CU Hockey-Preseason

I guess as good a place to start this: INCH profiles Greg Miller.

In the last 25 seasons (since 1986-87), the complete list of Cornell sophomores who had at least 25 assists is:

34 1991 Ryan Hughes
25 2011 Greg Miller

RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

I have no connection to WaP besides for as a reader.

BTW, "Without a Peer" is a phrase in the RPI Alma Mater.

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

ursusminor

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

We're here to watch our hockey teams win, not to see whose figure skaters have the most exciting routine. Although I respect WAP's author for the work detailing ECAC and college hockey in general, most of us expect this kind of banter from RPI fans and I don't really give a **** what he thinks about how exciting we are.

Edit: Also, it seems he forgot that Garman has left the team and Iles will be the only starting goalie.

....seems as if you are taking this all too seriously....after all, it was a begrudgingly complimentary article. LGR!!

ursusminor

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

drs48
....seems as if you are taking this all too seriously....after all, it was a begrudgingly complimentary article. LGR!!

I'm just fired up for this year. Is it October yet???

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

Well said. Now get to the FF and do the ECAC proud. Not that I wouldn't rather see RPI do that (or at least finally score a goal which they haven't done in over 10 periods of NCAA play).

With all of the reorganizing in the west, the ECAC should be better than the new WCHA. Success on the national stage by any of the ECAC teams should help overall.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor

Jim Hyla

ursusminor
RPI blog Without a Peer post about Cornell [www.withoutapeer.com].

Without a Peer
Does Cornell play exceptionally boring hockey? Their fans will deny it to the death ("nothing boring about winning!", but yes, they do.

So we beat them 5-1 at home (28-22 shots ) and 3-2 in OT there (23-33 shots ), and we're the boring team?

It sounds like you are agreeing with Tom's statement. He wasn't denying that Cornell wins with this style in the ECAC, but he stated that it is boring. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with the result of either RPI-Cornell game.

You will have to explain why the statistics Jim cited would support Tom's thesis that Cornell is a "boring" team. I am looking forward to reading said explanation.

Those statistics neither support nor contradict Tom's thesis. One has been able to win in the ECAC by playing boring hockey, and Schafer has been demonstrating that thesis for many years. IMHO, there isn't much more to it. There is no direct correlation between playing a boring style and either winning or losing.

You're correct those stats don't prove anything other that we won twice, completely outplaying them at home, including a breakaway goal, and then had an exciting comeback win away. And yes, you had to be there to know it was exciting, but stats can't tell all. I guess my hidden point was, are we really that boring when we outshoot, and markedly outscore them and then win in OT?

I'm reacting to people relaying that we play that old "clutch and grab" defensive style, although we no longer clutch and grab. Too many opponent fans can't realize that although we still play defense first, we are a lot more offensive and free skating than the 96, 97 and even 03 teams. Granted that Yale and maybe Union is a step ahead offensively, but take away Polacek's goals, and yes he's a great player, and RPI was really no different than us.

Eventually, some of them will realize that our style is evolving.

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch. It is exactly what people said about the left wing lock that the Devils used to win the Cup.

Devils fans (read: unicorns) didn't care when other fans called the style boring. They pointed to the Cup and smiled.

OK, how about this. My point was, and still is, that our style of play has changed. Anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows that I've argued with posters that we are not playing the old defense and see what happens style. As I said there are teams in the league that are further along with offensive skating, but we are not so far behind as to say that our style is completely different, and boring.

I'm not talking about just that we win, but when playing RPI, we not only beat them, but also were offensively aggressive. Ten years ago it would have been hard to say that.

Now, do I believe we need to go further to be successful, of course. Do I think, because of our defensive reputation, it has been harder for us to recruit the Polacek type player, absolutely. But I think the naysayers also need to examine their perspective and see that we are also changing. Maybe the recruits that we seem to be getting will allow it to become clear to everyone.

And yes I'm defensive in the way that if you have a position and someone disagrees you try and defend it. I don't feel defensive in feeling my position is weak and therefore aggressively defending it.

I doubt I'll convince the doubters, that doesn't mean I won't try and show them where I think they are wrong.

ugarte

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch.

So...you are saying that if person A says something is boring--or expresses any other opinion about it--person B can't disagree and state why? Isn't it possible someone's "boring" can be someone else's idea of "exquisitely executed?" For example, watching the deliberate patterned offense and brilliant zone defense of Pete Carril's Princeton teams--which Kentucky fans might well think "boring"--delighted me, yet I'm bored by teams playing race-horse one-on-one basketball.

And the only "point" in the WAP blog that Jim refers to is that the blogger emphasized that Cornell's style is "boring." What "point" is Jim "deliberately missing?"

If someone writes that Cornell hockey's style has been "defensive" it would be hard to disagree, although, as Jim points out, even that is changing over time--perhaps not as quickly as some might like. "Defensive" describes the style. "Boring" is one's opinion of it, and that's subject to legitimate disagreement.

I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits. In Coach Schafer I trust!

CAS
I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits. In Coach Schafer I trust!

Me too, since that's not true.

