Favorite Harvard Game Memory

For the big game this weekend (my fifth Harvard game, third at Lynah) I am going to write an article for the Big Red Sports Network detailing the history of the rivalry, and what has made it so special to generations of Cornell students. I'm going to try to go back as far as the 1890s, and try to get as much information about the early days of the Cornell hockey program. I know for sure I'm going to write about our 1962 victory at Lynah (which I talked about in a previous article), how the fish throwing tradition started, the connection to Love Story, and some key playoff wins (i.e. Sam Paolini GW goal in 2003 ECAC finals).

What I was wondering is if any of you guys experienced any Harvard games that were particularly thrilling or memorable? From any year is fine (earlier the better even!), although it'd be nice to write about games that had a lot riding on them standings-wise. A lot of students here now don't really understand the rivalry too much because Harvard hasn't been as strong in recent years, but for a while they were a top dog in the ECAC. Whether it's a story from Schafer's years (seriously did he actually break a stick over his head?) or from five years ago, I'd love to hear it.

In 1979, Harvard was pretty much irrelevant standings-wise, especially since only 8 of the teams made the playoffs. But it was still fun to see the craziness.

At that time we threw the fish on the ice just before Harvard came out for the third period. After the figure skater finished her routine, Lynah got quiet. With about a minute left in intermission, someone walked down the aisle and simply dropped a fish over the glass. Then fish started raining down. There were fresh fish - and some not so fresh - of all shapes and sizes. Someone tossed out a box of Mrs. Pauls' fish sticks. I saw a handful of shrimp fly out along with a can of tuna. There was even a lump of something in a plastic bag that someone told me was a baby shark from a biology lab dissection project.

After that, someone jumped over the boards with a cloth bag and pulled out a live chicken! He walked over to the Harvard goal and tied the chicken to the goal posts with pink ribbons. It was loud already, but when the chicken took a dump in the crease, it got even louder.

Eventually Harvard came out, knocked a few fish around with their sticks, and the ushers cleaned up all the mess. They made the usual announcement warning about calling a delay of game penalty and the game went on.

But this was when they let anyone in for free once the third period started. So at the first stoppage of the third period there was a commotion a the top of the rink. Two guys ran down the aisle and threw a giant phallus with "Harvard Sucks" painted on the side of it. Again the place went crazy. This time they called the delay of game penalty.

Right after we killed that penalty, Brock Tredway completed a hat trick. Of course plenty of hats were tossed on the ice. And the ref called another delay of game penalty! That incensed the crowd. But it really didn't matter because we were so far ahead. I think the final was 11-4.

Interestingly, I don't remember anything about any the other games my last three years on campus. I guess you never forget your first time.

Jeff Hopkins '82
But this was when they let anyone in for free once the third period started. So at the first stoppage of the third period there was a commotion a the top of the rink. Two guys ran down the aisle and threw a giant phallus with "Harvard Sucks" painted on the side of it. Again the place went crazy. This time they called the delay of game penalty.

Said phallus.

Note our seniors have never won Fish & Fowl.

I was just thinking about that. But hey at least they've won 2 of 3 at Harvard!

Yes, Schafer really did break a stick over his head (although he cheated a bit; he sawed it part-way through). Here's a contemporary account.

First of all, you should probably know that the first Cornell-Harvard men's hockey game was in 1910, regardless of when the programs each started playing. Harvard beat us 5-0 at St. Nicholas Rink in New York City.

In no particular order:

It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how our player got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Now let's go back to 1990, when McCutcheon was head coach and we had some pretty decent firepower on our team - Joe Dragon, Dan Ratushny, Kent Manderville, Tim Vanini, Ryan Hughes, Doug Derraugh, Trent Andison, et al., plus Jim Crozier as our star in net. Our hopes for an ECAC tournament title ended rather abruptly when RPI beat us in the semis in the old Boston Garden, but the previous week, Harvard marched into Lynah for the Quarterfinals as defending national champions, with Bill Cleary having already announced this would be his last season as head coach. We were smack-dab in the middle of what would eventually become a ten-and-a-half-year regular season winless streak against Harvard (three ties and seventeen losses, IIRC, plus three more losses in ECAC tournament play), yet we swept them 6-2, 4-2 to take away what Bill obviously felt should have been his opportunity for a victory lap and a return trip to the dance (they didn't get an at-large bid either, though that wasn't shocking back in the days of the 8-team field). In one of the worst displays of sportsmanship I've ever seen, Bill angrily marched his team off the ice after losing the second game without letting them shake hands with the Big Red, and immediately transitioned from coach to Harvard's AD. The ECAC's decision to name the regular season title trophy after him still galls some of us to this day.

I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

Last but not least, a little story about how my wife and I became engaged the day of the Harvard game two years ago:

[elf.elynah.com]

Good luck with your article!

Beeeej, isn't there also a story, though, from that 1990 series, where Cleary was having fun with the crowd and pep band before the game ... and/or he shook hands with many faithful after the game? I have this archived somewhere - since I don't always trust my memory anymore

I was at that series, and the only thing I can remember really is the post-game interview with Cleary, knowing that was the end of the road. I was only 19 at the time, and the impact of that moment didn't occur to me as much as it would now, though I still remember it was a big deal.

Jeff Hopkins '82
In 1979, Harvard was pretty much irrelevant standings-wise, especially since only 8 of the teams made the playoffs. But it was still fun to see the craziness.

At that time we threw the fish on the ice just before Harvard came out for the third period. After the figure skater finished her routine, Lynah got quiet. With about a minute left in intermission, someone walked down the aisle and simply dropped a fish over the glass. Then fish started raining down. There were fresh fish - and some not so fresh - of all shapes and sizes. Someone tossed out a box of Mrs. Pauls' fish sticks. I saw a handful of shrimp fly out along with a can of tuna. There was even a lump of something in a plastic bag that someone told me was a baby shark from a biology lab dissection project.

After that, someone jumped over the boards with a cloth bag and pulled out a live chicken! He walked over to the Harvard goal and tied the chicken to the goal posts with pink ribbons. It was loud already, but when the chicken took a dump in the crease, it got even louder.

Eventually Harvard came out, knocked a few fish around with their sticks, and the ushers cleaned up all the mess. They made the usual announcement warning about calling a delay of game penalty and the game went on.

But this was when they let anyone in for free once the third period started. So at the first stoppage of the third period there was a commotion a the top of the rink. Two guys ran down the aisle and threw a giant phallus with "Harvard Sucks" painted on the side of it. Again the place went crazy. This time they called the delay of game penalty.

Right after we killed that penalty, Brock Tredway completed a hat trick. Of course plenty of hats were tossed on the ice. And the ref called another delay of game penalty! That incensed the crowd. But it really didn't matter because we were so far ahead. I think the final was 11-4.

