Future Coaching?

[dag14]

I don't know why DeLuca was fired but it was NOT because of the "hazing incident."

[marty]

I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too.  Leaman or whoever found him was the key.  That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed.  How the hell do you bottle that?  The same recruiter, Leaman  or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

Either way, so what?  We have to get more Angelos, Vanderlaans etc. but that is exactly who all the teams are trying to recruit. What exactly is the magic formula that you think Cornell is so foolishly overlooking?

Aside from hiring Leaman away from what he likely sees as his dream job, what is your solution? Ten + years ago after Eaves and Umile beat us did you want to change dance partners? How are things at Wisconsin and UNH? Hell, how are things at Union?

In the spirit of the season I cry,  "Spring ahead", don't "fall back"!

[KeithK]

There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too.  Leaman or whoever found him was the key.  That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed.  How the hell do you bottle that?  The same recruiter, Leaman  or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

You can't use one player to say whether recruiting is good or bad. Finding one diamond in the rough is probably a matter of luck. It's the pattern of players over a period of years that matters.

[redice]

I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. .........

Agreed....  But, suggesting here that Schafer should go is a bit like pissing into the wind....  These folks are fiercely loyal to Schafer, these days.   I suspect he's going to need to have a winless season for that to change.

But, good luck with it!!

[css228]

I'll say what I'd want to see in a new coach. I want a Dave Hakstol style system that aggressively challenges opponents with a forecheck and d-men pinching regularly to create offense. And i want to see a team that is encouraged to carry the puck rather than dump and chase. The best defense is controlling the puck, and I've had enough of the damn 1-2-2 trap. And furthermore I want a coach that can recruit players who ultimately make a difference not only in the college level, but eventually the NHL. They don't have to be draft picks coming into school, but we should have the kind of guys who have the talent that with 3-4 years in school actually make a difference. A lot of people here say thats a ridiculous expectation, but if Union can get a Shayne Gostisbehere or Bemidji State can get a Matt Read, there is no reason that we can't recruit those guys. Ghost wasn't even drafted until after his freshman year. So you can't tell me that he wasn't a guy we could have had.

Well, isn't it possible that Gostisbehere may not have had the academic qualifications to gain admission to Cornell? It's not just a matter of the coaches picking anyone they want.

He had a 3.93 at Union. So doubtful.

There were 50+ other schools that didn't find the Ghost, too.  Leaman or whoever found him was the key.  That person saw potential that tens of recruiters missed.  How the hell do you bottle that?  The same recruiter, Leaman  or Bennett or whoever, might be exceptional in that regard but maybe just lucky too.

Either way, so what?  We have to get more Angelos, Vanderlaans etc. but that is exactly who all the teams are trying to recruit. What exactly is the magic formula that you think Cornell is so foolishly overlooking?

Aside from hiring Leaman away from what he likely sees as his dream job, what is your solution? Ten + years ago after Eaves and Umile beat us did you want to change dance partners? How are things at Wisconsin and UNH? Hell, how are things at Union?

In the spirit of the season I cry,  "Spring ahead", don't "fall back"!

Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play. We don't because it doesn't fit Schafer's system. And any system that can't adapt to the strengths of supremely talented players is not a system worth having. Schafer benches players for making mistakes instead of rewarding calculated risks. How is that a coach that you want to keep around? I'm not saying there's any one specific player he should have had, I'm saying the program consistently overlooks players like Ghost because of an infatuation with size. How about we try to bring in a scorer or two who may not be getting recruited everywhere because other teams are concerned about their size?

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

We keep wondering why this team is mediocre year after year, and the answer is really simple. Good teams have more of the puck. When your system is predicated on trying to withstand pressure and turtling the moment you get a 1-0 lead in the 1st you are greatly increasing the chances that something gets thrown on your net, bounces off a leg and goes in. I want a coach that understands that. Look at the ECAC standings and compare them to the advanced stats lists. All of the teams in the top half of the league are positive possession teams.

I've wanted Schafer to go since after my junior year in 2013. Maybe you're blinded by past success, but the game has changed. Since I stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010, we've made the postseason once. And we're not going to make it again this year, barring a miracle. In my time on campus, we beat Harvard at home once. I watched every weekend as teams not only out-skated us, but beat us on the boards our big tough guys were supposed to dominate. I watched teams with the stick discipline of Danny Briere. A half a decade is a long time to be mediocre.