[collegehockeystats.net]
[www.ecachockey.com]

I think this thread is missing a discussion of whether B. Nash was lazy, how Murray sucked at receiving passes, and how [first year goalie] is a big step down from [dearly departed goalie] and how horrible it is. Then everyone will be warmed up for the season.

Chris '03
I think this thread is missing a discussion of whether B. Nash was lazy, how Murray sucked at receiving passes, and how [first year goalie] is a big step down from [dearly departed goalie] and how horrible it is. Then everyone will be warmed up for the season.

Don't forget today's students are a much worse crowd than [poster's class], Schafer can't change with the times, and the powerplay needs to shoot more.

Chris '03
Me too, since that's not true.

What is true is that over this time, Cornell has by far been the best team in the ECAC regular season. Average finish of the last 12 seasons:


2.75 Cornell
5.08 Harvard
5.33 Dartmouth
6.00 Clarkson
6.08 St. Lawrence
6.33 Colgate
6.83 Yale
7.17 Quinnipiac
7.17 Union
7.25 Princeton
7.42 RPI
9.25 Brown
9.83 Vermont

And also the most consistent. Standard deviation of finishing place:

1.42 Cornell
1.72 Quinnipiac
2.71 Harvard
2.84 RPI
2.99 Vermont
3.08 Brown
3.14 Princeton
3.20 Dartmouth
3.30 Union
3.58 St. Lawrence
3.72 Clarkson
3.80 Colgate
3.93 Yale

Of course, it's much easier to have a lower standard dev if you're always at one end or the other...

Chris '03

CAS
I agree with the words of the great Al Davis - Just win baby!
I'm struck that Cornell hasn't finished below the top 4 in the ECAC since 1999.
We're currently attracting many oustanding recruits. In Coach Schafer I trust!

Me too, since that's not true.

[collegehockeystats.net]
[www.ecachockey.com]

Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

ursusminor
Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

Union and Cornell both finished with 25 points in 07-08 but Union won the tiebreaker (H2h 4-0). From a certain POV that means Cornell finished 5th behind Union. Depends whether you mean top 4 based on points or top 4 playoff seed.

KeithK

ursusminor
Every other source that I looked at shows Cornell with a 12-9-1 record in 07-08, giving them a tie in points for 4th place. An ECAC game vs. Yale ended in a tie not a Yale victory. As to 99-00, your source also shows a 4th place tie.

Union and Cornell both finished with 25 points in 07-08 but Union won the tiebreaker (H2h 4-0). From a certain POV that means Cornell finished 5th behind Union. Depends whether you mean top 4 based on points or top 4 playoff seed.

Certainly correct and WaP said the same thing.

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch.

So...you are saying that if person A says something is boring--or expresses any other opinion about it--person B can't disagree and state why? Isn't it possible someone's "boring" can be someone else's idea of "exquisitely executed?" For example, watching the deliberate patterned offense and brilliant zone defense of Pete Carril's Princeton teams--which Kentucky fans might well think "boring"--delighted me, yet I'm bored by teams playing race-horse one-on-one basketball.

And the only "point" in the WAP blog that Jim refers to is that the blogger emphasized that Cornell's style is "boring." What "point" is Jim "deliberately missing?"

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

(2) That Person A finds something boring doesn't make Person B wrong when he says "it isn't boring!" It does mean he is wrong when he says "You are wrong, A! It isn't boring!" Jim isn't making a "correction." He was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting an opinion. Which is pretty defensive. So typical of a Cornell fan. Always with the defense. How boring.

(3) The WAP preview, while largely positive, was also largely a joke. It was highly complimentary of the talent and success of the Big Red, predicted more of the same but within the context of insulting Cornell over and over. It was obvious trolling, like the end of point (2). Responding to it as if it were meant to be taken seriously is textbook "missing the point."

Jim Hyla
OK, how about this. My point was, and still is, that our style of play has changed. Anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows that I've argued with posters that we are not playing the old defense and see what happens style. As I said there are teams in the league that are further along with offensive skating, but we are not so far behind as to say that our style is completely different, and boring.

I think it is fair to say that we were never exactly this simple a team. What we were, and I think still are, is a team that has a grinder's heart. Some people don't like that. I look at the banners and smile. Let 'em whine, Jim.

ugarte

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

This is so defensive, Jim. It is almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

A win is not a boring result. A comeback is, in the abstract, exciting. Neither one of these things is indicative of an exciting style of play. A breakaway goal is an exciting play but... not exactly what the team gameplans for. You are a Cornell fan, Cornell's style has been very successful, ergo, Cornell games are fun for you to watch. That does not mean a neutral observer - much less a rival - will find the style fun to watch.

So...you are saying that if person A says something is boring--or expresses any other opinion about it--person B can't disagree and state why? Isn't it possible someone's "boring" can be someone else's idea of "exquisitely executed?" For example, watching the deliberate patterned offense and brilliant zone defense of Pete Carril's Princeton teams--which Kentucky fans might well think "boring"--delighted me, yet I'm bored by teams playing race-horse one-on-one basketball.