Interestingly, I don't remember anything about any of the other games my last three years on campus. I guess you never forget your first time.

adamw
Beeeej, isn't there also a story, though, from that 1990 series, where Cleary was having fun with the crowd and pep band before the game ... and/or he shook hands with many faithful after the game? I have this archived somewhere - since I don't always trust my memory anymore

If there is, I've never been aware of it. I just remember the look on his face when he practically shoved his players off the ice, as if Cornell beating them in that round had been the most audacious, personally offensive thing he'd ever experienced.

I can't find specific reference to what I said -- I think I have it at home -- but this is from The Crimson's game writeup...

Cleary exited college hockey the way he entered it--with class. Unflustered by chants of "Goodbye, bald guy" from Cornell students pouring onto the ice, Cleary hopped off the bench after the contest to give victorious Big Red Coach Brian McCutcheon a farewell hug.

"Billy's a real credit to the game of hockey," McCutcheon said.

[www.thecrimson.com]

Beeeej
First of all, you should probably know that the first Cornell-Harvard men's hockey game was in 1910, regardless of when the programs each started playing. Harvard beat us 5-0 at St. Nicholas Rink in New York City.

In no particular order:

It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how Sam Paolini got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Now let's go back to 1990, when McCutcheon was head coach and we had some pretty decent firepower on our team - Joe Dragon, Dan Ratushny, Kent Manderville, Tim Vanini, Ryan Hughes, Doug Derraugh, Trent Andison, et al., plus Jim Crozier as our star in net. Our hopes for an ECAC tournament title ended rather abruptly when RPI beat us in the semis in the old Boston Garden, but the previous week, Harvard marched into Lynah for the Quarterfinals as defending national champions, with Bill Cleary having already announced this would be his last season as head coach. We were smack-dab in the middle of what would eventually become a ten-and-a-half-year regular season winless streak against Harvard (three ties and seventeen losses, IIRC, plus three more losses in ECAC tournament play), yet we swept them 6-2, 4-2 to take away what Bill obviously felt should have been his opportunity for a victory lap and a return trip to the dance (they didn't get an at-large bid either, though that wasn't shocking back in the days of the 8-team field). In one of the worst displays of sportsmanship I've ever seen, Bill angrily marched his team off the ice after losing the second game without letting them shake hands with the Big Red, and immediately transitioned from coach to Harvard's AD. The ECAC's decision to name the regular season title trophy after him still galls some of us to this day.

I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

Last but not least, a little story about how my wife and I became engaged the day of the Harvard game two years ago:

[elf.elynah.com]

Good luck with your article!

Said Videos from 2003:


Paolini's winning OT goal and


Mark McRae's tying goal with 33 seconds left

Even though it has been nearly 40 years since my time on the hill I am a relatively recent convert to college hockey. It started a little over 10 years ago when I went to the see the Big Red play in the first round of the NCAA Tournament against UNH in Worcester. I was hooked and started going to BU games with my wife '77 who was a BU Law School Grad.

Living in Boston, I regularly have to endure Cantab arrogance and hogwash. We go to the games at Lynah East and each time for a few minutes, regardless of the score, I get psychic revenge as follows:

The first game at Lynah East I went to during the second intermission the announcer said "Please stand and join us for the Harvard Alma Mater" Some words were scrolled across the scoreboard and the band played something that sounded like "Little Brown Jug". Nobody seemed to notice as the music petered out. About 5 seconds later without the benefit of the announcer, there was a drum roll. Two thousand plus Cornellians from the youngest Freshman to old farts like me, stood, linked arms and sang leaving no doubt about the title to the barn.

Victory on the ice is always nice but owning the house is priceless.

Towerroad
Even though it has been nearly 40 years since my time on the hill I am a relatively recent convert to college hockey. It started a little over 10 years ago when I went to the see the Big Red play in the first round of the NCAA Tournament against UNH in Worcester. I was hooked and started going to BU games with my wife '77 who was a BU Law School Grad.

Second round - the first round was when we drubbed Quinnipiac 6-1. 2002 was the last year of the 12-team field, so we faced a rested UNH team the next day, and still gave them pretty decent fits before they finished us of.

Towerroad

The first game at Lynah East I went to during the second intermission the announcer said "Please stand and join us for the Harvard Alma Mater" Some words were scrolled across the scoreboard and the band played something that sounded like "Little Brown Jug". Nobody seemed to notice as the music petered out. About 5 seconds later without the benefit of the announcer, there was a drum roll. Two thousand plus Cornellians from the youngest Freshman to old farts like me, stood, linked arms and sang leaving no doubt about the title to the barn.

Victory on the ice is always nice but owning the house is priceless.

This never gets old.

In the 2009-2010 season, we beat Harvard 4 times with an aggregate score of 17-4, which I assume is a season record. The third game of that set began a shutout streak by Scrivens which included 3 complete games, the last being the ECAC Championship game against Union.

Beeeej
If there is, I've never been aware of it. I just remember the look on his face when he practically shoved his players off the ice, as if Cornell beating them in that round had been the most audacious, personally offensive thing he'd ever experienced.

I remember it this way as well.

Cleary may have shaken McCutcheon's hand -- you're supposed to -- but throughout the series he behaved as if personally insulted that Cornell was daring to beat His national champion Princess Anne squad.

1990? 1991? Cornell wins a draw in the Harvard end with about a minute to play and a Tim Vanini slapshot from the point ties it up. Don't know why this means more that the Paolini/McRae heroics but college memories are sweeter, I guess.

My favorite memory was in 96...I think. As we were harassing the Harvard players during warmups they started firing pucks into section B. My seat was in row 2 so I was able to duck safely below the glass. The refs saw what was going on pretty quickly and put an end to it before anyone got hurt. Of course the Faithful just got more rowdy now that we knew we were in their heads.
When the fish came out I seem to remember one of the Harvard players somehow sending one back over the glass. The weird thing was that after he did that he just turned around and bent over leaning on his stick across is knees and his rear against the boards. Someone in the first row got the fish off the ground and just plopped it over the boards and on his back. It sat there for a few long seconds before a team mate noticed and clued him in.
That's how I remember it.

Michael Kennedy in 2006 (?) but I wasn't there for that one. I saw it on tv.

jts15
Michael Kennedy in 2006 (?) but I wasn't there for that one. I saw it on tv.

This has to be the video I've watched most often on YouTube:

[www.youtube.com]

Beeeej
It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly.

I'm not sure if it's technically true that Dominic Moore won 500 faceoffs in that game, but that's certainly how I remember it.

jts15
My favorite memory was in 96...I think. As we were harassing the Harvard players during warmups they started firing pucks into section B. My seat was in row 2 so I was able to duck safely below the glass. The refs saw what was going on pretty quickly and put an end to it before anyone got hurt. Of course the Faithful just got more rowdy now that we knew we were in their heads.

My one puck from a game came from this game: I was taunting Harvard players from section A during warm-ups when one of them sent a puck toward my head. I avoided it and then picked it up as a trophy. It was glorious. I still have it sitting on my desk.

