Game 2: Cornell 1, Clarkson 4

Poll

Was this a good or bad result

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
44 votes were received.

Good	2		5%
Bad	42		95%

---

I apologize everyone I started listening an 1-0 and then the wheels kind of came off right away.

It's all your fault.

We drop to 16 in PWR, so probably no NC$$ without reaching the ECAC final. Which is fine, since the whole point of the season to win the ECACs.

Trotsky
It's all your fault.

We drop to 16 in PWR, so probably no NC$$ without reaching the ECAC final. Which is fine, since the whole point of the season to win the ECACs.

Except it's not fine because Cornell is quite unlikely to do so.

BearLover

Trotsky
It's all your fault.

We drop to 16 in PWR, so probably no NC$$ without reaching the ECAC final. Which is fine, since the whole point of the season to win the ECACs.

Except it's not fine because Cornell is quite unlikely to do so.

If our goal is to win it all, or the ECAC, or whatever, we have to go through Union to do so. I don't mind an early shot at them (and there's a first step to take care of tomorrow).

But, you know, keep on being all pessimistic. That works too.

BearLover

Trotsky
It's all your fault.

We drop to 16 in PWR, so probably no NC$$ without reaching the ECAC final. Which is fine, since the whole point of the season to win the ECACs.

Except it's not fine because Cornell is quite unlikely to do so.

I want this team to play at least one NCAA Game, not for this year but for next. With this year's junior class, next year will be our best chance in some time. The experience will be valuable.

Dafatone

BearLover

Trotsky
It's all your fault.

We drop to 16 in PWR, so probably no NC$$ without reaching the ECAC final. Which is fine, since the whole point of the season to win the ECACs.

Except it's not fine because Cornell is quite unlikely to do so.

If our goal is to win it all, or the ECAC, or whatever, we have to go through Union to do so. I don't mind an early shot at them (and there's a first step to take care of tomorrow).

But, you know, keep on being all pessimistic. That works too.

I'm not being pessimistic, I'm being realistic: Cornell is a major underdog to beat Clarkson AND Union. I'd say probably around 20%?

Well that was a pretty bad game. Not much positive to take away. I guess for some stretches CU controlled play and got some OK chances, but right from the start they were not playing nearly as hard as Clarkson was. Well, that's not quite true the penalty kill on the 5 x 3 was good. Those boys worked hard!

The "ref" Baker was making some interesting calls. I'm not sure what game he was watching but I believe it was a different one from the one I was. The Ryan penalty was a very bad call in my opinion. 5 years ago that was a good clean open ice check. But I understand with today's worry about concussions it gets called more often than not. But the 5 minutes surprised me as did the ejection. But maybe that is automatic with a major contact to the head penalty? And Prusak was the one who convince the refs to make the Ryan penalty a major. That guy sucks.

Schafer baffles me again and again. In the third period the line of Freschi, Dias, and Craig were playing the best. Granted they are not a scoring line but damn at least they were keeping it in the Clarkson end unlike the first two lines. I think they got three shifts. Of course maybe this says more about they rest of the team than it does about Schafer.

For as good as Andy look last night to me he looked bad tonight. It felt to me like he was fighting the puck. Although the first goal there wasn't much he could do on it. And maybe the second he was screened. I couldn't really tell but I thought that was the case. But even so at other times he looked very shaky to me.

I'm glad Buckles was sat. I assume he was sat for his bone headed penalty last night late in the game and was not hurt.

At least we get another game tomorrow. I just hope they guys come our and play hard for 60 minutes. Otherwise its going to be a long night again.

MattS
I'm glad Buckles was sat. I assume he was sat for his bone headed penalty last night late in the game and was not hurt.

In the pre-game Schafer indicated that Buckles was a healthy scratch because of the retaliation. He did defend Matt by saying Clarkson was hassling him with stick play all night, but the main lesson is you can't take the penalty in that situation regardless of provocation. Hopefully it's a lesson learned because we do need guys out there who can generate chances.

Trotsky

MattS
I'm glad Buckles was sat. I assume he was sat for his bone headed penalty last night late in the game and was not hurt.

In the pre-game Schafer indicated that Buckles was a healthy scratch because of the retaliation. He did defend Matt by saying Clarkson was hassling him with stick play all night, but the main lesson is you can't take the penalty in that situation regardless of provocation. Hopefully it's a lesson learned because we do need guys out there who can generate chances.

Thanks. I agree with you and Schafer on this account. I'd do the same as Schafer did and then play him tomorrow.

MattS
In the third period the line of Freschi, Dias, and Craig were playing the best. Granted they are not a scoring line...

