Cornell-Ferris State In Progress

End of first: Us 0 - Them 0.

So, have we set a NCAA playoff record for penalty minutes yet?
The announcers for ESPN suspect we're lulling them into a false sense of security.

I haven't watched many CU games this year, but is this typical play for them? The keep playing the puck along the boards or behind the net in the Ferris zone. Pretty much no shots from the blueline or circles, despite what looked to be a few good lanes, especially on the PP. It's like they're afraid of letting the puck get to the middle of the ice on offense.

OK, I've defended the "cycle" power play as long as I can. That major was the worst five minutes of hockey I've seen in my life.

Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served? When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

Greenberg '97
OK, I've defended the "cycle" power play as long as I can. That major was the worst five minutes of hockey I've seen in my life.

Seriously. The point of cycling is to eventually get an opportunity in front of the net -- not to get an opportunity to put the puck into the corner.

ansky629
Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served? When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

I'll have to check the box score when it's over, but I thought a Cornell player was called for a roughing after the major, which would cause the two minors to offset. I didn't see anyone else in the box, though.

Oh, well: great game. I thought Cornell outplayed Ferris St. for most of the game, but made several errors, at least one of which cost them a goal.

Greenberg '97

ansky629
Just a question for the more educated hockey fan:

When the Ferris player took the tripping penalty and then the 5 minute hitting from behind, why didn't the tripping penalty get served? When a minor and major are called on the same player, is the minor ignored?

I'll have to check the box score when it's over, but I thought a Cornell player was called for a roughing after the major, which would cause the two minors to offset. I didn't see anyone else in the box, though.

That's your standard "well, two penalties would sway the game too much, so let's grab Bardreau for being pissed that a guy drove him into the boards."

Refs were okay otherwise.

Kyle Rose
Oh, well: great game. I thought Cornell outplayed Ferris St. for most of the game, but made several errors, at least one of which cost them a goal.

Agree with this.

Not a bad "rebuilding" year.

Young team. They will act like they've been there next year. I'm excited.

Good season. It hurts now, but I expect a Frozen Four in the next two years.

The announcers were really getting on my nerves tonight.... An extension of last night, I suppose. The tone of their conversation was all about the CCHA team with a little mention of the opposition (Cornell).

It would have been interesting to hear what they had to say if one of the FF Semifinal games put Cornell against Union....I'm thinking the ESPN announcers would spend the whole game talking about the other semifinal. After all, what's to say when there's two ECAC teams playing? They obviously are too lazy to do their homework & learn about the ECAC teams....

I love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season. Next year expectations are higher! If we get an effective PP watch out. Nice season, but missed opportunity. Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching. Many very good hockey players returning next year. Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Good season, sad to see it end. The Red definitely could have won this game, and while Michigan looked better then Cornell last night, the boys looked no worse than their opposition tonight. Some bad luck and bad mistakes led to the Ferris State goals. Iles was down too early for the second goal and may have overplayed the first, but he played well as a whole throughout both games. The defense by both teams was stellar, especially the positioning of Cornell's. The offense needed a few more playmakers; losing Ferlin hurt. But if he plays, Craig probably doesn't, and who knows what happens then.

Next year is the year.

Cornell played well, but there were too many moments, as there have been all season long, where it felt as if we were hanging on by our fingernails. Going through a whole season like that is difficult; and, obviously, you can't expect to make it to the Frozen Four that way.

All in all, I'm pretty happy with this season, considering where I felt we were at the beginning. Collins really poured it on over the last couple of months, and it was nice to see him end his career on an up note. Iles has finally impressed me, so I'm bullish on two more years of him. And our freshmen and sophomores (esp. Mowrey and Gotovets for the latter) really started to stand out as the season went on.

I look forward to watching Ryan, Ferlin, McCarron, and Lowry continue to develop next year, and I expect standout seasons from Esposito, Miller, and D'Agostino. (Boy am I glad that John McCarron is our a**hole. Ferlin may be electric, but McCarron makes me smile in that other, special way.) My dark horse candidate for a breakout season--the likely recipient of the Mike Iggulden Difference Maker Award--is Mihalek, who impressed me in a Carefoot/Iggulden way this season.

Without Ferlin's injury or without Esposito's long absence, the season might have turned out differently. As it is, the team gained a lot of experience, which is exactly what a young team needs.

I'll be in Pittsburgh next year, and I won't be shocked to be watching us there.

I'm curious whether we get D'Agostino back for next year. I know it's way to early to be thinking about, but I think he is a real asset to this team.

snert1288
I'm curious whether we get D'Agostino back for next year. I know it's way to early to be thinking about, but I think he is a real asset to this team.

I'd guess he'll be back. He's in line to be captain and he hasn't been incredible (ready for the NHL) by any means...he had a pretty slow end to this season.

