Future Coaching?

[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.

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%.

Given the last few years, worrying that we're gonna do worse than that makes sense.  But I think 40% is a fine rate.  There isn't any inherent reason for us to be good, and I feel like a bunch of people here kind of assume that our baseline is very high just because we're Cornell.

I hate to say it, but we're not that special, especially since Lynah's getting a little less exciting (which had started in the mid to late 00s, before we started downturning).

[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%.

Given the last few years, worrying that we're gonna do worse than that makes sense.  But I think 40% is a fine rate.  There isn't any inherent reason for us to be good, and I feel like a bunch of people here kind of assume that our baseline is very high just because we're Cornell.

I hate to say it, but we're not that special, especially since Lynah's getting a little less exciting (which had started in the mid to late 00s, before we started downturning).

We were special, though.  We have two national championships, the only undefeated season in college hockey history, two of the best players ever, the best fans in college hockey (perhaps no longer true), and had an awesome run of success.  Whether that run of success was flukish or not doesn't really matter--we had it, so we could have built off of it.  Schafer said in the mid-2000s that he expected to a compete for a national title every season.  I think many of us expected that too.  Sure, we -could- be an average college hockey team, but if that had always been the case, 90% of us wouldn't be here right now, obsessing over Cornell Hockey.  If we're no longer awesome, many of us will stop caring, at least a little.  It's already started happening.  So I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

[KeithK]

So I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful. You certainly have a right to do so and it's a valid position to take. But it certainly is a conflicting view.

Here's the thing. I get lots of enjoyment out of following Cornell hockey even when we have been bad or, like this year, not as good as we would like. That makes it a lot easier to not get too bent out of shape when things aren't ideal.

[BearLover]

So I'm not content not being awesome.  If we're perpetually mediocre, I'll find some other hobbies to fill this time.

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

This perspective conflicts with the one that you and css228 are describing where you'll go do something else if the team is sufficiently successful. You certainly have a right to do so and it's a valid position to take. But it certainly is a conflicting view.

Here's the thing. I get lots of enjoyment out of following Cornell hockey even when we have been bad or, like this year, not as good as we would like. That makes it a lot easier to not get too bent out of shape when things aren't ideal.

That may be true--and I would still follow the team and attend games, even if not nearly to the same extent as if they were good--but my main point was that few of us would be here in the first place, or care this much, if Cornell Hockey didn't have the same degree of success and mystique over its history.  Cornell Hockey is--or was--a fundamental part of the Cornell experience.  Even the non-season ticket holders knew it was a Big Thing and wanted to attend the Harvard Game.  Cornell Hockey didn't get to that point by being .500 every season.  Even if you don't particularly care about our record, perhaps you will care when Lynah no longer fills and Big Red fandom dies and when Cornell Hockey ceases to be a piece of the Cornell experience.  All of these things have been set in motion already.

[redice]

I think this gets to the heart of some of the disagreement here. For me, and I think some of the folks here, being a fan means supporting the team through hell and high water. Now that doesn't mean I won't let my team know it when they're playing like crap (I am a New Yorker) but I won't stop being a fan.

I almost agree......   I've booed the CU team exactly once...  Actually I was booing Brian McCutcheon.   That was during an era when our PP was so absolutely awful that I wished that we could decline penalties.    On one particular PP, their ineffectiveness was sickening & I booed (McCutcheon's scheme of taking only perfect shots).   That's it for my 49 years of watching CU hockey.   The rest of the time I am a loyal fan of the team....   But, when a coach needs to go, they need to go....   I don't hold that against the players.

[CowbellGuy]

Long gone are the days when you only had to be better than a handful of teams in the ECAC to win the title. You can't expect to glide into Princeton and Union and steamroll them like you used to. There's impressive parity in the ECAC and college hockey as a whole. Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale. Remember what a big deal it was when an Atlantic Hockey team beat anyone from another conference? Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school. Michigan was in the tournament 22 straight years but hasn't been there since 2012. Wisconsin was a perennial power but can't beat a midget team these days. Union won a moonshot NCAA title and has quickly collapsed. Today, getting there is an achievement. Getting there with regularity without scholarships is extremely improbable.

As for recruiting size, obviously Schafer is moving away from that. Should it have happened a few years earlier? I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but at least it's happening now.

[BearLover]

Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

By getting extremely lucky.  That happens in hockey.  Yale isn't getting punished for their bad luck because they played a great regular season.

[Trotsky]

This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful.  The style has changed significantly.  The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended.  Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference.  The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

[BearLover]

This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful.  The style has changed significantly.  The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended.  Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference.  The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had.  When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back.  Now it just sounds implausible.

[css228]

This has been a rollercoaster season, but it looks like we're going to finish exactly where we were picked and most of us expected: around (exactly!) .500 and a QF elimination.

I think there are reasons to be hopeful.  The style has changed significantly.  The lockeroom problems from last year have apparently ended.  Our freshman class was considered the best in the conference.  The recruit profile is changing from big and tough to smaller and (hopefully) more skilled.

The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had.  When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back.  Now it just sounds implausible.

Besides isn't it the coach's job to handle the locker room issues.

[CowbellGuy]

Yeah, I'm sure you know exactly what was going on in the locker room with lat year's team. If you don't believe Schafer maybe you should ask a player.

[css228]

Expecting an NCAA appearance every other year is simply a hallucinogenic pipe dream, particularly for an Ivy League school.

Notice what Yale's been doing?

Dartmouth just swept an on-fire Yale.

By getting extremely lucky.  That happens in hockey.  Yale isn't getting punished for their bad luck because they played a great regular season.

Your last point is exactly on the money here.

[Trotsky]

The "locker room problems" seemed like more of an excuse Schafer invented to throw others under the bus for his own failures in coaching one of the most talented teams he's had.  When we were 11-2-2, it sounded great, if implausible, that a group of highly skilled seniors was the only thing holding us back.  Now it just sounds implausible.

None of us will ever know, but every player seemed to echo the sentiment that the graduating seniors were  a clique who were not overly welcoming to the other players and did not involve them in decisions.  Enough of them mentioned it that it seems to have been a problem.

[BearLover]

Not saying it wasn't a problem, more that it was in no way a significant one as far as results were concerned.  If it is, it's Schafer's job to deal with it.  I have a hard time believing Q and the LA Kings give a shit about being a tight-knit group off the ice.

[css228]

Yeah, I'm sure you know exactly what was going on in the locker room with lat year's team. If you don't believe Schafer maybe you should ask a player.

Even if you believe Schafer, isn't that an indictment of his locker room management and his recruiting? He hand picked those players. It's his job to manage the personalities on his team. I think Bear Lover's take on this is the generous one.