Tonight's game v. Penn State

There seems to be very little interest in this game. The person at the Cornell Club in NYC asked me if I needed additional ticks. For every other one of these games, she would go around and beg for extras.

Does anyone know about this penn state team?

I do know the school is sports crazy, having been there for football games.

I don't know what kind of draw Penn State will be. I would think pretty decent...it's a huge school and I bet there are many NYC area alums. They probably have to build a good hockey track record first; they are off to a solid start this year.

I think Notre Dame would be a great opponent for the Frozen Apple, based on their alumni draw--what do others think?

I am really looking forward to being at tonight's game! Hoping to see my first ever Big Red win at MSG, after seeing a loss and a tie in 2008 and 2010...have not been back since. LGR!

A friend who was an undergrad at Cornell and got his PhD from Penn State told me that he hasn't noticed any promotion of this game from his PSU alumni communications. He's only seen invites for gatherings to watch football games.

A recent USCHO article had this bit:

While previous MSG opponents Boston University and Michigan drew well, this week’s foe — Penn State — hasn’t generated perhaps as much demand as the former pair, but Schafer said, “the Cornell alumni have been picking up the slack.”

“It’s just an awesome feeling to play in front of that many Cornell alumni,” he said. “To have a crowd of 14,000 alumni coming to the game is a phenomenal feeling.”

As far as Penn State as a team, they've been playing well, but against mostly weak opponents. They split against a good UML team and got another split vs. Michigan last week. They haven't played a home game in a month. Below is an article on their goaltenders, and I think I saw that their #1 Skoff was announced as the starter for tonight. McAdam just got lit up last week vs. Michigan, allowing 5 goals in the 3rd in an 8-1 loss.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

the uscho people give cornell no shot in this game for what thats worth.

upprdeck
the uscho people give cornell no shot in this game for what thats worth.

They picked us to win in the ecac blog.

I see the cornellbigred site says the game video is on ivydigitalnetwork but going there i only see an audio feed..

It's available just now.

Video and Jason in time for the coach's interview. See y'all in the Chat.

i see it now

Impressive performance tonight. We just kept getting stronger and playing better, and Gillam was there when we needed him.

Thought PSU was the beter team most of the first period though cornell had 2-3 scoring chances as did PSU even with the limited shots. thought the 2nd period was pretty even with Cornell slightly better, the 3rd I thought for most of it Cornell was much the better but suddenly with 7-8 to go Cornell started playing like much of the first and PSU put on a ton of pressure that Cornell was lucky to survive at times,

this was big for PWR and makes the next 4 games even bigger since we didnt hold on vs NEB and salvage a Tie the game the 2nd game. Holding on until Ryan comes back and hoping he makes a difference the second half of the season.

Looked like a bad call when the refs whistled the play dead in the third when they ruled that Mitch had covered up (assuming I'm not mistaken and that was in fact the call). That saved us, because the rebound came out to a dangerous spot, and PSU had every right to be pissy.

That was the first Ivy League Digital Network game I watched this year. I don't know who was responsible for producing that "broadcast", but whomever it was should be forced to watch what they put together a few times before they're allowed to produce another game. I mean just because you have a slew of low-angle, ice-level cameras available doesn't mean you need to use them 2/3 of the time, at the expense of letting the audience see what's really going on. Given the choice of watching another broadcast like that one, or watching one being shot with just a single camera at center ice that pans and zooms appropriately, I'd take the broadcast with the single camera in a heartbeat.

HeafDog
Looked like a bad call when the refs whistled the play dead in the third when they ruled that Mitch had covered up (assuming I'm not mistaken and that was in fact the call). That saved us, because the rebound came out to a dangerous spot, and PSU had every right to be pissy.

Eh, after that five minute interference call that, to me, looked like both players skated to the same spot and CU was penalized simply because the PSU player was hurt, a favorable quick whistle seems only right.

So was that the first five minute interference penalty in the history of recorded time? I've never seen that.

The second goal was a thing of beauty. McCarron trucked a guy as he crossed the blue line, recovered to pick up the puck, got a clean pass to Lowry, and Lowry was just patient enough to get himself the side of a barn to shoot at.

Unfortunately it was one of only maybe three moments all game that clean (another turned into Knisley's ENG). Mostly Cornell seemed like they don't know how to either pass or receive passes. Wide open guys would get the puck sent behind their back or into nowhere. On the rare occasion that a pass was on target, the receiver would have the puck skitter by. Cornell looked like they were always one step ahead of themselves, looking forward to what they were going to do with the puck while showing very little interest or ability to actually get it. I was amazed at how often Penn State simply beat Cornell to the puck or how Cornell was just caught flat-footed when it seemed like they should be ready to pounce. It was very disappointing.

