Future Coaching?

[BearLover]

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!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty.  Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

[jkahn]

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!!!!

In addition to the attitude, his logic is faulty.  Citing a couple of successful recruits while ignoring the greater number of duds isn't going to convince anybody.

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

[Trotsky]

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

[cuhockey93]

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I'll admit seeing section B only 2/3's full for a playoff game has caused me to think with emotions and not my head

[marty]

I think it's worth pointing out that we did have a better season (using PWR, KRACH or RPI) than 75% of the other teams playing D-1 NCAA hockey.  The sky is not falling.

I think there are 3 things going on that make it feel worse than one would get from an objective review of this year's record.

1. We haven't made the NCAAs for four straight seasons -- an entire graduating class.  To those of us who remember the 4, 6, and 8 team tourneys that doesn't seem that long, but with a 16-team tourney one should expect Cornell to make the tourney about 50% of the time.  The fact that we were the first team cropped twice in those four years doesn't change the fact that we have no NC$$ games over that stretch, which is disturbing.

2. The 2015 graduating class was awesomely talented and by every measure I think we all agree they greatly underachieved.  Whatever that was -- chemistry, maturity, work ethic, The System -- it makes us worry that even if we get talent it may not convert to wins.

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Mitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year.  That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

[KeithK]

3. The particular contour of this year, an amazing start and then a long, depressing collapse, left everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

I think this is the biggest factor.  If we had been miserable in the fall, going 0-5-2 in November, and then had a great send half and ended up with the same record/position I think people would feel a lot more positively about the team.

The two scenarios aren't exactly the same - you are supposed to play better as the season goes on, especially with a young team. But looking over the whole body of work I think there are lots of reasons to expect better things next season.

[Trotsky]

Mitigating the negatives was watching this team both in person and via video. They seemed improved over last year.  That's just my opinion but it colors the whole season for me. The games vs top teams were on balance a joy.

It's not just your opinion.  This was a significantly better team that the ones of the prior three seasons.  If they got lucky in the first half they got as unlucky in the second half.  They had one putrid weekend -- the Dartmouth and Harvard games at Lynah -- which because it was immediately followed by yet another zero point weekend (the North Country games, both ot losses) was amplified in our impressions.

They seem to be moving towards an up-tempo style that sacrifices 1-2 GA to score 2-3 GF.  I am so OK with that.

[cuhockey93]

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.

Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

[CowbellGuy]

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

[KeithK]

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Interesting.  Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.)  Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall.  Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca.  Who knows?

[andyw2100]

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Interesting.  Seems like it would be an odd career choice (leaving your Alma Mater for a school that doesn't exactly have a top hockey program or tradition.)  Then again, it could mean Andy agrees with some of the folks here and has put the writing on the wall.  Or maybe with the kids out of school Schafer is looking to get out of Ithaca.  Who knows?

Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

[Scersk '97]

Is it possible that since Schafer's contract is expiring this year, this is just something he is doing for contract negotiation purposes?

Always be ready to leave, they say. And one suspects that Andy is not the kind of boss that inspires loyalty.

PS I've always thought Paul Pearl (or Shaun Hannah, if he's still in the game) would be an excellent candidate, should it come to that.

[Scersk '97]

Speaking of Clarkson, I was over on their forum and they not surprisingly have a similar thread. Somehow they are exponentially more pessimistic than even this thread. The general consensus over there appears to be that they can't compete anymore on a national level due to location and increased competition, and they will never recapture former glory. I sure hope we don't get to that place, and more importantly, if they are correct we shouldn't be using them to justify our poor results haha

They're wrong, I think. Scholarships well distributed can cure many ills.

Anyway, they're just a bunch of cranks shooting their mouths off on an internet forum. What do they know? ::whistle::

[Trotsky]

you can't fire him if he leaves

TFF

[css228]

Well, Schafer, Mark Dennehy, and Paul Pearl are apparently the three contenders who interviewed for the head coach position at UMass, so you can't fire him if he leaves.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/25_umass_interviews_dennehy.php

Works for me. Let's hope UMass doesn't realize the horrible mistake they'd be making.