And the only "point" in the WAP blog that Jim refers to is that the blogger emphasized that Cornell's style is "boring." What "point" is Jim "deliberately missing?"

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

(2) That Person A finds something boring doesn't make Person B wrong when he says "it isn't boring!" It does mean he is wrong when he says "You are wrong, A! It isn't boring!" Jim isn't making a "correction." He was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting an opinion. Which is pretty defensive. So typical of a Cornell fan. Always with the defense. How boring.

(3) The WAP preview, while largely positive, was also largely a joke. It was highly complimentary of the talent and success of the Big Red, predicted more of the same but within the context of insulting Cornell over and over. It was obvious trolling, like the end of point (2). Responding to it as if it were meant to be taken seriously is textbook "missing the point."

Jim Hyla
OK, how about this. My point was, and still is, that our style of play has changed. Anyone who has been on this forum for a while knows that I've argued with posters that we are not playing the old defense and see what happens style. As I said there are teams in the league that are further along with offensive skating, but we are not so far behind as to say that our style is completely different, and boring.

I think it is fair to say that we were never exactly this simple a team. What we were, and I think still are, is a team that has a grinder's heart. Some people don't like that. I look at the banners and smile. Let 'em whine, Jim.

Actually I was trying to prove an opinion wrong by presenting some facts. Those facts show, at least to me, that we're different from our "old boring" teams. Yes, I can't easily prove someone's opinion wrong with a few facts, but outshooting their team, and blowing them away by score, must have some value in getting rid of the old defensive boring style idea.

Having watched CU for almost 50 years, I can say that we've had multiple styles over the years. No one would say Harkness's teams were boring but they were grounded in good defense. We had quite a mix in the 25 years in between then and Schafer. The 80's could be largely forgotten (at least compared to before and after), even though we had some exciting skaters like Nieuwendyk. When Schafer came he started with boring winning hockey. His first two championships were definitely boring, but he got the best he could with the talent he had. I think that's where we started to get the boring label. However he's refined it markedly over the years. I don't think anyone other than a CU hater would say 2003 was a boring team.

I still contend that since then Schafer has been expanding the offensive flow, and that we are a much different team than his first 5 years. I know I've jumped on this before, but I do believe if someone objectively looks at our teams we have markedly changed.

So you don't think I've proven it, that's OK, I'm still happy both watching and posting.

ugarte

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

Your first two sentences are, in my opinion, sheer nonsense. The point of those teams was to beat more athletic teams with the exquisite execution of brilliant offensive and defensive systems. You may have found that boring, but someone who appreciates well-played basketball would not.

My sense is that now little old you are the one being "defensive."

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

(1) Carrill's Princeton teams were boring. That was the point of those teams. It was exciting to watch David drag down Goliath and there is a bit of fun in the snobbery of truly appreciating a boring thing done well but, I repeat, being boring was the point.

Your first two sentences are, in my opinion, sheer nonsense. The point of those teams was to beat more athletic teams with the exquisite execution of brilliant offensive and defensive systems. You may have found that boring, but someone who appreciates well-played basketball would not.

I don't know why you bothered with engineering. You should have done PR for boring companies.

First spat of the new season!

Trotsky
First spat of the new season!

Cat fight!!!!

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
First spat of the new season!

Cat fight!!!!

See? Exciting. Because I'm always on offense.*

Claws retracted.

* I leave it to others to judge if I am offensive.

Beyond excited for the season. Seat selection tonight, hoping low 200s is good enough for B. If not I don't mind showing up 20-30 minutes before each game to be on the Section A boards.

Robb

Chris '03
Me too, since that's not true.

What is true is that over this time, Cornell has by far been the best team in the ECAC regular season. Average finish of the last 12 seasons:


2.75 Cornell
5.08 Harvard
5.33 Dartmouth
6.00 Clarkson
6.08 St. Lawrence
6.33 Colgate
6.83 Yale
7.17 Quinnipiac
7.17 Union
7.25 Princeton
7.42 RPI
9.25 Brown
9.83 Vermont

And also the most consistent. Standard deviation of finishing place:

1.42 Cornell
1.72 Quinnipiac
2.71 Harvard
2.84 RPI
2.99 Vermont
3.08 Brown
3.14 Princeton
3.20 Dartmouth
3.30 Union
3.58 St. Lawrence
3.72 Clarkson
3.80 Colgate
3.93 Yale

Of course, it's much easier to have a lower standard dev if you're always at one end or the other...

Histograms or GTFO

Al,

I love your post. I've always loved a team based approach to games than one on one confrontations. AKA Solid team coordinated defenses and offenses. A lot of times this means passing the puck around and maneuvering for an opening. Most people seem to think that team based approaches are boring. Which is fine, just an observation. Hence why both the NBA and the NHL have modified the rules to the game to specifically encourage one on one match-ups.

Cornell is clearly the right team for me.

Drop the puck!

CHN picks Cornell as 1 of 9 best incoming classes.

