What a difference one goal makes

[Dafatone]

And lastly, we can debate the subjective success of every team until the cows come home.  But there is an objective measure by which two teams have definitively passed us by: national championships won.  All the .500 seasons in the world aren't going to bring Cornell a championship, and to argue that we are better off than Yale or Union or Quinnipiac because our worst seasons haven't been as bad as theirs (which recently isn't even true), it is undeniable that their best seasons have been better than ours.

Cornell still has two banners, which is tied for the most among teams currently in the ECAC. Yale and Union only have one, Quinnipiac has zero. I think the objective measure you're really going for is how many NCAA titles Schafer has won.  That removes Harkness from the conversation.

The idea that we were close to having a 5-year NCAA drought is a little off because both 2014 and 2012 could've gone either way.  2012, we got in.  2014, we didn't.

That being said, I think my realistic hope for this team in the regular season is that they average being on the verge of getting into the NCAAs every year with an at-large bid.  Right now, that's not happening.  2014 & 2012 hit that objective.  2013 & 2011 have not.

I'm a big believer in tournament success being a crapshoot, which is why making the NCAAs is where I set the bar for success.

We're trending downward in that department, but I don't think a five year lull in which we're still right around that bar twice isn't that bad.

I don't know the college hockey coaching scene very well, but I have to imagine we're not as attractive a destination as we'd think for new coaches.  Ivy restrictions and fewer games are issues.  I worry if we make a coaching change that we'll be worse than we are now for a really long time.

[andyw2100]

I get frustrated when I read posts stating outright or even just implying that it's time for Schafer to move on or that it soon may be. In my opinion, Coach Schafer has earned the right to coach Cornell as long as he likes, and personally I hope that it's a good, long time longer.

For starters, what makes any of you believe there's anyone out there who could do any better? When I hear Schafer rip into the Quinnipiac coach, defending his players the way he did after that game in Connecticut a couple of months ago I'm not bothered by the fact that Schafer's never going to be elected President of the United States. (He couldn't be anyway. He was born in Canada.) I'm thinking there's a guy who is passionate about his players.

Schafer knows and loves Cornell hockey. I honestly don't believe there is a person out there who would do a better job than Mike as head coach.

[Towerroad]

I get frustrated when I read posts stating outright or even just implying that it's time for Schafer to move on or that it soon may be. In my opinion, Coach Schafer has earned the right to coach Cornell as long as he likes, and personally I hope that it's a good, long time longer.

For starters, what makes any of you believe there's anyone out there who could do any better? When I hear Schafer rip into the Quinnipiac coach, defending his players the way he did after that game in Connecticut a couple of months ago I'm not bothered by the fact that Schafer's never going to be elected President of the United States. (He couldn't be anyway. He was born in Canada.) I'm thinking there's a guy who is passionate about his players.

Schafer knows and loves Cornell hockey. I honestly don't believe there is a person out there who would do a better job than Mike as head coach.

I understand your perspective. It is held by many. The on ice record is not the only reason to keep or not keep a coach. (Just ask Coach DeLuca). If you honestly believe that Coach Schafer is the best coach we could ever get then so be it. However, we should not have expectations of playing deep into, the NCAA's or even making, the NCAA Tournament on a regular basis. Perhaps we will look back at the last 20 years and suggest that it was the "second golden age" of CU hockey as we long for days gone by.

[ithacat]

As the game continues to move in the direction of skill and speed we'll have a difficult time maintaining (or reclaiming) any national relevance.

1) You're suggesting there's no skill in defense, which is a ridiculous statement.

2) It is? Prove it. Union won on the back of a generational d-man. Scoring around the nation's top teams is down even compared to 10 years ago, nevermind the days of the 9-6 shoot-em-ups of the '70s and '80s.

Union won the final weekend by an aggregate score of 12-8. They had the 2nd highest scoring team in the country last year. They also had a great defense, but they won because of offense.

[RichH]

Right now, that's not happening.  2014 & 2012 hit that objective.  2013 & 2011 have not.

Motion to outlaw odd-numbered years for the time-being.

[Tom Lento]

There was no "analysis" other than a quick demonstration that there was no "aberration" in the non-progress of a group of very skilled freshmen.  I'm not sure what you think I was trying to accomplish--it certainly was not some meticulous statistical analysis for the purpose of concluding Schafer Must Go.  Literally the only thing I concluded is that most players who light it up their freshman year never significantly improve offensively under this coaching staff.

Or, apparently, under Yale's coaching staff, or likely under any other.

If you aren't trying to slag the current coaching staff, and you're simply pointing out that highly scoring offensive players tend not to improve their point production over a 4 year college career (which is actually what one should expect based on a simple probabilistic scoring model), why do you continue with the "under this coaching staff" or "under Schafer" qualifiers?

[Trotsky]

Motion to outlaw odd-numbered years for the time-being.

Denied.  I can't afford to get older any faster.

[BearLover]

There was no "analysis" other than a quick demonstration that there was no "aberration" in the non-progress of a group of very skilled freshmen.  I'm not sure what you think I was trying to accomplish--it certainly was not some meticulous statistical analysis for the purpose of concluding Schafer Must Go.  Literally the only thing I concluded is that most players who light it up their freshman year never significantly improve offensively under this coaching staff.

Or, apparently, under Yale's coaching staff, or likely under any other.

If you aren't trying to slag the current coaching staff, and you're simply pointing out that highly scoring offensive players tend not to improve their point production over a 4 year college career (which is actually what one should expect based on a simple probabilistic scoring model), why do you continue with the "under this coaching staff" or "under Schafer" qualifiers?

Because I was replying to someone who said such players typically do develop under this coaching staff?  

For your convenience, I've included the initial post here:

Bingo. This is the reason the team has struggled for three consecutive seasons.

The Class of 2015 came in with an excellent pedigree, and many of its players became key contributors from Day One. They helped a team with four seniors earn an NCAA Tournament berth and beat Michigan in the first round. In my lifetime, a Cornell team with a thin senior class had never been so successful.

So we had high hopes that the Class of 2015 would lead the team to be national-championship contenders for the next three years. That hasn't happened.

If this were a common phenomenon for Cornell, I think it would be fair to blame the coaching staff. But I believe that the Class of 2015's trajectory has been unprecedented in the Schafer Era.

Hopefully, it will remain an aberration. I don't want to go through a 20-year period of perpetual underachieving like Harvard had from 1994-95 through last season.

This post argued our offensive failings were due to the non-development of the senior class, and how "the Class of 2015's trajectory has been unprecedented in the Schafer Era."  

I argued that this was no aberration.  What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Trotsky]

What are the "three consecutive years" of "struggling"?  Last year they went 17-10-5, got to Lake Placid, and were only dispatched by the eventual national champion.  Even so they missed the NCAAs by one slot.  That .609 percentage was better than 6 of the 7 seasons immediately prior to Schafer and tied with the other one (18-11-3 in the 1991 season, itself an NCAA year).

2014 only feels like struggling if you think Schafer's best seasons are the team baseline. If a career .320 hitter who has had a few .340 seasons bats .315, that isn't struggling.

[Rita]

Right now, that's not happening.  2014 & 2012 hit that objective.  2013 & 2011 have not.

Motion to outlaw odd-numbered years for the time-being.

BC would probably second the motion.

[ugarte]

Right now, that's not happening.  2014 & 2012 hit that objective.  2013 & 2011 have not.

Motion to outlaw odd-numbered years for the time-being.

BC would probably second the motion.

So would the SF Giants.