Josh '99

Beeeej
It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly.

I'm not sure if it's technically true that Dominic Moore won 500 faceoffs in that game, but that's certainly how I remember it.

That's definitely how I remember it. That and underhill giving up awful rebounds.

Beeeej
It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how Sam Paolini got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Yup. Best win since 1970 IMO.

January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama. Trailing 4-3 late, we pull the goalie and Kevin Petit deflects in a Ron Simpson slapshot with maybe 15 seonds left to tie the game. Back then, sudden death overtimes were 10 minutes. We get called for a penalty, and on the PK, defenseman Jim Higgs scores short-handed with between 6 and 7 minutes gone from approximately the face-off circle on the section D-E side (teams switched sides in overtime). Cornell wins 5-4.

jkahn
January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama. Trailing 4-3 late, we pull the goalie and Kevin Petit deflects in a Ron Simpson slapshot with maybe 15 seonds left to tie the game. Back then, sudden death overtimes were 10 minutes. We get called for a penalty, and on the PK, defenseman Jim Higgs scores short-handed with between 6 and 7 minutes gone from approximately the face-off circle on the section D-E side (teams switched sides in overtime). Cornell wins 5-4.

Ditto.

KGR11

Towerroad

The first game at Lynah East I went to during the second intermission the announcer said "Please stand and join us for the Harvard Alma Mater" Some words were scrolled across the scoreboard and the band played something that sounded like "Little Brown Jug". Nobody seemed to notice as the music petered out. About 5 seconds later without the benefit of the announcer, there was a drum roll. Two thousand plus Cornellians from the youngest Freshman to old farts like me, stood, linked arms and sang leaving no doubt about the title to the barn.

Victory on the ice is always nice but owning the house is priceless.

This never gets old.

In the 2009-2010 season, we beat Harvard 4 times with an aggregate score of 17-4, which I assume is a season record. The third game of that set began a shutout streak by Scrivens which included 3 complete games, the last being the ECAC Championship game against Union.

I'm not sure what metric you want to use for the best season record.
67-68 Cornell won 9-0 and 7-2.

Josh '99

Beeeej
It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly.

I'm not sure if it's technically true that Dominic Moore won 500 faceoffs in that game, but that's certainly how I remember it.

Yeah, this was the "Dominic Moore won every *$&@ing faceoff over 2.5 periods" game. I wanted to just hate that guy but winning faceoffs wasn't the only thing he did well in that game, and I have to admit that was one of the most impressive individual efforts I've ever seen out of a college hockey player.

jkahn
January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama. Trailing 4-3 late, we pull the goalie and Kevin Petit deflects in a Ron Simpson slapshot with maybe 15 seonds left to tie the game. Back then, sudden death overtimes were 10 minutes. We get called for a penalty, and on the PK, defenseman Jim Higgs scores short-handed with between 6 and 7 minutes gone from approximately the face-off circle on the section D-E side (teams switched sides in overtime). Cornell wins 5-4.

I'm fairly certain this was the game in which Harvard thought they scored during OT to win and tried to jump through the glass to get at the goal judge who they believed had robbed them. Dennis Paese was one of the student managers for the team. He told several of us that he spoke to the goal judge who adamantly denied that there had been a goal.

David Harding

KGR11

Towerroad

The first game at Lynah East I went to during the second intermission the announcer said "Please stand and join us for the Harvard Alma Mater" Some words were scrolled across the scoreboard and the band played something that sounded like "Little Brown Jug". Nobody seemed to notice as the music petered out. About 5 seconds later without the benefit of the announcer, there was a drum roll. Two thousand plus Cornellians from the youngest Freshman to old farts like me, stood, linked arms and sang leaving no doubt about the title to the barn.

Victory on the ice is always nice but owning the house is priceless.

This never gets old.

In the 2009-2010 season, we beat Harvard 4 times with an aggregate score of 17-4, which I assume is a season record. The third game of that set began a shutout streak by Scrivens which included 3 complete games, the last being the ECAC Championship game against Union.

I'm not sure what metric you want to use for the best season record.
67-68 Cornell won 9-0 and 7-2.

That 9-0 game was memorable, to me, because of the usual late, if ever, Harvard crowd. I was a grad student at MIT, and of course went to the game. We scored 3 quick goals in the first period, and you should have heard the comments as some Harvard "fans" walked in to see the score 3-0. Some were talking about walking back out. How I wish Harkness never got the NHL bug. But I have to assume he got a substantial pay increase.

Full history for "best record" comparisons.

Beeeej
I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

I've talked enough about it elsewhere on this forum, I'll just link.

[elf.elynah.com]
[elf.elynah.com]

And a story from somebody else about the 1990 playoff series that's relevant to this discussion:
[elf.elynah.com]

jkahn
January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama.

Father of the Cavanagh who played for Harvard in the 2002 and 2003 championship games discussed upthread, no?

Larry72

Beeeej
First of all, you should probably know that the first Cornell-Harvard men's hockey game was in 1910, regardless of when the programs each started playing. Harvard beat us 5-0 at St. Nicholas Rink in New York City.

In no particular order:

It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how Sam Paolini got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Now let's go back to 1990, when McCutcheon was head coach and we had some pretty decent firepower on our team - Joe Dragon, Dan Ratushny, Kent Manderville, Tim Vanini, Ryan Hughes, Doug Derraugh, Trent Andison, et al., plus Jim Crozier as our star in net. Our hopes for an ECAC tournament title ended rather abruptly when RPI beat us in the semis in the old Boston Garden, but the previous week, Harvard marched into Lynah for the Quarterfinals as defending national champions, with Bill Cleary having already announced this would be his last season as head coach. We were smack-dab in the middle of what would eventually become a ten-and-a-half-year regular season winless streak against Harvard (three ties and seventeen losses, IIRC, plus three more losses in ECAC tournament play), yet we swept them 6-2, 4-2 to take away what Bill obviously felt should have been his opportunity for a victory lap and a return trip to the dance (they didn't get an at-large bid either, though that wasn't shocking back in the days of the 8-team field). In one of the worst displays of sportsmanship I've ever seen, Bill angrily marched his team off the ice after losing the second game without letting them shake hands with the Big Red, and immediately transitioned from coach to Harvard's AD. The ECAC's decision to name the regular season title trophy after him still galls some of us to this day.

I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

Last but not least, a little story about how my wife and I became engaged the day of the Harvard game two years ago:

[elf.elynah.com]

Good luck with your article!

Said Videos from 2003:


Paolini's winning OT goal and


Mark McRae's tying goal with 33 seconds left

I'm kinda shocked that Youtube never got a copyright pulldown request for these videos; I guess that's one advantage to not having our games on a bigger TV network?

Josh '99

Larry72

Beeeej
First of all, you should probably know that the first Cornell-Harvard men's hockey game was in 1910, regardless of when the programs each started playing. Harvard beat us 5-0 at St. Nicholas Rink in New York City.

