Polls 2019-20

[French Rage]

I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

So, the assumption here is that you don't consider Schafer to be successful?

Of course he doesn't, that's how he's sooooo badass!  Take that, general consensus!

[abmarks]

I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts?  The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you?  Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem.  Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

[redice]

I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts?  The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you?  Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem.  Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

+1

[Swampy]

I suspect the most successful coaches use the word "you" rather than "we" when ascribing blame. Nobody wants to share the blame for someone else's mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers/statistics to defend this claim.

Are you nuts?  The most successful coaches, managers, bosses, executives, generals, etc etc will do the exact opposite.

Want your people to go to the wall for you?  Tell the press that "we" all need to get better to address the problem.  Want to alienate them? Tell the press that the assistant coach and the guys on the PK are responsible and that your hands are washed.

+1

On 2/11 I asked, WWND? To date, no body has taken up this question. It's disappointing when I see exchanges like the one above, because I think asking WWND? could shed considerable light on such debates.

I take responsibility for this because I assumed people would know what "WWND" stands for. Now I'm not so sure.

So, for those who didn't get it, "WWND" stands for "What would Ned do?" In this particular context, I was asking what would Ned do with an extremely talented and experienced team that sucked on the PK?

Asking how someone would do, when he was perhaps the greatest coach in Cornell athletics history (high praise indeed, given we've had the likes of Pop Warner), and maybe in all of college team sports history, could be very insightful. I know some of you actually played for Ned. So asking what he would do is not an idle question.

For example, would he require the team to show up at 5 AM to skate sprints after giving up 4 PK goals over the weekend? Would he have them stay late to practice the PK? Would he have them watch film and then ask, "OK, Song, tell Barron what he did wrong on that play!"

I know as a coach of youth lacrosse and soccer, I would notice and write down things during games. (We didn't use film, although I've seen that.) Then at practice, if I hadn't taught them about similar situations, we'd practice how to handle them. If I had taught them, or if we'd covered similar issues, I'd ask the players what else we could have done. And then we'd practice fixing our mistakes.

But that's just me, at a much lower level. I'd be interested in really discussing what a coach of Harkness's caliber would do in Mike's situation. E.g., does anyone know (or even remember) if he used "we" or "you" in such situations?

Talk among yourselves.

[redice]

I'm going to take a guess and speculate that some may not have read your mind and known that "WWND" meant "What Would Ned Do".....

That's the problem with the use of acronyms....  Just sayin......

[ugarte]

... So, for those who didn't get it, "WWND" stands for "What would Ned do?" In this particular context, I was asking what would Ned do with an extremely talented and experienced team that sucked on the PK? ...

For example, would he require the team to show up at 5 AM to skate sprints after giving up 4 PK goals over the weekend? Would he have them stay late to practice the PK? Would he have them watch film and then ask, "OK, Song, tell Barron what he did wrong on that play!"

first of all, this team is VERY frosh/soph dependent, despite having some very talented upperclassmen. second of all, i don't think the modern NCAA (or the school) would allow you to pull shit like brutal 5am practices. the team is weak on the PK and spends too much time alternating between stagnant and unlucky on the PP but if the practices are being devoted to absolutely stifling even strength play it seems to be netting out pretty well EVEN THOUGH I would like to see the special teams improve a lot.

I'm going to take a guess and speculate that some may not have read your mind and known that "WWND" meant "What Would Ned Do".....

That's the problem with the use of acronyms.... Just sayin......

if you didn't grasp the acronym because you aren't familiar with WWJD, I can accept that. if you knew WWJD but didn't substitute in Ned, what are you even doing here?

[Swampy]

Well, I do remember hearing stories of how Ned would have his teams run or skate sprints after a particularly bad outing, albeit maybe not at 5 AM. And maybe what I heard was just rumor.

And yes, we're heavy with underclassmen, although it's becoming somewhat of a cliché to say that by mid-season there are no rookies.

Still, this begs the question of how an expert coach would take this team from where it was this past weekend to where it needs to be to continue playing into April.

[KenP]

Well, I do remember hearing stories of how Ned would have his teams run or skate sprints after a particularly bad outing, albeit maybe not at 5 AM. And maybe what I heard was just rumor.

And yes, we're heavy with underclassmen, although it's becoming somewhat of a cliché to say that by mid-season there are no rookies.

Still, this begs the question of how an expert coach would take this team from where it was this past weekend to where it needs to be to continue playing into April.

Health
Conditioning
Fundamentals
Luck

[TimV]

I know some of you actually played for Ned. So asking what he would do is not an idle question.

Talk among yourselves.

OK I'll bite.  Lacrosse experience only.  Ned would most frequently run us for conditioning reasons.  Remember his RPI hockey national championship was won with a very small squad so conditioning was a major thing for him.  He would do it for lack of effort, but not for poor execution.  For that he would most commonly devote whole practices to man down or EMO or whatever the issue was.  Ned was also not reluctant to sit guys and promote the bench in those situations.  For that, I was grateful.  Only minutes I ever saw.::blush::

[Dafatone]

Anyone else think our PP plays as if the only shots allowed are from the slot after a pass from the point to a low wing and then fed to center?

[adamw]

I know as a coach of youth lacrosse and soccer, I would notice and write down things during games. (We didn't use film, although I've seen that.) Then at practice, if I hadn't taught them about similar situations, we'd practice how to handle them. If I had taught them, or if we'd covered similar issues, I'd ask the players what else we could have done. And then we'd practice fixing our mistakes.

But that's just me, at a much lower level. I'd be interested in really discussing what a coach of Harkness's caliber would do in Mike's situation. E.g., does anyone know (or even remember) if he used "we" or "you" in such situations?

I love how you make it sound like Mike Schafer hasn't been doing this for 25 years, and hasn't had a perennial top 5 national PK all those years.

[osorojo]

I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

[adamw]

BTW - we discuss this issue fairly extensively on our podcast this week - if you care to listen ...

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ontheair/

[upprdeck]

you only get so many hrs to practice these days cant spend it all on the ice working on this one thing

[Dafatone]

I have worked for people who criticized everyone involved when one person's lack of effort/performance was the proximate cause of failure, and I suspect you have too. They were lousy leaders. I don't parse group leadership into separate styles: one for business, one for sports for example. People who mistake the whole for the part are seldom successful.

I can't stop laughing at the idea that Schafer coming out and saying "the PK problems are all Cody Haiskenen's fault. He's a real asshole and everyone hates him" would be real leadership.

Haiskenen was the first name that came to mind. I don't think this is his fault.