Yale 2 at Cornell 1 (OT) postgame

That hurt. Once Yale tied the game, it felt as if a tie wouldn't be a bad outcome. They're good, they appear to have Cornell's number. Five straight losses to Yale. We may need somebody else to knock them out of our ECAC bracket. If we finish 1-2 or 2-1 we should be in different brackets, not that we should look ahead too much.

Announcers said "there were a lot of positives to come out of the game." They must be clearer thinkers than me. I can think of Scrivens' play, the fact that we only allowed Yale one goal in sixty minutes, plus holding Yale to 0x5 on PP, and what else? That's a decent list but against that you can say we just got outplayed for big parts of the game.

This was a weak 2-point weekend if you consider we shouldn't have played Brown to such a close 4-3 (plus ENG) game Friday.

Last time we lost an overtime game at home, it was March 9, 2007 vs Q.

The glaring weakness of this Cornell team is finishing ability. We had a decent number of high quality chances that were squandered.

imafrshmn
Last time we lost an overtime game at home, it was March 9, 2007 vs Q.

The glaring weakness of this Cornell team is finishing ability. We had a decent number of high quality chances that were squandered.

(Sorry I'm illiterate) What about this overtime game at Lynah? [www.cornellbigred.com]

We did miss some opportunities, but all in all, the better team won. Scrivens kept us in it. Good to see him rebound from Princeton and he wasn't great last night either. We didn't give up a PPG, but if we want to beat this team, we need to stay out of the box. Took away potential offensive time, and the tying goal was also somewhat of a continuation of the Yale power play.

Ronald '09

imafrshmn
Last time we lost an overtime game at home, it was March 9, 2007 vs Q.

The glaring weakness of this Cornell team is finishing ability. We had a decent number of high quality chances that were squandered.

What about this overtime game at Lynah? [www.cornellbigred.com]

Since the headline to that article is Devin's OT Gamewinner Lifts Big Red To Season-Opening Victory, you may want to reread imafrshmn's post.

Ronald '09
We did miss some opportunities, but all in all, the better team won. Scrivens kept us in it. Good to see him rebound from Princeton and he wasn't great last night either. We didn't give up a PPG, but if we want to beat this team, we need to stay out of the box. Took away potential offensive time, and the tying goal was also somewhat of a continuation of the Yale power play.

This team really doesn't get going to the far post on a break. They too often bunch together and, even if not bunched, they rarely will give and go -- when they do, good things often happen.

It was a great hockey game for the first period. Then it was Yale against Scrivens. According to the radio postgame, Scrivens had 50 saves and didn't get a game star.

Also, on the postgame Garrow said the team didn't come to play defensively. It sure looked like Yale skated through, past, and around Cornell for two periods plus overtime. It didn't look like it had anything to do with showing up. Cornell simply can't skate with Yale. When asked about the losing streak to Yale, Garrow said the law of averages would catch up with them eventually. So, I guess Cornell doesn't need get better to beat Yale -- they just need to get lucky. The game is all speed, attack, and counter attack... tonight was like watching a team play prevent defense for nearly an entire game.

Correction: box score shows Scrivens with 52 saves...Yale had a 41-8 shot advantage after the first period. Of Cornell's 8 shots I believe 3-4 were from PK dump ins.

billhoward
I can think of Scrivens' play, the fact that we only allowed Yale one goal in sixty minutes, plus holding Yale to 0x5 on PP, and what else? That's a decent list but against that you can say we just got outplayed for big parts of the game.

Another positive was Riley's play. Collins and Espo played well for stretches. There are things to build on, though obviously nothing you'd trade 2 points for.

Yale's a better team right now. Their goaltending is soft, but Cornell is going to have to test them more than 4 shots per period.

I hope there's a third meeting. A title win against such a quality squad would be a heckuva feather.

With the win, Yale clinches the Ivy title.

Did anybody feel that a turning point for the game was in the second period when there was the questionable non-call on Yale interference? After that it felt like the levees broke and we couldn't sustain any offensive-zone pressure for the rest of the period.

Trotsky

billhoward
I can think of Scrivens' play, the fact that we only allowed Yale one goal in sixty minutes, plus holding Yale to 0x5 on PP, and what else? That's a decent list but against that you can say we just got outplayed for big parts of the game.

Another positive was Riley's play. Collins and Espo played well for stretches. There are things to build on, though obviously nothing you'd trade 2 points for.

Yale's a better team right now. Their goaltending is soft, but Cornell is going to have to test them more than 4 shots per period.

