Should He Stay or Shoul He Go Part 2

[Cop at Lynah]

I guess I just don't get it.  Schafer's teams were pretty consistently good over the first 19 years, he made a change in the 20th years and it failed to produce the desired results in a historic way.  So the man wants to go back to what had always been successful and everybody is going ape shit. I say good decision and hopefully the team will reap the benefits.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years.  The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach.  Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Bottom line, it's Schafer's program and he will do what he feels necessary to fix the problem.  If it works, great for Cornell, if it doesn't the University has a decision to make.  In either case Mike has proved to be one the very best Cornell has ever had behind the bench.

[Chris '03]

Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

[Trotsky]

Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

[CAS]

Btw Milo transferred to UVM, where he was ultimately dismissed from the team.

[Dafatone]

Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

Nobody lost the puck trying to go to the net alone against four defenders like Romano.

[Swampy]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years.  The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach.  Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

[Trotsky]

Schafer seems to dislike fast guys who can score, otherwise he'd be recruiting them instead of loading up on power forwards.

Or, fast guys who can score don't want to come play in a defense first system where they won't score as much as they could elsewhere. I'm sure Schafer would welcome a few fast guys who could score who were also willing to commit to sound defense at the expense of their own numbers.

The CW is that we've seen guys like this either leave (Romano, Milo) or decommit (guys I should remember but can't).

Nobody lost the puck trying to go to the net alone against four defenders like Romano.

You didn't see Kent Manderville as a freshman, did you?  

[RichH]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years.  The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach.  Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

In another thread, I asked what could possibly be so different that Harvard could go from a perennial sub-.400 team to being in the conversation for NCAA contenders. Given his track record, I wanted Teddy D. to be around forever. But this was brought up in a conversation: http://gocrimson.com/sports/mice/coaches/pearl_paul

[BearLover]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the decline in the number of wins is directly related to the assistant coach turnover over the last 10 years.  The assistant coaches are in many ways more crucial to the development and on ice performance than the head coach.  Maybe a change is needed in that area to revitalize the program ?

Well, I did mention Casey Jones in connection with recruiting. The turnover in assistant coaches is a bit remarkable given the team's relative lack of outstanding success. Assistant coaches get poached for HC positions when a team wins big.

Still at the very least, I hope Schafer brings in an assistant for next season who has been associated with (#1) a program that's won at a very high level and (#2) who has demonstrated ability to coach good offense.

In pro football, a HC in Schafer's position will often replace the offensive coordinator. That's what I'm advocating for at this point.

In another thread, I asked what could possibly be so different that Harvard could go from a perennial sub-.400 team to being in the conversation for NCAA contenders. Given his track record, I wanted Teddy D. to be around forever. But this was brought up in a conversation: http://gocrimson.com/sports/mice/coaches/pearl_paul

Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well.  And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant?  Why not a real offensive guy?

[KGR11]

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.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1.  We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2.  We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then.  In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

[Rosey]

Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well.

Is his height really the issue? I'd think the bigger issue is that he was coached by Schafer for four years, hardly a recipe for radical new ideas.

[pfibiger]

Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well.  And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant?  Why not a real offensive guy?

It is my understanding that Schafer coaches the forwards and the PP. Regardless of the assistants (Casey Jones was an offensive guy), the assistants coach the defense and the PK.

[RichH]

And our recruiting pipelines have clearly changed. We currently have 2 returning players from the BCHL, and our strong years featured about half the roster being from that league. I feel that the entire coaching staff has a responsibility in the recruiting efforts. The Brekke/Russell era brought forth some great talent.

[BearLover]

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.

That's a fair point. When you say a few tries, do you mean one coach gets a few years to make the team his own, or multiple coaches?

I think there are two scenarios where I'd be convinced that Schafer can't figure it out and we need a coaching change:
1.  We have a sub-.500 season next year.
2.  We don't make it to the NCAAs in the next two years (a repeat of 2014 could be considered a positive step towards greatness or part of the oscillation that we've seen in the past 4 years, hence the requirement for a second year).

Disclaimer: I started watching Cornell hockey in 2007-2008. I think my expectations are rooted in how the team has played since then.  In that sense, I may be biased towards Schafer because I haven't seen his best team, and therefore, I haven't seen the height from which he's fallen.

I think the greatest source of disagreement on this issue is what our expectations are/should be.  We don't actually know what Cornell Hockey can realistically aspire to be, so we have to base our hopes on the evidence that is available to us, and adjust accordingly.  I will quote something I wrote a few months ago:

Schafer apologists' arguments have always been predicated upon the notion that with Cornell's academic and scholarship restrictions, it would be unfair to hold the team to a higher standard than being successful in its own conference and hoping to make noise at the national level. Two things have changed: one, Cornell is no longer especially successful in its own conference; many teams have passed us by. Two, the notion that Cornell cannot be an elite national program due to its restrictions has been proven invalid: Yale won it all and has been nationally competitive for years now, and Harvard is among the best few teams in the nation thus far this year. That is to say, there was nothing truly exceptional about Cornell's success over the past decade or so.

This team is not good. It has not been very good for a number of years. The Lynah atmosphere is nothing like it used to be. I think it's about time to move on.

Can Cornell ever be BC?  Probably not.  Can it be a top 10 team every year, as Schafer himself had hoped?  Maybe.  Can it win the national championship?  Absolutely.  Yale is the new benchmark against which we must measure our success.  They have the same academic and scholarship restrictions we do, and yet their last eight years have been better than Schafer's best eight years.  There is no reason Cornell cannot be that successful.  Can a modern Schafer-coached Cornell team be that successful?  It's looking more and more like the answer is No.  Will a new coach be that successful?  Also probably not, but at least there's a chance...

[BearLover]

Topher may have been a skilled offensive player, but having a 5'4 guy instruct 6'5 guys hasn't worked so well.  And why did Schafer make Syer, another defensive specialist, his head assistant?  Why not a real offensive guy?

It is my understanding that Schafer coaches the forwards and the PP. Regardless of the assistants (Casey Jones was an offensive guy), the assistants coach the defense and the PK.

Casey Jones coached the defense and PK?  ::demented::  I've understood Schafer to have coached the offense/PP since Syer came aboard,but I thought that was only because Syer was a defensive specialist.