Future Coaching?

[upprdeck]

of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here.  the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

[redice]

of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here.  the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

History shows that the last men's hockey coaching change was perfect!!    The talent was there.  A new coach came in, made a few changes, & we're back-to-back ECAC Champions.    I'm not suggesting that the current team is completely devoid of talent.   There is enough talent that a new coaching philosophy could turn  it around quickly. After all, look how good they looked before Christmas.    If they are "allowed" to play that way, they can/will.

In closing, the last change was perfect for that moment..   Time to move on.....

[Dafatone]

of course a coaching change would fix the issue.. its worked so well in all the other cornell sports. we sucked far worse until he got here.  the biggest issue is being unable to get any of the real impact players into school here that could make a difference.

History shows that the last men's hockey coaching change was perfect!!    The talent was there.  A new coach came in, made a few changes, & we're back-to-back ECAC Champions.    I'm not suggesting that the current team is completely devoid of talent.   There is enough talent that a new coaching philosophy could turn  it around quickly. After all, look how good they looked before Christmas.    If they are "allowed" to play that way, they can/will.

In closing, the last change was perfect for that moment..   Time to move on.....

I'd give him one more year.  This year's team is very young and is being carried by its freshmen.  It's expected that they'd tire down the stretch.

[andyw2100]

I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

[BearLover]

I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

[Dafatone]

I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Part of it is that we haven't been that great lately.

Part of it is that, well, we're pretty spoiled.  The last three years have been pretty meh.  15-16-3, 17-10-5, 11-14-6.  17-10-5 isn't bad, and if I remember, we came up just short of the tournament that year.  The other two years weren't great.  Nobody likes going under .500.

But I feel like a lot of the discussions here treat that as our floor.  It's possible for storied teams to suck.  Wisconsin somehow went 4-26-5 last year.  4-26-5!!!!  How does that happen?  Could you imagine the calls for Schafer's head if we won four games?

This isn't to say Schafer should necessarily stay.  I'd keep him, but I kinda hate change.  Just keep in mind that a couple years slightly under .500 aren't the end of the world.

[KeithK]

This isn't to say Schafer should necessarily stay.  I'd keep him, but I kinda hate change.  Just keep in mind that a couple years slightly under .500 aren't the end of the world.

Particularly when most of us were expecting a .500-ish team coming into this season.  The distribution of wins got our hopes up early and then dashed them in the second half.

[redice]

I find it hard to agree that the wheels are coming off the bus in a season that saw seven OT ties and 3 OT losses.

Yes, without question it was a frustrating season to be a fan, especially in light of how well the season started, and some of the high points. But I just don't think it's fair to say things like the team isn't good at playing hockey and the coach has to go (or should be given one more year) when so many losses so easily could have been wins.

There is a ridiculous amount of luck involved in hockey. If the team was getting blown out by three or four goals almost every night then I might be able to understand where the kind of talk in this thread is coming from. But seven ties, 3 OT losses, and an additional 1-goal loss (to RPI), and frankly I just don't get it.

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Exactly!!    We have to score more goals.   Under Mike Schafer, I don't see that happening.  Yes, defense wins championships.  inn the past, I've accepted that philosophy and his low-scoring style in hopes of titles at the end of the year.   The truth is, the championships are becoming pretty infrequent and the ultimate nat'l title seems impossible, at this point.  

And, in some games (like Yale), it seems rather embarrassing to watch our bigger, slower players chasing along behind Yale's players, who have the puck.   It doesn't look well for CU!!!   Trust me, that's not about luck, bounces of the puck...   We're getting our butts kicked at times like that.  And Mike's not recruiting to fight it.   He's still recruiting those big, slow-ish guys...  It don't get it!!

[Trotsky]

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed.  This is a .500 team.  It just got there in a really weird way.

[Johnny 5]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~G.Santayana



A little hysterical perspective?