USCHO's ECAC preview and their specifics on CU. INCH posts their ECAC preview on Friday. I like this quote:

It’s an axiom of ECAC punditry: You don’t pick against Mike Schafer.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

and this:

but another, less tangible issue has been Harvard’s annual fancy for a first-semester slide.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

and this:

Like so many years before, this team would have the scent of a rebuilding year … if it were any team but Schafer’s; if it were anyone but Cornell.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Keir Ross is candidate for Lowe's Senior Class Award.

INCH's ECAC preview. We're number 5, Harvard's 4.

Jim Hyla
INCH's ECAC preview. We're number 5, Harvard's 4.

Reverse Colgate and Harvard in that prediction and it makes a lot more sense.

Jim Hyla
and this:

but another, less tangible issue has been Harvard’s annual fancy for a first-semester slide.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Between the annual first-semester slide and the annual NCAA tournament collapse, when exactly does Harvard play well? Is it just in February when everyone else is rearranging their schedules to accommodate Harvard's annual 4th place finish in the Beanpot?

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
and this:

but another, less tangible issue has been Harvard’s annual fancy for a first-semester slide.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Between the annual first-semester slide and the annual NCAA tournament collapse, when exactly does Harvard play well? Is it just in February when everyone else is rearranging their schedules to accommodate Harvard's annual 4th place finish in the Beanpot?

It could only be an annual NCAA tournament collapse if they were ever good enough to make it.

css228

Josh '99

Jim Hyla
and this:

but another, less tangible issue has been Harvard’s annual fancy for a first-semester slide.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Between the annual first-semester slide and the annual NCAA tournament collapse, when exactly does Harvard play well? Is it just in February when everyone else is rearranging their schedules to accommodate Harvard's annual 4th place finish in the Beanpot?

It could only be an annual NCAA tournament collapse if they were ever good enough to make it.

Are you too young to remember their five apperance one-and-done streak?

@Kyle Rose: Yeah class of 2014

css228
@Kyle Rose: Yeah class of 2014

Ah - so yes, 5 years of 1-and-done. 3 of the losses to Maine, including one collapse where a 4-1 third period lead turned in to a 5-4 regulation loss. To be fair, only one of the losses was an upset - but on the other hand, it was their worst of all, a 6-1 beating at the hands of Maine in 2006.

Robb

css228
@Kyle Rose: Yeah class of 2014

Ah - so yes, 5 years of 1-and-done. 3 of the losses to Maine, including one collapse where a 4-1 third period lead turned in to a 5-4 regulation loss. To be fair, only one of the losses was an upset - but on the other hand, it was their worst of all, a 6-1 beating at the hands of Maine in 2006.

Got it, thanks for the history lesson. My knowledge of the other ECAC teams between the previous generation of family at Cornell and my time is a little spotty.

Robb

css228
@Kyle Rose: Yeah class of 2014

Ah - so yes, 5 years of 1-and-done. 3 of the losses to Maine, including one collapse where a 4-1 third period lead turned in to a 5-4 regulation loss. To be fair, only one of the losses was an upset - but on the other hand, it was their worst of all, a 6-1 beating at the hands of Maine in 2006.

See below
|
|
|
V

Robb

css228
@Kyle Rose: Yeah class of 2014

Ah - so yes, 5 years of 1-and-done. 3 of the losses to Maine, including one collapse where a 4-1 third period lead turned in to a 5-4 regulation loss. To be fair, only one of the losses was an upset - but on the other hand, it was their worst of all, a 6-1 beating at the hands of Maine in 2006.

2006 is a good example of Harvard showing up when it counts. They were 11-8-2 at the end of January. They went 6-2 in February (5-1 ECAC, 1-1 Beanpot) and snagged the last first round bye. After dropping their first game of the quarterfinals they ran off with the league title, beating Dartmouth 10-1 in the semifinals and Cornell 6-2 in the final.

[www.uscho.com]

Still preseason for us, soon though . Polls show us as also receiving votes (20^th) in USA Today/USA Hockey Mag and 19^th in USCHO. The women are second in USCHO

Interesting article on ECAC coaching changes.

Jim Hyla
Interesting article on ECAC coaching changes.

Ithaca Journal's Dan Guttenplan makes a good point, "The ECAC will always be a stepping stone on the career path of opportunistic coaches," and dings some of the opportunism and lack of "appreciation" by departing coaches, noting that when Nate Leaman left Union for Providence, "steering a former Union commit, goalie Julien Laplante, to his new landing spot in Providence. After all, the Friars already had a three-year starter, Alex Beaudry, prepared to return for his senior season." That seems harsh when the writer doesn't note the obvious, that Providence will need a goalie in a year, and maybe the goalie was committing to Leaman as much as Union.

Good insight that Clarkson "was only prepared to fire [coach George Roll] Roll if [Cornell asst Casey] Jones, a former Clarkson assistant, was available."

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Interesting article on ECAC coaching changes.

Ithaca Journal's Dan Guttenplan makes a good point, "The ECAC will always be a stepping stone on the career path of opportunistic coaches," and dings some of the opportunism and lack of "appreciation" by departing coaches, noting that when Nate Leaman left Union for Providence, "steering a former Union commit, goalie Julien Laplante, to his new landing spot in Providence. After all, the Friars already had a three-year starter, Alex Beaudry, prepared to return for his senior season." That seems harsh when the writer doesn't note the obvious, that Providence will need a goalie in a year, and maybe the goalie was committing to Leaman as much as Union.

