2015-16

[pfibiger]

Plus given Trotsky's table, I'd be happy [with] Brent Brekke.  It looked like he lined up well with Cornell's success.

Both Brekke's and Russell's bios indicate that they worked mostly with the defense; Garrow's indicates that he worked mostly with the offense.

The interesting point of inflection happens between the 2007 and 2008 seasons, when Brekke leaves. We go from generally (sometimes enormously) outshooting our opponents to being mildly outshot by them. Given that Brekke was a defensive guy and that Garrow was a constant throughout, it's difficult to say why the problem started then.

To my mind, Brekke and Garrow should be candidates should Schafer step down or be let go sometime in the future.

We mentioned it on another thread, but Scott Garrow seems to have left coaching after the shakeup at Princeton.

[CAS]

Alec McCrea was a former Harvard recruit.

[KGR11]

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four.

My comment about us never beating Yale was more about how we can never beat that type of team: small, fast, skilled.

Well, fine. I'll allow a move of the goalposts; I may even be sympathetic to what you're saying. But you'll have to go into the past and find a team or group of teams, other than late-00s Yale and other than 1980s Harvard, that plays that style and to whom we've consistently lost. My memory stretches back to the beginning of the McCutcheon era, and I can't think of one. To my mind, Allain's bequest from Taylor (including a goalie) was staggering, and what he added in those first years was lightning in a bottle. I'll also bet he'll never be able to put that together again, since his assistant coaches are not the recruiters Tim Taylor was.

Moreover, looking at the last four years doesn't make much sense when I was talking about 2010.  You conveniently started during a season when we broke a MASSIVE losing streak to Yale, and 8 games really isn't much of a sample, especially since we were outshot in probably all of them.

Well, we've got to start somewhere. On the other thread, someone was talking about four-year stretches as reasonable lengths of time across which to evaluate trends. Sure, I cherry picked, but not without reason. Would you deny that we've turned it around against Yale since four years ago? And, although our negative game-to-game and season-long shot differentials have begun to concern me, shot totals do not always indicate the flow of a game, as I'm sure you well know. (Myself, I attribute the downturn in differential to a lack of "grind" and poor shot selection [high and wide rather than low and looking to create a rebound] on the part of our forwards.)

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

There's where you go wrong. I've demonstrated that Yale is not doing "much better" than us anymore. And the past is past, as detractors of Schafer are so fond of reminding us.

Yale is doing much better than us.  Maybe not head-to-head, but nationally, yes, they are.  

It takes great talent to end up with a team that is skilled and fast enough to play like that, and it's true there may not be many in the ECAC who are styled in that way.  But that doesn't mean they aren't out there.  This problem usually rears its ugly  head whenever Cornell makes it to the NCAAs and is matched up with one of these teams, whether they be Minnesota or UNH or whomever is outshooting Cornell 2-to-1 in the tournament.  This year we played one of them down in Florida (Miami).  I've seen it happen when we play BU at MSG.  It just so happens that one of these powerhouse teams appeared in our own conference for a stretch.  The super skilled teams are just too fast for us to grind down as we do against weaker opponents.  

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.  Schafer-led teams are good at hanging on by a thread, but at some point, when the other team is having its way with you in your own zone, McKee, or Iles, or whomever the poor netminder is, is going to let in that 61st shot on goal, and then the season is over.

All right- teams you mentioned and how we've done against them in the past season (or previous time we've seen them if they are out of conference).

Minnesota-  
We played them last in '05 and it took overtime for them to beat us in the NCAAs second round.  They outshoot us 18-39.

UNH-
We beat them 4-2 (with an ENG) in Estero in 2013-2014.  They outshoot us 46-24.

BU-
MSG in 2013-2014.  They beat us 3-2, but we outshoot them 39-11.

Miami-
In Estero this season, they beat us 3-0. They also outshoot us 26-15.

Harvard-
Tied in Boston, 3-3.  They outshot us 29-38.
Win in Lynah, 3-2.  We outshoot them 28-23.