Just saw the game on DVR. Certainly disappointed in the result, as we had the opportunity in front of us. Coming up empty on the 5-minute major was obviously a downer, followed immediately by the Ferris winning goal. Nonetheless we had a few decent chances to tie, especially Espo right in the slot.

Credit to Ferris for suffocating defense and great positional play. Not nearly as much star power as Michigan, but a real "team" approach. I think Union will take them in Tampa, however. It's a shame we won't have a third go at it with the Dutchmen.

Tough loss. Amazing how quickly momentum can shift in a hockey game. After coming back with the tying goal rather quickly I thought we had all the momentum at that point. Add to that a 5-min major and I figured this game was ours for the taking (assuming we'd score). Guess not. Seems like almost every hockey game I watch a goal is scored a 2-on-1 breakaway seconds after a guy comes out of the box.

Cornell does so well in the first round of the NCAAs (forget 2010) but can't seem to get over the hump in the quarters. I think we're 1-5 in our last 6 appearances in the quarters or something like that. After beating Michigan it seemed like we had a great opportunity to make a run to the finals having to face only Ferris State and Union (rather than a NoDak, Minny, BC, etc) to get there. But having said that, if somebody were to have asked me at the beginning of the season would I be happy if we just got to the quarters I would have said "hell yes".

Hopefully we can make it back to the tourney next year.

I agree that this season ended a bit slow for him. And he may have actually been better last year. Just with his size and good puck handling I always got the feeling that the AHL (not quite NHL ready) might pull him away.

Tough ending. Had the feeling that we were just a little tight. Looking for the perfect play instead of just going with the play. PP was really tough to watch. I'm usually the last one to be screaming shoot the puck but what would Doug Murray have done! He would have unloaded the bomb!

From the beginning, not really sure what we were getting most of the year. Feeling was, good to hang with the best but not quite there. Here's to hopin next year Coach Schafer is willing to let these guys attack a little more and we can take a big step forward.

Just couldn't get much open ice tonight. Get to credit Ferris St. for good performances against both Denver and us. Let's not forget that they were the regular seaon CCHA champs - we lost to a really good team.
Thank you seniors.
And for the underclassmen, we're all looking forward to next year.

Great Season Cornell. We were hoping two ECAC teams would make it to Tampa. ECAC 3-1 so far in the tournament. Not bad. Hope to improve on that on April 5.

This was the opposite of last night. I feel like the better team is going home because they couldn't cash in on the multiple powerplay opportunities that were handed to them. I agree with Greenberg that the cycle was embarrassing. It looked like we were trying to run out the clock. I also lost count of the number of times we passed it out of the offensive zone ourselves with minimal Ferris pressure.

On the other hand, Ferris commits completely to filling the lanes. They don't really pressure the points as much as you'd expect, choosing instead to become extra goaltenders. They made it really hard to find a lane but that's hardly an excuse for five minutes of soccer on ice when you're up a man.

The win over Michigan made this season, so I can't be too disappointed about this loss. Though I am disappointed - Union would have been our ideal semifinal matchup even if I suspect that we are the AAA side of the bracket. The QF on the other half is insane: BC, Minnesota, Duluth and North Dakota. Jeebus.

Dutchman
Great Season Cornell. We were hoping two ECAC teams would make it to Tampa. ECAC 3-1 so far in the tournament. Not bad. Hope to improve on that on April 5.

Thanks, Good luck in the FF and way to represent the ECAC.

Thanks...didn't realize Bardreau got a penalty on the play as well. That explains it. I'm not a hockey neophyte, but I thought I missed a rule somewhere in my hockey education.

flyersgolf
I love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season. Next year expectations are higher! If we get an effective PP watch out. Nice season, but missed opportunity. Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching. Many very good hockey players returning next year. Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

Johnny 5

flyersgolf
I love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season. Next year expectations are higher! If we get an effective PP watch out. Nice season, but missed opportunity. Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching. Many very good hockey players returning next year. Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

Pannell was at the game yesterday at Penn. He had a boot on his lower leg and was riding on a scooter. Clearly he was trying to not put weight on his foot yet. I'm not an orthopaedist, but unfortunately, that makes me wonder whether he'll be able to rehab it and get back for the rest of the season.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Johnny 5

flyersgolf
I love Andy Iles, but both goals he was flopping. I also think fitness is an issue at the end of games against good skating teams and seems to get worse at the end of the season. Next year expectations are higher! If we get an effective PP watch out. Nice season, but missed opportunity. Poor Ferlin must have been dying watching. Many very good hockey players returning next year. Now the question is will Pannell return for Cornell's next NCAA run?

Yes, I still feel that, given their youth this was a very successful season.
Preseason I never expected a NCAA appearance. And, I think their overall play will do nothing but help recruiting.