Good insight that Clarkson "was only prepared to fire [coach George Roll] Roll if [Cornell asst Casey] Jones, a former Clarkson assistant, was available."

So first, is this guy really with the Ithaca Journal? That article was on the New England Hockey Journal.

Second, my understanding is that Laplante played 20 minutes of a game in the WHL and had to sit out a year, and Union's new coach say "sorry kid, see you later" and so he went to Providence. I don't think he was poached in quite the way Guttenplan suggests. See: [www.dailygazette.com]

Third, while I'm thrilled that Casey Jones got the job at Clarkson, he most certainly wasn't the first person offered the job (Craig Conroy was, for one)..so saying that Clarkson was only prepared to fire Roll if Jones was available seems to not hold any water.

So I got my season tickets in the mail today. As has been mentioned they are in a booklet form. At least 3 out of 4 of my seats are that way. The fourth seat is a typical long folded string of individual game tickets. Maybe the dog ate my fourth book?

Men 20^th in USCHO poll, and 20^th, also receiving votes in USAToday/Hockey. Women 3^rd in USCHO, drop from 2^nd and still 2^nd in USAToday/Hockey. Wisc is unanimous No. 1 in both.

Some quotes from USCHO weekly ECAC column.

Union coach sounds like Schafer?

That priority on protection is exactly what the rookie head coach likes to see, and he isn’t shy about stating that defense is Job One.

“It’s always going to be a staple here that we’ll take care of the D zone first, and then we’ll move on to the next zone,” he said.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

and at least everyone else agrees about our unis.

• Cornell has smartly returned to its traditional look, instead of the weird Boston University/Detroit Red Wings template that it inexplicably stumbled into last year.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Also:

Quinnipiac has renamed the hockey half of its dual-arena TD Bank Sports Center the “High Point Solutions Arena at the TD Bank Sports Center” … and I’m going to stop right there.

Oh, goddammi...no. Just.. To Conference Notre Dame with you already.

The road reds still aren't exactly right. They're the same as last year's where the white stripe at the bottom extends all the way down (instead of another red stripe below it). The whites are fully back to the way they were, though (including white below the bottom red stripe).

The schedule at the athletics site does not have any links for video for this weekend's exhibition games (but then again it doesn't have any links for Mercyhurst either).

In the meantime, there is this to remind us of the beauty of Schafer hockey.

Trotsky
The schedule at the athletics site does not have any links for video for this weekend's exhibition games (but then again it doesn't have any links for Mercyhurst either).

If you log in to RedCast you'll see them listed as upcoming events.

So, CHN predicts us to finish second.

RichH
Also:

Quinnipiac has renamed the hockey half of its dual-arena TD Bank Sports Center the “High Point Solutions Arena at the TD Bank Sports Center” … and I’m going to stop right there.

Oh, goddammi...no. Just.. To Conference Notre Dame with you already.

Cornell now starts its press releases like this: "Shamon Farber-McCarthy, the Nelson and Happy Rockefeller Family Memorial Hydrofracking Trust, L.L.C., Coach of Men's Club Gymnastics, has announced the team's winter schedule ... "

CowbellGuy
The road reds still aren't exactly right. They're the same as last year's where the white stripe at the bottom extends all the way down (instead of another red stripe below it). The whites are fully back to the way they were, though (including white below the bottom red stripe).

Although the current uniforms were supposedly modeled after those of the glory days, and those didn't have that bottom stripe.

jkahn

CowbellGuy
The road reds still aren't exactly right. They're the same as last year's where the white stripe at the bottom extends all the way down (instead of another red stripe below it). The whites are fully back to the way they were, though (including white below the bottom red stripe).

Although the current uniforms were supposedly modeled after those of the glory days, and those didn't have that bottom stripe.

Those also didn't have serifs.

Not making a point, just showing my font/uniform nerdiness.

RichH

jkahn

CowbellGuy
The road reds still aren't exactly right. They're the same as last year's where the white stripe at the bottom extends all the way down (instead of another red stripe below it). The whites are fully back to the way they were, though (including white below the bottom red stripe).

Although the current uniforms were supposedly modeled after those of the glory days, and those didn't have that bottom stripe.

Those also didn't have serifs.

Not making a point, just showing my font/uniform nerdiness.

This has been...

Any observations from tonight's game? (It's still the Preseason, so I didn't feel it was necessary to create a new thread.) How'd the freshmen look?

BearLover
Any observations from tonight's game? (It's still the Preseason, so I didn't feel it was necessary to create a new thread.) How'd the freshmen look?

Great! Bardreau scored a goal at the end of the 1st, and Lowry (who started first line) looked fierce on the ice although he was -1 for the night. Ferlin and Dias were also freshmen I noticed who skated well.

MVP for the night would be Esposito. If he keeps this up, he'll have a great season.

Lowry seemed to attract misfortunes. During one sequence he had a knee to knee collision and then ate some stick from a flailing Guelph player.