I hope there's a third meeting. A title win against such a quality squad would be a heckuva feather.

Agree on R Nash and Collins, disagree on Esposito. He's fast, sure, and gets to a lot of pucks, but he's not strong with the puck once he gets it. Sometimes he looks to drag the puck rather than keep it close in to his body, i.e., he tries to pull stuff that used to slide in juniors but won't against teams that play defense.

While I like the Greening/Nash/Kennedy line, Gallagher looks lost without Greening on the wing. Effectively, we become a one-line team. Our left wings have traditionally been scorers and our right wings digger/pests. I'm not convinced that Esposito's the first type, and I don't know that he's strong enough yet to be the second. I might say... maybe flip Devin to the left wing and go with Greening/Gallagher/Kennedy and Devin/Nash/Esposito? Or mirror image the offense through the right winger, like we did when little McCutcheon started scoring, in which case I'd go with (LW-scoring) Greening/Gallagher/Kennedy and (mirror) Scali(?)/Nash/Devin?

Not to start a firestorm, but I'm also starting to feel like we're getting outcoached in these tangles with Yale. Allain is taking a team that is practically built to beat us and doing just that, and we seem unable or unwilling to play the style that prevents them from doing exactly what they want to do.

They're set up to dance, and we're set up to manhandle. Why do we continue to let them lure us into their up and down game? Should we meet them in the tournament, it's up to the players to play our game and the coaching staff to remind them incessantly to play within themselves.

Hell of a night for Yale's Denny Kearney. In addition to their win, his sister wins a gold in Vancouver.

mnagowski
Did anybody feel that a turning point for the game was in the second period when there was the questionable non-call on Yale interference? After that it felt like the levees broke and we couldn't sustain any offensive-zone pressure for the rest of the period.

I thought the turning point was the call on Esposito (?) late in the 1st that carried over into the 2nd -- on a play where it looked like the Yale guy fell down without being touched. Cornell started the 2nd on their heels and never seemed to get their game going again.

My observation on this team: if we're playing a team that can outskate us, we basically get one goal and then go into a defensive shell. Then we just fall back around Scrivens and let the opposition throw pucks at us. We did this against BU, NoDak, Quinny, and now Yale.

It may have worked for the Lax team last year, but it's not working all that well for us.

Scersk '97
Agree on R Nash and Collins, disagree on Esposito. He's fast, sure, and gets to a lot of pucks, but he's not strong with the puck once he gets it. Sometimes he looks to drag the puck rather than keep it close in to his body, i.e., he tries to pull stuff that used to slide in juniors but won't against teams that play defense.

I agree Espo's dangle doesn't work at this level, but there's a lot to like about him. Most forwards come in 1-3 years older than he is and they don't look strong with the puck either. Remember he was the only player on the team young enough to have played with the U18 team when they came to visit. I think his vision and instincts are only surpassed by Riley and Jillson on the team. If he puts the work in during the offseason he could be a pretty dangerous and crafty player.

Scersk '97
They're set up to dance, and we're set up to manhandle. Why do we continue to let them lure us into their up and down game? Should we meet them in the tournament, it's up to the players to play our game and the coaching staff to remind them incessantly to play within themselves.

Great line. Interestingly, however, the only period Cornell appeared in the game (scoreboard aside) was when they played up and and down. The rest of the game was really all downhill...unless you consider Cornell dumping the puck into the Yale zone for a line change up and down.

Trotsky
Hell of a night for Yale's Denny Kearney. In addition to their win, his sister wins a gold in Vancouver.

He should have been there supporting her. And not playing against us.

Not going to win a lot of games getting outshot 52-20. Simple as that.

This is my first post, but I have been reading and following Big Red Hockey on and off since the 60's.

I can't fault the players for the Yale performance. They were recruited to play a certain style of hockey and they have been playing the game they were coached to play.

The "Schafer System" consistently builds teams that are as good as any hockey team in college hockey on defense. This system has permitted us to reach the NCAA tournament most years. It has not moved us into the status of an elite college hockey program such as BC, BU, CC, Denver, NDak or the the handful of others that regularly occupy the top ten at the end of the season.

Last night was a classic example. We held one of the best offensive teams in the country to 1 goal in regulation. What we did not do was play offense. The passes were picked off with alarming regularity and when we dumped the puck into the offensive end we were beat to the puck by a faster better puck handling team. The last 2 periods we had a total of 8 shots on net. You can't plan on winning a hockey game when your opponent out-shoots you 2.5:1. Our Power Play is predictable and not very effective.