Quinnipiac-
Lose in Hamden 0-1.  They outshoot us 40-18 (We only get 1 shot in the third period).
Lose in Lynah, 0-1 in OT.  They outshoot us 25-20.

Looking at the results, we get out-shot a lot. However, the only game that we were really out of it from a score point of view was Miami, who's the best team we've played (they're in the top 5).  As you alluded to, we might've lost by 3 goals to them just because they were a better team.

For all of its dependence on chance, goal differential is pretty important to me.  Although Quinnipiac dominated play back in November (especially in the 3rd period), all it would take is 1 lucky break or bounce and it was a tie game.  The game was exciting to the end because of that.  From the season starting in 2008 to the one ending in 2011, Yale won every game, beating us in the ECAC Championship Game twice by a combined score of 11-0.  It felt like we had NO chance.  If we didn't beat Union this year in the regular season, I'd probably feel the same way about them.

Obviously, this team wasn't good (obvious because good>mediocre and mediocre=.500).  But I don't feel like there was a match-up with a team with the kryptonite-like characteristics that Yale had.  Those 3 seasons against Yale will probably always be my standard of a team we don't have a chance against.

[BearLover]

This thread is where I'd like to take up in this discussion. Everyone loves to bemoan how awfully we're stacking up with Union and Yale these days, but when one looks at the stats (say, for the last four years), one might change one's tune, as Trotsky has hinted at:

Code Select Expand


Union: 5–5-1 (semifinal loss in 2014; first-round loss in 2015)
Yale:  5-3

To me, that looks pretty good, considering the kind of teams Yale and Union have had for the last few years; indeed, with regard to Yale, we seem to have turned it around after the 1-8-1 (championship game losses in 2009 and 2011) of the previous four.

My comment about us never beating Yale was more about how we can never beat that type of team: small, fast, skilled.

Well, fine. I'll allow a move of the goalposts; I may even be sympathetic to what you're saying. But you'll have to go into the past and find a team or group of teams, other than late-00s Yale and other than 1980s Harvard, that plays that style and to whom we've consistently lost. My memory stretches back to the beginning of the McCutcheon era, and I can't think of one. To my mind, Allain's bequest from Taylor (including a goalie) was staggering, and what he added in those first years was lightning in a bottle. I'll also bet he'll never be able to put that together again, since his assistant coaches are not the recruiters Tim Taylor was.

Moreover, looking at the last four years doesn't make much sense when I was talking about 2010.  You conveniently started during a season when we broke a MASSIVE losing streak to Yale, and 8 games really isn't much of a sample, especially since we were outshot in probably all of them.

Well, we've got to start somewhere. On the other thread, someone was talking about four-year stretches as reasonable lengths of time across which to evaluate trends. Sure, I cherry picked, but not without reason. Would you deny that we've turned it around against Yale since four years ago? And, although our negative game-to-game and season-long shot differentials have begun to concern me, shot totals do not always indicate the flow of a game, as I'm sure you well know. (Myself, I attribute the downturn in differential to a lack of "grind" and poor shot selection [high and wide rather than low and looking to create a rebound] on the part of our forwards.)

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

There's where you go wrong. I've demonstrated that Yale is not doing "much better" than us anymore. And the past is past, as detractors of Schafer are so fond of reminding us.

Yale is doing much better than us.  Maybe not head-to-head, but nationally, yes, they are.  

It takes great talent to end up with a team that is skilled and fast enough to play like that, and it's true there may not be many in the ECAC who are styled in that way.  But that doesn't mean they aren't out there.  This problem usually rears its ugly  head whenever Cornell makes it to the NCAAs and is matched up with one of these teams, whether they be Minnesota or UNH or whomever is outshooting Cornell 2-to-1 in the tournament.  This year we played one of them down in Florida (Miami).  I've seen it happen when we play BU at MSG.  It just so happens that one of these powerhouse teams appeared in our own conference for a stretch.  The super skilled teams are just too fast for us to grind down as we do against weaker opponents.  

