Don't see this box score everyday

I guess the phrase should be adjusted to....Better very very very late than never:

[www.uscho.com]

Wonder if HC will stil get more votes in the USA Today poll tomorrow than Cornell.

I'm a little fuzzy here - isn't this box score technically impossible unless there was a penalty shot after the game which by the fact that there were assists seems not to be the case.

I think you get a goal at 5:00 (or 20:00) if it is counted as the clock runs out (i.e., the goal light comes on just as the clock goes to all zeros).

well actually in this case, you get a goal at 5:00 if the guy entering the box score got it wrong

from the bentley website:
[Q]WATERTOWN, Mass. --- Senior co-captain Joe Lovell (Norwood/Norwood HS) recorded the game-winning goal with 33 seconds left in overtime as Bentley College upended top-ranked Holy Cross 1-0 in Atlantic Hockey action Saturday night at the John A. Ryan Arena.[/Q]

Good thing for HC it wasn't a tournament game.

Wasn't there some game a few weeks ago that was going to head into overtime with a 0-0 tie, but someone scored at 19:59.58?

[Q]Wasn't there some game a few weeks ago that was going to head into overtime with a 0-0 tie, but someone scored at 19:59.58?[/Q]

Indeed, a 1-0 Ohio State win over Quinnipiac...

[www.uscho.com]

Speaking of weird boxscores...it was mentioned in SI this week that the Harvard womens hockey team outshot Vermont 71-2


[www.collegehockeystats.com]

When you get 71 shots and only allow two you really should be able to score more than six goals.

I wonder why Vermont bothered to pull it's goalie at the 54:51 mark. Yeah, she'd just allowed her sixth goal. But on 64 shots that's not too shabby (.906 Sv%).

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

Speaking of weird boxscores...it was mentioned in SI this week that the Harvard womens hockey team outshot Vermont 71-2


[www.collegehockeystats.com] [/Q]

Guess we shouldn't get too excited about the Cornell women beating Vermont 2-1 in OT today to clinch a playoff berth.

I was actually at that game today. I've never watched women's hockey before, so it was interesting. The two teams were pretty evenly matched, though Cornell dominated the third period and overtime. In any case, we all know that Cornell women's hockey recently hasn't been all that thrilling in their record, and they'll likely have their asses handed to them next week by the Harvard(sucks) women(swallow ). But it was still entertaining.

[Q]Speaking of weird boxscores...it was mentioned in SI this week that the Harvard womens hockey team outshot Vermont 71-2[/Q]


In the past, the MIT women's team has had some pretty unfortunate box scores:

[www.uscho.com]

[www.uscho.com]

The Cornell women have been developing under their new coach, and they're playing pretty good hockey. Unfortunately, Cornell has been in a fairly long decline, and recruiting has suffered from it. As a result, the women don't have any genuine scoring threats. In fact, they don't really have anybody that you can look at and say "she would be a first line player at just about any school in the country." On the bright side, there are lots of solid second and third line caliber players in the first and second year classes, and they only graduate four this year and four the next. I think Cornell is two good recruiting classes from competing for home ice in the ECAC again. Considering that competing for home ice in the ECAC women's hockey league means being a top 15 team in the country, that's not too shabby.

As of right now, this Cornell team just doesn't have the depth to keep up with the top teams for a whole game. Teams without depth need at least one or two superstars to steal a few points from the best teams, and Cornell certainly doesn't have any of those.

I expect Harvard to take the series in two games by a combined score of about 11-2, but Cornell could be within striking distance at the end of the second period of game 1. Cornell was actually *beating* Harvard in the second period of this year's RS game @ Harvard before the roof caved in. The final score was something like 8-3.

Interesting note about the game today: since Cornell managed to drop a game to Union (I'm not exactly sure what happened in that game - Union's terrible), and UVM took a point from Colgate yesterday, Cornell had to win to get into the playoffs. The GWG was an extra-attacker goal with 18 seconds left in OT. UVM almost won it in OT with an empty-netter, but the puck slid just wide for an icing call. Cornell scored on a flurry after the ensuing faceoff.