Not to be harsh, but you've undermined your own quibble with Schafer. Craig's history of timely goal scoring notwithstanding, there is about a .042% chance that 2/3rds of that line will make the score sheet, and I'm leaving Freschi out of it only because he's a freshman. Indeed, if you wish to consider why it is that this team is more than offensively challenged, you might want to look at the points differential between our "3rd" and "checking" lines—hint, it ain't much. (What I wouldn't give for Abbott, Abbott, Hornby, as a third line for this team.)

When you're behind, you need to score goals; thus, you need to have lines on the ice that can score goals.

i cant fault the effort.. we outshot them 12-1 in the 3rd after starting it with 4 min left on the major. easily had 15-20 solid scoring chances in the 3rd alone. the cross bar late hurt, rebound after rebound sitting in the crease. we need to put a couple of them home.. hard to fault andy so far. a penalty shot that was a bad call, 2 power goals, an empty net goal. one goal tonight was because the lineman was in a bad spot and the easy clear turned into an extended pp chance and a goal. thats probably 4-5 times in this series the refs have been in a bad spot and cost us possession

clarkson isnt allowing goals but so many pucks are missing . 2 tonight the goalie misplayed off his glove that went high or wide

Scersk '97

MattS
In the third period the line of Freschi, Dias, and Craig were playing the best. Granted they are not a scoring line...

Not to be harsh, but you've undermined your own quibble with Schafer. Craig's history of timely goal scoring notwithstanding, there is about a .042% chance that 2/3rds of that line will make the score sheet, and I'm leaving Freschi out of it only because he's a freshman. Indeed, if you wish to consider why it is that this team is more than offensively challenged, you might want to look at the points differential between our "3rd" and "checking" lines—hint, it ain't much. (What I wouldn't give for Abbott, Abbott, Hornby, as a third line for this team.)

When you're behind, you need to score goals; thus, you need to have lines on the ice that can score goals.

Yeah I understand. The point I was trying to make (badly) was while that line is not a scoring line at least the we're dominating Clarkson while they were out there which was way more than the top 2 lines were. I'm pretty sure that the chances of Ferlin, Lowry, and co scoring from the defensive zone is a heck of a lot less than the 3rd line playing hard in the offensive zone.

MattS
I'm pretty sure that the chances of Ferlin, Lowry, and co scoring from the defensive zone is a heck of a lot less than the 3rd line playing hard in the offensive zone.

Agreed there. Gotta say, whereas Lowry and Bardreau were all over the ice, Ferlin had a pretty quiet game five on five... Tomorrow, one of those top two lines needs to pop in an early one. Get it to the net, boys!

MattS
The point I was trying to make (badly) was while that line is not a scoring line at least the we're dominating Clarkson while they were out there which was way more than the top 2 lines were. I'm pretty sure that the chances of Ferlin, Lowry, and co scoring from the defensive zone is a heck of a lot less than the 3rd line playing hard in the offensive zone.

For most of this series it's seemed like our most powerful offensive threat has been MacDonald.

Also, did I hear right that Sexton won 14 of his 15 faceoffs? Yikes.

Trotsky

MattS
The point I was trying to make (badly) was while that line is not a scoring line at least the we're dominating Clarkson while they were out there which was way more than the top 2 lines were. I'm pretty sure that the chances of Ferlin, Lowry, and co scoring from the defensive zone is a heck of a lot less than the 3rd line playing hard in the offensive zone.

For most of this series it's seemed like our most powerful offensive threat has been MacDonald.

Also, did I hear right that Sexton won 14 of his 15 faceoffs? Yikes.

MacDonald's play has been excellent. He's come a long way recently.

Wouldn't surprise me if he won that many faceoffs. We were joking in my section about how badly the play went right after CU called timeout was because Bardreau actually won a faceoff and the play Schafer drew up was based off a faceoff loss.

I love the idea of MacDoanld suddenly blossoming as a two-way player since it means we can afford to give more ice time to stay at home blueliners next year. Gotovets is going to be missed more than some think but if Jake moves up to an offensive slot similar to Ryan, we'll be able to see who we have as a solid defender besides Lewis. Also, we won't pressure Willcox to move up on the play which sometimes has Marx Brothers complications.

Assuming we do not lose Ryan I like our D configuration, particularly with Stoick returning. Hopefully Anderson will be strong enough to be a regular, and Bliss will work his way in. We need an impregnable defense early while Gillam is adapting to the every night job.

Ryan, P. McCarron, MacDonald -- offensive
Lewis, Willcox, Stoick OR {Sade/Anderson} OR {Bliss/Wedman} -- defensive

has the makings of being a pretty impressive corps.

