Should He Stay or Should He Go 2014

[Towerroad]

"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement.  He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

Pray tell, what do you think those things might be? What will be different next year? What should be different?

Coach Schafer is a good coach, particularly on D, but there is no reason to believe that things will change. There simply is no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary.  It is not like the issues of an anemic offense and power play are new they have been with us for years.

As I see it the choice is to make your peace with the "system" and the slightly above average results that it produces or make a a change. It is a perfectly reasonable position to stay the course but don't covet a frozen four spot unless you like disappointment.

[KeithK]

"Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Yep. I bet Mike schafer himself would agree with that statement.  He just might have a very different idea of what that something ought to be.

Pray tell, what do you think those things might be? What will be different next year? What should be different?

Coach Schafer is a good coach, particularly on D, but there is no reason to believe that things will change. There simply is no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary.  It is not like the issues of an anemic offense and power play are new they have been with us for years.

As I see it the choice is to make your peace with the "system" and the slightly above average results that it produces or make a a change. It is a perfectly reasonable position to stay the course but don't covet a frozen four spot unless you like disappointment.

I don't know what he may try or if it is likely to make a difference. My point is that we shouldn't assume that he thinks things are fine.  I don't get that impression from what I've heard him say. I do think that whatever approach is taken will likely not deviate much from the philosophy of strong positional hockey. Whether there is any hope of developing consistently strong offensive teams from that philosophy is the open question.

Many folks have suggested that Schafer should hire an offensive coach. That sounds like a great idea but it's not as simple as that.  First off, there has to be a candidate who has the desired skills but can and wants to work within the Schafer system.  A run and gun type guy wouldn't work. Two, tyou can't just a find a guy who can teach/coach hockey offense.  He's got to be a good recruiter as well, since that's the heart of the assistant coach's job. Third, you have to find someone who wants to live in Ithaca. Finding someone who fits all of these criteria isn't necesarily easy.

[Beeeej]

I have to say, this thread is a lot more thoughtful and civilized than I expected it to be when I saw the subject line and the number of posts.

I understand what makes someone say, "I assume he's fine with it since it doesn't change," but I also think it's an obtuse thing to suggest, and I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why. Do you really think he sits down to meet with his assistants, and when one of them asks, "Hey, should we try to improve the power play?" he responds, "Nah, it's all good"?

Of course Schafer would like the PP to be crisper, and he'd like the forwards to create more opportunities off the cycle, and he'd like to fine-tune the breakout, but he has the players he has, they have the strengths and weaknesses they have, and he has to prioritize what he and the assistants work on. A coach makes the choices he makes because he believes focusing on certain things will give his team a better chance to win than focusing on others. Schafer could probably work on power play passing and set plays three hours more per week than he does now, but remember, the Ivy League limits practice to twenty hours a week, and all of these guys are carrying full courseloads at Cornell University. Which three hours of practice out of the other seventeen should he cut? Penalty kill? Even-strength blue-line play? Faceoffs?

I think Schafer is a great guy and a very talented coach and recruiter. I think he's done incredible things with this hockey team with limited resources and a skeptical audience that has constantly increasing expectations, and I think the stats other people have cited in this thread bear out that despite a few blips, he's had remarkably consistent results, too, which no other Cornell coach has had besides Ned. I think there are some better coaches in the college game, but I'm also smart enough to know Cornell will never, and could never, bring them to Ithaca, and there are several I wouldn't want there anyway because I don't think they'd have the slighest clue how to run a program within the time constraints and financial limitations of Ivy hockey.

So do I believe Schafer is the Second Coming™? No. But I'm inclined to believe that Schafer not only knows what he's doing, but knows that "what he's doing" has to involve trade-offs and hard choices, which I don't think everyone here grasps. And while I love to dream, I think he's the right coach for Cornell in the real world, and our actual best shot at national greatness.

[Swampy]

Because the game changes, it may be best to look just at this year.

Cornell ranked 11th on team defense, giving up an average of 2.31 goals/game. Umass-Lowell ranked first with 1.85.

On offense, Cornell ranked 47th out of 59 w/ 2.41. BC ranked 1st w/ 4.05.