Regarding Pannell....I know this is a hockey forum. But, if anyone has a head's up regarding his foot status, or if he's eligible to red-shirt next year I'd love to know. We have a great lax team, but I really miss watching one of the best ever play the game.

GO RED!!

Pannell was at the game yesterday at Penn. He had a boot on his lower leg and was riding on a scooter. Clearly he was trying to not put weight on his foot yet. I'm not an orthopaedist, but unfortunately, that makes me wonder whether he'll be able to rehab it and get back for the rest of the season.

I was afraid of that. Same as the VA game.
Oh, well......
Thanks!

I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

I agree that a player in front of the net to clean up the "garbage" was missing this year. Just need to look at Devin last year or Greening 2 years ago to see how many opportunities this presents for us. I felt like those guys were always knocking in rebounds and it shows in their stats.

During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game. I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff. He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter. Talk about bad luck...

Todd R
During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game. I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff. He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter. Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

Johnny 5

Todd R
During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game. I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff. He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter. Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

Meh. I thought the call on the second goal was right. The guy barely touched Iles, if he touched him at all.

Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

jtn27
Even though Cornell lost, I think the season ended on a relatively positive note. The team won a great game against Michigan, one of the best I've ever seen. The Ferris State game was a pretty good game too. Cornell didn't get embarrassed like against Harvard or give up a 3rd period lead like in numerous other games this season. It was a hard fought game between two very good teams, and unfortunately Cornell lost. Nothing to be ashamed of.

At the same time we're 1-6 in regional finals in the Schafer era. Eventually some of the bounces have to start going our way right? I'd feel better about this if Union weren't in the Frozen Four

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

I don't agree. I am very happy for Union. They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents. They deserved to make the FF. I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly. They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

snert1288
I don't agree. I am very happy for Union. They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents. They deserved to make the FF. I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly. They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

Tom Lento

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.
...

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year. ...

In those years the theme of the discussion here was often that Cornell relied too much on its power play, not generating enough scoring chances even strength, but it's been up and down.

[www.cornellbigred.com]

'03-'04 28/174 0.161
'04-'05 43/176 0.244
'05-'06 35/221 0.158
'06-'07 33/238 0.139
'07-'08 39/181 0.215
'08-'09 27/188 0.144
'09-'10 32/152 0.211
'10-'11 22/135 0.163

Statistical fluctuations, anyone?

css228

snert1288
I don't agree. I am very happy for Union. They looked really good in both of their games and outplayed their opponents. They deserved to make the FF. I have met some of the terrible Union fans and had things thrown at me when walking by their student section, but overall, I think Union doing well benefits the ECAC greatly. They were regular and tournament champs from the ECAC and succeeding in the NCAAs lends our conference credibility.

But I don't want them there without us. I know its selfish, but I wanted us to be the team to break the drought. I personally liked the whole above the rest status we had. I'm gonna miss it somewhat. Of course, the best way to do that is to win a title. All in all, unless its a rival, I usually root for the team that knocked me out. I like to lose only to the best.

I'll take this a step further: I was rooting against Union on Friday, Saturday, and I'll be rooting against them in two weeks. Plagues on all the houses but Lynah.

I am hopeful that any ECAC team's success in the tourney demystifies it for the rest.

I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...). I'm pulling for Ferris State. They earned my respect on Saturday. I still think we're a better team than Union, and would have beat them if we made it to the Frozen Four. We went 1-0-1 against them this year and would have gone 2-0-0 if we could have held onto a 3rd period lead. I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups. I know this comes off as bitter, but that's not really my intention.

jtn27
I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups.

It wasn't really luck. They were a 1 seed and we were a 4 seed. Their first-round matchup was supposed to be easier.

Interesting quote from INCH's article on the regional.

Cornell is a young team that is built for future NCAA Tournament runs. Disappointment will linger from the loss, but the experience gained may prove very valuable over the next two seasons.

Tom Lento

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

ugarte

Johnny 5

Todd R
During the intermission in the ND-MN game, they showed highlights of our game. I guess I missed it the first time, but on the first goal that Ferris State scored (on the PP in opening seconds of the third period), our center broke his stick on the faceoff. He skated to the bench to grab another one, making it a five on three for just long enough to matter. Talk about bad luck...

Not to mention that even Helen Keller could see in the video review that Isle's left leg whipped out when he was interfered with on the second FS goal!

Meh. I thought the call on the second goal was right. The guy barely touched Iles, if he touched him at all.

OK. you got me. Just sour grapes.
Time for me to move on.

jtwcornell91

jtn27
I think Union lucked out by drawing 2 weak regional match-ups.

It wasn't really luck. They were a 1 seed and we were a 4 seed. Their first-round matchup was supposed to be easier.

