Hahvahd 3 @ Cornell 1 Postgame

If you can't win on senior night, against your archrival, with a first round bye on the line...

We couldn't win one game against ANY of the teams above us... Excluding empty net goals, we lost 7 of eight games against these teams by one goal. The exception, at Clarkson we lost 3-1 before the ENG. Average goals scored in those eight games: 1.35. Reg ECAC games only.

We just don't have any offense.

Brown at least has 2 wins against the top 4 teams.

Looks like we get Dartmouth.

Then you have to play the first round in the playoffs.

Big deal. Things didn't go our way, and Harvard got the better of us this year. If you take a look at our points vs. the league by position, we "took care of business" against the teams beneath us and lost to those above. I fully expect us to do the same next week against a Dartmouth team that, frankly, we manhandled this year. If we win there, it's on to Union, against a team that, well, just lost to Brown. And couldn't handle Dartmouth.

As someone said over in the game thread, it's not the worst thing in the world for this team to play a couple more games--gives them a couple of more games to light a fire and get moving.

Well, I hardly believe the Goal Princess will come and give us scorers, but it sure would be sweet to eliminate Union on their ice.

Pairings:

Dartmouth at Cornell
Brown     at Quinnipiac
RPI       at Yale
SLU       at Colgate

I'll take Cornell (obviously), Quinnipiac, RPI, and SLU, for no good reason other than it sets up:

RPI        at Clarkson
SLU        at Princeton
Quinnipiac at Harvard
Cornell    at Union

And I'd really like to see Princeton out of the playoffs, which would set up (with a Cornell win):

SLU vs. Clarkson
Cornell vs. Harvard

A true classic.

well, Harvard stacked 4 men on their blueline and took advantage of two mistakes. Certainly a taste of our own medicine.

nm

Worst game of hockey I have ever seen. If we win in the first round we get to play Union at Union.. YIPEEEEE!!! Guess what, they swept us!! I cant wait to lose to Union (if we even get past Dartmouth) it will be the highlight of this year (losing to a team that allows more goals than it scores and is still ahead of us). Might as well turn Lynah into a parking lot.

Basketball is the new hockey

This was the worst effort I have seen from the team this year except for the @ Union game. There is no way we win a series on the road there

Doug 08... worst effort youve seen this year? this must be the first game youve seen in person then, must not make it out of Ithaca all that often.

Go away troll.

Iwilldunkonyou
Doug 08... worst effort youve seen this year? this must be the first game youve seen in person then, must not make it out of Ithaca all that often.

Who exactly will you "dunk on"... I'm guessing you were one of the two shirtless Harvard fans in O?

Hey at least they go to road games and those two guys were louder than the student sections, not even that stupid cowbell inspired anyone.

It is the worst thing in the world to play more games because you lose the extra week to heal.

I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.

Iwilldunkonyou
Hey at least they go to road games and those two guys were louder than the student sections, not even that stupid cowbell inspired anyone.

Ok I'll bite... you must have been that obnoxious fan in the middle of B tonight who my buddy almost strangled.

How many games have you been to, Iwilldunkonyou? Chode.

I think you're being overly pessimistic about the state of Cornell hockey. Yes, basketball is hot right now (I mean, some of my brothers even chose basketball over hockey tonight, and they tell me the atmosphere was electric; the fans rushed the court and ripped the nets down!), but Cornell hockey is here to stay in my opinion. I don't see basketball replacing the tradition any time soon, but I guess you never know.

Kristoph

Who are you trying to kid Doug 08? We both know you dont really go to many games. In fact I guarantee you wont be there next weekend.

That kid that almost killed him Im sure is 100 times a bigger fan than you.

You know what? I think we have another, we won't respond to you and maybe you'll go away, poster. Some people just say stupid things, so they can be heard, and to incite a riot. Best leave him alone.

Right, I finally registered on elynah just to respond to Iwilldunkonyou. I'm so angry right now! Perhaps your strategy is best though.

Kristoph

Jim Hyla, you must be just like Doug 08, I have probably seen more games this year than you have in your life. Both a bunch of posers..

And it is Lobdoa, morons.

I swear I wouldn't respond again, but it's Dan Lodbao, you freaking idiot. Check the internets.

Kristoph

Iwilldunkonyou
And it is Lobdoa, morons.

No, it's not.