I've seen flashes of these quick puck movement, fast in transition attacks even from other ECAC teams (e.g., Harvard this season, Q sometimes too), and it has been those plays that Cornell cannot handle. Teams that can do that consistently may not be common, but they are out there, and Cornell has never shown the ability to beat them.  Schafer-led teams are good at hanging on by a thread, but at some point, when the other team is having its way with you in your own zone, McKee, or Iles, or whomever the poor netminder is, is going to let in that 61st shot on goal, and then the season is over.

All right- teams you mentioned and how we've done against them in the past season (or previous time we've seen them if they are out of conference).

Minnesota-  
We played them last in '05 and it took overtime for them to beat us in the NCAAs second round.  They outshoot us 18-39.

UNH-
We beat them 4-2 (with an ENG) in Estero in 2013-2014.  They outshoot us 46-24.

BU-
MSG in 2013-2014.  They beat us 3-2, but we outshoot them 39-11.

Miami-
In Estero this season, they beat us 3-0. They also outshoot us 26-15.

Harvard-
Tied in Boston, 3-3.  They outshot us 29-38.
Win in Lynah, 3-2.  We outshoot them 28-23.

Quinnipiac-
Lose in Hamden 0-1.  They outshoot us 40-18 (We only get 1 shot in the third period).
Lose in Lynah, 0-1 in OT.  They outshoot us 25-20.

Looking at the results, we get out-shot a lot. However, the only game that we were really out of it from a score point of view was Miami, who's the best team we've played (they're in the top 5).  As you alluded to, we might've lost by 3 goals to them just because they were a better team.

For all of its dependence on chance, goal differential is pretty important to me.  Although Quinnipiac dominated play back in November (especially in the 3rd period), all it would take is 1 lucky break or bounce and it was a tie game.  The game was exciting to the end because of that.  From the season starting in 2008 to the one ending in 2011, Yale won every game, beating us in the ECAC Championship Game twice by a combined score of 11-0.  It felt like we had NO chance.  If we didn't beat Union this year in the regular season, I'd probably feel the same way about them.

Obviously, this team wasn't good (obvious because good>mediocre and mediocre=.500).  But I don't feel like there was a match-up with a team with the kryptonite-like characteristics that Yale had.  Those 3 seasons against Yale will probably always be my standard of a team we don't have a chance against.

That 2013 BU team was an aberration--it was their worst season in many, many years.  I was talking about other seasons at MSG.  That Minnesota game, and the UNH games in the 2010 tournament, and the Wisconsin game--the shots told the story.  We simply couldn't keep up with them.  We could have stolen some of those games, of course, because practically any hockey team can steal practically any hockey game, but we were on our heels the entire game, and it wasn't much different from a 6-0 Yale thrashing, or a 10-0 Q thrashing.  

The signs point to shot differential being the best available (to us) prediction of team success.  You can argue about the quality of shots and making the most of your chances, but that is something this Cornell team has been stunningly bad at.  So it stands to reason that unless we can start turning these shot differentials around, we are not going to start winning.

[Scersk '97]

Now we have a better chance of beating Yale than we did 8 years ago because they changed styles.  The point remains that Yale is still doing much better than us and that we never were able to solve the Yale teams of 2008-2011.

There's where you go wrong. I've demonstrated that Yale is not doing "much better" than us anymore. And the past is past, as detractors of Schafer are so fond of reminding us.

Yale is doing much better than us.  Maybe not head-to-head, but nationally, yes, they are.  

I think this attitude comes from retrospective rearrangement of the facts. While the record was certainly poor, as Trotsky mentioned above, we were very much in many games with Yale during that "dark period." Yes, they obliterated us 5–0 in that final in Albany, and I still can't fully explain that—couldn't while I was watching, and still can't. (Looking back at the box scores today, though, I noted that we were without both Devins for that game, and Mike Devin was certainly a top D-man.) But then they tanked vs. Vermont in the first round of the NCAAs, whereas we beat Northeastern and then... let's not talk about what happened next.

