> Schafer has done an amazing job, but it seems to me that there is a little
> bit of a double standard in the reasoning above.  First it implies that
> Schafer as an assistant gets credit for the strong recruiting classes under
> McCutcheon.  OK, all well and good (though I'm hard pressed to figure out
> what Mike Schafer had to do with recruiting Joe Nieuwendyk, Doug Dadswell,
> or... Mike Schafer :-),
 
Remember that McCutcheon was not the coach then either.  The head coach leads
the recruiting effort, and the recruiters to do the job.  It's quite obvious
that recruiting fell off after Schafer left --- though I will say this ...
recruiting in ALL of college hockey fell off in that same time frame -- and
Schafer did ultimately with the players that were recruited after he left, so
they must have had some talented players.
 
Nevertheless, what you get out of those players is the utmost test -- and it
seems as though McCutcheon and Schafer are polar opposites in this regard.
 
> but if the assistant coach is so important to
> recruiting, it seems to imply that the credit for future strong recruiting
> classes under Schafer should go to *his* assistants.  Currently the Man on
> the Road is Scott Garrow (the only assistant coach in memory to have his own
> admiration society among the women of Section C).
 
The head coach has plenty to do with it, but has anyone NOT given credit to the
assistants?
 
> The Big Red travel to Yale and Princeton tonight and tomorrow.  You think
> this is going to be easy?  Think again:
>
> Cornell at Princeton, ECAC RS, 1990-96:
>
> L 2-5, L 6-7, W 3-2, L 3-4 (ot), T 1-1 (ot), L 3-4 (ot), W 7-2
 
Remember, that the losses came in a period of time when things were slipping.
The win came in the resurgent year.  So only last year really factors into
this.  Not that I'm saying Princeton won't win, or can't, but just remember
that point.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.