In no particular order:

It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how Sam Paolini got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Now let's go back to 1990, when McCutcheon was head coach and we had some pretty decent firepower on our team - Joe Dragon, Dan Ratushny, Kent Manderville, Tim Vanini, Ryan Hughes, Doug Derraugh, Trent Andison, et al., plus Jim Crozier as our star in net. Our hopes for an ECAC tournament title ended rather abruptly when RPI beat us in the semis in the old Boston Garden, but the previous week, Harvard marched into Lynah for the Quarterfinals as defending national champions, with Bill Cleary having already announced this would be his last season as head coach. We were smack-dab in the middle of what would eventually become a ten-and-a-half-year regular season winless streak against Harvard (three ties and seventeen losses, IIRC, plus three more losses in ECAC tournament play), yet we swept them 6-2, 4-2 to take away what Bill obviously felt should have been his opportunity for a victory lap and a return trip to the dance (they didn't get an at-large bid either, though that wasn't shocking back in the days of the 8-team field). In one of the worst displays of sportsmanship I've ever seen, Bill angrily marched his team off the ice after losing the second game without letting them shake hands with the Big Red, and immediately transitioned from coach to Harvard's AD. The ECAC's decision to name the regular season title trophy after him still galls some of us to this day.

I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

Last but not least, a little story about how my wife and I became engaged the day of the Harvard game two years ago:

[elf.elynah.com]

Good luck with your article!

Said Videos from 2003:


Paolini's winning OT goal and


Mark McRae's tying goal with 33 seconds left

I'm kinda shocked that Youtube never got a copyright pulldown request for these videos; I guess that's one advantage to not having our games on a bigger TV network?

Why, isn't it "fair use"?

Jim Hyla
Why, isn't it "fair use"?

Seems about as fair to me as posting video clips of NBC's olympic coverage on youtube... but those clips get pulled down immediately, to say the least.

Jim Hyla
Why, isn't it "fair use"?

Sure, why not?

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82
But this was when they let anyone in for free once the third period started. So at the first stoppage of the third period there was a commotion a the top of the rink. Two guys ran down the aisle and threw a giant phallus with "Harvard Sucks" painted on the side of it. Again the place went crazy. This time they called the delay of game penalty.

Said phallus.

Note our seniors have never won Fish & Fowl.

Come to think of it, the seniors have also lost the final RS game of every season.

They Beat Union last year on senior night 4-2

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
They Beat Union last year on senior night 4-2

And then lost the last RS game of the year at Yale.

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
They Beat Union last year on senior night 4-2

Most recent Senior Nights (assuming they were the last home RS game):

02 W 5-3 Clk
03 W 3-1 Uni
04 W 2-1 Clk
05 W 4-1 Uni
06 L 3-4 Hvd
07 W 8-4 Prn
08 L 1-3 Hvd
09 W 5-2 Uni
10 T 1-1 RPI (ot)
11 W 3-2 Drt (ot)
12 L 1-2 RPI (ot)
13 W 4-2 Uni
14 W 3-2 Hvd (ot)

Josh '99

jkahn
January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama.

Father of the Cavanagh who played for Harvard in the 2002 and 2003 championship games discussed upthread, no?

Indeed - Joe Cavanagh, father of Tommy Cavanagh, who died a few years ago in an apparent suicide, sadly. He was playing in the AHL at the time, or was between teams.

[en.wikipedia.org]

adamw

Josh '99

jkahn
January 1971 at Lynah. We haven't lost at home in 4 years. Harvard has two absolutely terrific lines: seniors DeMichele-Cavanagh-Owen and sophs Corkery-Hynes-McManama.

Father of the Cavanagh who played for Harvard in the 2002 and 2003 championship games discussed upthread, no?

Indeed - Joe Cavanagh, father of Tommy Cavanagh, who died a few years ago in an apparent suicide, sadly. He was playing in the AHL at the time, or was between teams.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Jesus fucking shit, I had no idea about this story. That's horrible. About 1 in 100 people is affected by schizophrenia (i.e., about 500 at any given sold out baseball game); most are functional, but it is a very lonely existence given our inevitably fucktard ignorance of disorders.

Guys thank you for all these stories! Just in time for the big game, here's the finish product: [cornellcenterice.tumblr.com]

But I love hearing all of these old stories! If anyone has any more I would love to hear them!

ScrewBUHarvardtoo
Guys thank you for all these stories! Just in time for the big game, here's the finish product: [cornellcenterice.tumblr.com]

But I love hearing all of these old stories! If anyone has any more I would love to hear them!

Good work. My only quibble is the "hockey line" refers to the multi-day line for season tickets.

Haven't read the story yet.

But very glad that for a whole slew of undergrads, tonight might be the "Favorite Harvard Game Memory" they might choose to describe some number of years down the road when someone posts a similar question.

Great story and well written -- one edit please. The 2003 ECAC Championship win was in Albany, not Lake Placid.

Well, so now I've read the article. Nice of you to take this on. I'll comment on one or two pretty major factual errors.

The greatest is that the 2003 ECAC Championships were in Albany. That was the first year they had moved to Albany, after having been in Lake Placid the year before.

Also this is from memory, but I'm almost certain we only achieved the number one spot in the polls that year at the very end of the season.

Since this is something you've published online, I imagine you can make corrections pretty easily.

Edit: I should have refreshed the page before posting, as I see Larry beat me to pointing out the Lake Placid / Albany error.

andyw2100
Also this is from memory, but I'm almost certain we only achieved the number one spot in the polls that year at the very end of the season.

We achieved #1 for the first time that year on March 24.

Last night should be among our favorite Harvard game memories.

For the seniors, Ivy title in hand, to win Fish & Fowl for the first time, on Senior Night, ending the RS with a win for their first time, with less than 30 seconds left in overtime, in a situation where most of the crowd likely thought we still needed at least a point to clinch home ice, completing an RS rebound from last year's 9th place finish, and completing a 3-goal comeback against our arch rival...

Trotsky
Last night should be among our favorite Harvard game memories.

For the seniors, Ivy title in hand, to win Fish & Fowl for the first time, on Senior Night, ending the RS with a win for their first time, with less than 30 seconds left in overtime, in a situation where most of the crowd likely thought we still needed at least a point to clinch home ice, completing an RS rebound from last year's 9th place finish, and completing a 3-goal comeback against our arch rival...

Among them...sure. But I'm not sure anything's going to be able to top 2003 for me. Perhaps the proper outcome in a national championship game, but short of that...

I'm not sure what you mean about the last part of your post, though. Most of the crowd probably thought we needed the win. Those of us checking scores religiously had seen with about 1:30 to go in our OT that Clarkson and Qunnipiac had tied. But unless I am somehow mistaken, that meant that we needed to at least tie to gain the bye. Because had we lost we would have ended in a tie with Clarkson, and they would have won the tie-breaker with more wins.

Your comment, unless I am misunderstanding it, makes it sound like while most of the crowd thought we needed the point, we actually didn't.