Here, here. Where did you happen to find that? I couldn't find any information on him when I used the www.google.com site.

Kristoph

Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsgesetz
Here, here. Where did you happen to find that? I couldn't find any information on him when I used the www.google.com site.

Kristoph

Hockeydb.com; it's a great site for finding various historical info.

(Maybe you couldn't find any information because you were looking for Dan Lobdoa? )

Josh '99

Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsgesetz
Here, here. Where did you happen to find that? I couldn't find any information on him when I used the www.google.com site.

Kristoph

Hockeydb.com; it's a great site for finding various historical info.

(Maybe you couldn't find any information because you were looking for Dan Lobdoa? )

He was looking for Dan Lodbao.

nyc94

Josh '99

Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsgesetz
Here, here. Where did you happen to find that? I couldn't find any information on him when I used the www.google.com site.

Kristoph

Hockeydb.com; it's a great site for finding various historical info.

(Maybe you couldn't find any information because you were looking for Dan Lobdoa? )

He was looking for Dan Lodbao.

You're all way off. It's spelled Svoboda.

PAthologicalLynah
You're all way off. It's spelled Svoboda.

S V-O B-O D-A SVOBODA, SVOBODA
S V-O B-O D-A SVOBODA, SVOBODA

How embarrassing. I stand corrected.

Kristoph

Too bad you missed the basketball game. They played really well.

Man, I sure wish I had spent less time worrying how to sneak my fish into Lynah...the Red might have won without my stupid time-wasting...

billhoward
I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play. At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Don't laugh, it happened to Maine in 1994, although not right at the end of the season.

Give My Regards

billhoward
I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play. At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Well, Schenectady could, like, fall into the sea or something. You never know.

Give My Regards

billhoward
I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play. At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Don't laugh, it happened to Maine in 1994, although not right at the end of the season.

Actually, you should laugh at Maine, they were sanctioned not once but twice in a three year period. Fortunately, and completely coincidentally, they only cheated in 1992 and 1994, not in 1993 when they won the NCAA championship, lest the league look bad

Iwilldunkonyou
Jim Hyla, you must be just like Doug 08, I have probably seen more games this year than you have in your life. Both a bunch of posers..

And it is Lobdoa, morons.

Wow, one post containing two claims that are so very incredibly incorrect, that's new levels of trolling.

Donato takes another round against Schafer. Schafer was obsessed with line matching tonight to the point where shifts lasted 10-15 seconds each and his fourth line was on the ice more than any other. Truly fascinating how Greening and Nash - far and away the two best offensive players on the team see the ice every fourth shift for 20-25 seconds. As long as Schafer can get his matchups, none of which proved to be beneficial at any point during the course of the game. Donato was laughing at Schafer - he kept throwing his top group out there and Schafer would counter with his fourth line. I like the fourth line and they obviously contribute to the team's success but at one point do you start thinking, maybe we should try and get the offense going a little bit. Most offensive zone faceoffs saw the fourth line out. None of the forwards got any flow going or found any comfort level because their shifts were 10-15 seconds all night. The road team loved every second of it as they want lots of whistles, very short shifts, and very simple hockey.

As a whole, Donato and Schafer painted a brutal picture of the sport tonight. Neither team got after it at any point, just content to sit back in the neutral zone and watch. No clue as to why top players like Greening and Nash would want to stay at Cornell for any long period when they play every fourth shift and the team has little interest in getting after it even in the most important game of the season. No wonder there are players on this team who have shown to little to no improvement during the course of their careers at Cornell - they are asked to play like robots.

I understand the need to play conservative hockey in such an important game but at what point do you tell your guys to go win the game? They did get some pressure going to start the third period but at no point during the course of this game did Cornell throw down the gauntlet and really go after a win. Rather, they were content to play chess with Harvard. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining.

You can play smart, responsible hockey without leaving four guys in the neutral zone and having your forwards play 15 second shifts. Go with the 2-3 and keep that third man high at all times. It has worked pretty well for Clarkson this year and their players certainly seem to thrive and improve within that system.

There is no question that Schafer is an outstanding X's and O's coach from the defensive standpoint. He manages the details of the game very well but there is a point where you overcoach and overmanage and that was very evident tonight. There needs to be a point where you trust your players and let them go and try to win a game. Cornell's offensive players did not get a sufficient opportunity to win this game because Schafer was so obsessed with micromanaging the matchups.