During that dark period, we won one ECAC championship; they won two. We went to the tournament twice; Yale went thrice. We made one quarterfinal; they made two. Since then, we've gone once; they've gone once. (This year is still up in the air. If they lose to Harvard again tonight, they're going to be on the outside looking in.) The only big deal is that they won that national championship. But, look: they blew the ECAC semifinal and consolation that year, and then caught fire. In no way were they world beaters all season. That kind of thing can happen! They should've won in '09 or '11. (Their goaltending was woeful in '10.) Instead, they put four games together and won in '13. No one expected that; honestly, Quinnipiac (our own University of No Hardware) should've won it that year.

I think, if you look back a bit more dispassionately and reduce the national-championship-induced blue-tinted glasses, you'll be able to say, "Yes, Yale was better than us in '08–'11, but we've turned it around, provisionally." Not, "Yale is doing much better than us." Period.

This problem usually rears its ugly  head whenever Cornell makes it to the NCAAs and is matched up with one of these teams, whether they be Minnesota or UNH or whomever is outshooting Cornell 2-to-1 in the tournament.  This year we played one of them down in Florida (Miami).  I've seen it happen when we play BU at MSG.  It just so happens that one of these powerhouse teams appeared in our own conference for a stretch.  The super skilled teams are just too fast for us to grind down as we do against weaker opponents.  

I think KGR11 did a pretty good job of responding to this part of what you said. While we're still being outshot, we're not being outshot in many of these games by as much as you imagine. But, like you, I'm concerned about the trend. I think it has something to do with a change in offensive strategy on our part that I'm not wholly pleased with, and perhaps a bit to do with obstruction being called a bit tighter (except when someone's obstructing Hilbrich) than it used to be in the past.

I don't know. It bugs me, and it's my biggest problem with how the players are being coached right now. Particularly on off nights, we need to start throwing the puck on net and generating dirty goals. I don't see that happening.

Yet, no matter how bad this season turned out, I'm pretty excited for the future. I think we've got two very, very good goalies. Both fit the system, and both have the potential to be outstanding. (I know I'm in the minority here, but I feel better about the goaltending than at any time after Scrivens left.) I'm pleased to hear that something was different about the forecheck this year, because that helps to explain all the odd-man rushes and the lack of offensive production. I may, once again, be in the minority, but I'm looking forward to next year's "back to the future."

In the end, it's all about the players. Next year's seniors and, particularly, next year's juniors need to step it up.

On offense, Kubiak needs to learn to "be like bull." Perhaps Stoick will finally settle in somewhere. The offense is going to center around Hilbrich and Buckles next year, so their modestly sniper-ish ways need to continue. Both Angello and Starrett (if he can get over a season-long shoulder injury) sound like Bitz/Baby/maybe (huge) Moulson (!) types, and Vanderlaan sounds like a Vesce.

On defense, Willcox, McCarron, and Bliss are rocks. Hopefully Anderson develops a bit more, and/or hopefully Wedman learns how to play defense. We've got some trees and some shorter guys coming in. I hope that, somewhere in there, is someone in the McRae/Cook vein. I see two spots open next year, assuming one of Anderson or Wedman pans out. I suppose that's why we have four D coming in. When it comes down to it, I'm never very worried about our defensemen.

The power play was pretty good until it kind of fizzled over the last bit of the season. At least there was movement and something other than the umbrella most of the time. At last, the penalty kill is back to where it should be. We're going to take penalties; a great kill is absolutely essential to Cornell hockey.

I'm cautiously optimistic about next year. I suppose I always am.

[MattS]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in? I've been a Schafer supporter but the past two seasons have for me shown he needs to go. So yes I think a better HC is out there.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

At this point I think a better, younger, more in tune with the way the sport is currently and for the foreseeable future is played, needs to be brought in for CU to move forward. In my opinion the game has changed a lot in the past ~5 years. The game is moving back towards the way it was played in the '80's & early '90's. Can The System compete with that? I do not believe it can. I believe Schafer refuses to adapt with those changes in the game to the detriment of the program. He and the program have become stagnant.