What am I missing?

First off: That was the greatest game of any sport I have ever attended! For what Trotsky said (needed to at least tie to get a playoff birth, senior night for Andy Iles, 2 goal comeback, GW w/ 30 seconds left, and the loudest Lynah has been in quite some time). If I ever write another one of these articles, I am sure as hell talking about this game! And speaking of the article, I changed the mistakes I made about the 2003 ECAC finals (Albany, and us not being ranked number 1 until late in the season). Sorry about those, I should have checked that more carefully (and I think I mixed up the 2002 and 2003 finals).

I know the official "hockey line" was a multi day thing, but the 1962 game was the first time students lined up for a long time to see a hockey game, which is why I thought it was acting as a predecessor to the future hockey line

andyw2100
I'm not sure what you mean about the last part of your post, though. Most of the crowd probably thought we needed the win. Those of us checking scores religiously had seen with about 1:30 to go in our OT that Clarkson and Qunnipiac had tied. But unless I am somehow mistaken, that meant that we needed to at least tie to gain the bye. Because had we lost we would have ended in a tie with Clarkson, and they would have won the tie-breaker with more wins.

Your comment, unless I am misunderstanding it, makes it sound like while most of the crowd thought we needed the point, we actually didn't.

What am I missing?

You are missing that Yale won. As soon as that happened, even with a loss we would have won the 3-way with Clarkson and Yale for 4th. As soon as we had the Yale and Clarkson results in hand we were safe.

Clarkson held the tiebreaker over Cornell. Brandon Thomas reported the scenario wrong. So we were not safe after Clarkson tied Q. Still needed to finish ahead of them.

LGR14
Clarkson held the tiebreaker over Cornell. Brandon Thomas reported the scenario wrong. So we were not safe after Clarkson tied Q. Still needed to finish ahead of them.

Just to clarify, here is what would have happened had Cornell lost to Harvard last night and all other results remained the same:

Clarkson finished 11-9-2 in the ECAC, and Yale finished 10-8-4. A Cornell loss would have left the Big Red at 10-8-4, all three teams tied for fourth with 24 points.

First tiebreaker would have been head-to-head among the three teams. Cornell was 2-0 against Yale and 1-1 against Clarkson. Clarkson was 1-1 against Yale.

Thus, Cornell would take the head-to-head tiebreaker (and fourth place) with a 3-1 record, compared to Clarkson's 2-2 and Yale's 1-3. A loss last night, other than it being a loss to fucking Harvard on Senior night and giving the Big Red a god-awful goose-egg home weekend against two of the three worst teams in the league, wouldn't have made a bit of difference -- we would have still finished with the #4 seed.

(For the sake of completeness, the remaining Clarkson-Yale tie for fifth would have gone the same way it did in real life, with Clarkson going 1-1 head-to-head but taking it on the second tiebreaker, league wins)

Had Yale not won and forced a potential three-way tie, then yes, Clarkson would have had the tiebreaker edge (league wins) on Cornell.

Trotsky
You are missing that Yale won. As soon as that happened, even with a loss we would have won the 3-way with Clarkson and Yale for 4th. As soon as we had the Yale and Clarkson results in hand we were safe.

Got it.

Thank you!

Even though it had no bearing on the final standings or bye, etc. does the win not have an important impact on PWR?

jeff '84
Even though it had no bearing on the final standings or bye, etc. does the win not have an important impact on PWR?

Certainly.

Trotsky

jeff '84
Even though it had no bearing on the final standings or bye, etc. does the win not have an important impact on PWR?

Certainly.

TY

jeff '84
Even though it had no bearing on the final standings or bye, etc. does the win not have an important impact on PWR?

A tie would have dropped CU TO 17th. A loss, 18th.

RichH

jeff '84
Even though it had no bearing on the final standings or bye, etc. does the win not have an important impact on PWR?

A tie would have dropped CU TO 17th. A loss, 18th.

Thanks - arguably a heck of a lot more important (assuming similar effect in a couple weeks) than the bye... Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

jeff '84
Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

Schaefer mentions here that they were receiving updates during overtime: [cornellsun.com]

andyw2100

jeff '84
Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

It add to your "shock", the updates were coming via the old fashioned way. I sat in Section N & watched a young fellow running back & forth from the bench area to (presumably) the press box area. I figured he was bring out-of-town scores.

andyw2100

jeff '84
Surprised by Jason's (I think) "meaningless" comment after the Clarkson tie was in the books, suggesting that the Cornell coaches probably didn't tell the team, as if the W didn't matter and they'd take their foot off the pedal with "nothing"to play for.sorry to beat the dead horse.

Are you suggesting that on the radio broadcast Jason Weinstein implied that a) the coaches somehow learned of the other game results during the OT and that they he also suggested that they did not share these results with the team? If that's the case, I've got to think Jason Weinstein is badly mistaken on this. I sit two rows behind the bench. The coaching staff was pretty focused on the task at hand, which was beating Harvard. I would be shocked if any of them knew the outcome of the other games, or the impact of said outcomes before our game had ended.

Why not? If a win, rather than a tie would get a week off, wouldn't you want to know? Sure, they aren't going to tell the team to let up if they didn't need the win for that, but I think the coach would be wrong to not keep getting updated.

LGR14
Schaefer mentions here that they were receiving updates during overtime: [cornellsun.com]

I stand corrected. I am pleasantly surprised.

Jim Hyla

Why not? If a win, rather than a tie would get a week off, wouldn't you want to know? Sure, they aren't going to tell the team to let up if they didn't need the win for that, but I think the coach would be wrong to not keep getting updated.

I think it's great that the coaching staff was on top of the situation. I just thought Schafer was more "old-school" than that. I'm impressed.

I'm also surprised to read in the "Sun" article that he would have pulled Iles to go for the win to go for the home-ice bye at the possible cost of what the loss could do to the pairwise ranking and the chances of making the NCAA tournament. I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on that.

Personally I kinda like it, as unlike a lot of you here, I've typically placed more value on winning the ECACs than on anything NCAA-wise, probably because the NCAA championship just seems to be such a stretch, but in any given year we really can win the ECACs. So I like the "pull Iles if needed to go for the bye" strategy, but I'm guessing others here might not. Thoughts?

andyw2100

I think it's great that the coaching staff was on top of the situation. I just thought Schafer was more "old-school" than that. I'm impressed.

I'm also surprised to read in the "Sun" article that he would have pulled Iles to go for the win to go for the home-ice bye at the possible cost of what the loss could do to the pairwise ranking and the chances of making the NCAA tournament. I'm wondering what others' thoughts are on that.

Personally I kinda like it, as unlike a lot of you here, I've typically placed more value on winning the ECACs than on anything NCAA-wise, probably because the NCAA championship just seems to be such a stretch, but in any given year we really can win the ECACs. So I like the "pull Iles if needed to go for the bye" strategy, but I'm guessing others here might not. Thoughts?

