What are your expectations for success in 13-14

[Towerroad]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

[marty]

I'm hoping to make a return visit to Lynah with my wife. If so, that will continue a once a year pilgrimage begun in 1996. Hopefully I will not be in section O.

[RichH]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

[Josh '99]

I think a top 4 finish in the conference, a trip to Lake Placid (at which point the nature of single elimination tournaments makes it something of a crapshoot), and a bid to the NCAA tournament seem like a reasonable target for 2013-14.  Obviously I'd love to see the team accomplish more, but I'd call that my starting point (which I would consider adjusting if we saw lots of early departures).

[Towerroad]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

[Rosey]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

[RichH]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

And you didn't answer my question. This poll looks like a shady way to claim "popular support" is on your side when you ultimately start calling for Schafer's head next season if we don't advance to the Frozen Four (or whatever wins).  Do you want us to vote on the criteria of a "successful" season or "acceptable" season?  Also, I agree with Kyle.  The coach doesn't owe you jack squat.

[Towerroad]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

[Rosey]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

It is not inconceivable that Cornell could improve cash flow by de-funding all athletic programs.

Consider Rutgers, which dates back to the colonial period and is the flagship state university for New Jersey. According to a database compiled on an annual basis by USA Today, Rutgers' athletic department spent just over $60 million to field all its teams, pay its coaches, etc. in 2011. The school generated about $9 million in ticket sales, $7.6 million in alumni and corporate donations, $8.8 million in rights and licensing fees, and $6 million in other revenue. The school also sucked a whopping $9 million in student fees and another $19.4 million in school funds. When all is tallied up, USA Today calculates that Rutgers is subsidizing the operation of its athletic department to the tune of 47 percent of its expenses.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/03/forget-rutgers-coach-mike-rice-college-s

Undoubtedly the numbers are different for Cornell, but I suspect the end result is similar.

[Trotsky]

I think a top 4 finish in the conference, a trip to Lake Placid (at which point the nature of single elimination tournaments makes it something of a crapshoot), and a bid to the NCAA tournament seem like a reasonable target for 2013-14.  Obviously I'd love to see the team accomplish more, but I'd call that my starting point (which I would consider adjusting if we saw lots of early departures).

This.

The other target which is far more subjective is "a strong Freshman class."  IMHO we just graduated a strong class of '13, and we return a weak class of '14, a VERY strong class of '15, and a weak class of '16.  The class of '17 is pivotal because it replaces a strong class and because it's going to be very large (as many as 11 players).

[KenP]

I realize polls don't matter, blah blah blah, but I think my definition of success is to be in the top 10 at Tourney time.  That could only happen through a combination of good ECAC and OOC performance, and would mean that the team is once again "good enough to dream".

[Dafatone]

For me, a good year is making the tournament.  There are other ways to measure success, and other things to look for, but that's the baseline for good, for me.

Which is, honestly, a somewhat high bar.  At least in my opinion.

[Jim Hyla]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

You still didn't answer RichH's question. I have much different answers for each of his scenarios.

[Trotsky]

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

Which belies the more important truth that you can neither manage nor measure anything that's important.

[BearLover]

Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament.  Not anymore.  After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself.  So basically I am never going to be happy.