Opponents and Others 2023-24

[BearLover]

I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

I'd be curious to hear adamw's response to the CHN report that Syer is a finalist for the Princeton head coaching job. A few months ago adamw was suggesting Syer would not be the next head coach of Cornell. Why would Princeton be an option, but not Cornell?

To shove words into Adam's mouth, I took his comments to mean that there's a behind-the-scenes heir apparent to Schafer's job. But I'm reading a lot into it.

That's funny, I read exactly the opposite -- when Schafer does eventually retire, Cornell will be a plum job attracting nationwide candidates, and it won't just be "promote the assistant."

That makes sense, too.

But I don't think either of those interpretations makes too much sense.

There isn't anyone who would be a behind-the-scenes heir apparent that isn't Casey/Syer/Topher, unless it's Doug Derraugh, who would be dismissed as a candidate on the same grounds adamw applied to Casey (being only slightly younger than Schafer).

Moreover, while I think a nationwide coaching search is possible, the very strong trend among Cornell's successful athletics programs has been to promote from within (wrestling, lacrosse, basketball). adamw's statement that these people will "not be the next coach" was written in no uncertain terms. The only justification for adamw's level of certainty that would make sense in this context is that adamw has information that Syer would not want a head coaching job, or he simply isn't cut out to be a head coach. In light of the fact Syer is interviewing for the Princeton position, it appears adamw was wrong. But I'll let him explain his thinking on here.

Who was promoted from within and successful in basketball?

My point was about promoting from within based on past program success. I wasn't commenting on how successful or unsuccessful such internal hire would ultimately go on to be. So in terms of basketball, I am referring to Jon Jaques.

[BearLover]

I should probably just shut up - but I'm not good at that.

I think Ben Syer and Topher are great guys. Neither will be the next coach. Casey Jones is one of my favorite people in hockey, and I think he's a great coach. However, he's only 4 years younger than Coach Schafer - and so it won't be him either.

I'd be curious to hear adamw's response to the CHN report that Syer is a finalist for the Princeton head coaching job. A few months ago adamw was suggesting Syer would not be the next head coach of Cornell. Why would Princeton be an option, but not Cornell?

To shove words into Adam's mouth, I took his comments to mean that there's a behind-the-scenes heir apparent to Schafer's job. But I'm reading a lot into it.

That's funny, I read exactly the opposite -- when Schafer does eventually retire, Cornell will be a plum job attracting nationwide candidates, and it won't just be "promote the assistant."

That makes sense, too.

But I don't think either of those interpretations makes too much sense.

There isn't anyone who would be a behind-the-scenes heir apparent that isn't Casey/Syer/Topher, unless it's Doug Derraugh, who would be dismissed as a candidate on the same grounds adamw applied to Casey (being only slightly younger than Schafer).

Moreover, while I think a nationwide coaching search is possible, the very strong trend among Cornell's successful athletics programs has been to promote from within (wrestling, lacrosse, basketball). adamw's statement that these people will "not be the next coach" was written in no uncertain terms. The only justification for adamw's level of certainty that would make sense in this context is that adamw has information that Syer would not want a head coaching job, or he simply isn't cut out to be a head coach. In light of the fact Syer is interviewing for the Princeton position, it appears adamw was wrong. But I'll let him explain his thinking on here.

There are an awful lot of ridiculous assumptions in there -- and then calling me "wrong" to boot. LOL. How is what Princeton thinks relevant to what Cornell thinks? Has Princeton been a national juggernaut at some point that I don't remember? What's each school's respective situation? What's each school's respective AD background/experience? Etc...

TBH, my guess is that your conclusion was based on faulty information or faulty assumptions, because you posted a pretty definitive statement of "X, Y, and Z won't be Cornell's next head coach" and didn't offer any justification, and at this point I can't really understand what this justification could be. I'm not sure if you're being tight-lipped about it because you're unable to reveal something you were told in confidence, or if it's something else.

