Cornell 0 @ Quinnipiac 0 (postgame thread)

For the second game in a row, Cornell managed to get outshot, look sluggish at times on defense, and come away with a shutout. This time, at Quinnipiac, scoreless on both sides, after the 1-0 win Friday at Princeton.

Cornell dominated the third period and OT but couldn't come away with a goal. There were a couple very nice chances by the Greening-Nash-Jillson first line and also the PP unit. But nothing in the net. Obviously it would have been great to have had the full benefit of the 5x3 PP that ended that game, not just the 20 or so seconds before the game ended. "Dominated" might be too strong of a word because Quinnipiac did have a couple good chances.

Unlike Friday where we peaked in the second, Saturday Cornell got better and better as the game went along and ended the game with only a 24-23 shots on goal disadvantage.

COR 5 8 9 1 -- 23
QU 10 8 4 3 -- 25

The OT shots on goal stat is way misleading because it doesn't count shots darn near on goal.

So we beat a team rated better than us and couldn't manage more than a tie against a team rated worse than us. I mentioned after Friday's game that the 1-0 was a game that, had we lost, we would have played what-if late in the season if we came up 2 points short of home ice or a favorable seeding. Tonight we ought to kick ourselves for not making it a 4-point weekend.

I see two areas for concern:
- Despite back to back shutouts, Cornell did not look solid on defense or breakouts
-- We can't put the puck in the net, much like 4-5-6 years ago, and this with the presence of two awesome individual talents in Nash and Greening.

Gossip and trivia:

The 3422 announced attendance again meant the number of tickets sold, and was off by hundreds -- 500, perhaps -- relative to how many showed up.

Despite the less than capacity crowd, if you arrived other than way before gametime, you got turned away from the hilltop hockey/basketball complex and sent back to park on campus a mile-plus away, then take a shuttle bus up. $53M for the facility but not enough for parking.

Lynah Faithful will call the place soulless because it's roomy, has individual seats, great sight lines, and excellent lighting (photographers rejoice). Plus a huge concourse that, if Lynah had the same, would allow us to hold 5,500 for the Harvard game.

Kids loved all the music played between periods and faceoffs. And for those not fully engaged in the hockey-fan thing, it was a nice reminder -- Cliff's Notes for the casual fan -- that in crucial situations, you should cheer for your team.

Maybe they're not fans of the caliber of Cornell fans yet, but the Q fans did turn out, did show spirit, and college hockey is all the better for them being at this level. We rode that shuttle bus back with a bunch of them and they, in turn, were in awe of how many Cornell fans showed up.

I am just happy that we came away from this weekend with 3Pts.Its nice to know that when you have trouble scoring you still have the chance to win.The scoring will come,its early in the year,plus when your on the road you tend to concentrate more on def.

I didn't think the place was soulless. Sure, it was new, so that obviously prevents it from having had acquired any kind of patina that an old barn would enjoy, but hey, I think it's a terrific rink, and would encourage anyone to go check out a game there when you have a chance. It's a real beaut. And I was also impressed by the Q student section, who showed up wearing mostly the same color, were very vocal, and had a good variety of cheers.

For the love of Christ, why can't we all sit/stand near each other on away games?

As for the hockey itself, nice job by Scrivens, of course -- two straight shutouts to begin the regular season! We certainly missed connecting a bunch of important passes in the offensive zone, and I agree with the previous sentiment that we also had trouble breaking out, but overall I think the team looked more capable than what I saw last year. But at the same time, I think we could use a snake charmer or a witch doctor to wake up the Nash brothers. (Insert voodoo emoticon here.)

HeafDog
(Insert voodoo emoticon here.)

No pictures of the giant inflatable bobcat head, Bill?

I made it down to Hamden for basketball last year but not hockey, so this was my first time seeing the hockey side of the arena in action. From my perspective the atmosphere was pretty weak. I was on the opposite side of the rink from the students but only noticed them get up or be active at all when the DJ played "jump around" and maybe during "sweet caroline." Couldn't hear them at all.

I felt bad for the band. They got to play less than a band might get to at a basketball game with two bands, which is to say barely at all. It was jock jam central through warmups and period breaks and about 2/3 of the game breaks. The DJ was also blasting jock jams about 4 times too loud for the first period or so before he turned it down to something resembling reasonable.


It seemed like everyone cared more about chuck a puck than the last few minutes of the second. They made about 20 announcements telling folks to get in position with a minute left in the period and telling folks behind netting to move to a better position during the action.

Whoever designed the driveway up to the rink didn't consult a good traffic engineer. It's four lanes and instead of making it capable of being 3 lanes up before the game and three lanes down after the game, there is a permanent median. I mean, the place is used exclusively for events where 3,000 people are all coming and going at the same time.

