Future Coaching?

[CowbellGuy]

You seem to think coaches have some mystical powers here. They're not puppeteers. You can't make players do anything. You can just try to guide and steer them in the right direction. Ultimately, the worst thing a coach can do for a player is take away their ice time, which he certainly does routinely. Beyond that, you're going to  have to go find a magic wand. Let me know if you do.

[BearLover]

I definitely think a coach is capable of getting through to his players to instruct them on how to act towards each other.  Regardless, that wasn't really my point.  My point was that
1. I highly doubt locker room chemistry had any significant effect on the team's success
2. It's ridiculous for Schafer to time and time again publicly blame last year's seniors for his own inability to coach

[css228]

You seem to think coaches have some mystical powers here. They're not puppeteers. You can't make players do anything. You can just try to guide and steer them in the right direction. Ultimately, the worst thing a coach can do for a player is take away their ice time, which he certainly does routinely. Beyond that, you're going to  have to go find a magic wand. Let me know if you do.

No I'm thinking of a coach no differently than any other manager in any other business environment. Some people know how to play to people's strengths, manage personalities, handle conflicts, and some don't. That's not magic, thats management 101.

[BearLover]

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.

I also disagree with this.  In recent years Q and Yale have been just as dominant against everyone else in the ECAC as Cornell was in Schafer's best years.  It's still possible, it's just being done by teams that aren't us.

[drs48]

It astounds me that "Faithful" are accepting/defending mediocrity, I'm done......fire him.

[abmarks]

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....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

[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....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

[abmarks]

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....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

[Dafatone]

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....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

I'll admit that if we suck for like a decade I might pay less attention.  But not by much; Cornell hockey is solidly my second favorite sports team (behind a certain lovable loser NY baseball franchise that actually almost won it all last year).  And as a fan of that franchise, I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to tolerating losses.

Just because someone is okay with Schafer's performance as of late doesn't mean they don't mind losing.  That's silly.

[css228]

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....

KeithK has gutted the whole discussion.  BearLover and css- by any definition you are fair-weather facetimers.  Keith, and the many here who have responded earlier or given up in the face of css's intransigence, are Lynah Faithful.

You don't care if the team wins, we get it.

Hardly.  I might be in favor of firing a crappy coach.  But unlike you who'd "find some other hobbies" I'd still go to as many games as I could get tickets for because I love college hockey and the school, regardless of team record.  You, however, will only be bothered to pay attention to a near-guaranteed winner.   (Even your attempts at insult are weak).

Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether. My point is I live hundreds of miles south of Upstate NY now. In order to completely follow Cornell, I have to put in a fair amount of money into various fragmented streaming packages. That's not really worthwhile when I just come away angry at the product on the ice. That doesn't mean I care any less about Cornell Hockey. I WAS THE FRICKIN COWBELL GUY FOR TWO YEARS. I wouldn't have done that if I was the fair weather face-timer you accuse me of being.

All I'm saying is that at some point, and that point is different for everyone, the commitment you have to make just isn't worthwhile for the product you put out there. I'm using myself as a very real example of something thats happening en masse. It's not a coincidence that attendance has been dropping since the beginning of this decade. We all agree that is happening. It's directly tied to the fact that we don't put a good product on the ice. You may not care about the money you're putting down for this team, but students will.

Every year I heard students who loved hockey and going to hockey games say the tickets were too expensive to justify, especially given the quality of the team. These were people that would go whenever they had the chance to get a free or discounted ticket from someone. If the tradition really matters to you, then you should care about the mire of mediocrity that we're in, because it has consequences to the health of the program and Cornell hockey experience far beyond being slightly disappointed.

[Scersk '97]

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.

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

[Trotsky]

IINM his contract is up.  He doesn't need to be "fired," just not rehired.  This was also the year his youngest graduated from IHS, so there are several moving parts.  He may have other plans.

From what I have heard, I think it is a given that he will receive an offer of an extension.  It will be interesting to see how long that is for.  I doubt someone with Schafer's resume would accept a Tom Lasorda year-to-year contract, but it will say quite a bit whether he's offered say 3 or 5.

[css228]

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.

Let me say it one more time: you lack historical perspective. RPI has won two national championships, with the most recent won more recently (1985) than our last one; Clarkson is one of the winningest programs all-time in college hockey and has been an unfortunate also-ran a few times, the last time (1970) to us!

If you think the expectations at Clarkson or RPI are lower than they are at Cornell, you're either ignorant or some sort of idiot elitist. At this point, I'll go with both.

I'm done feeding the trolls, now. Done. I refer the right honorable gentleman to what abmarks wrote.

Glad to see your Cornell education taught you how to appropriately handle a difference of opinion.

[BearLover]

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.

I also disagree with this.  In recent years Q and Yale have been just as dominant against everyone else in the ECAC as Cornell was in Schafer's best years.  It's still possible, it's just being done by teams that aren't us.

Yale has made the NCAAs 6 of the last 8 years and won a national championship.  Q has made the NCAAs four years in a row and was a national championship finalist.  They were also #1 for much of that time.  Both could win it all this year.  Union had a 4-year stretch when they made the NCAAs every year, won the ECAC tournament three times, finished first in the ECAC three times, and won a national championship.  They're the only one of these three programs to have shown any signs of slipping.  At no point during Schafer's tenure did Cornell have an 8-year or 4-year stretch this good, nor did they ever get this far in the NCAAs.  It's certainly possible to do much better than we're doing.

[Jim Hyla]

A while ago I asked if finding the great coach was so easy, then which of the ECAC school's coaches would fit that profile? People complain & complain, but no one can come with a group of coaches that they would like. Complain if you like, but if you can't show me that list, then maybe it's a lot harder to get that coach.

And who is the current Ghost player that we missed? Rather than just complain, show us who you think we missed in coaches and players.