Should He Stay or Should He Go 2014

[Trotsky]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

[Rita]

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I too would like to see more emphasis (ideally through the assistant coaches) on the offense. Since we are not going to get a pure goal scorer to come to Cornell, we do need to work a couple of different schemes to get quality shots. It looked like we had some good stretches of cycling the puck in the zone v. Union, but we have to end shifts like that with a goal, or at least a high quality shot. We don't finish. Fortunately, I like defensive hockey and believe you build your team from the net out. But scoring 2.27 goals/game doesn't give us any margins for error as this season illustrated.

[Towerroad]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

[Jim Hyla]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

[marty]

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too.  (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone.  Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us.  They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

[RichH]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

But here's the thing: over the course of Schafer's coaching career, he does the same thing over and over and DOES get different results. Cornell has had top-10 PP and Best-in-the-nation PK units, and more than half the time, he has dominant defensive squads.  There was the year (2001) where Cornell allowed 2.00 GPG and scored 2.00 GPG (44 GF, 44 GA), and the same questions were being asked. In 2002, they led the ECAC with 74 GF and dropped the GA to 34. Over the next 5 years, his teams were two-way beasts.

We all know that he's a "system" coach who finds and molds players to fit his style. When he has the right pieces, the results can be impressive on a national stage. We've had recruiting shifts in recent years, as assistants move through.

You want that mystical "sniper" who is just left free to score tons of goals on his own talent? Hope you take a look at RPI and SLU's performances.  Great, historic programs that had guys throw up big numbers, but the teams had no success. Cornell was one win from taking an at-large bid.

[Trotsky]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

"Good enough" to me means that in most years we are good enough to get a bye, reach the conference final four, and make the NCAAs.  In 19 seasons Schafer has accomplished those things 14, 14, and 9 times, respectively.  Overall, that is "good enough" -- in the sense that I would hold onto that as a bird in the hand rather than risk a new coaching staff and system and the possibility of catastrophic failure.  Obviously I wouldn't turn down better -- I'd enjoy a decade of 2003s just fine thanks.  If you know how to get us there, please do tell.

[Towerroad]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Are you satisfied with that? You can make the case that as long as we are beating Sucks and staying on top of the IVY's that is good enough.

"Good enough" to me means that in most years we are good enough to get a bye, reach the conference final four, and make the NCAAs.  In 19 seasons Schafer has accomplished those things 14, 14, and 9 times, respectively.  Overall, that is "good enough" -- in the sense that I would hold onto that as a bird in the hand rather than risk a new coaching staff and system and the possibility of catastrophic failure.  Obviously I wouldn't turn down better -- I'd enjoy a decade of 2003s just fine thanks.  If you know how to get us there, please do tell.

I am afraid that I come from the "What have you done for me lately school."In the last 8 years (which is 2 complete recruiting cycles) we have not won the Regular ECAC Season, Won the League Tournament once, and been in the NCAA's 3 times). Mike Schafer caught lighting in a bottle from 2001 to 2006 but we have not been a team that is consistently in the top 15 since then.

As for what to do. Before you can do anything, you have to admit there is a problem. If I heard Coach Schafer say that we have a problem scoring and that we need to do something about it I would be in the Stay camp and would happily give him a change to right the ship. (Not that I have a say in the matter). I think the suggestion that he hire an offense coach and give him the mandate would be a start.

[Jim Hyla]

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too.  (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone.  Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us.  They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

When he first came I had really hoped for that as well. However Casey seems to be of a similar idea. Maybe once he really gets the team established, he'll increase his offense, but maybe he came back to Schafer because he wanted to learn the system better.

[Trotsky]

Speaking as a Defender of the Faith, I would not expect a coach of a different mindset to come from inside the program.  The ideal candidate would be a D3 head coach who wants to move up or an assistant at another school, blocked by a successful young coach, who wants to come in as an "associate" and the heir apparent.

I don't know the leagues well enough to know who fits that profile, but the great thing about eLynah is there are about a dozen people on here who do.

[Chris '03]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

[marty]

I said "unsure", mainly because that was the closest option of the three to how I actually feel. If it wasn't obvious from the other thread, I think Schafer is doing a (mostly) bang-up job on defense, and a lousy job on offense. I would be satisfied if he brought in a talented assistant to take control of the offense, because the last 10 years have made it abundantly clear that he's got no idea how to coach it himself.

A man's got to know his limitations.

I had really hoped that Casey was up to this and Topher too.  (Auntie Em!) But it was very frustrating especially vs. Union and RPI - the games I saw live.

A few years ago we couldn't get the puck into the opponents zone.  Now we can and the teams that defend well against us are doing a Cornell on us.  They are set up to limit our chances in their zone and it sucks.

When he first came I had really hoped for that as well. However Casey seems to be of a similar idea. Maybe once he really gets the team established, he'll increase his offense, but maybe he came back to Schafer because he wanted to learn the system better.

The third game of the series in Ithaca proves your point.

[marty]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

Also consider what Harvard could do if they had a coach rather than just a great recruiter. (Nightmares are made of this.)

[Chris '03]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

Also consider what Harvard could do if they had a coach rather than just a great recruiter. (Nightmares are made of this.)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Mens-BB_605.jpg

[Jim Hyla]

That's what you get with Schafer.  Since you can't just will an offensive juggernaut into existence,

You don't need a juggernaut. When you have a top-quarter defense, all you need is a competent (read: average to good) offense with a plan to win games. We don't even have that.

No argument, at least for the last two years.  We averaged 2.7 goals in Ivy games and 2.0 in all other games, and we were 8-1-1 in the Ivies and 9-9-4 in the others.

Which just shows how bad the Ivies are, and I contend there is a structural Ivy defect. I'm not sure what it's all do to, but you just have to look at how much better the rest of the league seems to be doing, compared to the Ivy teams.

Said no one in New Haven lately.

There are pros and cons with the Ivies.

But let's not go too chicken little on it.

Frequency of ECAC playoff seeds 2006-present according to Greg's site:

#1 seed: non-ivy 6-3
#2: ivy 5-4
#3: ivy 7-2
#4: non 5-4
#5: non 6-3
#6: ivy 5-4
#1-6: 27 each.

So in terms of finishing in the top half of the league, it's a draw. The Ivies have a slight advantage in byes.

Yes, the Ivies were terrible this year, cleaning up 9-12 but with the exception of Brown, they've all been relevant quite recently. They've all had a bye at least once since '09 just like every non-Ivy except Clarkson. Cornell is also the only team in the league to not be 10th or below at all in that stretch.

And the I think expanding the game limit would be an enormous help the Ivy competitiveness top to bottom but I hesitate to conclude that the Ivies are tremendously bad.

For the last 5 years it's non 17-13, 3 years 11-7, 2 years 8-4. So it looks like the Ivies had the early edge, it evened out and now the nons are ahead. Yes the stats are much too minor on which to base anything, but I don't like the trend. And if you throw out Yale and CU (combined for 9), over the last 5 years the rest of the Ivies have 4 spots. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's becoming harder and harder for the Ivies to compete.