Don't get me wrong, I bleed as RED as any of you. But, if we want to join the college hockey elite we need to adapt to the new realities that speed and puck handling are at least as important as solid defense. Yale did not build their team to beat Cornell, they built their team to win hockey games.

Reshaping a team that has better balance is a multi year task and requires that prospective student/athletes that have the sorts of speed and puck handling talents want to come to Ithaca and be assured that they will not be asked to "give up the body" and become another cog in the CU defensive meat grinder. It is a big task and I am not sure if Mike Shafer, in spite of all he has done for CU hockey, can do it or whether it is a goal worth pursuing.

Great points and welcome to posting. The Schafer system is very successful in conference and it's been pretty successful in the NCAAs as well. It doesn't line up well against teams of exceptional finesse and speed in the same way that a tank column doesn't have the maneuverability of mounted archers. But (1) armor squishes cavalry most of the time, and (2) you can turn scrap metal into tanks, whereas you can't always find horses.

Towerroad
This is my first post, but I have been reading and following Big Red Hockey on and off since the 60's.

I can't fault the players for the Yale performance. They were recruited to play a certain style of hockey and they have been playing the game they were coached to play.

The "Schafer System" consistently builds teams that are as good as any hockey team in college hockey on defense. This system has permitted us to reach the NCAA tournament most years. It has not moved us into the status of an elite college hockey program such as BC, BU, CC, Denver, NDak or the the handful of others that regularly occupy the top ten at the end of the season.

Last night was a classic example. We held one of the best offensive teams in the country to 1 goal in regulation. What we did not do was play offense. The passes were picked off with alarming regularity and when we dumped the puck into the offensive end we were beat to the puck by a faster better puck handling team. The last 2 periods we had a total of 8 shots on net. You can't plan on winning a hockey game when your opponent out-shoots you 2.5:1. Our Power Play is predictable and not very effective.

Don't get me wrong, I bleed as RED as any of you. But, if we want to join the college hockey elite we need to adapt to the new realities that speed and puck handling are at least as important as solid defense. Yale did not build their team to beat Cornell, they built their team to win hockey games.

Reshaping a team that has better balance is a multi year task and requires that prospective student/athletes that have the sorts of speed and puck handling talents want to come to Ithaca and be assured that they will not be asked to "give up the body" and become another cog in the CU defensive meat grinder. It is a big task and I am not sure if Mike Shafer, in spite of all he has done for CU hockey, can do it or whether it is a goal worth pursuing.

Great debut. I agree with all of this, with the caveat that Schafer has consistently built a top 10 team with this defensive style. IMHO, he builds the team he builds because it is hard to recruit the top athletes to come to Ithaca, so he instead finds the underappreciated grinders that will fit his system. It is similar, I think, to the way Boise State has built top 10 teams in football outside of the BCS.

Oh sure, be overt. Metaphors are better. Chicks dig catachresis.

I think we will pretty quickly get to a Chicken and Egg discussion but if Coach Schafers claim to fame is being able to develop players then why do they all become defense experts? How can we take that talent and move it to the other side of the ice?

Put another way. You are a hot shot 5'10 175 lb forward who is fast, has good hands, excellent stick work, a sniper eye and academically qualified. Why would you choose Cornell over Yale, Sucks, Princeton, Q or Union?

We have a reputation for better and worse and I fear that the game is moving in a direction away from our traditional strength. It is the old adapt or die thing.

Trotsky - Armor is much more effective with close air support and mobile infantry, alone it is vulnerable to a number of threats. Combined arms well managed are much more effective than a uni-dimensional forces.

ithacat
I think [Esposito's] vision and instincts are only surpassed by Riley and Jillson on the team. If he puts the work in during the offseason he could be a pretty dangerous and crafty player.

I had not yet exactly apprehended his youth, nor had I factored it in. I'll agree with both your diagnosis and prescription. Perhaps he'll turn into a better Barlow, who was himself a type of player that we hadn't really had for some time. (Dare I say, more Yale-ian?)

ithacat

Scersk '97
They're set up to dance, and we're set up to manhandle. Why do we continue to let them lure us into their up and down game? Should we meet them in the tournament, it's up to the players to play our game and the coaching staff to remind them incessantly to play within themselves.