I expected them to beat Michigan State, but they got lucky that UMass-Lowell beat Miami. I don't think they could have beat Miami. I'm also unsure they could have advanced to the Frozen Four if they were in the place of one of the other 1 seeds. Could they have beaten Air Force and Minnesota-Duluth like BC did? Air Force yes, UMD, I don't think so. And North Dakota and Michigan, both teams that I think are better than Union, couldn't get out of their regions. I think Union would have lost to Minnesota and they weren't able to beat us this year. BU, Maine, and Ferris State might be better than Union too. So I do think they got lucky by drawing a weak region.

scoop85
It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year. While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water. I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent. Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success. Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.

Still, I know the bitterman feeling. I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

Regarding Union: completely agree. They also oozed team unity. I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them. Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

All we did while I was in school was frustrate their championship ambitions. They should hate us. If you want to hate someone, hate Princeton (always easy) and hate the league for having that stupid play-in game in the first place.

Oh, and hate Harvard. Always hate Harvard.

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

Lowell '99
I can't agree with the statement that we were as good as (or better than) Union this year. While our head-to-head record is good, their GF-GA (both in conference and out of conference) blows ours out of the water. I saw both Union games in person this year, and I think they just oozed talent. Fast, agile skaters, good defense - they deserve their success. Sure, I would've happily taken a matchup (and a win!) against them on April 5th, but I'm happy to root for them now.

Still, I know the bitterman feeling. I still find it hard to root for Harvard or Clarkson under any circumstances, and I'm sure recent graduates feel the same way about Yale given our recent record against them (this year excepted).

I think that we just matched up well with Union, not that we were better. Both games I saw against them, I thought we imposed our game and tempo on Union and dominated the run of play against them both times. Quite frankly I think they were lucky they weren't swept. But overall they were more consistent, didn't blow leads. They were probably a better team that just didn't match up well against us.

Kyle Rose

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

Same. On the other hand, the brackets feel insanely misweighted. If Union wins it will be a STUNNING upset, even though they are a 1 seed.

The QF on the other side of the bracket appears to be far, far better than the East/Midwest. Some of that is due to upsets but most is that Union was the weakest 1 seed and Ferris looked like a pretty weak 2. I expect the Minnesota - BC winner to run over whoever wins the Union - Ferris game and I'd have thought the same if we had been in Ferris's place.

The main reason I root for 10 ECAC teams (once we are eliminated) in the tourney is that we need a new answer to the question: Which was the last ECAC team to win the NCAAs.

Oh...Hahvahd sucks.

scoop85

Tom Lento

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good. I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Scersk '97
Regarding Union: completely agree. They also oozed team unity. I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them. Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us. If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC. If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
Regarding Union: completely agree. They also oozed team unity. I'll root for them in the semis, even though I think Ferris will beat them. Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

We won it all on our first trip in '67. Dues are overrated.

From what I saw last weekend Union should be a clear favorite against Ferris State -- I think we outplayed Ferris and I think over the course of the season Union outplayed us. If it weren't for the recent history of the conference, which appears to mean absolutely nothing to them (good), I would say I'd be shocked if Ferris beats them.

OTOH, if they get to the final I think they will need a combination of their best game of the year, a lot of puck luck, and a couple miracles to get by BC. If Minny happens to have all that stuff happen to them in their semi, then I think it's a crap shoot.

Not I. Ferris is a good, solid defensive team, much like we used to be. If Union can get 3 or more goals, I don't expect Ferris to catch up. But Ferris winning 2-1, 3-2, I could easily see that.

Scersk '97
But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

Kyle Rose

scoop85
It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

I agree. One of the things that I notice about better teams' power plays is that players never sit there with the puck: it's passed or shot *immediately* when a player receives a pass, giving the defense much less time to adjust.

I think I spent like 4 paragraphs saying basically the same thing. In the two games I saw most of the delays seemed to happen at the top of the umbrella, rather than coming up or across from the wing, but maybe that wasn't the case over the course of the season. That might not be the fault of the guy at the top, but that's where it was happening.

This is a simple problem, but it's actually really hard to get that kind of nuance down without becoming robotic. It also cascades - the whole unit falls out of sync when the puck movement becomes erratic. What you want is puck movement that's predictable for the offense, so guys can be in the right place, but quick enough that the defense doesn't have time to catch up. Cornell didn't have that balance last weekend.

If you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.

Dafatone

scoop85

Tom Lento

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good. I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Kyle Rose

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend. That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union! (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

Josh '99

Scersk '97
But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate. (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

My biggest frustration with this game wasn't the Power Play. As somebody said, FSU has an outstanding PK unit, and our PP wasn't suddenly going to reinvent itself at this point in the season. My biggest frustration was pretty much the entire first period on Saturday. It looked like we were allergic to the puck. We talked about the passing game vs. Michigan, but out of the gates on Saturday, there were at least a half-dozen *unpressured* passes that were just flubbed either by the passer or the receiver. We didn't have a shot in the first 12 minutes (and were outshot 12-0) because we kept making unforced turnovers. I'm OK staying calm and playing a measured style early, but they looked comatose. Andy saved our bacon there.

