Davenport Has Left the Team

[billhoward]

The full quote didn't say selfish directly. Schafer was quoted in the Journal as saying ...

[q]"(Davenport) didn't see himself getting in the net, playing behind David," Schafer said. "We are disappointed. I thought he improved a lot as a goaltender. I thought he let the team down by leaving. He is looking out for the best interests for himself down the road.
"When Troy came in, I thought without question he would battle against (McKee) much like David LeNeveu came in and battled against Matt Underhill (LeNeveu and Underhill split time when LeNeveu was a freshman and Underhill was a senior in 2001-02 season). But what happened is David McKee elevated his game and got better. For Troy and (backup goalie Louis Chabot), that doesn't leave much room for those guys to play, especially if you want to be a top-10 team. You can't experiment. I've always said the better player plays." [/q]
.... and my point was that a generation ago people had a different mindset: long hair was not good on athletes, blacks should be grateful for the opportunity to be in college playing sports, it was selfish to turn pro before you played four years as an undergrad (never mind that in football or basketball at least, the only person not making money on college sports was the person who played it). Now I think many people see a more middle ground: Too bad Davenport left the team in mid-year, and in that sense he let down Cornell because it was counting on him to be part of the team ... but Cornell wanted to maximize its utility in having Davenport on the team (albeit on the bench waiting for McKee to pull a groin muscle) at the same time Davenport wanted to maximize his chances of getting ahead.  Because Davenport wasn't as good as Cornell/Davenport thought, or because McKee got way better than anyone expected (do *we* think McKee is way better than last year, or is it more of the expected yearly improvement?), he didn't play.

[KenP]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

...Too bad Davenport left the team in mid-year, and in that sense he let down Cornell because it was counting on him to be part of the team ... [/q]

Based on the conversation in this thread he was absolutely the #2 goalie in the system.  Without him, the remainder of Cornell's hockey season is one injury (on or off the ice) away from calamity.  IMO, putting your team in that situation, especially 2/3 through the season, is very selfish.  I wish him well, but he still deserves a big fat  ::flipd::

[CUlater 89]

Of course his leaving the team in mid-season is "selfish"  -- the decision was made in his own best interests, not those of the team (leaving a team is rarely an unselfish decision, unless it's a case of "addition by subtraction").  The question is, is it inappropriately selfish, or unwarranted?  Probably in his mind, the answer is no.  Schafer presumably promised him a chance to compete for ice time and Davenport felt he had earned more than he was given.  He likely agreed to enroll at Cornell this past fall on the basis that he'd be playing some.  When McKee stepped up his game this season and Schafer responded by giving him all of the starts (no matter how well Davenport might have been playing), Davenport no doubt saw that his chance of ever playing in the next three years rested on rooting for McKee to play poorly or get hurt.  McKee had clearly become the "favorite" with the coach, so Davenport was going to leave at the end of the season anyway.  Why should he sit around the next few months, when he could be playing in games elsewhere?  Yes, he had made a commitment to the team for this season, but the coach (in Davenport's mind) had made a commitment to give him ice time.

[KenP]

Inappropriately selfish.  

CUlater, the point is he made a commitment to the Team.  There are no buts about it.  I don't care if his feelings were hurt.  He agreed to take on a role on the Team.  "Backup" does not mean "unplayed".  If McKee has a bad game, he's in. If McKee gets hurt or catches the flu or get's rear-ended on Seneca Ave, Troy's in.  His choice to leave now let's everybody down -- Coach, David, Matt, Shane, Topher... you get the point.

Also, if the rationale going through his mind was as you suggest, he's not necessarily someone I would want playing for me...."I'll play on your team as long as you promise I always get to start."  Get over yourself!  It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.

[Jordan 04]

[Q]KenP Wrote:

 It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.
[/q]

But there is an M-E.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

 Of course his leaving the team in mid-season is "selfish"  -- the decision was made in his own best interests, not those of the team (leaving a team is rarely an unselfish decision, unless it's a case of "addition by subtraction").  The question is, is it inappropriately selfish, or unwarranted?  Probably in his mind, the answer is no.  Schafer presumably promised him a chance to compete for ice time and Davenport felt he had earned more than he was given.  He likely agreed to enroll at Cornell this past fall on the basis that he'd be playing some.  When McKee stepped up his game this season and Schafer responded by giving him all of the starts (no matter how well Davenport might have been playing), Davenport no doubt saw that his chance of ever playing in the next three years rested on rooting for McKee to play poorly or get hurt.  McKee had clearly become the "favorite" with the coach, so Davenport was going to leave at the end of the season anyway.  Why should he sit around the next few months, when he could be playing in games elsewhere?  Yes, he had made a commitment to the team for this season, but the coach (in Davenport's mind) had made a commitment to give him ice time.[/q]
Big leap to go from "presumably promised him a chance to compete" to "made a commitment to give him ice time."

[madhatter]

Chabot has been on the bench because he has a problem controlling his rebounds.  Until he can improve in that area, and McKee craps the bed, he probably won't see much ice time.