Pretty concerning when the team comes out with very poor focus in the biggest game of the season. This game was lost in the first ten minutes when the team badly squandered three powerplays.

Best post of the night, Ari.

calgARI '07
Pretty concerning when the team comes out with very poor focus in the biggest game of the season. This game was lost in the first ten minutes when the team badly squandered three powerplays.

If you want to go around placing blame, all you have to do is look at the box score:

[www.collegehockeystats.net]

It's right there: Scott/M. Kennedy/Sawada -2, -3, -3. They had to have a big night tonight, and we lost when they didn't. Scott just seemed "off"--can't put my finger on it--and Sawada was back to being invisible offensively. He's doing that thing again where he takes the puck on the rush and immediately heads outside, instead of dipping his shoulder and driving like Greening does.

(What do you do, really? In years past, Sawada would've been watching for a game or two long before now, but it's tough to scratch a captain. I dearly hope Greening is the single captain next year; he plays every game with fire.)

On the power plays, there were a couple of moments, especially with Nash, Greening, et al., where we started to see what worked vs. Harvard's kill: the defensemen need to cheat in between the circles on the weak side when the puck gets deep to the opposite corner. We got quite a few goals from defensemen during Donato's first year, and that option seemed open tonight. With the second unit, that was where we missed Topher, since he usually feeds those cutters from behind the net.

Those minutes between Harvard's second goal and the empty netter were not too fun to watch, but, hey, a taste of our own medicine--exactly.

I agree with this... good post.
These are young guys who should be able to handle long shifts (like 40 seconds) at times. If you want a certain defensive pair against their top line- fine. But to keep the best offensive line off the ice when you're behind is absurd. If you're up by a bunch of goals, by all means roll four lines. And to further this point, I don't think the situation is new to this year. Even back when other production lines, like Moulson/Bitz/Hynes were together, I thought they were drastically underused. It turned out ok because the goals against was so low those years. I understand conservative play, but give your team a chance to win!

Beeeej

Give My Regards

billhoward
I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play. At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Well, Schenectady could, like, fall into the sea or something. You never know.

Given their locations, I have to figure Cambridge is more likely to fall into the sea than Schenectady.

If I had to choose, I'd choose both, though.

Iwilldunkonyou
Who are you trying to kid Doug 08? We both know you dont really go to many games. In fact I guarantee you wont be there next weekend.

I'm glad someone finally found the balls to call Doug out on being the only student to make it to every single Cornell game this season. You can barely call him a fan for that, facetimer!

First time a Schafer-coached team has lost the season series to Hahvahd.
Longest Schafer-era losing streak vs the Crimson (3 games).
First time we've finished out of the top 4 since 1999 (so first time we've not had a bye since the new playoff system was adopted).

Also, let's not feed the trolls, okay?

Absolutely disappointing. This is the second time in three years that we've lost at home to Harvard on senior night with lots riding on the game.

Great post above by Ari.

This team has played its worst hockey this season when it steps back and plays conservatively. That's the cause of all the blown leads (see Florida, Union, etc.) this year. We get up 1, 2, or even 3 goals, and then play to hold on. Maybe the team knew Brown was winning and that they only needed a tie to get a bye?

It's hard to focus on just one player, but Mike Devin was awful this weekend. It's tough to look bad when your team wins 6-0, but Devin did that last night. He looked like Jordan Berk out there tonight against Harvard. It's amazing how much ice time Schafer gives him.

We can beat up on the bottom tier of our shitty conference, but have no success against the top tier teams. I like our chances against Dartmouth next weekend, but we will lose on the road at Union.

I feel bad for the seniors. For all the talk of Schafer being a rabid Harvard-hater who can coach this team to victories against the Crimson, he's done an awful job of this recently, particularly in big games. (2006 senior night, 2006 ecac final, last rs game 2007, and then getting swept this season)

I've been saying for a few weeks now that maybe this team needs to play a series on the road in the postseason, just to see how much it can suck, and hopefully the non-seniors will do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen again, win or lose. The presumed series at Union in two weeks would fit the bill exactly. (Of course, this scenario assumes Cornell gets past Dartmouth next week, and even given Friday night's result, we should really take nothing for granted.)

Thats great Amerks127. That's funny, I didnt see you at Clarkson, or St Lawrence, or RPI, or Union, or Princeton, or Yale, or Brown.