I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

Likely issue there is that the Yale game had already ended. If Clarkson hadn't at least preserved the tie, they were certainly in sixth, and the difference between Princeton and others is huge.

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

Towerroad

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think that's quite the right analysis. Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring. It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG. If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie. but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible. And fun!

KeithK

Towerroad

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think that's quite the right analysis. Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring. It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG. If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie. but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible. And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

Towerroad

KeithK

Towerroad

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think that's quite the right analysis. Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring. It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG. If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie. but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible. And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

I disagree. The 4 permutations might look something like this:

1) We don't pull goalie, they don't pull goalie (i.e. status quo): 5% we score, 5% they score, 90% nobody scores
2) We pull goalie, they don't pull goalie: 10% we score, 50% they score, 40% nobody scores
3) We pull goalie, they pull goalie: 40% we score, 40% they score, 20% nobody scores
4) We don't pull goalie, they pull goalie: 50% we score, 10% they score, 40% nobody scores

Sure, our best chance is if they pull the goalie and we don't (scenario 4, 50%). But we can't control that. If time is winding down and they haven't pulled, then pulling our goalie still improves our probability from 5% (scenario 1) to 10% (scn 2), so it is still a rational choice to do so.

Once we have pulled our goalie, they would of course be foolish to follow suit, since at that point THEY would be in their own best case scenario #4. So it becomes a game of chicken - you're best off if the other guy pulls first, but pulling first is still better than if nobody pulls at all.

My mental image was a center ice face off (say, the officials blow a call) with time for just one rush. Both coaches know the odds of winning on the ensuing rush are essentially zero. Mike looks at Teddy. Teddy looks at Mike. Each arches an eyebrow. They both pull their goalies. The team that wins the faceoff wins the game; the team that loses gives up nothing.

Now this can't work in reality because of the PWR implications, but imagine if it were say two teams tied for ninth, 1 point out of 8th, both losing their tie breaker to the 8.

Towerroad

KeithK

Towerroad

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think that's quite the right analysis. Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring. It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG. If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie. but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible. And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

I don't think I agree. The chance of the team that pulls it's goalie will score is greater than the likelihood of it scoring 5x5. Since that team couldn't care less if they lost or tied, they are better off increasing the odds they score in a limited timeframe. Over the course of a 5 minute period it becomes increasingly rational for both teams to pull their goalies because time is the other variable here. If you pull your goalie, it's highly unlikely you can protect an empty net for 5 minutes. If you presume 2:00 is the best you can do, you try to score 5x5 for thee minutes and then pull with 2:00 left. The risk of being scored on is that you lose whatever time is left on the clock to work your 6x5 advantage but that result is no better or worse than the game ending in a draw. If your likelihood of scoring in any 1 minute of action is X% and the chance you score 6x5 is X+Y%, you'd rather have three shots at Y% and two shots at X+Y% than two shots at X+Y% before the other team ends the game on you, or five shots at X%. Even if your GAA in empty net situations is higher than in normal situations (and the likelihood of being scored on is higher than the likelihood of scoring), all that matters is for you to score a goal and to maximize your chances before either the clock runs out or you are scored on. Since your chances of scoring go up, it's worth doing. Hopefully that makes some measure of sense....

Edit: What Robb said.

This is a really unstable equilibrium, because order matters.

If I pull my goalie, I have a higher chance of scoring, whether you pull yours or not. So it seems like a Nash equilibrium.

But if you pull your goalie first, though, I'll take my chances.

Q: So... do you get in a situation where I pull, then you pull, then I send back, then you send back, and so on??
A: No. Because if I pulled my goalie, you wouldn't pull yours. You'd take the 50% chance of winning over a 10% chance.

Given that you and I are identivally motivated, I don't think you would pull your goalie.

Assuming this is OT (sudden death) and a loss = a tie:
A. Both sides are incented to pull the goalie initially (10% chance of winning > 5% chance of winning)
B. Both sides are incented to not pull the goalie if the other side already did. (50% > 10%)
C. Whoever pulls their goalie first is the probable loser. So nobody does. Except A says that someone should.

Given that hockey coaches are famously subtle game theoreticians, perhaps it doesn't happen in reality because they've worked this out.

BMac
This is a really unstable equilibrium, because order matters.

If I pull my goalie, I have a higher chance of scoring, whether you pull yours or not. So it seems like a Nash equilibrium.

But if you pull your goalie first, though, I'll take my chances.

Q: So... do you get in a situation where I pull, then you pull, then I send back, then you send back, and so on??
A: No. Because if I pulled my goalie, you wouldn't pull yours. You'd take the 50% chance of winning over a 10% chance.

Given that you and I are identivally motivated, I don't think you would pull your goalie.

Assuming this is OT (sudden death) and a loss = a tie:
A. Both sides are incented to pull the goalie initially (10% chance of winning > 5% chance of winning)
B. Both sides are incented to not pull the goalie if the other side already did. (50% > 10%)
C. Whoever pulls their goalie first is the probable loser. So nobody does. Except A says that someone should.

Given that hockey coaches are famously subtle game theoreticians, perhaps it doesn't happen in reality because they've worked this out.

This is really a very simple problem assuming you behave based on the probability of scoring a goal.

In a regular game you pull the goalie because the consequences of losing by 1 or losing by 2 are the same and you increase the odds of a tie improve. The logic here is unassailable because the consequences of the other team scoring an ENG are immaterial.

In the case that was suggested is not the traditional case. If you score you win, If the other team scores you lose. From my experience I think that team that pulls their goalie are scored on more often than they score.

If this were not true, coaches would always pull their goalies in an OT tie. We would have played 3 periods against Wisconsin without a goalie.

Towerroad

If this were not true, coaches would always pull their goalies in an OT tie. We would have played 3 periods against Wisconsin without a goalie.

Except against Wisconsin the game being tied forever was better than allowing a goal and losing.

BMac
Given that hockey coaches are famously subtle game theoreticians, perhaps it doesn't happen in reality because they've worked this out.

If they haven't scored a goal in 6-5 play in a while, they'll both probably simultaneously think "We're due."

Robb

Towerroad

KeithK

Towerroad

Trotsky

Chris '03
I was wondering if Clarkson would pull the goalie in OT knowing they needed one more point than Cornell. Don't get the sense they did.

CHN box says they didn't.

I was wondering during the game whether there was any scenario where both Cornell and Harvard would need a win to get over the cliff to the next third, provoking both teams to pull their goalies simultaneously in the final minute of OT.

Interesting idea but I don't think the game theory works. If you believe that the side that pulls its goalie is scored on more than it scores (which I believe is true but am too lazy to prove it) then pulling your goalie is better for the other team since it increases its chances of victory. In this case both teams leave their goalie on the ice.

