Future Coaching?

[redice]

......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.....

To single out this one snippet, this is one of the complaints I have with Schafer.   He is continuing to bring big players into a conference whose officials will not allow them to "play big" as was done back in the era of Murray/Baby....   Thus, it is hard for those players to be successful...   Furthermore, those big players' hands are tied in offering protection to their teammates, again as Murray used to do in early 2000's.    For those who watched those highly successful teams of the early 2000's, the threat of Murray kept a lot of opposition players honest and help ALL of our players be more successful, especially along the boards.    Rough up a CU player and feel the wrath of Doug Murray!!!    Believe me, they knew it, whether he was on the ice or watching from the bench!!!!    We now have nobody like that....    Because they don't dare...    

Schafer knows this because he complains about the officiating...  But, he does nothing to change his recruiting.

[Robb]

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.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?  

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

[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.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?  

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

[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.

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.

I gotta be honest.  I don't really know what you're saying beyond "we didn't make it because we didn't make it."

[Robb]

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.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?  

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

Too funny.  All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

[BearLover]

I'd give Schafer one more year, but the notion that he should stick around because it could be worse is absurd.  We know national championships are attainable (see Yale, Union, Q).  Cornell had the best tradition in the ECAC.  In college sports, success (or failure) snowballs.  Successful seasons lead to successful recruiting classes, which lead to more successful seasons, etc.  A mediocre season now means more mediocrity in the future.  So by accepting temporary mediocrity simply because we're better than Clarkson and RPI (who cares about them, seriously?) is accepting that we follow in their footsteps of prolonged mediocrity.

[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.

I gotta be honest.  I don't really know what you're saying beyond "we didn't make it because we didn't make it."

What I'm saying is good teams don't leave the tournament to be their only route in. Good teams may still occasionally miss because of unexpected conference champs but, my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Too funny. All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective. I seriously considered dropping my season tickets senior year. As Cowbell Guy. I love hockey. I can talk about it all day. A lot of my best friendships are based around hockey. The vast majority of fans my age, especially the hardcore ones want Schafer gone. Many of them feel exactly how I do. Maybe in the early 90s season tickets were a lot cheaper. You start putting a price of $200+ a year on the tickets then yes, the expectations get higher. And to act as if someone saying as much is blasphemy reveals just as much about how far disconnected you are from student reality as my statements reveal about my level of "conceit".

[Dafatone]

I'd give Schafer one more year, but the notion that he should stick around because it could be worse is absurd.  We know national championships are attainable (see Yale, Union, Q).  Cornell had the best tradition in the ECAC.  In college sports, success (or failure) snowballs.  Successful seasons lead to successful recruiting classes, which lead to more successful seasons, etc.  A mediocre season now means more mediocrity in the future.  So by accepting temporary mediocrity simply because we're better than Clarkson and RPI (who cares about them, seriously?) is accepting that we follow in their footsteps of prolonged mediocrity.

For me, it comes down to the direction we're going.  After last year, I was willing to say that we give Schafer at least one more year, but it's kind of an ultimatum year.  This year's been good enough to sell me that we're turning things around, even though we clearly have a long ways to go.

Lots of consistency issues this season, but that's what happens when you have so many freshmen doing the heavy lifting.

[abmarks]

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.

You do realize that "what have you done for me lately?" is an expression generally used to point out unrealistic, conceited demands that demonstrate a lack of perspective from the third party to whom that inquiry is ascribed, don't you?  

The fact that you're asking it in the first person speaks volumes about your lack of perspective on your lack of perspective.

Go back in time, graduate in '94 (as I did) and still be a fan 22 years later and then we can have a conversation.

I do. I've seen the Eddie Murphy routine. But in this case I will disagree that those expectations are unrealistic and conceited. I paid over $800 in season tickets alone to watch this team for four years. I didn't keep track of what I spent for away games, and for travel to those, but it was well over $1000 dollars. It was an investment in entertainment. If the team keeps this being this quality, than I do not blame any student for deciding this investment is not worthwhile. It seems to me the argument for keeping Schafer is "well it could be worse". Fear of failure is not a justification to do nothing. If you want to see Section B empty out, just keep doing what is going on. The students aren't dumb. They know they have better investments of their time and money. If I were still a student I could not justify investing money into this hockey team.

Too funny.  All about what you spent and whether you were entertained - and how it's not conceit.

Css is a millenial, what else you expect?  Pretty much nails all the stereotypes.  Self_centered, its my opinion and therfore it's a fact, etc.

Css, your whiny demand for 50% or more ncaa appearances is absurd.  They don't give everyone a trophy for participation in the real world.

[Trotsky]

How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

I think you're lost.  Objectivist meeting is next door.  MRA is down the hall.

[CAS]

Don't think Mike is going anywhere, but who can have any confidence in Andy's selection of a replacement.  Look for example at football (Archer is 5-25) and basketball (Courtney is 27-57 in Ivies).

[css228]

How is treating entertainment as an investment an illegitimate perspective.

I think you're lost.  Objectivist meeting is next door.  MRA is down the hall.

Thanks for the ad hominem. I'm a proud feminist and my political views have nothing to do with the validity of my argument. Regardless of whether or not you like the conclusion that I come to.

Css, your whiny demand for 50% or more ncaa appearances is absurd. They don't give everyone a trophy for participation in the real world.

I've said multiple times on this thread that I'd settle for even a more entertaining brand of hockey at the same record. It is not entitled to believe that if something is not working, you should try something else. In fact a great president once said "It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." If daring to dream of something better is to be entitled than I will gladly take that label. Could replacing Schafer go badly and could we end up with a worse product? Absolutely. But show me a man who is afraid to fail, and I'll show you a failure.

And I have in the past backed up my opinions with facts on how puck possession leads to winning. I have made that argument countless times, with statistics to back it. I understand that some remain unconvinced, because I only have the data to demonstrate the merits of possession strength and dominant neutral zone play at the professional level. My contention is that its still hockey. The same basic strategies should work.

Now I understand I've roiled everyone's sensitivities but let me just put it to you this way. If you were talking to a 47 year old Maple Leafs fan, and you told them you should be grateful for all of those titles your team won, does that make any sense? Why should those matter to him? He wasn't alive in 1967. He wasn't there for it. The past glory of Cornell Hockey is just that to me. Past. At the end of the day, the banners hanging in the rafters are cool, but they're not much more than that. Just like the 74 and 75 Stanley Cups don't mean much to me as a Flyers fan in my 20s. You know why I adore the Flyers way more than Cornell Hockey will ever matter to me? Because the Flyers try something.They may try and fail, but at least they try something different. They've done some stupid shit over the years (Signing Vinny and trading JvR for Luke Schenn come to mind recently) but they don't take my support as a fan for granted. Cornell does. And that matters. A lot.

[Dafatone]

I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great.  Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

[Swampy]

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.

2016? I don't know about style of play, but 63 points in a 58-game season ain't exactly chopped liver.

[BearLover]

I think it's valid to be concerned about missing the NCAAs for four straight years and note that maybe it's time to make a change if things don't turn around soon.

But a 40% NCAA appearance rate is great.  Someone much less lazy than I should see how many teams have done better than that in the past 10 years.

I'm not satisfied with 40%, nor do I think Schafer's entire history is more indicative of our future success than is his recent history.  That is to say, that number is going to get much lower than 40%.