Must be a "facetimer" as well..

"facetimer"?

Kristoph

Yes its nice to see one team at Cornell that actually gives all its effort and wants to play for the school, the fans, and has some pride. Much better than that "team" that plays at Lynah...

Thanks for making my point for me.. troll

Your www.slack.nets is very informed (did you in fact create it jtwcornell91?). I found it helpful in understanding the playoff formations. Cheers.

Kristoph

Good for you. I'll be sure to notify Chris Hansen about how you incorrectly track me at the road games.

OH that's right. You must have been with that OTHER group of non-existent students at all these games away from the Cornell section. My mistake.

Iwilldunkonyou
Yes its nice to see one team at Cornell that actually gives all its effort and wants to play for the school, the fans, and has some pride. Much better than that "team" that plays at Lynah...

Thanks for making my point for me.. troll

You talkin' to me? (In my best DeNiro)

Anyone know what happened to the Cornell Anaphoric Society's annual distribution of the six verses of the Alma Mater last night? It was too bad that the band played them all but the fans didn't have the words, nor did most people even know what the band was up to. How many other occasions do we have to assess the relative strengths of verses four and six?

I've never known who or what the CAS was, other than the folks who distribute the six verses on Senior Night. Maybe someone graduated and no one took on this job?

nm

FWIW, I think Cornell has a better shot going to Albany by playing Union on the road than they would have playing Harvard at home.

calgARI '07
FWIW, I think Cornell has a better shot going to Albany by playing Union on the road than they would have playing Harvard at home.

Agreed. Union has never won an ECAC playoff series, including dropping four first-round upsets (i.e., at Union) in a row from 2003-06. Hahvahd just has a better overall sense of what it takes to win at this level.

calgARI '07
FWIW, I think Cornell has a better shot going to Albany by playing Union on the road than they would have playing Harvard at home.

FWIW, I agree with Ari for the first time in about three years of posts.

They played great on Friday against an extremely bad team. They played well on Saturday, dominating at times, against a Harvard team that's identical in ability and depth. 50/50 games go either way; unfortunately we got the 1-in-4 case this year against the Crimson, which I'm hoping sets up another meeting in Albany. It would have been great to keep the string of top-4 finishes alive, but...

For a team with more high end offensive talent (Riley, Greening, Michael Kennedy) than any since the F4 team, it's amazing they do no better than, at most, 2 goals against a good opponent. That's their tragic flaw, although frankly from the energy they generated on O and all the giveaways in their own zone, I'd have guessed they would have lost the Harvard game 6-4 rather than 3-1.

Trotsky

For a team with more high end offensive talent (Riley, Greening, Michael Kennedy) than any since the F4 team, it's amazing they do no better than, at most, 2 goals against a good opponent. That's their tragic flaw, although frankly from the energy they generated on O and all the giveaways in their own zone, I'd have guessed they would have lost the Harvard game 6-4 rather than 3-1.

Well they are only on the ice about 12-15 minutes a game each so I think it's pretty amazing that they have produced as much as they have.

Interesting spin, and a nice antidote to all the negativity here, from the Harvard writer:

[www.thecrimson.com]

Riley Nash is such an exceptional talent that he seems to go about "his business" with so little exertion. If my perception is reality (that he actually is exerting himself less), why is Mike not double-shifting him a bit at crucial times in important games?

God knows, Mike is open to changing line combinations. So, I can't believe he's not doing this because he doesn't want to disturb the chemistry on any given line

Just scanning the box score I am shocked that it appears we were 50/50 at the faceoff circle, over the game. Would love to see a breakdown by period... Dufault absolutely killed us in the 3rd at the faceoff (not to mention the goals)

calgARI '07
Well they are only on the ice about 12-15 minutes a game each so I think it's pretty amazing that they have produced as much as they have.

You know what I mean. The team should average more than 2 gpg, not just those core players.
When Patrick Kennedy puts on some more muscle and gets more experienced, he will become a scoring threat. By then, of course, Riley will be Edmonton...

Cornell95
Just scanning the box score I am shocked that it appears we were 50/50 at the faceoff circle, over the game. Would love to see a breakdown by period... Dufault absolutely killed us in the 3rd at the faceoff (not to mention the goals)

I'd say we were winning the majority of the draws in the first and second period, so a 50/50 split actually seems reasonable to me because you're right- third period was aweful

Trotsky
You know what I mean. The team should average more than 2 gpg, not just those core players.
When Patrick Kennedy puts on some more muscle and gets more experienced, he will become a scoring threat. By then, of course, Riley will be Edmonton...