I don't think that's quite the right analysis. Pulling a goalie increases the chance of someone scoring. It increases the chance of the attacking team scoring 6 on 5 and it increases the chance of the defending team scoring an ENG. If a team needs a goal in a short period of time then this is a good strategy. In the hypothetical Cornell-Harvard situation, it's a good strategy if a win has significant value (reaching the next playoff band) and a loss is identical to a tie in terms of league standings. Neither team would be impacted by what happens to the other guy so the increased chance of the other scoring isn't really a factor.

Adding PWR into the mix is the factor that makes this improbable for Cornell because a loss would hurt more than a tie. but if were far away from the bubble it might've been plausible. And fun!

I was operating under the following Hypotheses:

1. For both teams only a victory had any value, the costs associated with a tie or loss were inconsequential.

2. The probability that a team that does not pull its goalie will score when the other team does is greater than the probability that the team that pulled its goalie will score. I believe this is true but have not looked at the data.

Under these 2 assumptions neither team pulls its goalie if they are rational.

I disagree. The 4 permutations might look something like this:

1) We don't pull goalie, they don't pull goalie (i.e. status quo): 5% we score, 5% they score, 90% nobody scores
2) We pull goalie, they don't pull goalie: 10% we score, 50% they score, 40% nobody scores
3) We pull goalie, they pull goalie: 40% we score, 40% they score, 20% nobody scores
4) We don't pull goalie, they pull goalie: 50% we score, 10% they score, 40% nobody scores

Sure, our best chance is if they pull the goalie and we don't (scenario 4, 50%). But we can't control that. If time is winding down and they haven't pulled, then pulling our goalie still improves our probability from 5% (scenario 1) to 10% (scn 2), so it is still a rational choice to do so.

Once we have pulled our goalie, they would of course be foolish to follow suit, since at that point THEY would be in their own best case scenario #4. So it becomes a game of chicken - you're best off if the other guy pulls first, but pulling first is still better than if nobody pulls at all.

Sounds like Prisoner's Dilemma, except these are probabilities instead of payoffs.

Swampy
Sounds like Prisoner's Dilemma, except these are probabilities instead of payoffs.

It is close to PD if you consider the expected value of the outcome (probability x impact) to be the payoff.

The main difference is of course both coaches have perfect information, where in PD there is partial information.

ugarte
1990? 1991? Cornell wins a draw in the Harvard end with about a minute to play and a Tim Vanini slapshot from the point ties it up. Don't know why this means more that the Paolini/McRae heroics but college memories are sweeter, I guess.

It was 2/9/91. Remember how badly Harvard beat us in prior games:

12/4/88 Cornell 1, @Harvard 9
2/10/89 @Cornell 2, Harvard 4
3/11/89 Cornell 3, Harvard 6 (ECAC consolation game)
12/3/89 @Cornell 0, Harvard 5
2/9/90 Cornell 2, @Harvard 5

They completely dominated us until the 1990 ECAC tourney quarterfinals as Beej cites, but then we turned around and got hammered in Cambridge by an 8-3 score in November 1990. I had such high expectations for that 90-91 team.........

Trotsky

Swampy
Sounds like Prisoner's Dilemma, except these are probabilities instead of payoffs.

It is close to PD if you consider the expected value of the outcome (probability x impact) to be the impact.

The main difference is of course both coaches have perfect information, where in PD there is partial information.

The original question was “Is there ever a time where both teams would pull their goalies” I suggested that there was not a “rational” reason except in some bizarre corner solution (One of your defenders was the size of the goal mouth).

The question was framed in the context of only a victory mattered for both teams, a loss or a tie were of no consequence to each team. Take the following scenario:

Two Aged Rich Alumnae meet one from Harvard and one from Cornell. The Harvard Alum, stinking of cheap gin and Geritol begins to brag about the Harvard Hockey Team. The virtuous Cornell Alum immediately defends the honor of the Big Red. They agree to make a bet. Each will put $500,000,000 up and the two teams will play a special game under regular season rules. The winning team’s school gets $1,000,000,000. The loser gets nothing. If there is a tie neither school gets anything. Only victory by one or the other will suffice.

Further assume that there is no collusion and that the mere thought of losing to Sucks is sufficient to motivate the Noble Red to play their level best.

The game is played, and in spite of their on ice heroics the Red find that, Sucks had bribed the officials, and the game is tied at the end of regulation. With 5 min of overtime do you pull your goalie knowing that this act will increase Sucks chances of scoring (therby ending the game) by more than it will increase your chances of scoring and winning? I think not. Do you hope that Harvard’s avarice will cause them to pull their goalie? I think so.

Prisoners dilemma with a Harvard twist and a different payoff matrix?

Towerroad

Trotsky

Swampy
Sounds like Prisoner's Dilemma, except these are probabilities instead of payoffs.

It is close to PD if you consider the expected value of the outcome (probability x impact) to be the impact.

The main difference is of course both coaches have perfect information, where in PD there is partial information.

The original question was “Is there ever a time where both teams would pull their goalies” I suggested that there was not a “rational” reason except in some bizarre corner solution (One of your defenders was the size of the goal mouth).

The question was framed in the context of only a victory mattered for both teams, a loss or a tie were of no consequence to each team. Take the following scenario:

Two Aged Rich Alumnae meet one from Harvard and one from Cornell. The Harvard Alum, stinking of cheap gin and Geritol begins to brag about the Harvard Hockey Team. The virtuous Cornell Alum immediately defends the honor of the Big Red. They agree to make a bet. Each will put $500,000,000 up and the two teams will play a special game under regular season rules. The winning team’s school gets $1,000,000,000. The loser gets nothing. If there is a tie neither school gets anything. Only victory by one or the other will suffice.

Further assume that there is no collusion and that the mere thought of losing to Sucks is sufficient to motivate the Noble Red to play their level best.

The game is played, and in spite of their on ice heroics the Red find that, Sucks had bribed the officials, and the game is tied at the end of regulation. With 5 min of overtime do you pull your goalie knowing that this act will increase Sucks chances of scoring (therby ending the game) by more than it will increase your chances of scoring and winning? I think not. Do you hope that Harvard’s avarice will cause them to pull their goalie? I think so.

If I have $500M to bet on a hockey game, I pull the goalie, because as much as I loathe Harvard and would hate for them to get my money, the world is legitimately probably a better place if they have the money rather than its staying in Mr. Geritol's pocket. I'd be much more motivated "not to lose" if you told me Mr. Geritol was going to get my money rather than Harvard. All you're doing is shifting around the relative stakes for the 3 outcomes (win, tie, lose) to try to mess with our "emotions" for what we "feel" would be the likely outcomes. But the stakes don't change the underlying probabilities - the math is the math. Pulling your goalie first is *still* the better play for you (in terms of increased probability of getting a win), even if its ALSO the better play for your opponent. If you really want to get me to agree not to pull the goalie, why don't you just go ahead and say, "If Cornell wins, Cornell gets the billion dollars, but if Harvard wins, they get the billion dollars and we kill you, your family, and all of your Facebook friends." Under that scenario, I not only bolt Iles to the goalpost, but I stack all 5 other players in the crease like cordwood as well.

tl;dr: I'd rather any school (even Harvard) have the money than see it remain in the pockets of rich old farts.