OTOH, maybe he's made of titanium, since neither seemed to phase him.

ajh258

BearLover
Any observations from tonight's game? (It's still the Preseason, so I didn't feel it was necessary to create a new thread.) How'd the freshmen look?

Great! Bardreau scored a goal at the end of the 1st, and Lowry (who started first line) looked fierce on the ice although he was -1 for the night. Ferlin and Dias were also freshmen I noticed who skated well.

MVP for the night would be Esposito. If he keeps this up, he'll have a great season.

I thought Esposito looked pretty sharp as well.

My vote for player of the game, however, would have gone to Bardreau. He played both ends of the ice relentlessly, and he was a terror through the neutral zone. His near goal on the baseball swing in the 2nd period would have blown the old roof off the rink -- that was a nice save by Van Bommel. I was also impressed that the staff had him taking a draw in the defensive end when trying to run down the game (he actually took more draws than anyone else, winning 11/17).

I don't think any of the freshmen looked out of place.

Hudon and Cole did not play; Gotovets and Mihalek also did not play.

ithacat
My vote for player of the game, however, would have gone to Bardreau. He played both ends of the ice relentlessly, and he was a terror through the neutral zone. His near goal on the baseball swing in the 2nd period would have blown the old roof off the rink -- that was a nice save by Van Bommel.

Bardreau was everywhere. Guelph was also VERY slow, so we'll see if he can do it against a D-1 opponent. Some other guys who have looked like Bryan Trottier in exhibition games: Jiri Kloboucek, Mark Scollan.

Trotsky

ithacat
My vote for player of the game, however, would have gone to Bardreau. He played both ends of the ice relentlessly, and he was a terror through the neutral zone. His near goal on the baseball swing in the 2nd period would have blown the old roof off the rink -- that was a nice save by Van Bommel.

Bardreau was everywhere. Guelph was also VERY slow, so we'll see if he can do it against a D-1 opponent. Some other guys who have looked like Bryan Trottier in exhibition games: Jiri Kloboucek, Mark Scollan.

Yeah, I got a bit of an early laugh, or maybe a bit of a question, when in the radio pregame interview with the Guelph coach, he said one of the reasons he liked to play Cornell was that his team was going to have to learn to move their feet. (Terrible sentence structure) When was the last time we heard that about Cornell?

In response, for the first one and a half periods we did outskate them. Whether we got tired, or what, they took it to us later. If it was fatique, tonight could be a problem. Carleton tied gate 3-3, beat SLU 5-2, and beat Guelph 6-0. Our only advantage is Lynah and they have to travel from Ottawa.

Jim Hyla
In response, for the first one and a half periods we did outskate them. Whether we got tired, or what, they took it to us later. If it was fatique, tonight could be a problem.

I thought we went into a bit of a shell after going up 3-1, but we did have a bunch of neutral ice turnovers and those could be from fatigue. Guelph had guys who have played CHL, so conditioning is no problem for them. They're also usually older -- we have had cases where a guy who played 4 years with Cornell has come back on the roster of an opposing Canadian University team -- IINM Stewart Smith was one.

Trotsky

ithacat
My vote for player of the game, however, would have gone to Bardreau. He played both ends of the ice relentlessly, and he was a terror through the neutral zone. His near goal on the baseball swing in the 2nd period would have blown the old roof off the rink -- that was a nice save by Van Bommel.

Bardreau was everywhere. Guelph was also VERY slow, so we'll see if he can do it against a D-1 opponent. Some other guys who have looked like Bryan Trottier in exhibition games: Jiri Kloboucek, Mark Scollan.

Certainly a fair point about Guelph's team speed. Bardreau looked pretty good again tonight, as did Ferlin and Lowry among the other freshmen forwards. Not that any of them have looked bad. Also really liked Ryan this weekend. Marozzi looked pretty composed during his shift as well. Can't wait to see them go at it for real.

Saw Holy Cross take down BU 5-4 tonight at BU. BU led 2-1. Holy Cross led 5-2. Holy Cross had two good periods and then seemed to run out of gas. BU finally woke up in the third period. BU's two weakenesses were penalties that allowed HC to go 3x6 and some soft play by goalie Kiernan Millan. He may be BU's winningest goalie but I thought he came close to getting pulled midway through the game. This was not a #7/#8 team vs. HC so that gives Cornell some hope for Thanksgiving weekend. If Cornell has a lead after two, I hope it has enough gas in the tank to hold off BU at the end.

It says in the box score that Kanji played 9 minutes and saw 0 shots--weird.

BearLover
It says in the box score that Kanji played 9 minutes and saw 0 shots--weird.

Not really, Iles only had 2 shots in the first period. The best part of Kanji's play was seeing how excited the team was seeing him going in. They were all standing at the bench tapping their sticks against the boards. Nice.

A few more freshman observations:

McCarron was definitely noticeable to me as somewhat of a Mugford-like agitator. He threw some big hits and was definitely getting under the skin of both Guelph and Carleton players with his constant chirping at them. Lowry also seemed to be constantly getting in other people's faces and talking a lot of trash, but he also showed more offensive flair than McCarron.