I don't think this team has the offensive talent to average more than two goals a game within the system that they play. After Fontas, Scali, and Mugford the other nine forwards play about the same amount at even strength. Playing a system that places far more emphasis on preventing goals than scoring them when your least offensively-gifted players seem the most ice time and your most gifted are on the ice every fourth shift, you are praying to win games 2-1 or 1-0.

Why should they average more than two goals a game? It isn't like they get a ton of pucks to the net or like they get a lot of quality scoring chances. I think the amount they're scoring seems about right in the games I've seen.

Trotsky
For a team with more high end offensive talent (Riley, Greening, Michael Kennedy) than any since the F4 team

That's it though...there's a significant drop off after that. For example, look at our checking line Mugford-Fontas-Scali--great defensive/energy line--but no offensive talent. Think of checking lines from years past...Mugford-Kennedy-Carefoot or Mugford-Abbott-Sawada both of those lines generated offense. I think the problem (which Ari was alluding to) is that a team that's offensive talent is top-heavy needs to have the "talent," so to speak, see a disproportionate amount of ice time--otherwise you'll struggle to score. And it's not like Nash or Greening ever see any time on the PK. Look at Winchester and Burton or jubinville, wilson and Macintyre (sp) and how often they are on the ice. In the past this wasn't an issue--the talent and physicality was spread out a bit more, so rolling four lines worked well as we slowly wore down opponents and had enough offensive skill to capitalize.

redhair34
And it's not like Nash or Greening ever see any time on the PK. Look at Winchester and Burton or jubinville, wilson and Macintyre (sp) and how often they are on the ice.

Outside of Chartrand/Cooney, who seemed to have a talent for it and were certainly supremely conditioned, Schafer has not been one, at least in my memory, to put top players on the kill. Our kill is expected to block a lot of shots, and I'm certainly glad those guys aren't often out there doing that. Greening has potential to be a Chartrand-type (rugged, unstoppable), but he's still just a sophomore. I could see next year, for example, Greening and M. Kennedy paired up top on a penalty kill for a dangerous combination.

With the lines, it seems clear to me that Schafer is trying to replicate the '03 clinical powerplay for next year and, potentially, two years from now. (That is, it might not be as difficult to keep R. Nash around if we're challenging for a national championship. Brothers...) I expect the Greening/Nash/P. Kennedy line will remain intact next year, as will that power play unit involving them.

Scersk '97

Outside of Chartrand/Cooney, who seemed to have a talent for it and were certainly supremely conditioned, Schafer has not been one, at least in my memory, to put top players on the kill.

Don't forget Vesce and Bâby.

Scersk '97
Our kill is expected to block a lot of shots, and I'm certainly glad those guys aren't often out there doing that.

I don't disagree, I only mentioned it to point out that they aren't exerting extra energy on the kill and should have plenty in the tank to handle increased ice time.

calgARI '07

Scersk '97

Outside of Chartrand/Cooney, who seemed to have a talent for it and were certainly supremely conditioned, Schafer has not been one, at least in my memory, to put top players on the kill.

Don't forget Vesce and Bâby.

I suppose I don't remember Vesce spending a lot of time on the kill, but it is so hard to remember the very competent but not dangerous ones. Easier to remember the Igguldens and McCutcheons.

Scersk '97

calgARI '07

Scersk '97

Outside of Chartrand/Cooney, who seemed to have a talent for it and were certainly supremely conditioned, Schafer has not been one, at least in my memory, to put top players on the kill.

Don't forget Vesce and Bâby.

I suppose I don't remember Vesce spending a lot of time on the kill, but it is so hard to remember the very competent but not dangerous ones. Easier to remember the Igguldens and McCutcheons.

And Carefoots. ("Carefeet!"

Scersk '97
With the lines, it seems clear to me that Schafer is trying to replicate the '03 clinical powerplay for next year and, potentially, two years from now.

Assembling a five-man power play unit of freshmen and sophomores so that that unit can build chemistry over three years is something Schafer has shown a fondness for in the past.

EDIT: I see the forum police have already got to it...