Now fast-forward to the final 13 minutes (once the 2-1 dagger was fired in). We. were. FLYING. We had speed, pressure, energy, and opportunities. I like to think that had we been more assertive in the first, and had potted one early...well, I don't know what would have happened. Maybe scaling back the energy early on was the coaching staff's antidote for our 3rd period bonks. Or we really did have a big Friday vs. Saturday issue this year. And that's fine, but man...complete the easy passes, especially when you're not being pressured by the D.

The pressure to get the late equalizer redeemed them, and that late Esposito shot was a pea. Nelson had to make a skilled snap save, and did.

Jordan 04

Dafatone

scoop85

Tom Lento

TimV
I certainly agree with the optimism for next year, and the feeling that we got a lot more this year Than we had a right to expect.

That said, after 46 years of living and dying with Cornell Hockey, there are two major chronic problems that frustrate me no end.

First is the power play. I'd have to yield to Trotsky or Beeeej or any others that have actual facts to refer to, but have we had any kind of power play success in the last 10-15 years? Especially with the recent rules changes for major penalties for contact to the head or boarding from behind, there are going to be more and more opportunities and we really must become a threat. The puck doesn’t move fast enough, and our players are for the most part too static to cause a problem for teams that just want to pack it in. Can we get some imagination to perhaps overload to one side to open up a backdoor play? God knows we have enough film on it from Harvard and Union games.

The second problem is our shooting. A large part of our shot differential problems is inaccuracy- we don’t put the puck on net, even when we do shoot from in close. Part of the problem is we often don’t have anybody in front of the net. When we do, he’s too close to the net so the rebounds either get by too quickly or are out of reach. I’d really like to see a slot player a little above the hashes who can move down closer to the crease if he needs to, but is still in a better position to get a rebound up over a sprawling goaltender. Shooting accuracy while skating could be improved too. Maybe using the skating treadmill with a goal set up at different angles or on a turntable?

None of these adjustments would sacrifice our tough defensive style, but it would sure help in those games where we get behind if we could be more of a scoring threat.

10-15 years includes seasons like those ending in 2002, 2003, and 2005, when Cornell's power play was among the best in the country (and I think the runaway #1 in 2002 - they were something ridiculous like 28% that year). 2008 and 2010 were decent, too - over 20%, which would be top 20 this year.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that Cornell's real problem on the PP is that it's the same setup regardless of personnel - run the umbrella, move the puck low, cycle, either cross to the weak side or move up high and rotate around the perimeter. The back post plays from down low have been rare - apart from the 2003 team Cornell really hasn't had a combination capable of executing those passes on a regular basis, although I have high hopes for the next season or two. Their main model for scoring has been off the drive from the point - if there's a big shot opportunity from the top, they take it, otherwise they keep the puck moving and do the same thing on the other wing until they either get a golden opportunity or free up the shot from the top. This can be an effective power play strategy, but if you aren't making those cross-ice passes from down low you need the right guy at the top of the umbrella. The 2002 and 2003 teams were particularly dangerous because they had both.

For this year, I saw both NCAA games, and nothing else all season. From those two games it looked like Cornell's biggest problems were lack of traffic in front of the net and some stagnation at the top of the umbrella. It didn't seem to matter which unit was out there, the player at the top of the umbrella would frequently hold the puck instead of moving it. That little stall at the top just killed them - small windows of opportunity would close and then they'd have to spend some time moving the puck around at the blue line, which would either kick off another cycle down low or result in a clear for the PK. Either way, it would cost time and generate no real chances. I never really felt like the player at the top should have shot the puck in those situations, but crisp puck movement was critical and they weren't getting it. When they kept the puck moving and rotated it down low they got some chances - not always a shot on goal, but legitimate scoring opportunities where the box was collapsing in front and Cornell was able to swarm around the net. You have to give some credit to the opposition - Ferris St. in particular - for closing off a lot of options and keeping those windows of opportunity small. Cornell really didn't have any margin for error out there, so a tiny bobble or a brief hold to see if a shooting lane might open would cost a lot of time. The real kicker is you can't just blindly pass the puck around the perimeter, and I think where Cornell failed was in finding the right balance up high.

This is the kind of thing that's really easy to talk about from the comfort of one's own home, but it's damn hard to do, and if you don't have at least one guy who can do it consistently the umbrella might not be the right choice for that team. From a coaching perspective I don't know what the best option would be - there's a rather high cost to changing the setup because everyone has to learn it from scratch, including the coaches, and that takes time away from other areas for development.