Great line. Interestingly, however, the only period Cornell appeared in the game (scoreboard aside) was when they played up and and down. The rest of the game was really all downhill...unless you consider Cornell dumping the puck into the Yale zone for a line change up and down.

I disagree. The second period especially felt out of control to me. Of course, that had a lot to do with the penalties, several of which I felt were pretty phantom, but I felt that we got sucked into an up and down style that puts an emphasis on skating with the puck in control, which (as I criticized Esposito for) does not seem to be our strong suit. Sure, carry in when you've got the chance—too automatically dumping the puck has always been another one of our problems—but, save for R Nash, Greening, and D'Agostino, our players don't seem to possess that mix of skill, speed, and strength to skate through the neutral zone with the puck.

There were a few times that we set up a good cycle and had Yale running around in their own end, but that was mostly in the first. (In particular, the Scali/Collins/Jillson line was giving Yale fits. Too bad they don't have a scorer.) To me, that's our bread and butter, no matter how transformational the team has seemed in the last few years. And especially against teams that are somewhat lacking in size, that should be the type of game we should try to play.

Someone wrote above that we went into a shell, that we forgot to play offense after the first goal. No, I think we forgot to play our kind of offense. When we get the first goal against a good team like Yale, it's not a license to start playing up and down to extend the lead, as we might do against worse teams; rather, it's a directive to start cycling, cycling, cycling in order to wear them down for the third, when we might be able to open up a lead.

To end with a ridiculous metaphor, Yale is a team full of sharks, and we're a team full of bears. (Hah!) They treat us like a whale, circling and circling and taking us down with a number of tiny bites. Against some teams, we might approximate killer whales, but we're never going to be as fast or lethal as those sharks. But we, as the mindless killing machines that bears are, can rip apart anything as long as we can catch it. So we need to let those sharks circle until they tire themselves out, until they let themselves get too close, until they do something stupid in an effort to prove just how flashy and fast they are. Then, instead of sharks, they become salmon. Salmon are tasty.

Excellent discussion. FWIW, it does appear that the next couple of recruiting classes have at least a few guys who show more offensive ability than we are accustomed to.

Towerroad
Trotsky - Armor is much more effective with close air support and mobile infantry, alone it is vulnerable to a number of threats. Combined arms well managed are much more effective than a uni-dimensional forces.

I would love the next recruiting class to include both air cav and arty.

Trotsky

Towerroad
Trotsky - Armor is much more effective with close air support and mobile infantry, alone it is vulnerable to a number of threats. Combined arms well managed are much more effective than a uni-dimensional forces.

I would love the next recruiting class to include both air cav and arty.

Sorry, but the new SID Donald Rumsfeld has ordered that next year's team be leaner while retaining its effectiveness, so we will be skating four at a time and putting the savings into scouting.

Why is that we always get into a funk right as we are set to play Sucks? It was painful to watch at Bright Arena last time around. I am hoping that this coming Friday is not going to be repeat of last season.

LET'S GO RED!

Towerroad
I think we will pretty quickly get to a Chicken and Egg discussion but if Coach Schafers claim to fame is being able to develop players then why do they all become defense experts? How can we take that talent and move it to the other side of the ice?

Put another way. You are a hot shot 5'10 175 lb forward who is fast, has good hands, excellent stick work, a sniper eye and academically qualified. Why would you choose Cornell over Yale, Sucks, Princeton, Q or Union?

We have a reputation for better and worse and I fear that the game is moving in a direction away from our traditional strength. It is the old adapt or die thing.

Trotsky - Armor is much more effective with close air support and mobile infantry, alone it is vulnerable to a number of threats. Combined arms well managed are much more effective than a uni-dimensional forces.

The most important reason is that you have a chance to show yourself on the national stage. Until those coaches show they have a chance of winning a couple of NCAA games, that's our edge. Also the fact that a number of our players, who were not thought to have been superstars, are doing well in the NHL helps. As had been said by others, we get the somewhat under the radar players.

I'd change your comment around, until those programs show they can do well in the NCAA's, why would a recruit want to go to a one, if that, and done program? Those programs, at least some of them, can do well in the ECAC; but when they come up against similar or better talent in the NCAA's, will they continue to wilt. That has to be our edge.

Jim Hyla

Towerroad
Put another way. You are a hot shot 5'10 175 lb forward who is fast, has good hands, excellent stick work, a sniper eye and academically qualified. Why would you choose Cornell over Yale, Sucks, Princeton, Q or Union?

Also the fact that a number of our players, who were not thought to have been superstars, are doing well in the NHL helps. As had been said by others, we get the somewhat under the radar players.