MattS

Trotsky

MattS
The point I was trying to make (badly) was while that line is not a scoring line at least the we're dominating Clarkson while they were out there which was way more than the top 2 lines were. I'm pretty sure that the chances of Ferlin, Lowry, and co scoring from the defensive zone is a heck of a lot less than the 3rd line playing hard in the offensive zone.

For most of this series it's seemed like our most powerful offensive threat has been MacDonald.

Also, did I hear right that Sexton won 14 of his 15 faceoffs? Yikes.

MacDonald's play has been excellent. He's come a long way recently.

Wouldn't surprise me if he won that many faceoffs. We were joking in my section about how badly the play went right after CU called timeout was because Bardreau actually won a faceoff and the play Schafer drew up was based off a faceoff loss.

14/15 was for the first 2 periods. For the third he was only 3/10. Any other question why we controlled more of the play in the third? Our problem is we can't shoot and score. I'm afraid we can't train that, so hope is the only chance we have.

On another subject, I've wondered for a while if the refs are getting tired of all the complaining that Schafer does. It seems to filter down to the players. Not saying that it makes the refs out to get us, but sometimes it might be better to suck it up and get on with it.

Jim Hyla
On another subject, I've wondered for a while if the refs are getting tired of all the complaining that Schafer does. It seems to filter down to the players. Not saying that it makes the refs out to get us, but sometimes it might be better to suck it up and get on with it.

Jack Parker whined, crabbed, mewled, carped, bleated, snivelled and bitched after every whistle for 40 years, and he had the refs in his pocket.

Trotsky
I love the idea of MacDoanld suddenly blossoming as a two-way player since it means we can afford to give more ice time to stay at home blueliners next year. Gotovets is going to be missed more than some think but if Jake moves up to an offensive slot similar to Ryan, we'll be able to see who we have as a solid defender besides Lewis. Also, we won't pressure Willcox to move up on the play which sometimes has Marx Brothers complications.

Assuming we do not lose Ryan I like our D configuration, particularly with Stoick returning. Hopefully Anderson will be strong enough to be a regular, and Bliss will work his way in. We need an impregnable defense early while Gillam is adapting to the every night job.

Ryan, P. McCarron, MacDonald -- offensive
Lewis, Willcox, Stoick OR {Sade/Anderson} OR {Bliss/Wedman} -- defensive

has the makings of being a pretty impressive corps.

Stoick is playing forward, so don't project him into any defensive pairings.

scoop85

Trotsky
I love the idea of MacDoanld suddenly blossoming as a two-way player since it means we can afford to give more ice time to stay at home blueliners next year. Gotovets is going to be missed more than some think but if Jake moves up to an offensive slot similar to Ryan, we'll be able to see who we have as a solid defender besides Lewis. Also, we won't pressure Willcox to move up on the play which sometimes has Marx Brothers complications.

Assuming we do not lose Ryan I like our D configuration, particularly with Stoick returning. Hopefully Anderson will be strong enough to be a regular, and Bliss will work his way in. We need an impregnable defense early while Gillam is adapting to the every night job.

Ryan, P. McCarron, MacDonald -- offensive
Lewis, Willcox, Stoick OR {Sade/Anderson} OR {Bliss/Wedman} -- defensive

has the makings of being a pretty impressive corps.

Stoick is playing forward, so don't project him into any defensive pairings.

He is?

He was a D as a frosh here.

Trotsky

scoop85

Trotsky
I love the idea of MacDoanld suddenly blossoming as a two-way player since it means we can afford to give more ice time to stay at home blueliners next year. Gotovets is going to be missed more than some think but if Jake moves up to an offensive slot similar to Ryan, we'll be able to see who we have as a solid defender besides Lewis. Also, we won't pressure Willcox to move up on the play which sometimes has Marx Brothers complications.

Assuming we do not lose Ryan I like our D configuration, particularly with Stoick returning. Hopefully Anderson will be strong enough to be a regular, and Bliss will work his way in. We need an impregnable defense early while Gillam is adapting to the every night job.

Ryan, P. McCarron, MacDonald -- offensive
Lewis, Willcox, Stoick OR {Sade/Anderson} OR {Bliss/Wedman} -- defensive

has the makings of being a pretty impressive corps.

Stoick is playing forward, so don't project him into any defensive pairings.

He is?

He was a D as a frosh here.

My understanding his that He was converted to D at the USNDTP, but did not like playing there; the decision to go back to the USHL was made so that he could gain experience at forward before returning to Cornell

I think Stoick grew up playing forward and was converted to defense in Ann Arbor. Sounds like he wanted to move back to forward so went to juniors for a year.

ithacat
I think Stoick grew up playing forward and was converted to defense in Ann Arbor. Sounds like he wanted to move back to forward so went to juniors for a year.

