Future Coaching?

[ugarte]

Goddamn you people like talking in circles.

[andyw2100]

For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

[KeithK]

Or we can refrain from the ad hominem altogether.

I was specifically trying to choose my words to avoid having my post appear as an ad hominem. (I realize you may or may not have directed that at me as well.)

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.

Yes, everyone has a different point. For a lot of the casual fans it's really easy to stop caring. Heck, most students probably stop caring about Cornell hockey the last time they walk out of Lynah.  Always has been that way; maybe it's even more so these days with lots of different entertainment options. It was just noteworthy to me that someone who is such a hockey fan would be willing to stop caring so easily. Then again, you're still posting here so maybe you're just venting your frustration and we'll be having debates about analytics with you ten years from now.

[KeithK]

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.

I suspect certain folks would point to the jackass in Hamden or the team in New Haven as better coaches based on the results. Not that we'd ever get them even if we wanted them. It's still reasonable to complain about our coaches even when you don't necessarily have a set of replacements in mind. We're fans, not AD's.

That said, the likelihood of finding a good head coach is entirely relevant to the question of whether the school should get a new one.  The last time Cornell there was a clear candidate who had coaching success and clear reason to want to come to Ithaca.  (The program also appeared to be in a much deeper hole than it is in today, but that's beside the point.)  Is there anyone out there who would fit that profile?  At one point some of us here though Casey Jones was an obvious choice but he hasn't exactly torn it up in Potsdam. Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?  Not that this would be a requirement but it certainly would help.

[marty]

For all those who would love to see Schafer leave after this season, here's something else to think about.

Perhaps in professional sports all that matters is a coach's win/loss record. But this isn't professional sports. Schafer is coaching student athletes. I think many people would agree that a big part of his job is making sure that his guys do well in their classes, stay out of trouble, and complete their studies successfully. Do I think Coach Schafer is giving lectures in Managerial Accounting on the team bus? I do not. But he must be doing something right because his players are, I believe almost without exception, earning their Cornell degrees (unless they turn pro before doing so.) And unless I'm mistaken the team is often one of the top teams at Cornell in the competition they have within the varsity teams for best overall GPA.

The results of the recruiting efforts, and the coaching that impacts how many pucks wind up in the back of our net vs the back of their nets is only one part of the job. No matter what you think of how well he's doing that one (and many of us think he's doing it quite well), let's not forget the other one, which by all accounts seems to be one in which Mike Schafer is without question excelling.

Well, there you go again -pointing out what the program is really all about. How dare you not put the emphasis on winning and goals scored and NCAA appearances etc., etc. etc.

[Tcl123]

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

[marty]

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Doug!

[scoop85]

Any other Cornell alums out there coaching?

There's only one I know of off top of my head. Dan Ratushny

Well, his program seems to be in decline as well after some fabulous years.

[underskill]

I think the basic question is what accounts for the past 4-5 years of mediocre results, is it a bad recruiting class or two that didn't pan out as expected, or is it something more structural in the program, such that Yale and QU's recent dominance isn't just a blip but something more longterm.

[RichH]

my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid. B-]

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

[css228]

my opinion is if you're not in a position to get an at large bid, you didn't have a good season.

Got it, glad you're on record. Cornell is still alive for an at-large bid. B-]

A year after a 11-14-6 season, we turn in a 16-11-7 season with a more difficult schedule. I see that as a positive step for a team few had high expectations for. Grabbing 1 or 2 more points in the regular season has us avoid Hamden, and probably moves the at-large chance closer to a 50-50 proposition.

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good. With the development of young talent, I can see this team returning to the upper tier. For now, we're one step down. That happens, and it's OK. Ask Michigan, BU, and Minnesota. (OK, on second thought, don't ask Minnesota fans)

Reading through this thread, the thing that strikes me is the ease at throwing around the word "mediocre." In this section of the team's era, Cornell has remained in the top 1/3 of teams nationally. That's something that few schools can boast. Not Vermont, not RPI, New Hampshire, or Clarkson. These are our peers in terms of what hockey means to the culture of the institution. I know I come from a different era as css228, but I don't see how being in the top 20 nationally can be called "mediocre" so casually.