[CUlater 89]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:

Big leap to go from "presumably promised him a chance to compete" to "made a commitment to give him ice time."[/q]

From what I understand, when Davenport agreed to come in for this season he was told that if he played well he would get to split time with McKee (actually, I had heard that Schafer really wanted Davenport to win the job because based on last season he thought McKee wasn't the long-term answer).  Even Schafer admits that Davenport has improved his play.  Davenport probably felt like he was playing well enough to start some games and Schafer either disagrees and/or believes McKee gives him the best chance to win games at this point, with his improvement over last season.  Thus, Davenport feels like he held up his end of the bargain (improving his play and playing well enough to start) but wasn't going to get that chance.

[CUlater 89]

[Q]KenP Wrote:

 Inappropriately selfish.  

CUlater, the point is he made a commitment to the Team.  There are no buts about it.  I don't care if his feelings were hurt.  He agreed to take on a role on the Team.  "Backup" does not mean "unplayed".  If McKee has a bad game, he's in. If McKee gets hurt or catches the flu or get's rear-ended on Seneca Ave, Troy's in.  His choice to leave now let's everybody down -- Coach, David, Matt, Shane, Topher... you get the point.

Also, if the rationale going through his mind was as you suggest, he's not necessarily someone I would want playing for me...."I'll play on your team as long as you promise I always get to start."  Get over yourself!  It's an overused cliche, but still true --- there's no "I" in T-E-A-M.
[/q]

"Backup" does mean "unplayed", at least under the current structure (except for mop-up duty).  Davenport wasn't brought in with the understanding he'd be a backup all season (and potentially for 3 years if McKee continues to play on a high level). He expected to be playing some of the time and presumably feels he has earned it but won't get time because McKee is playing so well.  Since his long term plan is no longer to stay at Cornell, why wait until the end of the season on the off-chance that McKee gets hurt and the team needs him to play?  In terms of cost-benefit, the expected cost to the team for him leaving now rather than in April should be relatively low (knock on wood) while the benefit to him for leaving now rather than in April should be relatively great, since he gets to play on a regular basis and won't miss almost a full season of competitive action.  On that basis, it makes sense to him to take the chance of harming the team and leave now.

Also, the team does have a backup goalie, one who I thought was highly recruited, notwithstanding what he's turned out to be.

[mjh89]

Yes, it's her son. He's a great HS goalie and great kid, but I don't know if he is quite good enough to play for Cornell. I also think he is much more concerned with lacrosse.

[billhoward]

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote: From what I understand, when Davenport agreed to come in for this season he was told that if he played well he would get to split time with McKee (actually, I had heard that Schafer really wanted Davenport to win the job because based on last season he thought McKee wasn't the long-term answer).  [/q]

If so, Schafer has pretty high expectations for goaltenders. McKee seems to be a pretty decent year-at-a-time answer.

[KenP]

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

...Since his long term plan is no longer to stay at Cornell, why wait until the end of the season on the off-chance that McKee gets hurt and the team needs him to play?[/q]

Because he made a commitment to the team, and if McKee gets hurt the team needs him to play.  That "commitment" word means a lot to me.  Falls in the same category of words like "trust", "promise", "character", "integrity", etc.

[q]In terms of cost-benefit, the expected cost to the team for him leaving now rather than in April should be relatively low (knock on wood) while the benefit to him for leaving now rather than in April should be relatively great, since he gets to play on a regular basis and won't miss almost a full season of competitive action.[/q]

Agreed on the latter.  The cost to the team is they're left with a much weaker insurance policy, with no way to fix it until next season.  Will it matter?  Let's hope not.

[q]On that basis, it makes sense to him to take the chance of harming the team and leave now.[/q]

CUlater, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't see anything in your argument that makes me think that Davenport didn't let down his teammates and reneg on a personal commitment.

[Q]COL Nathan Jessep said:
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something.  You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.  Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.[/q]

[JohnnieAg\'99]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:Not that Coach Mike would be so Machiavellian, but if you take somebody who bails after two years because you're overstocked in that position, you've denied him in perpetuity to the Cantabs and Colgate and BC, etcetera.[/q] This just isn't true - he could sit out and then go to any school he wants.  Sucks' sieve Tobe went to MSU at 17, got bombed, went to the USHL, and then went to Sucks.  Davenport could do the same.

I think Coach deserves alot of the blame here - most coaches put their backups in for a few games during the season (Mazzoleni's 'fight' with the parents was with their back-up goalie's dad, who 'only' played a few games- inlcuding a loss to Princeton).  If Coach isn't going to develop a backup at all in games, he is going to have to suffer the consequences, which are pretty predictable.  

[Greg Berge]

[Q]JohnnieAg'99 Wrote:I think Coach deserves alot of the blame here - most coaches put their backups in for a few games during the season (Mazzoleni's 'fight' with the parents was with their back-up goalie's dad, who 'only' played a few games- inlcuding a loss to Princeton).  If Coach isn't going to develop a backup at all in games, he is going to have to suffer the consequences, which are pretty predictable.  [/q]
That's easy to say, but we have no idea what was going on during practice, how Davenport looked, whether he progressed, whether he had a good attitude, etc..  It might, for instance, be a pretty fair indicator of his attitude that he split midway through the season with no warning, thus screwing his teammates.   And for all we know, Davenport himself might have been cool with the whole thing, but undone by pressure from a relentless stagemother-type relative.  We really have no way of knowing, so casting the blame either way is pretty dumb.

[KenP]

Dammit Greg, why do you always have to be a voice of reason?  Now it's you're fault he left.  Stupid facetimer.