::help::

[Trotsky]

Exactly!!    We have to score more goals.   Under Mike Schafer, I don't see that happening.  Yes, defense wins championships.  inn the past, I've accepted that philosophy and his low-scoring style in hopes of titles at the end of the year.   The truth is, the championships are becoming pretty infrequent and the ultimate nat'l title seems impossible, at this point.  

And, in some games (like Yale), it seems rather embarrassing to watch our bigger, slower players chasing along behind Yale's players, who have the puck.   It doesn't look well for CU!!!   Trust me, that's not about luck, bounces of the puck...   We're getting our butts kicked at times like that.  And Mike's not recruiting to fight it.   He's still recruiting those big, slow-ish guys...  It don't get it!!

The recruited forwards are getting smaller.  Hopefully that means quicker and higher skilled.  This year they brought in Vanderlaan (5-7) and Lalor (5-11).  (Though Angello and Starrett are both 6-5, I'm not going to complain about them).

Coming soon we've got a whole bunch of smaller forwards: Donaldson at 5-6, Hoffman and Regush at 5-9, Murphy and Nelson at 5-10.  Of 16 commitments only one is over 6-2 (and he's just 6-3).  On the current roster of 28, 13 are over 6-2, and that includes 4 at 6-5 and Hillbrich at whatever ridiculous height he is.

Now, just because the personnel profile is changing doesn't necessarily mean the playing style will, but I'd say it's a good bet.  The team I saw this weekend was far more up tempo and aggressive -- they aren't playing The System anymore.  The problem is they aren't actually finishing on the chances they create, but they are creating chances.  The big problem this past weekend was bad decisions and defensive breakdowns -- exactly the sort of risk you take when you open things up.

They did have 69 shots this weekend; many from in close.  That's good pressure.

[redice]

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed.  This is a .500 team.  It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this?    Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off."     No, "it's not the end of the world."     But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me...  Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion......   Time for a change!!

[Trotsky]

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed.  This is a .500 team.  It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this?    Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off."     No, "it's not the end of the world."     But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me...  Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion......   Time for a change!!

Show me where I accepted it.  It's a simple observation.

"Time for a change" without consideration of what the change is or the probability of its success is not a strategy.

If you want to know what our problem is, this is a good place to start.  Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly.  They change the entire complexion of a game.

[redice]

Just about all of our wins were close 1-goal games too.  Overall, our luck has evened out (eg. we are 3-3-7 in OT).  I think our record is at least as good as our team is, at this point.

Agreed.  This is a .500 team.  It just got there in a really weird way.

So......We are accepting of this?    Not me!!

No, "the wheels are not coming off."     No, "it's not the end of the world."     But, the words ".500 team", wreak of mediocrity to me...  Assigning those words to Cornell Hockey gives me indigestion......   Time for a change!!

Show me where I accepted it.  It's a simple observation.

"Time for a change" without consideration of what the change is or the probability of its success is not a strategy.

If you want to know what our problem is, this is a good place to start.  Typically, dominant teams -- even well balanced teams that play just as hard on defense as offense like the Union championship team -- have one of two forwards who are deadly.  They change the entire complexion of a game.[/quote

Proposing that we stay with "the good ship Schafer", would seem like acceptance of the current status quo.    After all, it IS Mike who put this team together & coaches it.

Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change.    While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.  

We are of differing opinions.   That's fine with me.  Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon.   My opinion will remain moot.

[Beeeej]

Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in a coaching change, ANY coaching change.    While keeping Mike is more of a certainty, it is a certainty that no longer brings me comfort.  

We are of differing opinions.   That's fine with me.  Since I don't think Andy thinks or cares enough about hockey, I doubt Mike will lose his job any time soon.   My opinion will remain moot.

Not just moot, but useless without some explanation of how it will help. You're making two unsupported assumptions when you argue for Mike's release: First, that he hasn't been trying to recruit smaller, faster players with sharper shooting skills to complement his traditional stifling defense; second, if he has been trying and failing (or if he hasn't been trying), that someone else will have better luck at it than he does despite recruiting for an Ivy League institution where every single player will play fewer games during a college career than at any of the 54 non-Ivy schools. Do you have any evidence for either proposition?