Thanks to everybody who cleared this up..

I imagine Mike considers a forward with defensive training to be a Very Good Thing.

Jim Hyla

On another subject, I've wondered for a while if the refs are getting tired of all the complaining that Schafer does. It seems to filter down to the players. Not saying that it makes the refs out to get us, but sometimes it might be better to suck it up and get on with it.

You nailed it, Jim!!

During my working days, I was in the position of making judgement calls every day. It was hard to cut ANY slack to the infantile ones who found it appropriate, in an adult world, to get in my face & holler...... I know things are bit different in the sports world but I'm not sure those officials appreciate such disrespectful behavior coming from Mike. It would be very easy for "human nature" to engage & have an official put the screws to CU to get back at Mike.

This is playing out (quarterfinal series + PWR implications) quite similarly to 10 years ago.

Jim Hyla
Our problem is we can't shoot and score. I'm afraid we can't train that...

Am I the only one who believes you CAN train/coach/practice that? In lacrosse, you can aim for the spaces, follow through with the stick head pointing at the aiming point, practice with goal cutouts etc etc. Why can't they use the skating treadmill and a goal set-up to practice shooting on the move and breakaway techniques? I'm so tired of ten years of no shooting skills and feeling like trailing by 2 goals any time after the first intermission will require a miracle to pull the game out. C'mon, man!

TimV

Jim Hyla
Our problem is we can't shoot and score. I'm afraid we can't train that...

Am I the only one who believes you CAN train/coach/practice that? In lacrosse, you can aim for the spaces, follow through with the stick head pointing at the aiming point, practice with goal cutouts etc etc. Why can't they use the skating treadmill and a goal set-up to practice shooting on the move and breakaway techniques? I'm so tired of ten years of no shooting skills and feeling like trailing by 2 goals any time after the first intermission will require a miracle to pull the game out. C'mon, man!

I don't have enough hockey smarts to know if it can be taught or not, but I do know that I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. Frankly, it's causing me to lose interest.

Al DeFlorio

TimV

Jim Hyla
Our problem is we can't shoot and score. I'm afraid we can't train that...

Am I the only one who believes you CAN train/coach/practice that? In lacrosse, you can aim for the spaces, follow through with the stick head pointing at the aiming point, practice with goal cutouts etc etc. Why can't they use the skating treadmill and a goal set-up to practice shooting on the move and breakaway techniques? I'm so tired of ten years of no shooting skills and feeling like trailing by 2 goals any time after the first intermission will require a miracle to pull the game out. C'mon, man!

I don't have enough hockey smarts to know if it can be taught or not, but I do know that I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. Frankly, it's causing me to lose interest.

If we can't train the skill then we have to recruit it. If we can then we need to do it. Either way there is only one person responsible.

TimV

Jim Hyla
Our problem is we can't shoot and score. I'm afraid we can't train that...

Am I the only one who believes you CAN train/coach/practice that? In lacrosse, you can aim for the spaces, follow through with the stick head pointing at the aiming point, practice with goal cutouts etc etc. Why can't they use the skating treadmill and a goal set-up to practice shooting on the move and breakaway techniques? I'm so tired of ten years of no shooting skills and feeling like trailing by 2 goals any time after the first intermission will require a miracle to pull the game out. C'mon, man!

I know what your saying, but we did come back from two down against both Clarkson and Harvard this season.

That being said, it's about time we got comfortably in front for a change.

Trotsky

ithacat
I think Stoick grew up playing forward and was converted to defense in Ann Arbor. Sounds like he wanted to move back to forward so went to juniors for a year.

Thanks to everybody who cleared this up..

I imagine Mike considers a forward with defensive training to be a Very Good Thing.

We have plenty of defensive-minded forwards, which are certainly valuable. I would consider it a Very Good Thing to have a couple of snipers!

Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

There have been some bad losses/ties, but we've beaten some pretty good teams as well, done very well out of conference, and we're 16-9-5, which is solid.

I'm wondering if it's just a perception thing, or if this is a strange year. It seems like the bad teams have had REALLY bad years, which makes me think that the bar for success is also higher (more losses by bad teams means more wins by good teams).

who got a good look at the major last night? at speed it looked like a shoulder to shoulder type thing with maybe the clarkson kid lowering his head as the puck went between his feet? most around us were surprised it was even a penalty let alone a major. did it look worse on replay?

Dafatone
Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

There have been some bad losses/ties, but we've beaten some pretty good teams as well, done very well out of conference, and we're 16-9-5, which is solid.

