Should He Stay or Shoul He Go Part 2

[Rosey]

Although I don't think this team has done well enough in the past 4 years, I don't know if Schafer's replacement would be better.  Casey Jones, as an alum, might be interested but Clarkson had a 39% winning percentage this season (4-year rolling average of 45%).  Maybe Topher will be coach one day, but who knows how good of coach he'd be?  Schafer may be the best option just because he's the "devil we know".

This attitude is precisely how once-great teams die. I am unwilling to settle for mediocre. Even if transition is painful and takes a few tries, I'd rather take a chance on greatness by rolling some weighted dice. The alternative is likely to be more of what we have seen: no offense, and the complete inability to compete against certain styles of offense under modern rules of play.

If Schafer hasn't figured it out by now, I highly doubt he's going to.

[ugarte]

this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade.  And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches?  It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig.  Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel. ::cry::

2006 would be the last time, I imagine?  This program has been in a slow decline since then.

2010.

And we were in the top 10 one week from the final poll in 2012. Also we were a goal away from the Final Four. Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

[BearLover]

this convo is kinda ridiculous at this point--I'd say it'd be one thing if he was in his late 60s or 70s and it was a Lou Marsh/Tim Taylor situation where you can argue it's time for him to move on;here we're talking about what a mediocre 3 years, not a decade.  And we all know Cornell isn't going to open the vault and hire a big name replacement anyways.

That said, I wouldn't mind a coaching staff shakeup of some sort--I wonder where Jamie Russell is these days.

Elmira.

Are there "big name" college hockey coaches?  It's not exactly a Calipari-type gig.  Those that are legends are so because of tenure more than anything else, and you don't rebuild a program around a 60-year old.

As has been said on other threads, this year's graduating class was supposed to bring us back to the Promised Land^TM, but injuries, a defection to the pros, and failure to develop players as hoped blew it. Looking ahead my feelings would be different if I saw us bringing in a top-10 recruiting class. I'd even be happy with a top-3 or 4 in the ECAC or top-2 in the Ivies. But I think since Casey Jones left, our recruiting has fallen off.

One other point. Some years ago Shafer said the consistent goal for this program is to be a top-10 team every year. Since we're currently ranked 36th, by this standard this year has been an unmitigated disaster. Can someone tell us the last time we were in the top 10 at the end of the season?

It's hard to see a light at the end of the tunnel. ::cry::

2006 would be the last time, I imagine?  This program has been in a slow decline since then.

2010.

Thanks.  The 2010 team was the last team we had that I would consider great, but I thought given the thwacking we took in the NCAA's that we'd finished outside the top 10.  

EDIT: Was it really a great team, though?  They could never compete with Yale...

And we were in the top 10 one week from the final poll in 2012. Also we were a goal away from the Final Four. Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

The drought has been only three years, but it's been indicative, I think, of a slow decline overall since the last remnants of the 2003 team left.

[Dafatone]

Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness.  Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

[BearLover]

Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness.  Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all.  I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

[Trotsky]

Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up.  It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation.  We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

[Rosey]

Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness.  Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all.  I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

And this is exactly my point. Basically, Schafer had and still has no answer for that style of offense, which is not really a good position to be in for a team "built from the net out". I said at the time, and I maintain, that the only reason Cornell won the ECACs in 2010 is because Brown (of all teams!) took Yale out in the QFs. Otherwise, a stomping was inevitable.

Edit: and here's my post from 2010.

[BearLover]

Now we're getting into a sort of semantic argument about the definition of greatness.  Yale may have been better, but that's (in my opinion) not much of a reflection on our own quality, since Yale had a pretty solid team in their own right at that time.

It's not the fact that Yale was better, though--we simply could not compete with them, at all.  I don't think great teams should ever be so terribly, and consistently, outmatched.

And this is exactly my point. Basically, Schafer had and still has no answer for that style of offense, which is not really a good position to be in for a team "built from the net out". I said at the time, and I maintain, that the only reason Cornell won the ECACs in 2010 is because Brown (of all teams!) took Yale out in the QFs. Otherwise, a stomping was inevitable.

Edit: and here's my post from 2010.

No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale if we matched up with them.

[Trotsky]

No one here would deny we were going to lose by 3+ goals to Yale if we matched up with them.

We actually stayed with them during the RS.  We lost at Ingalls in a game that was tied with 6 minutes to go, then lost in overtime at Lynah.  Granted, in the latter game Iles had 52 saves.

[Dafatone]

Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up.  It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation.  We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players?  Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

[ugarte]

Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up.  It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation.  We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players?  Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

Everyone on Union's national championship team had an underwater mortgage and an ex-wife.

[KeithK]

Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up.  It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation.  We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players?  Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experience than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

A 22 year old freshman gives you a lot more certainty but also much less room for growth. The 19 year old is likely to have a higher ceiling though you don't know whether he will reach that ceiling.  If you aspire to being a top flight team the path is a lot clearer with top flight prospects.  But obviously it's not certain.

[Swampy]

Let's not overstate the length of the drought, as depressing and frustrating as the last three years have been.

Also important is that the draft quality players are not drying up.  It's hard to judge the quality of incoming commits, but NHL GMs' decisions aren't a bad approximation.  We lose Lowry, McCarron and Ryan but gain Starrett and Angelo, the former being our highest pick since Riley Nash.

Was it Union last year that had like 0 or 1 draft pick, but a ton of older, less heralded players?  Might've been Q's team two years ago.

I'm glad to see a draft pick over a non-pick, but there's something to be said for a 22 year old with more hockey experiencZe than a 19 year old prospect.

Yes, those ages were pulled out of thin air, so I could be off-target with them.

A 22 year old freshman gives you a lot more certainty but also much less room for growth. The 19 year old is likely to have a higher ceiling though you don't know whether he will reach that ceiling.  If you aspire to being a top flight team the path is a lot clearer with top flight prospects.  But obviously it's not certain.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if they reach that ceiling while still in college. Dryden won 1 NC, but he continued to improve as a pro. Johnny Gaudreau scored only 44 points his freshman year, when BC WON the NC. He scored 51 & 80 the next two years, when BC did not.

I think a big problem the past few years has been lack of balance. We've had a bunch of draft picks, but even more guys who aren't particularly fast or who just aren't scoring threats.

[ithacat]

I think a big problem the past few years has been lack of balance. We've had a bunch of draft picks, but even more guys who aren't particularly fast or who just aren't scoring threats.

I think that sums it up and it isn't going to change. Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards. Our draft picks are defenders and power forwards and will continue to be as long as Schafer is the coach. The two drafted forwards are 6-4 and 6-5 and one them missed nearly the entire season with injury. There are a couple of smaller forwards coming in who will be converted into grinder/nats (not that there's anything wrong with having some of those guys on the squad). Hopefully some of these guys will surprise me and make me eat cold Cayuga crow.

I find Schafer's most recent comments to be depressing and have convinced me he needs to go after his contract expires (actually sooner, but Cornell doesn't like to eat contracts). I'm glad he recognized the need to increase scoring and chose to tweak his approach. To hear him then say that it failed and he was returning to the very approach that had led him to conclude he needed to increase scoring in the first place is cause for surrender (not my tickets, just my hope for his remaining tenure).

[CAS]

According to College Hockey News, 3 of our recruits for 2015 are small forwards.  Given they are listed at 160-175 pounds, doubt whether they were recruited to be grinders. We need more speed and skill. Hope they can help provide it.