McCarron and Lowry together with Collins seemed to be played as the checking line for both games and they were quite successful, so it will be interesting to see if Schafer keeps that line together.

Ryan is a very smooth skater and looked very comfortable quarterbacking the first PP unit with D'Agostino. He also was quite physical despite his small stature, and made some good defensive plays as well.

sah67
Ryan is a very smooth skater and looked very comfortable quarterbacking the first PP unit with D'Agostino.

He sure looked poised and patient.

Trotsky

sah67
Ryan is a very smooth skater and looked very comfortable quarterbacking the first PP unit with D'Agostino.

He sure looked poised and patient.

The freshmen seem to be an amazing group. They look like they've skated with the team for weeks, not just one week of practice. Like in past years, I think we have to credit, not only the freshmen, but also the captains. They run the preseason practices and they must be doing a good job.

Like others, I like the fact that the freshmen don't seem intimidated by the other team. They are willing to skate the puck in deep, rather than just dump it, and they'll stand up when needed. On a number of occasions I saw Ferlin jump in to protect a smaller teammate, even though the teammate was older. If this is a picture of things to come, and where our recruiting is going, I'm happy.

Oh, and by the way, where are all those naysayers that Shafer has to go, as he can't modernize. Our clutch and grab style seems to be coming along quite well. I don't think people realize how much the changing of the Ivy recruiting rules on financial aid hurt us before, and how much the change in the U's position has helped.

Jim Hyla
Oh, and by the way, where are all those naysayers that Shafer has to go

Wait until the first loss. You know the drill.

JIM THIS IS CHARLEY COOK PLEASE READ POST BEHIND IRON CURTAIN

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Oh, and by the way, where are all those naysayers that Shafer has to go

Wait until the first loss. You know the drill.

What? you accept as a foregone conclusion that we're going to lose a game? Clearly this means we have bad coaching! Schafer must go!!!

Guelph: a rival?

Guelph Athletics Website
The Guelph Gryphons lost a tight game against an old rival at Cornell 3-2 on Friday night. The last time these two met was 1970 and it didn't take long to renew the rivalry.

sah67
Guelph: a new rival?

Guelph Athletics Website
The Guelph Gryphons lost a tight game against an old rival at Cornell 3-2 on Friday night. The last time these two met was 1970 and it didn't take long to renew the rivalry.

It didn't take long for me to forget how to pronounce their name either.

ajh258
It didn't take long for me to forget how to pronounce their name either.

An excuse for a fun history lesson.

sah67
Guelph: a rival?

Guelph Athletics Website
The Guelph Gryphons lost a tight game against an old rival at Cornell 3-2 on Friday night. The last time these two met was 1970 and it didn't take long to renew the rivalry.

Ironically, that's the part that's not entirely wrong. Guelph and Cornell met several times in the late 1960s back when they were a regular season opponent that actually counted, IIRC (unless for some reason Cornell was playing exhibition games after playing their first few regular season games). The fact that Cornell spanked Guelph thoroughly each time leads me to wonder why they would think of it as a rivalry, but whatever. In any event, they're wrong two ways about the "last time" we met - the last time we met during the regular season was 1971, not 1970... and we've hosted them in pre-season exhibition games a few times since then, most recently for the 1998-99 season. Odd that they would get that wrong.

Beeeej

sah67
Guelph: a rival?

Guelph Athletics Website
The Guelph Gryphons lost a tight game against an old rival at Cornell 3-2 on Friday night. The last time these two met was 1970 and it didn't take long to renew the rivalry.

Ironically, that's the part that's not entirely wrong. Guelph and Cornell met several times in the late 1960s back when they were a regular season opponent that actually counted, IIRC (unless for some reason Cornell was playing exhibition games after playing their first few regular season games). The fact that Cornell spanked Guelph thoroughly each time leads me to wonder why they would think of it as a rivalry, but whatever. In any event, they're wrong two ways about the "last time" we met - the last time we met during the regular season was 1971, not 1970... and we've hosted them in pre-season exhibition games a few times since then, most recently for the 1998-99 season. Odd that they would get that wrong.

Cornell also lost to Guelph in a midseason exhibition tournament in Guelph in January 1998, unless Keith is making stuff up:

[www.elynah.com]

Not exactly [sure} where to put this, since it's not enough to merit a thread of it's own but a Lynah tradition gets a mention in this Grantland article. Even if its not the most positive view on yelling RED during the national anthem its still fun to see a Cornell mention on something directly linked to ESPN's home page.

Sorry for the typos was working on a problem set when I linked this.

css228
Not exactly where to put this, since it's not enough to merit a thread of it's own but a Lynah tradition gets a mention in the Grantland article. Even if its not the most positive view on yelling RED during the national anthem its still fun to see a Cornell mention on something directly linked to ESPN's home page.

I'm with Chris H.'s wife in saying that the practice is disrespectful. But, in this age of declining respect for one another, what is one to expect? In the past, some have even argued against the propriety of playing the national anthem at sporting events. I won't even go there. It may be a "Lynah Tradition", but it's not one that casts the Lynah Faithful in a very positive light among some more mature townies. And no, that is NOT an implication that only immature people yell "RED" during the National Anthem.

