction of the program should allow for some slack. We don't know the specifics of the Denver situation, but their history has some similarities to ours.

Murry Armstrong was a contemporary of Ned Harkness. He stayed around longer, leaving in 1977, but after he left the program was floundering till Gwozdecky came along. He brought it back to national promenance and now they fired him. If it was because he didn't win recent NCAA games, shame on them. If we were to do the same, then shame on us.

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

[BMac]

I'm glad to see so many defenses of Schafer on this thread. I sincerely hope he doesn't read eLynah, and I'm glad that if he does he'll see people coming to his defense. (Not that he should care what a bunch of people on the internet say)

The idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

An alumnus coach with strong ties to the community. More Cornellians in the NHL than any time in history. Consistently good news about CLASS award finalists, teddy bear tosses, and the like, and never any news about scandals.

Ridiculous.

[KeithK]

Keith didn't respond back about this, so I will. No one ever said that I keep my mouth shut.

I thought Tom wrote a better response then the one I started to write.  Yours was better too.  So I'll just second what Tom and Jim said.

[KeithK]

The idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

The idea of firing Schafer is mostly an emotional response to a disappointing, frustrating year. It's really not that different from me kicking my car door after a really tough loss. (Plastic doors FTW!)  Not exactly laudable, but understandable.

[Trotsky]

The idea of firing him is ridiculous. It's really, really absurd. One bad year.

The idea of firing Schafer is mostly an emotional response to a disappointing, frustrating year. It's really not that different from me kicking my car door after a really tough loss. (Plastic doors FTW!)  Not exactly laudable, but understandable.

But nobody says you're a bad fan if you don't assault your vehicle.

Door-kicking is false hustle.

[Scersk '97]

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

[Trotsky]

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

And '05.

[Chris '03]

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

'05 too.... damned gophers.

[Scersk '97]

FF 2002. One game away from the FF in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012.

You mean, FF 2003.   One game away in '02, '06, '09, '12 and 1997!

'05 too.... damned gophers.

A typo, of course, made in my haste to get to '97.

[marty]

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.

Union might disagree after seeing what Peca did to them in Providence on Sunday.

[Ben]

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games was (and still is) the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, end all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

[Jim Hyla]

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

[Ben]

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

I think I misplaced the bolded section. The implication I was getting from what you wrote (the last two sentences) was that I want Schafer to be fired, which is what I was objecting to. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jim Hyla]

Yes, I know the Denver program was more successful than CU has been, but that's to be expected. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well to quote Adam, they're an idiot. If we were to fire Schafer over this year, or even persieved trend, I know I'd quit contributing. Denver is not us and we should never be them.

Please do not imply that I said this when I quite plainly did not.

If the primary responsibility of a coach is not to win games, what should we base our assessment of coaches upon? As soon as colleges and universities began to hire coaches and formalize athletic competition, they set up a situation in which winning games is the primary objective of sports teams. If I had my way, Cornell would take a stand against the corruption of college athletics, close down all of its varsity programs, and focus on developing its student body though academics and extracurriculars, including intramural and club sports. No recruiting, no paid coaches. If someone wants to attend Cornell to study Philosophy or HBHS or MechEng, and also would like to play sports, they would be able to do so at the club or intramural level.

Given that the university will not do this, and the financial and personal investment I and others (including the university) make in Cornell sports, I want our sports teams to win games and titles -- I want a return on my investment. That comes in the form of on-field success (without off-field unpleasantness).

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about Denver. I put that in to head off anyone from starting that discussion. Sorry.

I might agree the primary responsibility is to win, but I was agreeing with Keith that they are not paid to just win, at least in the Ivies. Since you only mentioned winning, I wanted to expand upon it. Now that you have expanded further, I couldn't agree more.

I think I misplaced the bolded section. The implication I was getting from what you wrote (the last two sentences) was that I want Schafer to be fired, which is what I was objecting to. Sorry for the confusion.

No, I wouldn't have meant to try and imply that, either. It's one of the problems wih digital communication, when you respond to one thing and then expand, no one really knows what is reply and what is new. In person, you would have just said, wait, wait, that's not what I meant.

I'm waiting for someone to start on "I couldn't agree more." As soon as I left the office to drive home, I said to myself, I probably took the thread on a whole new drift.