This can also happen if the guy in the box gets excited and forgets to stop the clock, as was the case in today's Big Red women's hockey victory at Lynah. There should have been about 30 sec. left, but he stopped it around 18. Also not too often you see someone pull their goalie in OT and have it work out to win the game. Good coaching move by Melody.

[Q]Harvard(sucks) women(swallow ). [/Q]I thought that was the Yale women...

Thanks for clarifying that box score. Well to bring this thread full circle, I caught the Harvard-Princeton women's hockey game today in which Harvard captured the ECAC women's RS title (winning a tiebreaker). As Cornell has been in decline for sometime, Harvard has been at the cream of the crop in women's hockey since it won the national championship back in 1999 before the NCAA conducted a women's championship (AWCHA National Title). That team was loaded with Olympians and tons of talent as it is today. One of Harvard's seniors, Ruggiero, is still left over from that 99 team after taking two years off to train nationally.

Women's hockey produces some interesting box scores. As mentioned, MIT has lost by 15 goals or more many times in the years the program has existed. With the addition of formerly Division III women schools like Union and I believe Vermont to Division I ECAC after the Women's Hockey East was formed two years ago, such box scores have continued. Even for a hockey program that has been in decline, it would have been bad to finish behind Vermont and miss the ECAC playoffs.

Women players have more options now than just 10 years ago with the expanison of women's hockey out west shifting the balance of power from the ECAC to Minnesota where Minnesota-Duluth has won all three of the NCAA women's championships held. As there are no automatic qualifiers (just four at-large bids) to the women's NCAA tournament, Minnesota-Duluth (under former Olympian Shannon Miller) will relinquish that title this year.

The ECAC tournament championship used to be all there was and now, the ECAC tournament champion isn't assured of anything. Even before the conference tournaments begin, Harvard, Dartmouth, Minnesota and Wisconsin seem the likely four women's teams with St. Lawrence the most likely team to replace one of them.

And as somebody who has followed women's hockey as long as men's hockey, I have to say that the sport has become more aggressive. While you don't have checking, it seems the number of roughing calls and scrums increases each year.

Gutsy move by Melody but in the situation, the only move to keep the season going. Staying with Harvard for two periods next weekend will be a good accomplishment for the Red.

I noticed the women's playoffs are now best 2 out of 3. They used to just be one game. Anybody know when that changed or if that's new this year? I don't remember it before.

That changed a couple of years ago.

Finishing behind Vermont might have been bad for a team like Cornell earlier this year, but in all honesty UVM isn't as bad a team as that Harvard box score would lead you to believe. The loss to Union is the real blight on Cornell's record, as Union hasn't even been close to beating an established D-I team this year. There's the lack of scoring talent coming back to bite the Big Red once again. Cornell outshot Union about 2-1 over the course of the game, and lost 3-1.

There's cause for optimism, as the team is playing fundamentally sound hockey in all three zones for the first time in about 5 years. The jury is still out on whether or not Davidson is really a great head coach at the D-I level, but she's making a pretty good case for herself. Now if only she can pick up some big wins down the line. . .

Women's hockey has definitely gotten rougher over the last several years. I don't remember much contact in the game in 98, when Cornell was in the hunt for home ice and lost 1-0 to eventual ECAC and AWCHA champion Brown in the playoffs. Now there's a ton of contact - lots of outright body checks were thrown in the Cornell/UVM game, and that's between two teams that aren't attracting the olympians.

The western teams are picking up the pace a bit, but the ECAC is still the class league. The way the PWR looks right now, the ECAC could easily send three teams if Wisconsin doesn't win the women's WCHA. The women's hockey east is down this year, which is odd considering that UNH and Northeastern were the traditional hockey powers right up until the flood of olympic talent that boosted the Harvard, Dartmouth, and UMD programs.

Side note: I didn't realize that the scorekeeper ran an extra 10 seconds off of the clock yesterday. I felt like the flurry that led to the GWG started at around 39 seconds, and couldn't believe that it took them 21 seconds to put the puck in the net. Now the official time of the GWG makes sense to me.