Overall, I think the model has worked pretty well - the team has generally had strong PP performance in the "right" years. That's partly because having a strong PP improves your odds of winning, but I think it's also because the team is typically going through rebuilding cycles and a lot of these elements seem to come together at the same time. The other thing that you see is timing - the 2002 and 2003 teams were excellent because the top PP worked as a unit for, essentially, 3 straight years. In this year's NCAA games some of Cornell's best puck movement resulted in a routine save because the slot was empty and the goaltender had a clear view of the puck. That's a PP unit a little bit out of sync, and I'd expect that to improve over the course of another season.

It just seemed to me that this year we just didn't move the puck quickly enough on the PP, therefore rarely getting an unimpeded look at the net. Watch the BC and Minnesota PP to see the difference. I think it's just that simple

To be fair, Ferris State's PK is really, really good. I think they were something like 5th in the country.

Yes, but we were 9th in the ECAC in PP!

(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

Josh '99

Jordan 04
(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

jtn27

Josh '99

Jordan 04
(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

Tom Lento
If you want a real contrast, jump from the Cornell/Ferris St. to a halfway decent NHL power play. The puck never sits. Even if the player doesn't shoot or pass immediately he moves with the puck and constantly changes the angle of attack.

This is one of the biggest contrasts of the NHL to college hockey. Of course, in the NHL with the exception of a handful of cement heads everybody on the roster can stickhandle like a Hobey Baker candidate.

To make that work you need both perfect passing and perfect receiving. Movement on the power-play is only as strong as its worst stick man.

We were at least trying to get the puck low to create the triple option of angle shot / low slot pass / quick pass back to the point for the one-timer. We needed Ferlin to twirl around in the corner a few times, shaking his man while the puck adhered magically to his stick until being released with a quick wrist.

D'Ags was so effective early in the year collapsing in and taking that hard shot, and then he stopped trying to make that play. Maybe he telegraphs it and is just too great a risk for a block setting up the shorty break.

css228

jtn27

Josh '99

Jordan 04
(Surely our viewing party wasn't only one noticing ESPN's team stats each night which would note our rank in the ECAC, and our opponent's rank in the NCAA).

Maybe they didn't want to embarrass us by noting that we were 41th in the NCAA in both power play and (uncharacteristically for a Schafer-coached team) penalty kill?

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, having it be shown that you're 41st in the country in power play or having your conference rank be shown while your opponent has its national rank shown.

1st is embarrassing, 2nd just useless.

That's true, but I think they're both pretty embarrassing.

jtwcornell91

Kyle Rose

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend. That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union! (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this. I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory. That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end. Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior. So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded. Now they're back. Good for them. Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all. Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches. But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread. Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base. And, well, us. We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now. And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So... I'm tired of BC and the Goophers. I'm wary of Union. This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.

My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

Scersk '97

jtwcornell91

Kyle Rose

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend. That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union! (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

I was probably thinking something like this. I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory. That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end. Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior. So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded. Now they're back. Good for them. Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all. Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches. But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

Hence my comments about Clarkson or SLU upthread. Even RPI, having won twice, can qualify as having a long-suffering fan base. And, well, us. We might not have really understood it in '67–'73 (or so), but we get now. And if, in the end, we are rewarded (I hesitate to use the word "blessed" because of its religious connotations, but something closer to that) with another championship, I think the release of joy will be stupendous and stretch across a large percentage of hockey fandom.

So... I'm tired of BC and the Goophers. I'm wary of Union. This is Union's first moment, and I don't think their fans, except for a very few, will truly appreciate it.

My sentiments, strangely enough, will probably line up behind Ferris State.

I know that they haven't bee major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

jtn27
I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Aaron M. Griffin

jtn27
I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

jtn27

Aaron M. Griffin

jtn27
I don't mind Union making the Frozen Four (although I would obviously prefer it be us) but I don't want them to become the first ECAC team to make the final since 1991 (correction coming in 3... 2...)

Per your request (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it), 1990 Colgate made the national title game. Harvard won in 1989. Both represent the last time an ECAC team earned a berth in the NCAA title game and the last time that an ECAC team won the NCAA title respectively.

Took long enough. I thought someone would have corrected me by now. I was beginning to think 1991 was correct.

Haha figured I would. It wasn't until my senior year that I got invested in learning the history of the ECAC beyond Cornell's role in its history. So, it's more of a sharing the wealth (of knowledge) opinion in my mind, not correcting you. Also, at AC, I was next to a family of Colgate alumni during the Colgate-Union game and one member of the group was wearing NCAA 1990 hat from when he was a student (I assume based on age) and Colgate made the appearance in the 1990 NCAA title game, so that sticks with me quite easily too.

Scersk '97
I was probably thinking something like this. I want all fan bases to have the "oh-so-close" feeling, years in the dumps, and then a return to shining victory. That trajectory inculcates humility and releases the maximum amount of joy in the end. Union's players, of course, have "paid their dues"; my concern, as a fan of another team, is their fans and the possibility of future insufferable behavior. So, I might have a very difficult time lining up my sentiments behind Union.