Serious question: stacking players like cordwood. Would it actually take up the entire goalmouth? Is there anything actually stopping one from trying? How many players would it take? Is it the optimal strategy for a 5-on-3 PK?

(OK, OK, not that serious. But still.)

Robb

tl;dr: I'd rather any school (even Harvard) have the money than see it remain in the pockets of rich old farts.

eh, six of one...

BMac
Serious question: stacking players like cordwood. Would it actually take up the entire goalmouth? Is there anything actually stopping one from trying? How many players would it take? Is it the optimal strategy for a 5-on-3 PK?

(OK, OK, not that serious. But still.)

With the goalie, it might just take up the entire goalmouth. However, there's nothing keeping an opposing player from running into a defending player in the crease. Therefore, the answer is: run into the pile, and once everyone is on the ice, toss the puck in over them.

Jeff Hopkins '82

BMac
Serious question: stacking players like cordwood. Would it actually take up the entire goalmouth? Is there anything actually stopping one from trying? How many players would it take? Is it the optimal strategy for a 5-on-3 PK?

(OK, OK, not that serious. But still.)

With the goalie, it might just take up the entire goalmouth. However, there's nothing keeping an opposing player from running into a defending player in the crease. Therefore, the answer is: run into the pile, and once everyone is on the ice, toss the puck in over them.

Is there any requirement that the players actually be alive? Frozen corpses dressed appropriately and stack with a little help from the goalies water bottle might just do the trick. Gives a whole new meaning to "Stiff"

Towerroad
Is there any requirement that the players actually be alive? Frozen corpses dressed appropriately and stack with a little help from the goalies water bottle might just do the trick. Gives a whole new meaning to "Stiff"

"Lifeless, lifeless..."

Trotsky

Towerroad
Is there any requirement that the players actually be alive? Frozen corpses dressed appropriately and stack with a little help from the goalies water bottle might just do the trick. Gives a whole new meaning to "Stiff"

"Lifeless, lifeless..."

If they are wearing Red I am still going to root for them. Clearly LGR is out, and Kill Red Kill might also be out. "Chill Red Chill"?

Larry72

Beeeej
First of all, you should probably know that the first Cornell-Harvard men's hockey game was in 1910, regardless of when the programs each started playing. Harvard beat us 5-0 at St. Nicholas Rink in New York City.

In no particular order:

It's worth mentioning that the context of the 2003 ECAC title game was one of the factors that made it so special. The previous title game, 2002 in Lake Placid, there was a general feeling among the Lynah Faithful who'd made the trip that this should be our year. Yes, we'd had our usual crapfest in the Florida tournament, but we finished strong, and dispatched Yale and RPI pretty easily in the ECAC QFs and SFs respectively. There's always something exciting and aggravating about meeting Harvard in the playoffs, especially the title game, but this one in 2002 was particularly close and hard-fought, and when Harvard won in double overtime I think we all felt it more keenly. We hadn't won the title since 1997, and we'd come close enough in 2000 and 2001 (eliminated by SLU both times) that we really, really wanted this one. Watching Harvard go one-and-done in the NCAA tournament the following week while we trounced newly-DI Quinnipiac 6-1 in the same building wasn't as satisfying as you might think it would've been.

So internalize that for a moment, and then imagine what it must have been like for us the very next year, 2003, when we were absolutely 100% certain we had all the right pieces in place for a deep national run and might never have them again, and yet Harvard was still winning by a goal late in the third period in Albany. We literally could not believe that this was happening again. If you're going to write this article, I suggest watching video of this game from the third period on - there's a moment after Schafer had pulled LeNeveu from the goal when Harvard sent the puck toward our empty net, and the entire building lost three years from their lives as the puck wobbled on its edge and then magically curved away to the side. Mark McRae's game-tying goal shortly afterward was a thing of beauty, and some of us who watch video of the game on a regular basis all these years later are still not sure exactly how Sam Paolini got that puck (and himself) around the defender, or how he sniped the puck past Dov Grumet-Morris (who after all made the all-tournament team when LeNeveu did not), but it's hard to care when the result was so satisfying. The win cemented our year-long domination over the ECAC, and more so, it landed us in the #1 overall spot in the Pairwise, a spot in which we were not accustomed to finding ourselves.

Now let's go back to 1990, when McCutcheon was head coach and we had some pretty decent firepower on our team - Joe Dragon, Dan Ratushny, Kent Manderville, Tim Vanini, Ryan Hughes, Doug Derraugh, Trent Andison, et al., plus Jim Crozier as our star in net. Our hopes for an ECAC tournament title ended rather abruptly when RPI beat us in the semis in the old Boston Garden, but the previous week, Harvard marched into Lynah for the Quarterfinals as defending national champions, with Bill Cleary having already announced this would be his last season as head coach. We were smack-dab in the middle of what would eventually become a ten-and-a-half-year regular season winless streak against Harvard (three ties and seventeen losses, IIRC, plus three more losses in ECAC tournament play), yet we swept them 6-2, 4-2 to take away what Bill obviously felt should have been his opportunity for a victory lap and a return trip to the dance (they didn't get an at-large bid either, though that wasn't shocking back in the days of the 8-team field). In one of the worst displays of sportsmanship I've ever seen, Bill angrily marched his team off the ice after losing the second game without letting them shake hands with the Big Red, and immediately transitioned from coach to Harvard's AD. The ECAC's decision to name the regular season title trophy after him still galls some of us to this day.

I'll let someone else talk about Schafer's first game against Harvard as head coach in November, 1995, since I wasn't there - that's (sort of) the last time I voluntarily skipped a Cornell-Harvard game, since I instantly regretted it. I'll merely comment as an aside that following the aforementioned horrible winless streak, Schafer coached our guys to three straight victories over Harvard in 1995-96, including an obviously quite satisfying ECAC title game win in Lake Placid.

Last but not least, a little story about how my wife and I became engaged the day of the Harvard game two years ago:

[elf.elynah.com]

Good luck with your article!

Said Videos from 2003:


Paolini's winning OT goal and


Mark McRae's tying goal with 33 seconds left

I was fortunate to be at the 2003 championship game, and to have gone to it with a few friends from Cornell who used the game as a reunion of sorts after not having been together for a few years. Wonderful outcome that briefly teleported us all back to that feeling of the "good old days on the hill."

It's tough to tell on the youtube clip for Paolini's goal due to the compression and the clip ending right at the end of the moment, but I've always thought, reading his lips, that Schafer says "What a f*cking game!" when the camera is on him as he walks across the ice. I get a chuckle out of that.

Rewatching those clips made me want to listen to Adam's enjoyable radio calls of the goals. They use to available here (http://www.elynah.com/?audio2003), but the links appear to be broken. Any chance those links can be fixed?