But the third period was pretty great. I think the 4x4 to start the period set the tone - Cornell seemed to like the open ice and it got them in rhythm. Penn State seemed a little gassed and the GWG started to feel inevitable. There was one terrible Penn State flurry that had me screaming, though, because we won a faceoff, had a breakout pass set up and instead played it right onto the stick of a Penn State guy at the top of the circle, starting what felt like a century of pressure before we cleared the zone.

AND YET a 3-1 win is pretty nice. The deflection for the first goal was nifty. Gillam played a hell of a game. And McCarron deserved the #1 star but got nothing because all he did was assist on every goal instead of being the guy who got a gift from McCarron.

LGR

Penn State hit the post and the crossbar in a 10 second flurry in the third period when the score was 1-1.............two high quality chances. They score that goal and we probably lose 2-1. It was very tight and for stretches I thought we were outplayed. Gillam played great. I thought that we were outplayed in the first period and a good chunk of the third period.

Was that Rob Pannell on the ice during the second intermission?? I was in the presence of greatness!

andyw2100
That was the first Ivy League Digital Network game I watched this year. I don't know who was responsible for producing that "broadcast", but whomever it was should be forced to watch what they put together a few times before they're allowed to produce another game. I mean just because you have a slew of low-angle, ice-level cameras available doesn't mean you need to use them 2/3 of the time, at the expense of letting the audience see what's really going on. Given the choice of watching another broadcast like that one, or watching one being shot with just a single camera at center ice that pans and zooms appropriately, I'd take the broadcast with the single camera in a heartbeat.

This game was not typical. I think they just picked up a feed from MSG, who likely produced it. On the chat last night we had multiple complaints about the same thing.

From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

And:

"They love to force pucks to the net," Schafer said. "That's part of their strategy, part of their philosophy, and that's why Mitch started tonight. Hayden (Stewart) had a shutout his last game, but Mitch is much better right now at controlling rebounds. He did a good job at not giving opportuntiies around the net."

And more:

It's the first time it wasn't a sellout, but the Cornell contingent was as big as usual. Penn State, which has drawn sellout crowds to Philadlephia's Wells Fargo Center of over 19,000, had a good following, but its numbers were held down because of the football game that was being hosted in State College.

"I thought it was a great atmosphere," Gadowsky said. "I'm very familiar with Lynah Eye Rink obviously, the atmosphere there. And I thought the atmosphere here was excellent. Big Red fans were great – I expected that – and it was a great experience.

But maybe most importantly:

Cornell was playing with some banged up defensemen, and top defenseman Joakim Ryan has been out of the lineup completely since the first weekend. He hopes to return next weekend.

Great Game Cornell ..... time to take 2 from Denver.

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
That was the first Ivy League Digital Network game I watched this year. I don't know who was responsible for producing that "broadcast", but whomever it was should be forced to watch what they put together a few times before they're allowed to produce another game. I mean just because you have a slew of low-angle, ice-level cameras available doesn't mean you need to use them 2/3 of the time, at the expense of letting the audience see what's really going on. Given the choice of watching another broadcast like that one, or watching one being shot with just a single camera at center ice that pans and zooms appropriately, I'd take the broadcast with the single camera in a heartbeat.

This game was not typical. I think they just picked up a feed from MSG, who likely produced it. On the chat last night we had multiple complaints about the same thing.

Last year we had the same thing at MSG. The consensus was that the feed is from the video displayed on the MSG scoreboard for the benefit of the crowd. We were paying voyeurs.

marty

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
That was the first Ivy League Digital Network game I watched this year. I don't know who was responsible for producing that "broadcast", but whomever it was should be forced to watch what they put together a few times before they're allowed to produce another game. I mean just because you have a slew of low-angle, ice-level cameras available doesn't mean you need to use them 2/3 of the time, at the expense of letting the audience see what's really going on. Given the choice of watching another broadcast like that one, or watching one being shot with just a single camera at center ice that pans and zooms appropriately, I'd take the broadcast with the single camera in a heartbeat.

This game was not typical. I think they just picked up a feed from MSG, who likely produced it. On the chat last night we had multiple complaints about the same thing.

Last year we had the same thing at MSG. The consensus was that the feed is from the video displayed on the MSG scoreboard for the benefit of the crowd. We were paying voyeurs.

That's an interesting point, and would explain it more than just having picked up an MSG feed. Because if the feed was only put together for the benefit of those in attendance, most of whom probably have a pretty good view from up high, all the low shots kind of make more sense. I don't watch Rangers games, but I can't imagine that Rangers games would be produced that way for broadcast, so just the fact that it was an MSG feed alone didn't seem to be reason enough for the weird production. Now it all adds up. It's still annoying, but I'm guessing there were many, many times more people in attendance than paying to watch the ILDN feed, so it's understandable.

Great game (because we won). Msg was completely ours- just unbelievable. Against BU and Michigan it's still mostly us, but much more balanced. This year it was like hosting Brown.