It's a beautiful facility and a great place to watch a game. The bowl is pleasantly steeper than I expected and makes even the 11th and last row close to the ice (feels a lot closer than Thompson, which I think of as being somewhat comparable in sight lines and concourses).

I loved the "ECAC Tournament Participant Banner." It only has room for about five years. A few of those will help fill the rafters...

All in all, I felt like I was in a nice new arena watching a generic minor league game. I'm glad I walked out not knowing what sound effects they turn on for a Q goal.

As for the game, I was very encouraged that Cornell controlled at least the last fifteen minutes. It's a hallmark of schafer teams but it's been lacking the past few seasons. Pessilini was really quick. Cornell had a few great chances but the freshman went side to side in a heartbeat. It seemed Cornell was trying to go high late in the game but couldn't find their spots.

This team is as big as it's been in a while. It'll be fun to watch Collins get stronger over the next few years. Schafer showed a lot of confidence in the freshmen. He had two frosh on the PK together a few times last night, which surprised me.

Certainly satisfied to take three points and get this trip out of the way early.

HeafDog
And I was also impressed by the Q student section, who showed up wearing mostly the same color, were very vocal, and had a good variety of cheers.

I was impressed that the Q students (who got in for free, by the way), were wearing mostly the same color,but sitting in Section 114, I was never aware of any of their cheers. If they were doing them, you couldn't hear them halfway down the rink. As for their pep band, why bother having a pep band at the game if you never give them a chance to play? I would have much preferred hearing them instead of having to listen to the way-too-loud canned music constantly blaring over the PA. It's a good thing, I guess, that the Cornell pep band didn't come to the game, since who knows if they would have had a chance to play.
It was amusing between periods to see their scoreboard operator misspell "theif" and use "where" instead of "wear."
As for the game itself, except for our No. 1 line, we created almost no offensive pressure. Our breakout play was still terrible. The good news is that we opened the season winning 3 out of 4 points on the road.

Offense is slowly getting there. The shots are taking just a few seconds to long to take. The puck was moved well on PP but we need one timers from the open players not control and shoot. Would have been nice to see Barlow finish the penalty shot (question: can you refuse the penalty shot and take the 5 on 3?)

Fairly solid game defensively, only a handful of quality chances from in front of the net (including the horrifically botched 2 on 0 vs Scrivens in the 3rd).

Took 20 minutes to get out of the parking lot! Apparently no one thought that getting off a hill with only one 2 lane road might be a little slow?

Chris '03
No pictures of the giant inflatable bobcat head, Bill?

ebilmes

Chris '03
No pictures of the giant inflatable bobcat head, Bill?

Wow. Did the players skate out of the mouth? Ever see a cat barf up a furball?

dbilmes

HeafDog
And I was also impressed by the Q student section, who showed up wearing mostly the same color, were very vocal, and had a good variety of cheers.

It's a good thing, I guess, that the Cornell pep band didn't come to the game, since who knows if they would have had a chance to play.

They usually let us play, but we alternate with their PA music (stupid, I know.)

dbilmes
As for their pep band, why bother having a pep band at the game if you never give them a chance to play? ...

Well, the piped-in music did go up to 11.

Instead of a shootout, let's settle game with a spelling bee.

ebilmes

Chris '03
No pictures of the giant inflatable bobcat head, Bill?

Dear Bobcat,

Sorry to hear about your stroke. Get well soon.

Sincerely,
ugarte

Chris '03
I loved the "ECAC Tournament Participant Banner." It only has room for about five years. A few of those will help fill the rafters...

I love it. That's basically a banner announcing years that they didn't elephant walk.

KeithK

Chris '03
I loved the "ECAC Tournament Participant Banner." It only has room for about five years. A few of those will help fill the rafters...

I love it. That's basically a banner announcing years that they didn't elephant walk.

I don't think (at least I hope) it's not as bad as that. I'm guessing that it is for reaching the Tourny in Albany, so the ECAC "final four". That's feeble enough; if it's a banner for being in the ECAC post season, well, that's downright sad.

JasonN95

KeithK

Chris '03
I loved the "ECAC Tournament Participant Banner." It only has room for about five years. A few of those will help fill the rafters...

I love it. That's basically a banner announcing years that they didn't elephant walk.

I don't think (at least I hope) it's not as bad as that. I'm guessing that it is for reaching the Tourny in Albany, so the ECAC "final four". That's feeble enough; if it's a banner for being in the ECAC post season, well, that's downright sad.

Wishful thinking. Below "ECAC Tournament Participant" the banner reads:
"2005-2006"
"2006-2007- Finalist"
"2007-2008"

Someone might want to mention that the ECAC tournament doesn't span years.