Yeah, this. Whenever I'm watching the clutter of equipment strewn about in celebration after the NCAA Final, I often say "good for them." The "them" refers to both the players, coaches and the longtime fans. It's silly, but I think championships also belong to the emotionally invested fans of each program. And I like to see those fans understand about how difficult and rare it is to reach the mountaintop. I want to see the winning fan section jumping on top of each other in ecstasy, not standing up and giving a "rah, team...good show" golf clap.

Example: My senior year was 1996. My introduction to CU hockey was the ridiculously wretched 1992-93 season. I saw them miss the playoffs altogether (we won our last game!), and the following two years get waxed in the QF round by Clarkson and Harvard. So the '96 ECAC Championship was just a magical run to me. The members of the Class of '99 I knew were Freshmen when I was a Senior. After the 1997 Championship, a few '99ers started half-joking "what's the big deal about winning the Whitelaw? We win every year. What's the big deal about beating Harvard? Har har..."

Winning without pain leads to entitlement.

There seems to be a sense here that Union fans haven't "earned" a championship because they haven't come close before and their fans would feel entitled. But before becoming good a few years ago, wasn't Union basically the doormat of the ECAC for a long time? If any fan base has suffered and earned a championship wouldn't it be Union's? Or is the concern that Union never had any fans until a few years ago anyway so there is no long suffering fan base?

jtwcornell91

Kyle Rose

Scersk '97
Don't know that I can support them winning a championship, however, because I'm not sure they've "paid their dues."

I don't get this. Every year the slate is wiped clean: there's a reason the PWR doesn't incorporate historical data, for instance. If Union wins the national championship, I will congratulate them and ask why that wasn't Cornell instead.

There's also the lack of perspective on the part of their fans, which some noted last weekend. That said, any ECAC team going as far as possible in the NCAAs can only be good for our conference as a whole, so Go Union! (And if they get too full of themselves, they can jump to Hockey Least and we can grab RIT.)

As one who said that last weekend, I have to say that is one of my problems with them. Too many of their fans are jerks, and it's not that they have a lack of perspective, they have no perspective (I guess that's saying the same thing, it just seems stronger to me to say no.)

SLU fans have no band, are passive, but you put up with them because they aren't jerks and they seem to have a better appreciation of hockey. (That's not based upon any facts.)

Clarkson fans, especially students, can be jerks, but they have a good band, have been around a long time, really do seem to appreciate the game. So they are fun to play against.

Harvard has an OK band, when it shows up, fans that go from no one, to jerks, to as passive as SLU. But you enjoy them because of who they are, and that some of us may have been rejected, their team has had good years, and it's great to beat them. As an aside did you see that the first rivalry on the list shown during the game was CU-Harvard.

But put together all of the above bad attributes, no band, passive or jerk fans, no real appreciation of the game and its history, and you have Union fans. Tough to root for them. However, I'll try next week.

jtwcornell91

Josh '99

Scersk '97
But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate. (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Jim Hyla

jtwcornell91

Josh '99

Scersk '97
But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate. (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Honestly, that would be awesome too: "And then Clarkson finally won the national championship, and the bell broke."

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla

jtwcornell91

Josh '99

Scersk '97
But Lowell, why not root for Clarkson? Small school, mostly engineers, passionate fans, good band, somewhat snakebit in the national tournament. (Some of that due to us.)

I can't speak for Lowell, but personally I think it's too funny that they've never won the tournament to want that fact to change.

I've said it before: if Tech ever manages to win a title, they'd better ring that damn bell for 24 hours straight to celebrate. (And I'll be happy to take a shift.)

Are you trying to break it?

Honestly, that would be awesome too: "And then Clarkson finally won the national championship, and the bell broke."

Can't we just skip to the last part? (That would include bypassing the 24 hours, too.)

A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

Johnny 5
A Union win may be great for EZ-AC hockey, but Union will always be just Ivy League wannabees!

I don't think Union is a unique subset of the ECAC in that respect.

css228

Scersk '97
Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded. Now they're back. Good for them. Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all. Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches. But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

I know that they haven't been major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

BU, to me, falls into the category of respected rival (like Clarkson) rather than hated rival (like Harvard), and I have little problem cheering along with (rather different than "rooting for" ) a respected rival.

It's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union. When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Union is afflicted with many jerky bandwagon fans, but the core fan base (all 300 of them) has been suffering for decades and is now getting a great payoff. If that isn't paying dues, I'm not sure what is.

Also, we should probably be careful when we use terms like "entitlement."