The way I look at it is:
—Cornell hockey is currently in the midst of an extremely successful period
—Syer has been associate coach throughout this period and for over a decade total
—Syer coaches the defense, which is excellent every season. He is Cornell's lead recruiter, and recruiting has seemingly been quite good
—Cornell athletics has a history of promoting from within with respect to its most successful programs (including, recently, wrestling, lacrosse, and basketball)
—Syer is clearly willing to be head coach, or else he would not be interviewing at Princeton
—Princeton, which obviously does not have Cornell's hockey pedigree but which has deep pockets and is willing to spend on athletics, and which is another Ivy (i.e. similarly situated to Cornell in terms of academic/admissions/transfer requirements) clearly thinks highly of him, if he is a "finalist" or "frontrunner" or whatever the article originally said

I take all those things together to suggest there would be a high likelihood that Syer ends up Cornell's next head coach. No, not above 50%, but much higher than the likelihood of any other individual becoming the next head coach.

I don't really see why I should think otherwise, but if you would like to explain why I'm very willing to be wrong.

[ugarte]

TBH, my guess is that your conclusion was based on faulty information or faulty assumptions, because you posted a pretty definitive statement of "X, Y, and Z won't be Cornell's next head coach" and didn't offer any justification, and at this point I can't really understand what this justification could be. I'm not sure if you're being tight-lipped about it because you're unable to reveal something you were told in confidence, or if it's something else.

you really do seem to be answering your own question here but because of an inexplicable underlying hostility or obtuseness didn't notice and kept writing

[BearLover]

TBH, my guess is that your conclusion was based on faulty information or faulty assumptions, because you posted a pretty definitive statement of "X, Y, and Z won't be Cornell's next head coach" and didn't offer any justification, and at this point I can't really understand what this justification could be. I'm not sure if you're being tight-lipped about it because you're unable to reveal something you were told in confidence, or if it's something else.

you really do seem to be answering your own question here but because of an inexplicable underlying hostility or obtuseness didn't notice and kept writing

I mean, I don't expect adamw to provide us with whatever he's heard. I just don't think whatever he's heard has been borne out as correct. Maybe I'm missing something though.

[Trotsky]

At least when I impolitely take issue with Adam it's a matter of his comprehensively-stated argument* and not one suggestive rhetorical off-the-cuff snippet.

Bear, stop making me look fair-minded by comparison.


* _{albeit one which is an apodictic inanity.}

[Dafatone]

Obviously the heir apparent is Adam.

[ugarte]

TBH, my guess is that your conclusion was based on faulty information or faulty assumptions, because you posted a pretty definitive statement of "X, Y, and Z won't be Cornell's next head coach" and didn't offer any justification, and at this point I can't really understand what this justification could be. I'm not sure if you're being tight-lipped about it because you're unable to reveal something you were told in confidence, or if it's something else.

you really do seem to be answering your own question here but because of an inexplicable underlying hostility or obtuseness didn't notice and kept writing

I mean, I don't expect adamw to provide us with whatever he's heard. I just don't think whatever he's heard has been borne out as correct. Maybe I'm missing something though.

Based on what!? Schafer hasn't retired. You think it somehow proves that Syer may replace Schafer because ... he may take a different job? I have no idea what the future holds, but I also don't have adam's sources. You've got nothing! You're arguing based on nothing and convincing yourself that you're winning.

[BearLover]

TBH, my guess is that your conclusion was based on faulty information or faulty assumptions, because you posted a pretty definitive statement of "X, Y, and Z won't be Cornell's next head coach" and didn't offer any justification, and at this point I can't really understand what this justification could be. I'm not sure if you're being tight-lipped about it because you're unable to reveal something you were told in confidence, or if it's something else.

you really do seem to be answering your own question here but because of an inexplicable underlying hostility or obtuseness didn't notice and kept writing

I mean, I don't expect adamw to provide us with whatever he's heard. I just don't think whatever he's heard has been borne out as correct. Maybe I'm missing something though.

Based on what!? Schafer hasn't retired. You think it somehow proves that Syer may replace Schafer because ... he may take a different job? I have no idea what the future holds, but I also don't have adam's sources. You've got nothing! You're arguing based on nothing and convincing yourself that you're winning.

We have no idea what the basis was for Adam's statement. He didn't give a reason. He didn't even say, "according to people I've talked to." It could have very well been a gut feeling rather than based on any sort of intel. Does Adam really have a well placed source who knows the inner workings of the Cornell hockey program/athletics department? I don't know, maybe? Even if he does, circumstances could have changed since Adam heard what he heard. There are lots of reasons Adam could be wrong. Given all the publicly available signs suggest Syer could be the next Cornell coach, and given Adam hasn't given us any explanation for what he said, I believe what he said could be wrong.