Another way to say that is, if the sniper wants to learn how to play defense, Cornell is a great place to do it.

Scersk '97

ithacat
I think [Esposito's] vision and instincts are only surpassed by Riley and Jillson on the team. If he puts the work in during the offseason he could be a pretty dangerous and crafty player.

To end with a ridiculous metaphor, Yale is a team full of sharks, and we're a team full of bears. (Hah!) They treat us like a whale, circling and circling and taking us down with a number of tiny bites. Against some teams, we might approximate killer whales, but we're never going to be as fast or lethal as those sharks. But we, as the mindless killing machines that bears are, can rip apart anything as long as we can catch it. So we need to let those sharks circle until they tire themselves out, until they let themselves get too close, until they do something stupid in an effort to prove just how flashy and fast they are. Then, instead of sharks, they become salmon. Salmon are tasty.

And here I thought that Yale was our white whale...

Jeff Hopkins '82
My observation on this team: if we're playing a team that can outskate us, we basically get one goal and then go into a defensive shell. Then we just fall back around Scrivens and let the opposition throw pucks at us. We did this against BU, NoDak, Quinny, and now Yale.

It may have worked for the Lax team last year, but it's not working all that well for us.

I don't understand, Jeff. Lacrosse played an uptempo, scoring style. Goaltending was probably the weakest position on the team. Unlike hockey, they had finishers. We missed the cage completely on 4-5 prime chances against Yale.

TimV

Jeff Hopkins '82
My observation on this team: if we're playing a team that can outskate us, we basically get one goal and then go into a defensive shell. Then we just fall back around Scrivens and let the opposition throw pucks at us. We did this against BU, NoDak, Quinny, and now Yale.

It may have worked for the Lax team last year, but it's not working all that well for us.

I don't understand, Jeff. Lacrosse played an uptempo, scoring style. Goaltending was probably the weakest position on the team. Unlike hockey, they had finishers. We missed the cage completely on 4-5 prime chances against Yale.

Lax is a lot more regional than even hockey. Wait to see what happens if the Big Ten schools start actively recruiting in lax. Suddenly, with all that money to give, it'll be a whole lot harder. Wrestling can compete with the big schools because of a great coach, long tradition, and that the kids know they are not going to go pro. Hockey has to compete with the big boys and the pro aspects. A lot of players would rather go to an easier school and try to go pro. You can't do that in lax or wrestling. Each sport has it's own issues and you can't compare them.

Trotsky
Great points and welcome to posting. The Schafer system is very successful in conference and it's been pretty successful in the NCAAs as well. It doesn't line up well against teams of exceptional finesse and speed in the same way that a tank column doesn't have the maneuverability of mounted archers. But (1) armor squishes cavalry most of the time, and (2) you can turn scrap metal into tanks, whereas you can't always find horses.

... while horses' asses are always in constant supply.
I thought armor was cavalry, as helicopters are also: the fast-moving, highly mobile force. As opposed to to the plodding men on foot (infantry) and those manning the catapults and howitzers (artillery).

Nice debut post by TowerRoad, thank you. Good insights. Intriguing that a Cornell loss yields to more posts and introspection. Yale here, Penn in basketball in Other Sports. I think we're all trying to say that Yale is better than us. While it's a loss in the record books, we also did play them even on the scoreboard for 60 minutes. Interesting to look ahead and wonder if, had we held for a tie, we could have won out and taken the ECAC title, gotten top seed, and perhaps Yale as #2 would have had a tougher time with the #3 seed than with the #4 seed. In other words, hope somebody else can knock out Yale in the ECACs.

billhoward
We may need somebody else to knock them out of our ECAC bracket. If we finish 1-2 or 2-1 we should be in different brackets, not that we should look ahead too much.

If the current standings hold up RPI could play Yale in the semifinals. RPI beat Yale 5-2 in Troy back in November and 4-0 in New Haven two weeks ago. RPI is currently tied for fourth with St. Lawrence and SLU has the head to head tie breaker.

billhoward
I think we're all trying to say that Yale is better than us.

I'm not. I don't think that Yale is better than us. I think we're pretty even, but in a round robin against a number of teams with varied styles, especially including some CCHA and WCHA schools, I'll take us (regardless of what KRACH is saying right now).