Cornell's power play ranked 32 w/ 17.48%; SLU was 1st with 27.17%.
Cornell's PK ranked 18 w/ 83.5%; BC was 1st w/ 90.5%.

Several teams blow the idea that there's a tradeoff between offense and defense. In these two areas, BC ranks 1 & 8, Union: 2& 4, Q 4& 2; Yale is the first Ivy @ 13 & 18.

[Towerroad]

I have to say, this thread is a lot more thoughtful and civilized than I expected it to be when I saw the subject line and the number of posts.

I understand what makes someone say, "I assume he's fine with it since it doesn't change," but I also think it's an obtuse thing to suggest, and I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why. Do you really think he sits down to meet with his assistants, and when one of them asks, "Hey, should we try to improve the power play?" he responds, "Nah, it's all good"?

Of course Schafer would like the PP to be crisper, and he'd like the forwards to create more opportunities off the cycle, and he'd like to fine-tune the breakout, but he has the players he has, they have the strengths and weaknesses they have, and he has to prioritize what he and the assistants work on. A coach makes the choices he makes because he believes focusing on certain things will give his team a better chance to win than focusing on others. Schafer could probably work on power play passing and set plays three hours more per week than he does now, but remember, the Ivy League limits practice to twenty hours a week, and all of these guys are carrying full courseloads at Cornell University. Which three hours of practice out of the other seventeen should he cut? Penalty kill? Even-strength blue-line play? Faceoffs?

I think Schafer is a great guy and a very talented coach and recruiter. I think he's done incredible things with this hockey team with limited resources and a skeptical audience that has constantly increasing expectations, and I think the stats other people have cited in this thread bear out that despite a few blips, he's had remarkably consistent results, too, which no other Cornell coach has had besides Ned. I think there are some better coaches in the college game, but I'm also smart enough to know Cornell will never, and could never, bring them to Ithaca, and there are several I wouldn't want there anyway because I don't think they'd have the slighest clue how to run a program within the time constraints and financial limitations of Ivy hockey.

So do I believe Schafer is the Second Coming™? No. But I'm inclined to believe that Schafer not only knows what he's doing, but knows that "what he's doing" has to involve trade-offs and hard choices, which I don't think everyone here grasps. And while I love to dream, I think he's the right coach for Cornell in the real world, and our actual best shot at national greatness.

Even Schafer skeptics, and I am one, think he is a good coach and I have every reason to believe he is a good person. I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

I also think that the game is evolving and will look more and more like the womens game in the future. The very real issue of concussions, and the institutions responsibility for them, will dictate that over time the rules and the refs are going to be less tolerant of assertive physical play. We are already seeing that with our well above average penalty minutes. That will put more emphasis on passing, skating, speed, and playmaking. Not exactly our strengths in recent history.

If your goal is to be able to go to Lynah and see a good game, taunt the sieve, have fun, and see a team that will win more than it loses I think Coach Schafer will continue to provide you with what you want. If you have dreams of regularly making the NC$$ tournament and playing deep into it, I think you will be disappointed under Coach Schafer unless an ephinay is involved.

[Josh '99]

I'm not saying that Cornell is going great guns right now, particularly not by the standards Schafer has set for the program, but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

Let's not forget this - we (excepting those whose fandom dates back to the Harkness era) hold the program to the high standards we're discussing in this thread and elsewhere because of what Schafer has done.  Why should we expect that any potential replacement (and nobody has identified a candidate in response to Kyle's requests for the "Schafer out" crowd to do so) will be able to keep the program at Schafer's level, let alone take the program to the next level?

[Trotsky]

I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

This is a fair point.  Schafer isn't in control of the dominant environmental conditions of Cornell hockey (admission standards, high cost with no scholarships, Ithaca's remoteness), but he does control The System.  I do think The System was in part a concession to the college hockey environment of the 90's and early 00's when blue chip forwards were in short supply and did not look beyond the few big name factory schools, but if Yale did nothing else they showed that is no longer the case.

