Future Coaching?

[RatushnyFan]

Schafer would make UMass credible IMO.  They'd be lucky to have him.  Wonder if the Hockey East/ability to offer scholarships appeals to him.  I imagine it would be difficult for him to leave.

I hope that Schafer doesn't leave.  Ratushny is an interesting idea as mentioned above, but his Red Bull tenure has gone well and he's also coaching the Austrian National team I think.  I'm assuming he'd have to take a pay cut to leave.

[Dafatone]

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.

Really?

[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.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

[KeithK]

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

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team,

"Horrible mistake" is quite a bit of an exaggeration. But one should not be surprised when a poster who has been extremely critical about the coach continues to be so.

[RichH]

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.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

[Chris '03]

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.

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

And that's all with some kid named Quick.

[Scersk '97]

Schafer's career win % as a coach is 0.612, UMass has yet to turn in a single D1 season higher than that. They have only once surpassed the 0.574 win % that "mediocre" Cornell posted *this* season. They have had three winning seasons in 22 years, all under Toot Cahoon.

Clearly, it would be a disastrous move for that shining star of a program.

Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

The grass certainly isn't always greener.

[Trotsky]

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.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system?  It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

[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.

Really?

Yup I've been utterly clear that I think the system he plays and talent he recruits are not a fit in this era, and if we're going to be a mediocre team, I'd at least rather be an aggressive and mediocre team. I want a system that looks like the one Dave Hakstol used to run at UND with a 2 and sometimes 3 man forecheck, aggressive pinching from the D to keep cycles alive, and aggressive neutral zone play to force opponents to dump and chase. The obvious downside to this system being that if the opponent does get a clean breakout, and the players aren't in lock step where they're supposed to be they can be beaten on the rush. I'm convinced that when executed properly this style of system is the best way for a squad that isn't going to get Eichels to exploit undervalued skills (possession, if you don't believe me see everyone's reaction every time I bring this up, and then note that all of the teams in the Frozen Four are dominant possession teams by any analyitic measure kept in college) and compete in the modern era of College Hockey.

Can you give examples of other schools who run this kind of system?  It sounds somewhat like Union's high pressure team that won the title, and which I really admired.

Having watched the Sioux play it to perfection I agree it would be fun top watch if we could pull it off.

Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

[Trotsky]

Yale plays a similar style if not quite as aggressive, or at least did while I was still in school.

No longer.  Yale plays a solid D game that starts from Lyons and radiates out through stay at home D-men.  They are playing Schafer hockey now.

[RichH]

Taking a quick look, it's pretty clear ol' Toots made something of a mistake leaving Princeton. No question he could've continued spinning out pretty successful (for Princeton) seasons on a regular basis down there.

Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

[RichH]

Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

Or...not a whole lot of success. UMass job accepted by SLU's Greg Carvel. Pretty stunning for SLU, as Carvel is a Canton native, St. Lawrence graduate, and the torch-bearer of Joe Marsh's legacy. According to CHN, he has ties to UMass as he went to grad school there, and his wife is from Amherst. His record in four years at SLU: 72-63-15.

[gjp84]

UMass is reportedly hiring an ECAC head coach, but not ours.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2016/03/29_carvel_chosen_as_new_umass.php

[Scersk '97]

Well, that's kind of the standard jump to make, right? Take a small, constrained, and/or unheralded program, to some level of success and spin that performance to a bigger contract at a larger institution with more resources and a desire to improve. Recent examples are Don Lucia, Guy Gadowski, Jeff Jackson, Nate Leaman, and closer to home, Steve Donahue. One could even argue that Jerry York made that jump twice.

"Bigger institution with more resources and a desire to improve"——there's the rub. If we figure that Cahoon was a pretty good coach and recruiter, and there seems to be no reason to think otherwise, why was he unable to achieve a "second flowering" (finishing in the top of the league for a couple of years after a down period) at UMass like he had at Princeton? Using history as a guide, going to UMass seems a risky proposition. In Schafer's case it would've been going from "large, successful institution with a great tradition and pretty good resources but an awful administrator or two" to "larger institution with potentially more resources but no tradition and a wavering commitment to improvement." That isn't what any of the guys in your list, save Gadowsky, did; Gadowsky's move was a pretty sure bet.

For what it's worth, I see no reason that the Princeton job would be a bad one long term. Once removed, I'll say that the university is a good place to work, with great benefits, and no lack of resources. Considering the talent available in New Jersey and the Philadelphia area and the growing amount of talent available to the south of there and the lack of a natural competitor in the area (i.e., Brown has Providence; Dartmouth has UNH and Vermont), I would think the right coach could make Princeton a perennial contender if not a perennial powerhouse.

If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about. Isn't that why Tambroni left, after all?

Not that I want any of that to happen, of course...

[KeithK]

If Carvel's wife, as reported, has ties to the area, that's what this move is all about.

"Honey, we've spent four years in this frozen wilderness.  Can we please go back to civilization?"