Future Coaching?

[LynahFaithful]

According to multiple sources, Schafer's contract ends in 2016.  What do you want to happen and what do you think will happen?

Vote on the poll and reply with what you think will happen with the program if he stays and/or if he goes.  

Ex. Comment: "I think Schafer will go and Cornell will hire _____."  or "I think Schafer will stay, sign a short(er) contract and then Cornell and Schafer will assess the future of the program from there."

[redice]

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program.....    But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching.   Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

[LynahFaithful]

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program.....    But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching.   Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense.  From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.  

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances.  That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season.  Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT.  And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

[Swampy]

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program.....    But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching.   Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense.  From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.  

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances.  That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season.  Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT.  And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

[Towerroad]

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

[LynahFaithful]

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program.....    But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching.   Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense.  From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.  

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances.  That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season.  Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT.  And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Who would this be?  Are you trying to hint that it's the head coach (Schafer) and "Maybe not at Cornell" means that he's not doing a good job with the coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

[David Harding]

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Sure there is, but he's on his way out the door.  Let's give Garrett a few months to warm up on easy issues like finances and academic excllence before tackling the hard questions.::deadhorse::

[Swampy]

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occasional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?  

Partly I'm thinking out loud. These are characteristics of a team with good coaching, win or lose. So, yes, I suppose I am saying it's the coaching staff's responsibility if a team lacks these traits.

[Towerroad]

I'd like to see him stay & continue to direct the program.....    But, I do believe it's time to make sweeping changes to the assistant coaching.   Replacing everyone BUT Schafer would bring some new ideas into the program while maintaining that steady hand on the controls....

I think you're right - the system he has built (defense rooted) has had success for many years and the issue I see is the inconsistency of the offense.  From what I understand, the assistant coach over the defensemen is top-notch and has had very good success. I'm not sure if it comes down to the assistant coaching, the dump-and-chase play style, young goalies, lack of chemistry, and/or etc. but the past few years the offense (specifically this year) have been on a significant decline.  

Against Denver, the first night they scored 4 goals, 3 versus Yale (at Lynah), at Brown they rallied and scored 3 goals to tie it up (and was close to having 4), and at Union they scored 5 goals just to name a few instances.  That being said, I am consistently reminded of games like (at) Princeton where they scored no goals against a team that was near the bottom of all D1 rankings at the end of the season.  Additionally, against Quinnipiac (at Lynah) the offense going into the 3rd period and overtime was horrendous and due to bad puck movement between players, cost Cornell the game 1-0 in OT.  And of course, we all know about the last two games of the season where the offense was substandard by this season's marks and the defense also fell apart.  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

A good coaching staff puts a team on the ice that plays hard and executes well in all aspects of the game every game. If the team does not do this (e.g., bad puck movement), except for the occassional fluke game, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

If the team does all of the above, but the style of play and/or strategy in one aspect of the game does not produce results, a good coaching staff makes adjustments. If the adjustments do not improve the deficient area of play, the coaching staff is not doing its job.

I'm not saying the team has to be a world-beater. But it should play hard, play well, and play a style of game that gives it a chance to win most games, certainly in-league games.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Are you attempting to answer my question saying it comes down to the coaching staff because of the bad execution on the ice and the inability to make necessary adjustments in the deficient area of play?  

Again, I pose the question: Is it coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Isn't there one person who is ultimately responsible for all of these? Maybe not at Cornell.

Who would this be?  Are you trying to hint that it's the head coach (Schafer) and "Maybe not at Cornell" means that he's not doing a good job with the coaching, play style, lack of chemistry among players, etc?

Well, there seem to be a lot of people on these pages that keep asking questions like this and trying to connect the dots and never seem to come to the conclusion that those dots all lead to the Head Coaches door. That is the genesis of my snarky "not at Cornell" comment.

For example, if you want to keep the HC but fire some or all of the assistants who's call is that? Answer, the HC so he is responsible and accountable for the AC's perfomance.

Unhappy with the offense - Who is responsible for recruiting the players, who is responsible for the style of play, who is responsible for developing the players? All roads lead to one place.

[Trotsky]

Schafer is ultimately responsible for everything: recruiting, coaching, performance, results.  If there's a serious problem in one or more of those departments it's up to him to fix it with personnel and/or changes in approach.  If he can't do that, it's his failure.

In the same way that I credit Schafer with the astounding success of the program over his first 15 years, I'd say he has to be held responsible for the problems of the last 5.  He has (IMHO) certainly deserved our trust and patience in trying to turn things around -- even Harkness had down years at RPI -- but another down year and the university will certainly be reviewing its options for renewal.

There's also the question of how long he wants to keep doing the job.  Are the challenges new and interesting, or does it feel like a Sisyphean task after two decades?  It's possible we might even see a mutually agreed upon parting.  Whatever happens I hope Mike will always be a big part of the Cornell hockey community, and a much-appreciated one.

[underskill]

in fairness, the problems of the last 5 years are mostly mediocrity, not outright disaster either, so it's not like the program has fallen off a cliff in any way, it seems more of a general Jimmy Carter-like malaise.

[LynahFaithful]

Well, it seems that people are almost all on the same page about it coming down to the head coach for a variety of reasons.  So, what exactly will happen?  

If Schafer stays, what changes could/should he make?  Play style?  Assistant coaching?  

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

[billhoward]

Well, it seems that people are almost all on the same page about it coming down to the head coach for a variety of reasons.  So, what exactly will happen?  

If Schafer stays, what changes could/should he make?  Play style?  Assistant coaching?  

If Schafer goes, then who could Cornell bring in?

Good. We've helped the athletic director narrow the choices.

[Cop at Lynah]

Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work.  Hopefully he goes back to what he knows to be successful and we see a return to being in the hunt for league titles and NCAA berths.

[Towerroad]

Mike has already stated publicly that he tried new systems and they just didn't work.  Hopefully he goes back to what he knows to be successful and we see a return to being in the hunt for league titles and NCAA berths.

His intent to return to the old system is clear. Whether that system is still capable of taking us to the promised land is far from clear. Remember, the "14/15 Experiment" was a response to mediocre performance in the prior few years not an attempt to fine tune a well oiled machine.

I am reliably informed that the way one plays on the side of the rink occupied by the Sieve is important to the outcome of the game.