Look, at some point, there will be a time when it's time to move on. It was so even for an all-time legend like Richie Moran in Lacrosse. I'll accept when one party and/or the other decides that it's time. But I'm pretty glad that it's not up to the barkings on a pretty meaningless fan forum. That said, I do appreciate the general discourse and am glad to have differing opinions here.

Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre. Our record, as I have said multiple times, was driven by an unrealistic PDO in the 1st half of the season. When you look at our advanced stats we're in the same league as UNO, Bentley, UND, Wisconsin, Miami etc. Some of those teams have good records, some don't, but none are great teams. Great teams have possession stats like Quinnipiac, North Dakota, Providence. In fact none of the top 5 teams in the pairwise is below 50% in CF in close situations. I care about process, and our process is bad/not repeatable.

I should add that if you have a good process, more often than not you will make the postseason. I'd be annoyed at missing the postseason with a team with 55% CF close, but in a ~30 game season weird things happen.

Also KeithK, my ad hominem comment wasn't directed at you. You've been nothing but respectful and while I disagree with you I've found your perspective interesting.

[Trotsky]

An at-large bid is unlikely, yes, but when a team that is eliminated before championship weekend is still in the conversation, I'd say that says something, and it's not "mediocrity." Yale won their 2013 Championship with more losses than 2016 Cornell has. This is a good team. Not great, but good.

Currently we are sitting at 16 in PWR.  We finished last season at 17.  For comparison, in 2007 and 2008 we finished at 22.  Whether or not there is a systemic problem amounts to where we go from here.  If we continue to move back up towards (and into) the top 10, this will be seen as a transitional period, like 1998-2001.  If not...

[RichH]

Simple. I'm not judging us by our record. I'm judging us by our 49% CF in close situations. Good teams are positive possession teams. If you are under 50% possession you are mediocre.

I respect that you value the advanced metrics. However, I feel that at this level with such a large disparity and range in skill, these metrics just aren't as useful as they probably are in the NHL. In the end, the scoreboard is all that matters to most people. If to you a team with 49.9% is mediocre and a team at 50.1% is good, then a team 60% must be fantastic. The national leader in CF close, 10% above your "mediocrity cliff" point is sitting at #24 in PWR.  Not to mention CF% doesn't necessarily translate to possession, especially at this level. Shooting isn't the only skill.

[Trotsky]

Another thing to consider.  Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (, Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit.  Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't).  Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

[Tcl123]

Another thing to consider.  Some of the teams above us are taking big hits in graduation this year.

Here are the graduating seniors with their rank in the top 25 of 2016 ECAC scoring:

Qpc: St. Denis (4)
Yal: Wilson (11)
Hvd: Vesey (1), Criscuolo (7)
SLU: Thompson (21), Ward (22)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt: Barre (6), Patterson (20)
Cor:

Here are juniors in the top 25; no idea on their flight risk.

Qpc: Tim Clifton (2), Anas (3), Toews (9)
Yal:
Hvd: Kerfoot (5)
SLU: Bayreuther (, Smolcynski (15)
Clk:
RPI:
Drt:
Cor:

Teams in that group losing their primary goalie (with Sv% rank in conference):

Qpc: Garteig (1)
Yal:
Hvd:
SLU:
Clk: Lewis (4)
RPI: Kasdorf (7)
Drt: Grant (9)
Cor:

tl;dr: Harvard takes a big hit.  Q takes a big hit and could be utterly devastated (this is a reason to root for Q to win the NC$$ if we don't).  Everyone has at least one important graduation except us.

Thought I saw kasdorf has one more year of eligibility? I may be wrong but swore I saw it somewhere. Unless I missed him signing.