I'm not trying to win anything. I really was just hoping for more information. I think it was pretty telling that three posters on here had wildly different interpretations of Adam's initial post.

[ugarte]

There is literally no information that indicates Syer might be the next Cornell head coach. That Syer is interviewing elsewhere when Schafer sometimes suggests that he may be ready to retire soon indicates, if anything, the opposite. You aren't getting more information because adam has done everything but send you a letter with a wax seal that says "i heard this off the record and i'm not telling you my source."

[ugarte]

wrong thread sorry. lol

[BearLover]

There is literally no information that indicates Syer might be the next Cornell head coach. That Syer is interviewing elsewhere when Schafer sometimes suggests that he may be ready to retire soon indicates, if anything, the opposite. You aren't getting more information because adam has done everything but send you a letter with a wax seal that says "i heard this off the record and i'm not telling you my source."

My rule for internet forum posting is to assume people are talking out of their ass unless I'm give a reason to assume otherwise. Is "editor of one of the biggest college hockey news websites" enough of a reason to disregard all the publicly available information that I consider to be pointing in the opposite direction? Maybe. Somebody bookmark this thread and we'll return to it when Schafer retires.

[adamw]

There is literally no information that indicates Syer might be the next Cornell head coach. That Syer is interviewing elsewhere when Schafer sometimes suggests that he may be ready to retire soon indicates, if anything, the opposite. You aren't getting more information because adam has done everything but send you a letter with a wax seal that says "i heard this off the record and i'm not telling you my source."

My rule for internet forum posting is to assume people are talking out of their ass unless I'm give a reason to assume otherwise. Is "editor of one of the biggest college hockey news websites" enough of a reason to disregard all the publicly available information that I consider to be pointing in the opposite direction? Maybe. Somebody bookmark this thread and we'll return to it when Schafer retires.

I believe your problem, clearly, is that you believe "publicly available information" points in the other direction -- when it clearly does nothing of the sort. That you believe it does, is invented in your head. But I think Ben Syer is a great dude, so I really have no interest in going on and on about any of this. It's just very weird that you think what I said has been "borne out as incorrect" - and you're using ... what? exactly as evidence? very bizarre.

[adamw]

At least when I impolitely take issue with Adam it's a matter of his comprehensively-stated argument* and not one suggestive rhetorical off-the-cuff snippet.

Bear, stop making me look fair-minded by comparison.


* _{albeit one which is an apodictic inanity.}

I feel like I was just insulted - but Trotsky is using Ivy League words, and I only went that other place in town.

[BearLover]

There is literally no information that indicates Syer might be the next Cornell head coach. That Syer is interviewing elsewhere when Schafer sometimes suggests that he may be ready to retire soon indicates, if anything, the opposite. You aren't getting more information because adam has done everything but send you a letter with a wax seal that says "i heard this off the record and i'm not telling you my source."

My rule for internet forum posting is to assume people are talking out of their ass unless I'm give a reason to assume otherwise. Is "editor of one of the biggest college hockey news websites" enough of a reason to disregard all the publicly available information that I consider to be pointing in the opposite direction? Maybe. Somebody bookmark this thread and we'll return to it when Schafer retires.

I believe your problem, clearly, is that you believe "publicly available information" points in the other direction -- when it clearly does nothing of the sort. That you believe it does, is invented in your head. But I think Ben Syer is a great dude, so I really have no interest in going on and on about any of this. It's just very weird that you think what I said has been "borne out as incorrect" - and you're using ... what? exactly as evidence? very bizarre.

By "publicly available information" I mean all the stuff I previously said (been associate head coach for long successful period, coaches the defense, leads recruiting, wants to be a head coach, Cornell often hires from within, wife works for the university, etc.). I'm going to drop this point now. I hope he doesn't get hired by Princeton. I still believe there is a good chance he is our next head coach.

[Trotsky]

At least when I impolitely take issue with Adam it's a matter of his comprehensively-stated argument* and not one suggestive rhetorical off-the-cuff snippet.

Bear, stop making me look fair-minded by comparison.


* _{albeit one which is an apodictic inanity.}

I feel like I was just insulted - but Trotsky is using Ivy League words, and I only went that other place in town.

TC3-South Hill is nothing to be ashamed of, Adam.