I can see the worry: The System was designed to compensate for a lack of offensive talent, but now it artificially perpetuates that very deficiency.  But like several posters above I'm satisfied with the results Schafer has delivered.  That does not mean we are blind to opportunity cost; it strongly suggests we are more risk-averse.  It comes down to whether one thinks the Cornell name, with a hypothetically "neutral effect" coach, is in itself strong enough to guarantee a winning percentage significantly greater than .500 as a baseline condition.  I think while it may have once it no longer does -- recruiting advantages have eroded everywhere and past performance does not guarantee future results.

[Rita]

I do have a problem with the "He has to cook with the ingredients he has" mentality. He is responsible for recruiting he chose the ingredients. I do think that the "System" with its focus on defense probably does not help him recruit fast, skating, players with a penchant for accurate shooting and NHL dreams. If you were one would you choose Cornell vs BC or Yale or Union?

This is a fair point.  Schafer isn't in control of the dominant environmental conditions of Cornell hockey (admission standards, high cost with no scholarships, Ithaca's remoteness), but he does control The System.  I do think The System was in part a concession to the college hockey environment of the 90's and early 00's when blue chip forwards were in short supply and did not look beyond the few big name factory schools, but if Yale did nothing else they showed that is no longer the case.

I can see the worry: The System was designed to compensate for a lack of offensive talent, but now it artificially perpetuates that very deficiency.  But like several posters above I'm satisfied with the results Schafer has delivered.  That does not mean we are blind to opportunity cost; it strongly suggests we are more risk-averse.  It comes down to whether one thinks the Cornell name, with a hypothetically "neutral effect" coach, is in itself strong enough to guarantee a winning percentage significantly greater than .500 as a baseline condition.  I think while it may have once it no longer does -- recruiting advantages have eroded everywhere and past performance does not guarantee future results.

From The Score's Backhand Shelf an article on systems (in general, and with a reference to Dryden's book "The Game") and how it relates to some views on The System.

[Trotsky]

From The Score's Backhand Shelf an article on systems (in general, and with a reference to Dryden's book "The Game") and how it relates to some views on The System.

Good article, thanks.

I had the Over/Under for number of Comments until the Caps were called out at 5.

It was Under.

[Swampy]

but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

[underskill]

but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

not that either would do it, but that has Ted Donato like potential...and Dryden is way to eclectic to connect with 19 year olds.

[CowbellGuy]

Well, you can take Dryden off your already-short list. He hasn't ever shown any inclination to do anything for Cornell hockey since he left.

but I think anyone even considering removing him as head coach needs to step back from the ledge.

This is why even "maybe" isn't a good fit for my response. I don't think Cornell should get rid of Schafer, because no one has identified anyone who would come into the program and do a better job. That said, "Schafer must go" and "Schafer should stay and coach exactly the same way" are not the only two realistic options. "Schafer stays and does something to improve the anemic offense" is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

It's impossible to guarantee anyone would do a better job until they do it. (Look at what's happening with men's lacrosse -- whodathunkit?) But one has to be impressed with what Leaman did at Union and is now doing at Providence, as well as what Bennett has done since Leaman left.

But just for the sake of conversation (it's going to be a long off-season), I'll throw out two names who (a) might attract super top-flight talent, (b) know hockey, especially Cornell hockey, very, very well, and (c) might on some long-shot, off-chance actually be interested in coming to Ithaca to see what they could accomplish at this stage of their lives:

• Ken Dryden
• Joe Nieuwendyk

[Trotsky]

I can't imagine Nieuwendyk coming back; we really have nothing to offer him, although occasionally I daydream about him as AD in the mold of Laing Kennedy.  (I don't actually think this would work -- an Ivy AD is supposed to shit marble while fellating the Coors family, and I don't see Joe either enjoying that or being effective.)

Dryden is light years beyond anything Cornell can offer.

I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire.  He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

[Chris '03]

Dryden is light years beyond anything Cornell can offer.

Dryden for President (of Cornell).

[BearLover]

I don't see anybody in the current landscape who fits, and I see the job as Mike's until he decides to retire.  He's about 50, so that's not going to be for a long time.

His contract expires in 2016.