CU players are too slow, cannot shoot accurately, or are "floaters". The best shot comes from a player (Hilbrich) that a gnat could knock off his feet. The best and quickest skaters are comparatively very small guys (Knisley). Draft pick players (Tschantz) are not willing to go do the dirty work. Players who are the a good mix are what is needed. They are out there and other Ivies are getting them. Why?

I believe it is because those players do not want to come play for a coach who is going to stifle their offense so that CU can win 2-1 or 1-0. With the mindset of today's youngsters I do not believe too many are interested in that.

I also believe Schafer is a poor evaluator of the way players currently should be given ice time and what combos work. This is either because the talent isn't there or he's become piss poor at it. No decent HC switches the line up as frequently as he does. Nor do they change line combos as much either. Or play their best player (Ryan) as much as he did at the end of the season. Triple shifting him at points? Playing the whole 2 minutes very soon after playing the whole 2 minutes if a PP.

Additionally all of the advanced statics have shown that dump and chase hockey isn't as effective as carrying the puck. Yet for the most Schafer refuses to change in either players he recruits or in the style of play. When he does slightly change the style of play he apparently is going to abandon it since it did not immediately yield excellent results.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with Ivy restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU?

An extension of this is why Lynah is half full. I still think that winning or losing 2-1 or 1-0 is not what today's fan wants to see. They don't come to a game to watch players dump and chase, play at the boards, rarely shoot, have a slow passing PP that anyone with a decent grasp of the game could coach against.

There is a reason pretty much all sports are trying to improve scoring. It's because that is what the fans want to see. I think most young fans and many older ones, would rather see a win or a loss, at say, 6-5 than 2-1. Why? Because then they would get to be excited and cheer 5 or 6 times a game than 1 or 2. It's all about entertainment.

Unfortunately I don't see any of this happening. Nobody at CU athletics or Schafer wants to change. Unless a change in coaching style happens or a new HC is brought in, 10 years from now we are all going to be reminiscing about the glory days of CU hockey and what it was like to see it.

[Trotsky]

Obviously, this team wasn't good (obvious because good>mediocre and mediocre=.500).  But I don't feel like there was a match-up with a team with the kryptonite-like characteristics that Yale had.  Those 3 seasons against Yale will probably always be my standard of a team we don't have a chance against.

For me that will be the mid-80s RPI team, but the Yale 11-13 squads are next.  While I think reports of our deaths have been greatly exaggerated, for much of the Yale run we didn't belong on the same sheet.  Even the Harvard team that didn't lose an RS game to us in 10 years was less dominant.

[BearLover]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in? I've been a Schafer supporter but the past two seasons have for me shown he needs to go. So yes I think a better HC is out there.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the inner workings of how HC are hired, dismissed, or paid at CU. So my statements might be unrealistic.

At this point I think a better, younger, more in tune with the way the sport is currently and for the foreseeable future is played, needs to be brought in for CU to move forward. In my opinion the game has changed a lot in the past ~5 years. The game is moving back towards the way it was played in the '80's & early '90's. Can The System compete with that? I do not believe it can. I believe Schafer refuses to adapt with those changes in the game to the detriment of the program. He and the program have become stagnant.

CU players are too slow, cannot shoot accurately, or are "floaters". The best shot comes from a player (Hilbrich) that a gnat could knock off his feet. The best and quickest skaters are comparatively very small guys (Knisley). Draft pick players (Tschantz) are not willing to go do the dirty work. Players who are the a good mix are what is needed. They are out there and other Ivies are getting them. Why?

I believe it is because those players do not want to come play for a coach who is going to stifle their offense so that CU can win 2-1 or 1-0. With the mindset of today's youngsters I do not believe too many are interested in that.

I also believe Schafer is a poor evaluator of the way players currently should be given ice time and what combos work. This is either because the talent isn't there or he's become piss poor at it. No decent HC switches the line up as frequently as he does. Nor do they change line combos as much either. Or play their best player (Ryan) as much as he did at the end of the season. Triple shifting him at points? Playing the whole 2 minutes very soon after playing the whole 2 minutes if a PP.

