Which loss was more painful?

The Frozen Four loss in 2003 or today?

Even though today is fresh, I don't think it's a close call. Two years ago we were going in with a senior dominated team which had high expectations, playing on NHL size ice in a friendly environment against a team we all thought we should beat. We dominated good portions of that game, and if not for the loss of concentration after the disallowed goal, we likely would have moved on.

This year our team arrived "ahead of schedule" with lesser pre-season expectations. We had the hostile home environment against a team used to playing on the big ice which was more suited to their style of play. We were outplayed for much of the game. While it's always heartbreaking to lose in OT, as time moves on I will more easily look back on the amazing season and not feel too deflated. 2003 still gives me heartburn.

Perhaps the only thing that will truly stick in my craw is a system which allows for these postseason games to be played on the host school's campus.

No question 2003 was more painful. We had the better team that year and lost one of the best graduating classes ever, not to take anything away from this year's seniors who were also outstanding. I don't see how even the most biased Cornell fan could say that we were the better team on the ice today.

Great season by the Red that exceeded my expectations. I think Cornell will be back and even better next year. If we want to win a National Championship, however, our team needs to improve its puck control and passing IMHO.

Yep, 2003 was a tougher loss. I still have that ticket stub on my desk labeled as "unfinished business!"

Losing in the final four with a senior-heavy team in 2003, that really hurt. This was bad. So was the early ejection by Clarkson last year. But we know a lot of the team returns in fall 2005. It could be worse if you're playing hockey for the other perennial Ivy League contender. Compare Cornell's seniors with Harvard's seniors:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), three ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), three [not two] NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 4-3 NCAA record (and at least one victory each year).

Harvard: four trips to the ECAC title game, two ECAC championships (one over a real hockey team, one over a happy to be there Clarkson), four straight NCAA appearances, four straight first-round losses. Where it says VE RI TAS on the patch on the side of their jerseys, maybe it should be replaced with the Latin for ONE AND DONE. Their goalie did well and yet he managed to be overshadowed each year by another Ivy Leaguer. Okay, so Harvard can point to a more recent NCAA title, only 16 years ago.

Then there's the fans. We can mark that one in Cornell's favor. At Lynah, the players tap their sticks and raise them in salute. At Harvard, the players also form a circle, then raise their hands to their visors like it's a salute, but really they're trying to peer through the glare to determine if anyone's actually in Bright Center.

[edit: correcting for 2002 season]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), two ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), two NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 3-2 NCAA record. [/q]


Actually it's three ECAC RS titles for us. (Not that we care much about those, but...). We were the RS title winners in 2003 and 2005, when we won the real championship as well. But we were also the RS title winners in 2002.
Andy W.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Compare Cornell's seniors with Harvard's seniors:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), two ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), two NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 3-2 NCAA record.
[/q]
Am I nuts, Bill, or didn't our seniors have three NCAA appearances (2002, 2003, 2005) and a 4-3 NCAA record--with at least one win each year?

This one hurts a lot right now. Losing in OT is tough. Especially when you're one goal from the frozen four and you've come so close to beating the huge odds on Minnesota's home ice. In the frozen four after Palahicky's goal was called back, the wheels kind of fell off so losing was sort of expected. Today at about the 10 minute mark of the third period when we finally started playing Red hockey, I really thought we might do it and shut up the annoying Goofer fans.

It takes a lot of things breaking the right way to make it back to this position next year, but at least we've got a strong junior class coming back.

I'll miss this senior class. They were overachievers who will be missed more than we originally expected.

The NCAA needs to change the rule that hosts must play in their region in the tournament. It's a bogus rule. That being said, Cornell should do whatever it can to host in the future as long as the rule stays the same.

Go Colorado College, win it for the small schools.

plus i had tix to the finals in 2003....i still went

If nothing else, at least one regional final had a full house. There appeared to be a lot of empty seats in Amherst and Worcester. I suspect the announced attendance figures may be "tickets sold for the game" not actually people in seats.

The "good of the game" that lets Minnesota play in its own regional as incentive to host it might also benefit Cornell one of these years if the NCAA has the option to place a team such as Cornell where its fans will show up (Albany and Rochester the next two years). Wisconsin faithful ought to be rewarded. If that shafts a Mercyhurst, well, so be it.

Definitely 2003 and even 2002. Both times outplayed NH and had high expectations yet lost. Even worse, NH tanked in its next game both years so we definitely would have put up a better fight than they did (or did we take that much out of them?). I was at the 2003 FF, and it was a complete show of dominance by the Red before the disallowed goal. We would have been better off to never have put that shot in, because the momentum took a complete 180 after the ridiculously long review. Despite this, we finished the game with a fury and if not for Ayers getting lucky with the shot off his face would have tied it. We all knew that that amazing class of seniors was graduating so I figured it would be sometime until we got there again. I am thrilled that we are knocking on the door with a fairly young team only two years later.