Scersk '97

css228

Scersk '97
Ferris had a brief moment in '03--their first--but it faded. Now they're back. Good for them. Hence, why I was able to cheer along with Wisco in '06 and BU in '09, even though both had already won it all. Hell, I might've been able to cheer along with BC in '98 or '99, if I didn't already know that their fans were such douches. But by the time they won in '01, I was tired of them, and I'm even more tired of them now.

I know that they haven't been major rivals for decades, but doesn't rooting for BU make you a heretic among the Faithful?

BU, to me, falls into the category of respected rival (like Clarkson) rather than hated rival (like Harvard), and I have little problem cheering along with (rather different than "rooting for" a respected rival.

We respect Clarkson?

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Trotsky
It's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union. When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Exactly.

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU. I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

I sure as hell respect their current coach, that's for sure.

And for years, they held the highest all-time winning % in college hockey. That title is probably gone, as it looks like BC has passed them, with Minnesota and BU very close. There used to be fairly easy way to sort all-time program records on USCHO, but now all I can find on CHN, USCHO, and INCH are all-time coaching records. Having to jump between program histories (on the USCHO site, since CHN doesn't compile the team totals), I have:

BC:                   0.640
Clarkson              0.628
Minnesota:            0.628
BU:                   0.626
Michigan:             0.607
Cornell:              0.604
A team that sucks:    0.602
Maine:                0.600

French Rage

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU. I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan. He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

RichH
And for years, they held the highest all-time winning % in college hockey.

Moving from Walker Arena to Cheel changed all that. Well, that and George Roll. Boy was I wrong about him.

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Oh I definitely respect Casey, and I consider them a rival, but I'm not sure its a respect thing. I definitely enjoy playing them, and think they have the second best fans/tradition in the ECAC, but I just don't like them. I think their band is a music group with a drinking problem, and every time we play them, I'm pumped for the game. I'm not sure its quite hatred, but its definitely more that's just respected rivals for me . It feels like a controversial hatefest can break out at any moment given the right incident against them, unlike Sucks, where we'll probably just create one as a reason to hate on Sucks. They lie for me somewhere on that line between respect and hate, though I'd be closer to hate if Casey weren't coaching there.

Trotsky
Union is afflicted with many jerky bandwagon fans, but the core fan base (all 300 of them) has been suffering for decades and is now getting a great payoff. If that isn't paying dues, I'm not sure what is.

Did they pay those dues with the pennies from the milk jugs they shake at games? For years, they couldn't be bothered to yell or clap, but they would shake their loose change they carried around in garbage in your face like a baby's rattle.

OK, I'm done.

Go Union, I guess. Whee.

KeithK

Trotsky
It's all about what's best for Cornell, and that's why I'll be rooting hard for Union. When the neighborhood improves, your property value goes up.

Exactly.

I should add that I've had very positive interactions with #UnionHockey fans in the Twitterverse. We were rooting hard for each other's schools last weekend.

Scersk '97

French Rage

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU. I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan. He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

French Rage

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU. I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan. He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

But somehow Union's found a better way. Now that they are known to have a good program, do you think they can stop giving the award to them? I mean they have more COTY awards than any other school. And what do have to show for it. Another of my reasons why I find it hard to root for them.

Jim Hyla

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

French Rage

Scersk '97

css228
We respect Clarkson?

Back when they were constantly in the league's top four, it was hard not to.

Wow, it's really feast or famine for SLU. I guess it comes down to whether the refs are holding them back from being the greatest team of all time that year.

Nah, it was (bothers me to type that) the Joe Marsh plan. He seemed to build for national championship runs once every four years or so rather than for year-in/year-out consistency.

It's a good way to win multiple COTY awards.

But somehow Union's found a better way. Now that they are known to have a good program, do you think they can stop giving the award to them? I mean they have more COTY awards than any other school. And what do have to show for it. Another of my reasons why I find it hard to root for them.

Never thought of that one. I will add it to my list.

So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

Jim Hyla
So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

ajh258

Jim Hyla
So now Union's coach, Bennett, is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, otherwise known as national coach of the year. Since their former coach won it last year, it only seems fair that he gets it this year.

As much as I dislike another ECAC team getting the spotlight, I do not dislike Union, and the program has won my respect over the years I've been here.

On a more relevant note, Bennett definitely deserves the recognition for Spencer Penrose, and it won't be surprising if he wins it in the end.

You see my problem is that how many years in a row is a team supposed to get the award. I generally think of the award as for exceeding expectations, or getting an unusually good result. But once your team has done well, and you've won it a few times, isn't that the expectation? Teams like ours are expected to do well, so are never as likely to get it. When Coach Schafer came we had had losing records for 3 years. He took them to 2 ECAC championships his first 2 years, and who won the awards, SLU and Union. Unions feat was so good they finished last the next year. If Union does well again next year, will he deserve it again? No, in my view Union should have been expected to do well this year, and someone like Casey Jones had to be considered. For the Penrose, Ferris or Lowell are much more deserving.