And that's not even the worst part. We're not just mediocre, we play boring hockey. A good game for us has 50-60 shot events total (including missed shots). You play low event hockey because you think that gives you the best chance of winning. When you don't win all you've accomplished is to put half the crowd to sleep. People here ask all the time why students don't show up the way they once did. I can give you a simple answer as a recent student. We put an expensive boring product on the ice, and it doesn't win. If it won, I"m sure students would flock to the games. But I'm also betting that even if we were equally mediocre, if games were more often 4-3 and 5-4 more students would come, because it'd be more entertaining. Nobody, but the hardcore of hardcore hockey fans wants to spend $200+ a year to go to games where the most entertaining thing is what the student section is doing. At the very least lower the damn price, because we're not putting a $200+ dollar product out there.

[Scersk '97]

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

Or Joe Devin. Seriously, go back and take a look: 19.2% over his college career. Who knew? I certainly wasn't paying attention. Somewhere around 14% is pretty typical of a "good" college player, viz., Greening, Colin and Scott, Topher.

College ain't the Pros. The level of "sniper" and the level of "wall" you're dealing with here are of a different order. (Sidebar: Garteig? The key is clearly to throw a lot of shots at him. Amazing how we were able to change our strategy in order to do that last night.)

So, to poke a hole in this part of your argument, those percentages aren't "unreal." Why anyone would discount the obvious talent of two of the most promising freshmen we've had in a while is a bit beyond me.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010." I'm sure those who graduated in 2009 felt much the same.

[BearLover]

Yeah but when the last time we've recruited a blue liner that is even remotely like Ghost in style of play.

Joakim Ryan?  Point stands, though.  

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010." I'm sure those who graduated in 2009 felt much the same.

I don't think this is true.  Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001.  In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

[css228]

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

[Scersk '97]

I don't think this is true.  Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001.  In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low[/b] points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

[Dafatone]

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6).  In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs.  A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

[css228]

I don't think this is true.  Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001.  In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low[/b] points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

Lets just do a tracking over the last decade.
2007: Missed NCAAs
2008: Missed NCAAs
2009: Made NCAAs
2010: Made NCAAs
2011: Missed NCAAs
2012: Made NCAAs
2013: Missed NCAAs
2014: Missed NCAAs
2015: Missed NCAAs
2016: Likely to miss NCAAs.
40 % success rate at best, only making one in the last half decade.
As I said. What have you done for me lately?

[css228]

Also everyone is so high on Angello and Vanderlaan but those two are shooting at an unreal percentage this year. When Angello and Vanderlaan don't shoot at 16.7% and 14.3% respectively next year, everyone's going to wonder what happened when they should really just apply Occam's razor and realize that their true talent probably wasn't that high in the first place. I could see maybe Vanderlaan maintaining something in that range, but for the record, even an all time great goalscorer like Ovi only shoots at 12.3% year on year. You have to look at all time great snipers like Stamkos and Hull to see people with shooting percentages in the Angello range.

And the rest of your argument shows a similar lack of historical perspective, which isn't surprising coming from someone who "stepped onto campus in the fall of 2010."

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

We've had a number of disappointing years lately, but only one bad one (last year, when we went 11-14-6).  In 2012-2013, we went 15-16-3, which is bad depending on your definition of bad.

In 2013-2014, we went 17-10-5 and barely missed the NCAAs.  A disappointment compared to where I'd like us to be, but that's still certainly a good year.

No we missed NCAAs because we left it during the regular season to the point where we had no route but to win the tournament to get it. That is not a good season.

[Scersk '97]

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

Your perspective is out of whack. In the previous five seasons, we've had one runner-up and made two other semi appearances, which isn't "bad." There are at least seven other ECAC schools that would love to have done half as well.

This season is still ongoing, if you hadn't noticed.

For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

[BearLover]

I don't think this is true.  Cornell Hockey is clearly at its lowest point since 2001.  In 2002, we turned it around and became a dominant force.

There are low points (1999; not 2001, when we made a surprising run to a championship matchup with SLU), low points (2015), and low[/b] points (1993).

That's historical perspective.

That's probably true, but this is by far the longest we've gone (four years) without making the NCAAs since 2001 (assuming we don't make it this year).  These will be the only seniors in Schafer's tenure, aside from the Class of 2001, to graduate without setting foot in the NCAAs.

[css228]

What have you done for me lately? 6 seasons is a hell of a long time to be bad.

Your perspective is out of whack. In the previous five seasons, we've had one runner-up and made two other semi appearances, which isn't "bad." There are at least seven other ECAC schools that would love to have done half as well.

This season is still ongoing, if you hadn't noticed.

For "bad," see Clarkson or RPI, once proud programs that have fallen on really tough times. Clarkson hasn't made the semis since 2007, and RPI (2002) is "on the clock."

Look, I'm not going to look this stuff up for you anymore. If you can't come back with a real sense of perspective, there's no sense in continuing this.

We are not Clarkson or RPI. The expectations here are higher. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with mediocrity.