Future Coaching?

[CAS]

I don't think Mike is going anywhere.  Andy doesn't fire coaches based on their records.  Witness Dave Archer (5-25) and Bill Courtney (26-56 in Ivies) somehow still coaching on East Hill.

[jkahn]

Here's some perspective on what could happen:  After the 2013 Maine fired Tim Whitehead who had a 250-171-54 record in 12 seasons, although the team struggled in his last few seasons.  Right now they are 8-22-6 and #52 in Pairwise.  Sure, I'd like to be better than #20, but given the competitive scenario on recruiting, scholarships, academic standards, etc., I'm certainly not pushing for a coaching change.  One or two well placed goals this year (e.g. win the first Q'pac game and also get the bonus bonus that come with that) and we'd all be feeling a lot better.

[scoop85]

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.

I've watched some clips of Jeff Malott playing for Brooks in the AJHL, and he sure seems to be the type of forward that we've been chasing around against Q, Yale, Union, etc. Of course they don't seem to play much defense in the AJHL, but nonetheless he shows real skill and may represent a change in the typical forward profile that we've seen over the past few years. Time of course will tell.

[RichH]

I don't think Mike is going anywhere.  Andy doesn't fire coaches based on their records.  Witness Dave Archer (5-25) and Bill Courtney (26-56 in Ivies) somehow still coaching on East Hill.

I'm sure he also doesn't make decisions based on mostly myopic fan bloviations on "Call for Coaches Heads Forum" by its 15 participants.

But hey, lets keep throwing up repetitive polls and threads every month and keep banging that energizer bass drum.

[redice]

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?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!!  Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you.      Mike's body of work is on clear display.....   Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale...   Harvard is getting their share.....   So, it  can be done....

[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?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!!  Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you.      Mike's body of work is on clear display.....   Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale...   Harvard is getting their share.....   So, it  can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

[RichH]

Yes, it was a tough way to end the regular season  and made my Schafer-frustration boil over.   But, my comments refer to his body of work this year.    He and his style are no longer relevent in this conference.   His giant players are not allowed  (by officials/league rules) to play the style of the Doug Murray/Stephen Baby CU teams.    Mike is still foolishly trying to build that type of team.    All the while,  smaller, quicker teams like Yale are skating circles around them.    To Mike, I say:  change, or move on....  PLEASE!!    This coming from a long time Schafer supporter.    The game has past him by....

Just a non-snarky correction (because it's a pet peeve): it's "passed"

But this old gem. I've heard this line since 1999 and the Clarkson teams of that era. We needed to get fast. The Sacchetti/Bergin oaf player style were pylons being skated and spun around by Erik Cole et al. The game and league was changing. Sure coach made gold out of coal, but he's clearly not strong in recruiting. Then what happened in the '00s?

Yale, Yale, Yale. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. Wow, they run a scoring clinic, right? You're stuck in 2011. Yale isn't that team anymore. They currently rank 25th in team offense, barely ahead of Clarkson and Dartmouth. But you know where they are in team defense? #1, by a healthy margin. THAT'S why they are where they are right now.

Yes, we absolutely need more scoring, I'm not arguing that, and I'm as frustrated as anybody here about that. But this line of "every other team is basically a roster of Martin St. Louis-es and we're stuck in the past" is mostly BS.

[Beeeej]

Yes, we absolutely need more scoring, I'm not arguing that, and I'm as frustrated as anybody here about that. But this line of "every other team is basically a roster of Martin St. Louis-es and we're stuck in the past" is mostly BS.

On the other hand, an entire team of Martin St. Louis-es would be awfully entertaining to watch.

[CAS]

Rich, are you supporting the way Andy runs the athletic dept?  Do you think Andy holds coaches accountable for their team's record?  Who was the last coach that Andy fired because they didn't win?  I am not referring to Mike and hockey, but to other programs which have abysmal records.

[redice]

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?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!!  Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you.      Mike's body of work is on clear display.....   Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale...   Harvard is getting their share.....   So, it  can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here....    Yes, there is frustration on my part.    No, there is nothing punitive.   In fact, I'm very appreciative of what Mike Schafer has done for the hockey program.    But, I believe he has failed to adjust to current realities in our conference.   Thus, his time has passed.  That is not punitive!!

Yes, I have "screw you" in me.....  But I'm not going anywhere.....

[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?

Spoken like the lawyer that you are!!  Just because you have commanded, I am not about to put together an evidenciary package to please you.....I don't have to prove anything to you.      Mike's body of work is on clear display.....   Keith Allain is attracting these players to Yale...   Harvard is getting their share.....   So, it  can be done....

You don't have to be a lawyer to want people's arguments to make sense. It's increasingly obvious that yours is borne out of a combination of sheer frustration and a desire to be punitive. Your "Screw your 'logic,' I'm taking my ball and going home" response is evidence enough, thanks.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here....    Yes, there is frustration on my part.    No, there is nothing punitive.   In fact, I'm very appreciative of what Mike Schafer has done for the hockey program.    But, I believe he has failed to adjust to current realities in our conference.   Thus, his time has passed.  That is not punitive!!

Yes, I have "screw you" in me.....  But I'm not going anywhere.....

Jumping to conclusions? Heavens. Thank goodness I'm the only one.

[TimV]

On the other hand, an entire team of Martin St. Louis-es would be awfully entertaining to watch.

And there's a great point.  This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals.  Exciting when we're UP by one, waiting for the EAG in the last minutes of play.

[Trotsky]

This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more.  Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun.  During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice.  Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3.  It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity.  But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped!  I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades.  I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

[redice]

This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more.  Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun.  During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice.  Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3.  It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity.  But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped!  I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades.  I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

Agreed..

[Swampy]

This team is brutal to watch, especially once we're down by two goals

During the slide this year I mentioned to Dr. Mrs. that this was the first time watching games wasn't entertaining any more.  Even during the absolute nadir of my fan tenure, the 11-game 1993 losing streak, it was still fun.  During the retrenchment phase this year when Mike tried to pull the team back to solidify the defense and only succeeded in generating a stifling, monotonous entropic field of sadness perpetually 1 goal worse than the opponent, I had an epiphany that I wasn't watching for the game itself anymore, but dutifully doing my sentence until The Reprieve.

If I had an audience with the coaching staff, I would politely request a more entertaining product on the ice.  Yes, winning is of course the biggest determinant of that, but given the choice of trying to win 2-1 or 4-3, I cannot tell a lie: I'm ready for some 4-3.  It doesn't have to be the late 70's 8-7 insanity.  But during the times this season when the team played open, both generating and giving up more good chances in a few shifts than generally happens during an entire game, so help me I was pumped!  I understand the beauty of a shutout, but this team has now been playing in a minor chord for what feels like decades.  I would like something chromatic now and then, please.

I'd be happy with a return to the good ol' 9-0, 14-2, 19-1 days.