Should He Stay or Should He Go

[RichH]

In my head, I saw the end of the 2009-10 season to be a major decision point for Schafer himself. If ever he thought about trying his hand at the pro-level, that was going to be it, considering CU had just come off an ECAC Championship, was losing the likes of Scrivens, Greening, and the Nashes, and had an obvious successor already on the bench in Casey Jones.  In my (probably fictional) scenario, that was the point where Schafer had to decide whether he was going to be a Jack Parker/Red Berenson and stay at the college level for the rest of his career, or try to become a Bob Johnson and make the jump to the pro level.

[MattS]

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.

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

[KeithK]

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

[Towerroad]

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

[Jim Hyla]

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

[KeithK]

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

I assume he means Matts.

I made a scatter plot of Cornell's penalties and minutes by game. From visual insection (which can be misleading) there's a little bit of a downward trend in penalty minutes after the Brown game (game 20), of course not including the Quinnipiac brawl. There might be a comparable trend with minutes but it's very small if it's there. I suspect that a rigorous statistical analysis (which I'm not inclined to do at the moment) would show that these trends aren't statistically significant.

For kicks I plotted the data for Q alongside. There isn't really a lot fo difference between the trends.

[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.

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.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

[KeithK]

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 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.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

[Weder]

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 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.

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

That's a reasonable position to take. I think it's short sighted though. There's more to watching sports and being a fan than just celebrating wins. There's a lot of fun to be had watching teams that don't win if you can just sit back and enjoy the ride.

For example, I started watching Cornell hockey in the aforementioned 92-93 season. Te results on the ice were brutal but even still I had a blast as a fan and became absolutely hooked (and hooked on hockey in general, which I wasn't really a fan of before that),

I started following the team in the late '80s but didn't see any games at Lynah regularly until the early '90s. The '93-'94 team was Not Good, but I had a hell of a lot of fun going to games that year. In particular, the heckling of the Keebler Elves was pretty epic.

[Towerroad]

Additionally I think we need to look at the PIM's before and after the Brown game where Schafer sat many players. Before that game CU was averaging 19.05 PIM per game and after that they averaged 16.67 PIM per game. It's not a significant reduction but it did go in the right direction. Additionally, and I am not excusing what happened, the 100 PIM game with Q is in there in the "after Brown game" portion of which 63 minutes were handed out at one time. If the Q game is excluded then the average drops to 10.71 PIM per game. So Schafer did try and I think sucessfully for the most part send a message by sitting players.

That's a good line of inquiry. But remember that it's a really small sample so the change might not be statistically significant.

I think if you applied similar logic to Q or Denver they would start looking like saints as well.

What logic are you refering to? Keith's? Or some part of Matt's?

Matts

[Beeeej]

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

I don't think anybody misunderstood what you were saying. I think it's a ridiculous position to take, personally. Nobody likes bandwagon "fans," and there's a reason for it. They don't have any special love for Cornell hockey, they just happened to attend Cornell and like to be fans of a winning hockey team, and IMHO that's a pretty weak kind of "fandom."

[RichH]

I am saying that if I am going to put so much into following the program, I expect them to win.  If they are not going to win, I am not going to put as much in to following them.

This is a fascinating statement to think about in terms of fan psychology.  Do we become fans of things that we genuinely like, or because there's a quality product?  Hockey is a big sport on the Cornell campus.  I think it's a combination of factors: 1) Historically, it's been a good program and it's one of the few sports in which we're regularly nationally competitive. 2) There are a lot of people on the CU campus who genuinely like hockey. 3) The venue atmosphere & "Lynah Faithful" membership has made it a trendy "thing to do" in a see/be seen aspect.  For the last game of the 1992-93 season, some student season ticket holders showed up with paper bags over their head, but they still showed up, even after 11-straight losses.

One example I'll use is Trinity College Squash. The squash matches are known to be jam-packed and rowdy. Do you ever expect to hear out of American undergrads anywhere "I'm big into squash?"  But when you put them at a place where the squash team has won 12 of 13 national championships and had a decade-long winning streak, they're willing to put in the effort to show up and watch and learn and really get into the sport.  How many of you have taken the time to go to more than one squash match while at Cornell?  The CU Squash team has cracked the top 5 nationally in the past 2 years. Does knowing this make you more interested in checking them out or is there no change?  Interesting reaction, right?

I'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game.  I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment.  I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week.  Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well.  Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree?  I don't know.

Fan psychology is so weird: Americans love winning and dominance (well worded by BearLover's statement above), yet always yearn for the ultimate underdog to take out a dominant Goliath (as long as its not YOUR Goliath, right?).  We take pride in being there when a team is pathetic and then feel justified in sneering down at "bandwagoners" when fortunes turn for the better.  We get annoyed with other huge, arrogant opposing fanbases, yet celebrate the traditions of our own.  Basically, everyone possesses some level of hypocrisy when it comes to sports.

[KeithK]

I'm guilty myself. I watched my first live basketball game since college when CU made the NCAAs, and even went to Syracuse for the Kentucky game.  I hate watching basketball. I think it's a dumb sport for many reasons I won't go into here. Yet there I was, maybe because of the noteriety, and the magnitude of the team's accomplishment.  I don't understand wrestling much at all, but I beamed with pride when I found out that Kyle Dake won his final last week.  Baseball and hockey have always been my favorite sports, but my time at Cornell gave me the opportunity to become a big fan of the game of lacrosse as well.  Would I have become as big a fan if CU lax didn't have its historical and current pedigree?  I don't know.

The question I have for you is did you consider yourself a Cornell basketball fan when you were watching the tournament teams?  I watched at least one of the tournament games that Cornell played in those years even though I don't like squeakball but I wouldn't have ever said I was a fan of the team. I'm just a proud Cornellian who liked seeing my school do well.  Just attending a sporting event doesn't make one a "fan".  At least not in the way I use the word (short for "fanatic").  If one isn't a fan it's certainly more entertaining to watch a good team play than a bad one (generally speaking).

[ugarte]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

[Jim Hyla]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

Swimming upstream, are we.:-D