I don't know which is more painful, but I know know that I hope we get the opportunity to play Minnesota in a regional next year, around the corner from our campus, without their big sheet, and that we grind them to a pulp while we get seven power play chances to their three, and we actually score on ours. Maybe the selection commitee could even see to it that they get screwed in the seeding process, and end up as a number 4 seed, so they have to play us in the first round.

And maybe we could crush UNH to get to the 2006 frozen four...

For we who are long in the tooth, this feels eerily like the 1986 QF loss at Denver. In both seasons Cornell came off an ECAC championship only to find itself exiled far away. In both, they played beautifully, splitting a pair of games, leading in the decisive game, only to let the lead slip and lose by a single goal. As much as it would have been wonderful to advance to the Frozen Four, in each case they were a solid underdog and yet played wonderfully, and while very disappointing it was not "painful."

The big difference is that in 1986 the heart of the team was the senior class (one was a certain Mr. Schafer), while this season, although the losses turn out to be far greater than it might have seemed at the beginning of the year, there is a 2002ish "wait till next year" feel.

2003 was painful. Today was not far behind. Minnesota was the weakest of the 1 seeds, struggling on offense, and prime for the picking. I didn't think we were out of today's game at all - and we were wearing them down. Lucia's quoted as saying they talked in the locker room that they needed to score quick because they were getting tired.

The more I think about Schafer and the teams he builds, they're built for the long run - the team is well-conditioned, they never seem to lose that energy throughout the game or season. If they had best-of-3 (or longer) series in the NCAAs, Cornell really could match up with anybody in the country. The one-and-done format doesn't credit us for the punishment the team doles out - eventually wearing them down and pouncing on their mistakes. Also, I'm convinced that Schafer could devise a system/scheme to beat any team . Whenever the Red play a new team, it seems there's always a tentative feeling-out adjustment period, and then there's some adjustments and there we go. And the attitude that Schafer has brought in - he's not happy to just be in games, the us against the world, we're good and we're going to prove it - is exactly what was needed. He's got the team believing that it can win (and perhaps expecting to win) an NCAA championship. In years past, the team would've been thrilled just to win the ECAC's. Notice this year's subdued celebration......

With that said, my expectations for next year are sky high......

Hear, Hear!

[Q]redGrinch Wrote:With that said, my expectations for next year are sky high......[/q]Just think: If LeNeveu hadn't departed early for the pros, McKee would this year be finishing his *freshman* year and we'd have his services through spring 2008. That would be one heck of a goalie rotation.

Well said RedGrinch!!!

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
there is a 2002ish "wait till next year" feel.[/q]

For the record, which Trotsky can confirm, I was only one year off several years ago when I took a look at the direction our team was going and said we'd next make it to the Frozen Four in 2002. It was, of course, 2003 instead.

When did I say our next national championship would be?

2005.

I'd be pleased as punch to be exactly as "wrong" about that one.

Looking forward to Milwaukee.

Beeeej

What year was it that you actually made those predictions, Beeeej? If it was 2001, no offense, but that's not impressive. If it was 1995, then we'll call you a visionary.

Again, Trotsky can confirm, but I believe it was 1999.

Beeeej

'96 was more painful than both, but that's because I was in school and I irrationally believed that team was magical.

In the long view, I'm glad our painful losses are now coming in the quarter- or semifinals rather than in the first round.

This year was more painful, mainly b/c of the 2000 mile trip and going against 8000 gopher fans. I definitely felt a lot worse when it ended.

After a bit of perspective on this year, I don't think 2003 was all that painful. Painful for me has more to do with that particular game than the whole season. Maybe not for everyone, but that seems to be how it effects me.

Going down 3-0 on UHN, well, I'm not gonna say I gave up, but I certainly didn't expect much. As the game wore on and we pulled it closer, I certainly got a lot of hope back, but I never expected the team had a damn good shot at coming back from 0-3. So at the end it was "well, they got close, but I already thought it was over an hour and a half ago... oh well".

More painful than that was 2002, when we were tied with only a few minutes left before Underhill let us a relative softie - very similar to Colgate's experience against CC this year. That was painful because we got so close I could taste it, only needed a bounce of the puck. It was tied and then our hopes were close to dashed in an instant.