The PSU fans were fun other than the guy who said he was going to "smash my f-ing face." His dad was pretty embarrassed for him and he almost tripped down the stairs as he left with two minutes left in the game. Douche. I enjoyed "hide your kids" as a chant.

Penn State alumni and students will pick up on hockey attendance once Penn State hockey gets really good ... which perhaps crossed over as as of the first period. It also felt as if the tradition of Cornellians arriving late for game happens in NYC, too. But by midway through the game, MSG was pretty full with only the upper decks at the Penn State end (upper left in photo, the blue patches) remained empty. The Cornell end and corner that Cornell defended twice (great seats, thank you, Jeff Kahn) were full except for scattered pairs of empties. Attendance was announced as 15,027, about 3,000 shy of the MSG capacity of 18,006. No Penn State band and the Penn State mascot was a scrawny, malnourished thing you'd want to shoot if you're humane; my wife (non-Cornellian) needed three guesses to decide it was a lion.

Highights

I apologize for the audio being out of sync with the highlights. I tried to record this without the audio and had no luck.

Silent Highlights

upprdeck
the uscho people give cornell no shot in this game for what thats worth.

Maybe USCHO could see into the future but only as far as the first period was concerned. Cornell looked overmatched by a team that was playing at the club level three years ago. Thank goodness Cornell jelled. Exciting game and storybook outcome. Penn State will always have football.

I plead guilty to being a late arrival. We've gone to all the MSG games but one-- including the tournament in 1969 which Cornell won 9-0 and 7-2 v. RPI and Clarkson. Anyway, we've used the games as an excuse to meet friends for a great holiday dinner and they sometimes just run late. To quote another Cornellian, "So it goes."

hypotenuse
To quote another Cornellian, "So it goes."

Oh no! Did someone die?

Bill Howard's point, as always, is well taken: Penn State was playing at club level three years ago -- shows you what happens when universities make the big investment. Quinnpiac was a small sleepy Connecticut school near Yale when some of us went to college -- and look what happened there. Hopefully, the defense will continue to grow and Ryan will return.

hypotenuse
I plead guilty to being a late arrival. We've gone to all the MSG games but one-- including the tournament in 1969 which Cornell won 9-0 and 7-2 v. RPI and Clarkson. Anyway, we've used the games as an excuse to meet friends for a great holiday dinner and they sometimes just run late. To quote another Cornellian, "So it goes."

That would be St. Lawrence rather than Clarkson in the '69 tournament. And it sounds to me like you're quoting a former #6, eh?

Amazing play by McCarron on the second goal (barreling a defenseman over, great patience, perfect pass). Still not confident, though--we were outplayed that game, at least by a little.

Watching from near ice level, Penn State showed a lot of speed through the neutral zone, and especially in the first half of the game they put a lot of pressure on our defense. As the game progressed we played more of our game, but it was a slog most of the way. Gillam played a strong game and IMO should have been named 1st star.

I'm just happy to finally see us win at MSG - the only one I haven't attended was against Michigan.

Mark73
Bill Howard's point, as always, is well taken: Penn State was playing at club level three years ago -- shows you what happens when universities make the big investment. Quinnpiac was a small sleepy Connecticut school near Yale when some of us went to college -- and look what happened there. Hopefully, the defense will continue to grow and Ryan will return.

The largest single gift to Penn State was not for academics but athletics, the $100 million to fund men's and women's varsity ice hockey and build a 6,000 seat arena and second practice rink. When a Cornellian gives that kind of money, he buys into Roosevelt Island and funds in some small way the future of Cornell and New York City.

BMac
Great game (because we won). Msg was completely ours- just unbelievable. Against BU and Michigan it's still mostly us, but much more balanced. This year it was like hosting Brown.

The PSU fans were fun other than the guy who said he was going to "smash my f-ing face." His dad was pretty embarrassed for him and he almost tripped down the stairs as he left with two minutes left in the game. Douche. I enjoyed "hide your kids" as a chant.

So either you sat near me in Section 209, or I wasn't the only one to come up with that gem. I'm guessing the latter.

Random pep band question - after the game, as the crowd was filing out toward the Seventh Avenue exit, the horns were playing a simple march with a three-beat ending (coinciding with a "Let's Go Red" from the masses). Is this is a "thing?" I'd think in 20 years I'd have heard their entire repertoire.

jkahn

hypotenuse
I plead guilty to being a late arrival. We've gone to all the MSG games but one-- including the tournament in 1969 which Cornell won 9-0 and 7-2 v. RPI and Clarkson. Anyway, we've used the games as an excuse to meet friends for a great holiday dinner and they sometimes just run late. To quote another Cornellian, "So it goes."

That would be St. Lawrence rather than Clarkson in the '69 tournament. And it sounds to me like you're quoting a former #6, eh?