Irony. It's what's for dinner.

Trotsky
Irony. It's what's for dinner.

Then I guess it's appropriate that Grantland: The Website was created by a hack like Bill Simmons. *ducks*

This is a summary of a crushingly good commentary.

Allegedly it’s a serious sports website maintained by a man whose intellectual rigorousness about sports can be measured by going to the IMDB “memorable quotes” page for a movie and trying to apply it to some random category like “interceptions made by New England Patriots, 2001-2010.”

Philippe Hudon was the only (I think) guy not to dress for either exhibition game. Any word on whether he is injured?

Trotsky
Philippe Hudon was the only (I think) guy not to dress for either exhibition game. Any word on whether he is injured?

I believe both Mihalek and Gotovets didn't dress for either game as well.

css228
Not exactly where to put this, since it's not enough to merit a thread of it's own but a Lynah tradition gets a mention in the Grantland article. Even if its not the most positive view on yelling RED during the national anthem its still fun to see a Cornell mention on something directly linked to ESPN's home page.

"potentially annoying" is far from the worst thing we've been called over the years.

RichH

Trotsky
Irony. It's what's for dinner.

Then I guess it's appropriate that Grantland: The Website was created by a hack like Bill Simmons. *ducks*

This is a summary of a crushingly good commentary.

Allegedly it’s a serious sports website maintained by a man whose intellectual rigorousness about sports can be measured by going to the IMDB “memorable quotes” page for a movie and trying to apply it to some random category like “interceptions made by New England Patriots, 2001-2010.”

Yeah, not going to argue. Grantland's a lot of hubris and probably unnecessary, but at least the hockey coverage is decent and some of the talent (Klosterman for example) is far better than Simmons. Still one wonders if they're hampered by Simmons expectations.

pfibiger

Trotsky
Philippe Hudon was the only (I think) guy not to dress for either exhibition game. Any word on whether he is injured?

I believe both Mihalek and Gotovets didn't dress for either game as well.

I think I remember Gotovets playing against Carleton, but my eyes could have fooled me. He definitely didn't play against Guelph.

css228

pfibiger

Trotsky
Philippe Hudon was the only (I think) guy not to dress for either exhibition game. Any word on whether he is injured?

I believe both Mihalek and Gotovets didn't dress for either game as well.

I think I remember Gotovets playing against Carleton, but my eyes could have fooled me. He definitely didn't play against Guelph.

You're right:
[www.ecachockey.com]

Looks like Brisson sat the 2nd game.

So USCHO has their ECAC predictions for this weekend up.
For the PU-Yale game, Ivy Shootout, they have this quote:

This game may not count for ECAC Hockey standings, but it will count towards the Hobey Baker Trophy for Ivy League champion.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Is that really true, the game counts in Ivy standings or does he mean Shootout Champion?

Jim Hyla
Is that really true, the game counts in Ivy standings or does he mean Shootout Champion?

I haven't found anything that says for sure one way or the other, but I think it's highly unlikely the Ivy Shootout games will count in the Ivy standings. These games don't count in the ECAC standings, and the four Shootout participants all have the full slate of 10 Ivy games that do count in the ECACs. So either these four teams are going to have 12 games in the Ivy standings and Cornell and Harvard are going to have 10, or the four Shootout teams will have a couple games against each other later in the season that will count in the ECACs but not the Ivy standings. Sounds like too much of a mess for even the Ivy League to consider dealing with.

[edit] Now the part about the game counting has been removed.

Jim Hyla
So USCHO has their ECAC predictions for this weekend up.
For the PU-Yale game, Ivy Shootout, they have this quote:

This game may not count for ECAC Hockey standings, but it will count towards the Hobey Baker Trophy for Ivy League champion.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Is that really true, the game counts in Ivy standings or does he mean Shootout Champion?

I can't find any other reference to it counting, and this is the fifth Ivy Shootout and it have never counted before.

Looks like this isn't the same Yale team we saw last year. 2-2 OT against Princeton, 30-28 SOGs. [www.yalebulldogs.com]

Can't wait until we get to New Haven next weekend and beat them.

ajh258
Looks like this isn't the same Yale team we saw last year. 2-2 OT against Princeton, 30-28 SOGs.

Yale also lost their exhibition game against Waterloo last weekend. Yale had a 42-32 shot advantage and they started a different goalie in each period.

[www.uscho.com]

USCHO now has a nice scoreboard similar to one the ECAC has had for a couple years.

nyc94

ajh258
Looks like this isn't the same Yale team we saw last year. 2-2 OT against Princeton, 30-28 SOGs.

Yale also lost their exhibition game against Waterloo last weekend. Yale had a 42-32 shot advantage and they started a different goalie in each period.

[www.uscho.com]

I was aware, but Waterloo was an exhibition opener, so the outcome could've been skewed if Allain simply wanted the new guys to get some ice time. This is an actual NC game and has PWR implications. If Elis come up short again tomorrow against Dartmouth, it will confirm their relative decline.