This year, this year was definitely painful. Very painful. With a bit of perspective I am extremely proud of this team, nearly overcoming a deck that was virtually stacked against them. 20, 30 minutes into that game, we were being outskated, drastically outshot, but then... then we took the lead! As it got late in the third, we started skating better, winning the battles, playing more of our game. As overtime started, we had a few good chances, and it seemed the longer it went, the better we would... shit.

Losing to OSU the night before, after being down 2-0 would have been less painful, because we could have had time to prepare for it as the game wore on. More disappointing, less to feel good about in the long run, but less painful.

So...
disappointment/finishing short of our beginning of season hopes: 2002 < 2005 < 2003
actual pain at game end: 2003 < 2002 (esp with the memories of Placid) < 2005

Having been at both, it's hard to pick. They were both painful in their own ways.

2003 was painful because I think we were a true national championship contender, and it had to be that year because of all the departing seniors (and we knew Lenny leaving was a possibility as well). It was also painful for me, because even down 3-0, I was unusally confident that we were going to chip away and come back to win. When we made it 3-2, in some ways I felt the game was ours to lose. And if not for a fortunately placed Ayers facemask, who knows.... To lose that game knowing the firepower we were losing, and how special a year it had been (perfect at Lynah included), it was rough.

Sunday was painful because of how beautifully sweet it would have been to advance to the Frozen Four under those circumstances....300 Lynah Faithful celebrating on Minnesota's home turf, as 9500 Minnesotans beat the traffic. And after the shorthanded goal, it was becoming even more of a reality. But deep down, did I feel we were a "true" championship contender....even after the unbeaten streak, I had my doubts. I've been saying for over a year now that 2005-06 was the one I was eyeing for another legitimate championship run, and this season felt like it was going to mirror 2001-2002. As it turns out, it was eerily similar (at least in how and when it ended). And think back to the weeks before Red/White, and see what the opinions were regarding a potential Frozen Four. I think "make the NCAA's and maybe win a game" was the realistic goal, much more so than "reach the Frozen Four." As it should have been, with a relatively young team, a sophomore goaltender, and a terribly disappointing result the previous year. So in retrospect, I think we reached our realistic goals this season, and it was painful in that we didn't stretch beyond those. 2003 was painful because you fully believed you would walk home with hardware.

As a Red Sox fan, I find the tone of these posts all too familiar. No worries, folks. This team overachieved. They'll be back next year, and they'll be better.

This year has one huge advantage over 2002, and his name is Whitelaw. (Plus we beat a real team in the first round rather than a MAAC patsy.)

This team and its fans are nothing like the Red Sox and theirs. There's a big difference in being disappointed that your team did not win a championship and wondering how the team is going to blow the run to the championship this year.

A few more heartbreaks to go before Cornell fans get any sort of Red Soxian complex

Even though we will have a strong team next year, certain players will have to step up to fill roles of departing seniors (ie. Sasha and O'Byrne for Charlie and Jeremy).
That said, 2003 was alot tougher, especially since I was sitting 5 rows back from the ice behind Ayers when teh shot got disallowed. (bs).
Oh - and there's a new article on [www.uscho.com]
where Adam convinced the NCAA to get rid of some big ice rule. We will see.

dave '02

Haha, Adam, I love you... in the way a guy can love a sports journalist... it probably means nothing overall, but its a major moral victory. One I greatly appreciate right now

One wonders if this will be our ultimate revenge on Minnesota. Then again, the NCAA likes to make money and Minnesota likes to host regionals, so it might do nothing. But it'll be nice to have the rules on our side in the future.

Well, it's not like Adam convinced the rules committee to change the rule to prefer NHL ice, he just convinced them to get rid of the rule preferring Olympic ice. And even if they went further and made a rule preferring NHL ice, that's all it would likely be - a preference. I doubt they'd ever institute a rule that would require schools to spend serious money on renovating their rinks.

Maybe it'd be possible to require new Div. I programs to have facilities with NHL ice, but they'd probably have to grandfather in the existing ones.

Beeeej

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

Maybe it'd be possible to require new Div. I programs to have facilities with NHL ice, but they'd probably have to grandfather in the existing ones.

Beeeej[/q]

Interesting idea. What about already existing programs constructing new facilities? After all, Mariucci won't stand forever.

[Q]Will Wrote:

Beeeej Wrote:
Maybe it'd be possible to require new Div. I programs to have facilities with NHL ice, but they'd probably have to grandfather in the existing ones.[/Q]
Interesting idea. What about already existing programs constructing new facilities? After all, Mariucci won't stand forever.[/q]

I meant to include that thought, too. Thanks for completing it for me.

Beeeej

 

___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2005 01:25PM by Beeeej.