Future Coaching?

[Chris '03]

We're in an era with a very strong ECAC, so whereas in the past we had to be the best in the league by far to have a shot in the NC$$, now we really need only crack the top 3 -- something that is in reach.

Back when the WCHA was dominating, it would have been a joke to say that the 8th place ECAC team was still alive for an at large bid while idle championship weekend. The league has come a long way. Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

[BearLover]

Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

[cuhockey93]

Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

[BearLover]

Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

The scariest thing about getting whooped is that the fans are not showing up because of it. Lynah was our main recruiting advantage. That said when does Schafer become accountable? Currently we have made the tournament 1 time in 6 years. Considering 27% of teams make the tourney we are accepting mediocrity if we consider the results acceptable. That may be the case, but it's a hard pill to swallow for such a proud program.

That's something I forgot to mention in my post: the Lynah Faithful, at least in part because we don't win as much anymore, is a shell of its former self.

[KeithK]

Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position.  Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in.  For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell.  But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

[KeithK]

It should be noted that despite my displeasure with the past few years, I like Schafer.  I want to see him win; part of the reason I pull so strongly for Cornell is because I think he deserves it.  He means a lot to Cornell Hockey--and that only makes the recent mediocre seasons tougher to swallow.  It's not mutually exclusive, however, for him to also not be the best coach for the program.  Realistically, though, he isn't going anywhere, and if the ship is in fact sinking, I'm ready to go down with it...

I think this was very much worth posting and noting.  The back and forth arguments we've had on here have often been pretty negative. It's worth remembering that most of the folks who post on here aren't a bunch of internet trolls.  We all want Cornell to win (a few of our valued guests aside :-)) and just have different opinions on the best way to have that happen.

[BearLover]

Rising tide lifts all boats, etc.

This has been debated ad nauseam, but now we have some more data points, so I'll ask again: how has this "rising tide" lifted Cornell's boat?  Our best teams, and our best chances at winning an ECAC and national championship, were when the conference was bad.  There's nothing to suggest our talent is better now, and we're clearly making the NCAAs and the final weekend of the ECAC less.  Every season there's an argument about firing our coach.  So, I want to know: how has Cornell benefited from Q and Yale whooping our asses every year?

Cornell benefits in two ways: First, the strong ECAC means that we almost made the tournament after finishing 8th in the league. Better teams in the league means better SoS means better tournament position.  Second, playing in a stronger league means that you're consistently playing better competition, which prepares the team for the tournament if and when we get in.  For years we worried about this on here, especially in years where the out of conference slate looked weak; I don't think this is much of an issue right now.

I think the better league is very much a good thing for Cornell.  But you still have to win, which we didn't do enough of this year.

Well,
1. There's a reason why we didn't win.  It's because the league is better.
2. I still think it was considerably easier to make the tournament before, even accounting for our better SOS these days.  Too small a sample to say for sure, but early signs point to that being the case.  Don't forget an automatic ECAC bid is way more likely when the conference stinks.  
3. We almost made the tournament despite a .500 in-league record largely because we went 5-1-1 against difficult opposition out-of-league.  
4. Relatedly, Cornell can schedule strong out-of-conference opponents to prepare itself for the NCAAs.  

The benefits of a strong league that you noted are real, but I think they are relatively minor.  Anything can happen in the NCAAs.  You just need to get in.

[Chris '03]

Was Cornell's OOC slate that impressive? Final PWR:
58
58
8
4
31
38
38

Eight ECAC teams were top 25.

[Trotsky]

We've gone from a situation where the conference was only getting 2 teams to the tourney with an outside shot at 3 to one in which it's now getting 3 with an outside shot at 4.

ECAC Bids by year (since adoption of 16-team tourney)

Yr ECAC Teams
-- ---
03 2
04 1
05 3
06 2
07 2
08 2
09 3
10 2
11 3
12 2
13 3
14 3
15 3
16 3

ECAC teams are also getting farther now than before.

Yr SF!
-- ---
02 000
03 100
04 000
05 000
06 000
07 000
08 000
09 000
10 000
11 000
12 100
13 221
14 111
15 000
16 

I believe this will translate to a good effect for Cornell over time.  We just happen to have hit a down period that exactly correlates to the league strengthening (maybe coincidentally, more likely not).

Seems to me that this is an amplifier: if you're good the improvement puts you in an even better position to go deep; if you're not then the mountain gets steeper.  We've traditionally been good, over a long, long period (almost the entire history of the conference), with a few brief interludes of mediocrity (and almost no periods of outright badness), so unless something has systemically changed for us relative to the rest of the league, in the long run this should be A Good Thing for us more than any other conference program.

[BearLover]

That second chart is misleading in not showing first round NCAA success.  Cornell has been very successful in the opening round under Schafer.  They've been 1 goal away from the Frozen Four so many times, and 1 goal away from the finals once, that I find it very hard to believe that Cornell will be in a better chance to win it all in the future than it was when the ECAC stunk.  Yale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.  

This is important: Cornell was ~.500 in the NCAAs when the ECAC stunk.  .500!  You can't honestly expect a better record than that when you're playing against the very best teams in the country.  It simply isn't true that Cornell was completely outmatched back then.  We held our own.  And we certainly look no better when we play BU, Prov, etc. now.

[MattShaf]

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

+1

[redice]

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

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

[Trotsky]

Yale's and Union's miracle runs don't suddenly make it that Cornell wasn't a few bounces away from playing for the title on a number of occasions.

Yale's run was a miracle.  Union's wasn't -- they were the best team in the country that year.

We won't be able to compare apples to apples until Cornell hits a good stretch with the league also strong.  So let's do that.  ;-)

[marty]

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

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

[redice]

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

At a bare minimum, I would insist on new asst/assoc coaches to bring new ideas/strategies & recruiting possibilities into the mix....   If Schafer refuses, show him the door!

Yes, exactly, we have to get rid of the bums that brought us Angelo, Vandelaan, etc. and get some recruits that can lift the team to another level. Ben was so obviously ineffective at Q too! ::nut::

KeithK:  This is exactly the kind of shit I was referring to!!!   Marty, you don't have to agree with me...  But, you also don't have to be so fucking sarcastic about it....     Maybe Angello & Vanderlaan are good freshman....   But, the results with those good freshmen are still mediocre.....

Furthermore, if you weren't in such a hurry to jump me with your sarcastic shit, maybe you would take the time to spell their names correctly....Geez!!!   Get over yourself!!!!