I'm wondering if it's just a perception thing, or if this is a strange year. It seems like the bad teams have had REALLY bad years, which makes me think that the bar for success is also higher (more losses by bad teams means more wins by good teams).

No, 16th in the pairwise is about right. Cornell has not had a very good year...they have a poor goal differential relative to the other teams high in the pairwise (read: they've been lucky) and they are leaps and bounds behind Q and Union.

With all that said, Cornell just needs to get into the NCAA's and they'll have a chance. Yale wasn't one of the top 5 teams last year, and probably not even one of the top 10.

Dafatone
Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

If you use the old method, Colgate is #12 and we're #15. You can also note that we're 14th in KRACH.

Bizarrely, the "strong" ECAC gets boned this year, like "hyper-strong" Hockey East, for "beating up on each other," since winning percentage counts for so much more than it used to.

I just hope that the result tonight ends up reflecting KRACH:

     204.9
--------------- = .601 ~ 3–2 over 5 games
(204.9 + 135.8)

And, putting all the quibbling about seedings and rankings aside, you shouldn't go to the national show if you blow your league quarterfinal, in my book. So, if they blow it tonight, I'm fine with no NCAAs for this team.

It'd be great (for Cornell) if the last few years never happened and the ECAC still sucked.

So getting rid of the 3rd place game that everyone was so happy about may very well keep us out of the playoffs?

Dafatone
Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

There have been some bad losses/ties, but we've beaten some pretty good teams as well, done very well out of conference, and we're 16-9-5, which is solid.

I'm wondering if it's just a perception thing, or if this is a strange year. It seems like the bad teams have had REALLY bad years, which makes me think that the bar for success is also higher (more losses by bad teams means more wins by good teams).

The only win we have against the top 16 pairwise teams is Quinnipiac. None of our non-conference opponents would make the tournament as an at-large bid. Yale was ranked above us when we beat them in the fall, but they kept losing. That's the thing about early wins: you have no idea how "good" they're going to be until the end.

BearLover

Dafatone
Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

There have been some bad losses/ties, but we've beaten some pretty good teams as well, done very well out of conference, and we're 16-9-5, which is solid.

I'm wondering if it's just a perception thing, or if this is a strange year. It seems like the bad teams have had REALLY bad years, which makes me think that the bar for success is also higher (more losses by bad teams means more wins by good teams).

No, 16th in the pairwise is about right. Cornell has not had a very good year...they have a poor goal differential relative to the other teams high in the pairwise (read: they've been lucky) and they are leaps and bounds behind Q and Union.

With all that said, Cornell just needs to get into the NCAA's and they'll have a chance. Yale wasn't one of the top 5 teams last year, and probably not even one of the top 10.

I'll agree we've gotten somewhat lucky, but that's a question of team quality, not team performance. If you get lucky, you overachieve, which it feels like we should be doing.

If Quinnipiac beats Colgate, Colgate likely drops out of the top 16. A Cornell win over Clarkson and loss to Union may just barely be enough to get the Big Red to #15.

Dafatone
Does anyone else feel like we've had a better year than 16th in the pairwise?

There have been some bad losses/ties, but we've beaten some pretty good teams as well, done very well out of conference, and we're 16-9-5, which is solid.

I'm wondering if it's just a perception thing, or if this is a strange year. It seems like the bad teams have had REALLY bad years, which makes me think that the bar for success is also higher (more losses by bad teams means more wins by good teams).

A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

cuhockey93
So getting rid of the 3rd place game that everyone was so happy about may very well keep us out of the playoffs?

No, not playing well enough over the course of the entire season to qualify for the NCAA tournament may very well keep us out of the NCAA tournament.

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

BearLover

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

And a flute with no holes is not a flute.

Trotsky

BearLover

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

And a flute with no holes is not a flute.

A donut with no hole is a danish.

RichH

Trotsky

BearLover

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

And a flute with no holes is not a flute.

A donut with no hole is a danish.

A post with no point won't hold up a fence.

Roy 82

RichH

Trotsky

BearLover

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

And a flute with no holes is not a flute.

A donut with no hole is a danish.

A post with no point won't hold up a fence.

As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah.

ugarte

Roy 82

RichH

Trotsky

BearLover

cbuckser

Trotsky
A large part of my evaluation of this year's team depends on tonight. Tonight will tell whether this is 2004 or 2006.

I felt similarly going into last night's game, though I think 2009 or 2012 are better comps than 2006.

One game is one game.

And a flute with no holes is not a flute.

A donut with no hole is a danish.

A post with no point won't hold up a fence.

As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah.

Let a smile be your umbrella and you'll get a mouthful of water.