Additionally all of the advanced statics have shown that dump and chase hockey isn't as effective as carrying the puck. Yet for the most Schafer refuses to change in either players he recruits or in the style of play. When he does slightly change the style of play he apparently is going to abandon it since it did not immediately yield excellent results.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with Ivy restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU?

An extension of this is why Lynah is half full. I still think that winning or losing 2-1 or 1-0 is not what today's fan wants to see. They don't come to a game to watch players dump and chase, play at the boards, rarely shoot, have a slow passing PP that anyone with a decent grasp of the game could coach against.

There is a reason pretty much all sports are trying to improve scoring. It's because that is what the fans want to see. I think most young fans and many older ones, would rather see a win or a loss, at say, 6-5 than 2-1. Why? Because then they would get to be excited and cheer 5 or 6 times a game than 1 or 2. It's all about entertainment.

Unfortunately I don't see any of this happening. Nobody at CU athletics or Schafer wants to change. Unless a change in coaching style happens or a new HC is brought in, 10 years from now we are all going to be reminiscing about the glory days of CU hockey and what it was like to see it.

Amazing post, +1 for everything you said.

[Jim Hyla]

My litmus test on Schafer or any HC or any leader is can a better one be brought in.

I agree.

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with  restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU.

You go on to say Schafer should be replaced, but you don't have any idea who it should be. "There must be" isn't an answer.

A couple of years before Schafer came, many of us were hoping that we could get him. He had shown to be a good recruiter and was respected for his knowledge. Indeed he turned out to be what we needed then.

So if he needs replacing now, who is the obvious candidate? Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

[Scersk '97]

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with Ivy restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU?

Amazing post, +1 for everything you said.

-1. This thread is about next year, not "Should He Stay or Shoul He Go." Take it over to that thread. Schafer's not going anywhere next year.

[ugarte]

There must be a coach out there who is willing to come to CU for the pay, willing to deal with Ivy restrictions, and can do a better job. I'm not sure who that is but other programs seem to he able to get them. Why not CU?

Amazing post, +1 for everything you said.

-1. This thread is about next year, not "Should He Stay or Shoul He Go." Take it over to that thread. Schafer's not going anywhere next year.

-1000 for playing Thread Cop. jfc

[TimV]

Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

OK- I'll take a shot.  How about Tom Coghlin, current head coach at Div III St. Norbert College?  League record 233-64-29, overall 462-122-47 over 21 years.  Yes, he's older, but I think still about 4 years younger than Mike is now. Been in the NCAA title game seven times in the last 11 years, won it  four times.  Last season he coached the first team in Division III to lead the country in BOTH scoring offense AND scoring defense in the same season since the NCAA started tracking hockey statistics in 1996. Seems to know what he's doing.

Strong Canadian recruiter, especially western Canada.

Maybe he'd like a shot at Div. I.

[ithacat]

Up to now I haven't seen anyone give that name. Maybe he exists, but just saying he must, doesn't make it so.

Difficult to answer without knowing the financial commitment Cornell might be willing to offer. I'd assume it'd be limited given we almost always hire unproven assistants. I'd probably look at Albie O'Connell (BU) or Paul Pearl (Harvard) if I'm looking at assistants. Among head coaches, Derek Schooley (RMU), Wayne Wilson (RIT), and Casey Jones (CU) could be reasonable candidates.

If the money was there I'd consider making a run at George Gwozdecky (if he still has the fire) or Nate Leaman (PC).

[TimV]

Nate Leaman is a GREAT suggestion.  I watched him bring Union's teams up from nowhere.  Never had any player problems, clearly can recruit and find talent.  Probably would like to get out of the shadow of BU and BC.

[Jim Hyla]

Nate Leaman is a GREAT suggestion.  I watched him bring Union's teams up from nowhere.  Never had any player problems, clearly can recruit and find talent.  Probably would like to get out of the shadow of BU and BC.

But I don't understand why, after leaving the ECAC for HE, he'd want to come back. He jumped into it knowing he'd be in "the shadow of BU and BC", although I disagree that he's in their shadow. Why come back?