I'm trying to say that Yale hockey and Cornell hockey are very different brands. Yale hockey is much more like Cleary Harvard hockey. But Yale isn't (yet) absolutely loaded with talent like those late-80s/early-90s Harvard teams. They need to find their C.J. Youngs and Fuscos; no one is talking Hobey about Yale (once again, yet).

Neither is our team loaded with Cornell-style talent like the 2003 team. The pendulum of transformation swung slightly too far in 2007, and we've been regaining some Cornell-ness since then, but the pendulum has swung. We're much more like a WCHA squad now—a tough, hard-nosed one like, say, North Dakota or Wisconsin, not one that doesn't know how to play defense. What we need to find now, and what I hope the obvious recruiting talent of Casey Jones may bring, are mobile, crafty defensemen who know how to jump in on offense. What I wouldn't give to have Mark McCrae and Charlie Cook with this group of forwards. God, that was a special team...

So, if we can get it going this year and are faced with another game "at Minnesota" (2005) or "vs. Wisconsin" (2006), I think we win those games, especially the former. We have forwards with mobility and size that would really use that big ice to advantage. On the other side of the coin, I don't think Yale could possibly survive one of those games, notwithstanding their result vs. Wisconsin earlier this year.

I just detest mini-mite teams like Yale, but I grew up with Cornell hockey, so maybe that's a foregone conclusion.

Scersk '97
I'm not. I don't think that Yale is better than us. I think we're pretty even, but in a round robin against a number of teams with varied styles, especially including some CCHA and WCHA schools, I'll take us (regardless of what KRACH is saying right now).

I'm trying to say that Yale hockey and Cornell hockey are very different brands. Yale hockey is much more like Cleary Harvard hockey. But Yale isn't (yet) absolutely loaded with talent like those late-80s/early-90s Harvard teams. They need to find their C.J. Youngs and Fuscos; no one is talking Hobey about Yale (once again, yet).

It is nowhere written that Yale's style is inherently superior to Cornell's, but the record tells the tale about the match-ups of these specific instances of those styles. Both teams will probably get to Albany so there are good odds we will meet again.

Maybe having the type of uptempo opponent we worry about in the NCAAs as a conference opponent will give the team more experience in dealing with it. National champions learn how to beat all comers.

TimV

Jeff Hopkins '82
My observation on this team: if we're playing a team that can outskate us, we basically get one goal and then go into a defensive shell. Then we just fall back around Scrivens and let the opposition throw pucks at us. We did this against BU, NoDak, Quinny, and now Yale.

It may have worked for the Lax team last year, but it's not working all that well for us.

I don't understand, Jeff. Lacrosse played an uptempo, scoring style. Goaltending was probably the weakest position on the team. Unlike hockey, they had finishers. We missed the cage completely on 4-5 prime chances against Yale.

I was thinking about the Princeton games in particular (especially in the NCAAs), We played keep-away for a substantial portion of the second half. Mind you, it's easier to keep possession in lax than in hockey.

One thing it does point out is lax's ability to play multiple styes.

Jeff Hopkins '82

TimV

Jeff Hopkins '82
My observation on this team: if we're playing a team that can outskate us, we basically get one goal and then go into a defensive shell. Then we just fall back around Scrivens and let the opposition throw pucks at us. We did this against BU, NoDak, Quinny, and now Yale.

It may have worked for the Lax team last year, but it's not working all that well for us.

I don't understand, Jeff. Lacrosse played an uptempo, scoring style. Goaltending was probably the weakest position on the team. Unlike hockey, they had finishers. We missed the cage completely on 4-5 prime chances against Yale.

I was thinking about the Princeton games in particular (especially in the NCAAs), We played keep-away for a substantial portion of the second half. Mind you, it's easier to keep possession in lax than in hockey.

One thing it does point out is lax's ability to play multiple styles.

Kyle Rose
Not going to win a lot of games getting outshot 52-20. Simple as that.

we wern't outshot 52-20... shots on goal perhaps but not shots. I think the shots on goal totals were off by more than 10 on the cornell side.

CU just needs to get more of the quality shots on goal, it doesnt help to beat the goalie cleanly a dozen times if you miss the goal on all of them.. it also doesnt help if Yale can knock the cage off 3-4 times, one of those in the 3rd caused a CU shot to go over the cage instead of going under the cross bar..

ugarte

Trotsky
Hell of a night for Yale's Denny Kearney. In addition to their win, his sister wins a gold in Vancouver.

He should have been there supporting her. And not playing against us.

He did earn a sort-of-shoutout during her next-day fireside chat interview ("My brother plays hockey for Yale"