FWIW, the other team which demolished RPI besides for Cornell was BC.

Section 209 indeed! Very good chant. I liked the engaging PSU fan to our right. Too bad he was one-upped by douchy violent fan.

BMac
Section 209 indeed! Very good chant. I liked the engaging PSU fan to our right. Too bad he was one-upped by douchy violent fan.

Well, I'm glad it worked. Based on what I'm reading in another thread, though, it would have resulted in me being ushered out of Lynah.

Even though she didn't get the reference, my four-year-old daughter played along and hid her face against mommy. I assured her she had nothing to worry about. I couldn't say the same for my son.

Tasteless? Yes. But are my kids worse off for hearing it? Not at all. In fact, later on they asked me to explain myself and without getting into too much detail, I was able to transition it into an important conversation about trust.

And that, my friends, is how you turn crappy parenting into good parenting.

Greenberg '97
Random pep band question - after the game, as the crowd was filing out toward the Seventh Avenue exit, the horns were playing a simple march with a three-beat ending (coinciding with a "Let's Go Red" from the masses). Is this is a "thing?" I'd think in 20 years I'd have heard their entire repertoire.

For Lynah rink games, after the Schafer Beer Victory Song has been played, after most of the fans have gone, the band walks down to their Barton Hall basement shack shiny new home, Fischell Band Center, and they put a bit of pep in their step playing that tooty ditty. As far as I know.

Greenberg '97
Random pep band question - after the game, as the crowd was filing out toward the Seventh Avenue exit, the horns were playing a simple march with a three-beat ending (coinciding with a "Let's Go Red" from the masses). Is this is a "thing?" I'd think in 20 years I'd have heard their entire repertoire.

That was started in the late '90s by a tuba-playing friend of mine who used to play something similar in high school. It's a simple tune that the rest of the brass over the years have filled in improvised parts around the bass line. It typically starts with the tuba line when the band is walking en masse from/to the band room before/after games. So as they were walking from the arena through the MSG lobby to the buses, it made sense for the tubas & brass to start the "walking music." There's no written music or even any official arrangement to it; it's just the walking music & something to do when they have 5 minutes and instruments.

I'm agnostic about it now, but I didn't like it at first. Per my own tradition, I still shout "THIS CHEER SUCKS!" for the three-beat stinger.

RichH
I'm agnostic about it now, but I didn't like it at first. Per my own tradition, I still shout "THIS CHEER SUCKS!" for the three-beat stinger.

This. Would that they transformed their burning need to play informally into constant and timely music in the rink. Not that I'm ever critical about anything… but today's band is a bit… slow and disorganized.

After all, they're our first line of defense against DJ creep. Being ready to play right after the whistle and before the "DJ" has had time to ramp up the jock jams will, over time, save humanity.

I'm looking at you, QU: "Rowwwrrr!"

Scersk '97

RichH
I'm agnostic about it now, but I didn't like it at first. Per my own tradition, I still shout "THIS CHEER SUCKS!" for the three-beat stinger.

This. Would that they transformed their burning need to play informally into constant and timely music in the rink. Not that I'm ever critical about anything… but today's band is a bit… slow and disorganized.

After all, they're our first line of defense against DJ creep. Being ready to play right after the whistle and before the "DJ" has had time to ramp up the jock jams will, over time, save humanity.

I'm looking at you, QU: "Rowwwrrr!"

Aren't CU band/opposing band/DJ/PA cues agreed upon mutually? I just assumed that's what the headsets are for.

Greenberg '97
Aren't CU band/opposing band/DJ/PA cues agreed upon mutually? I just assumed that's what the headsets are for.

Accepting headsets is the first mistake. ([Clandestine unplug. Tap, tap, tap.] "Oh, too bad, it's not working." ) ACM and the band have always been able to handle that delicate dance without much communication at all.

And, no, these arrangements are not arrived at in any sort of mutual fashion these days. More and more, college pep bands are dictated to. Every DJ overreaches, and it's beyond me why they're given license to do so.

It's part of the national sporting conversation that we're not having nearly often enough: are college athletics for the students or not? If they are, and there's a band in attendance, the DJ should take the night off. Let the band play.

(And my advice to the current band: Play over everyone and everything except opposing bands and rink announcers. We always did—"Nobody puts Bâby in the corner." Anyway, running interference on those who would muzzle you is what head managers are for.)

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance. Most goals aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate. The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: [bluejackets.nhl.com]

BearLover
Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or...

"Oh, ha, what an unfortunate typo."

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 06:39PM by BearLover.

... wait, that wasn't the typo?

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance. Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate. The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: [bluejackets.nhl.com]

Well in the seventies, the hockey team seemed to have a good choice of pretty ones. I guess times have changed? And I haven't seen the off the skate move but I guess that could be a bizarre metaphor.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance. Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate. The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: [bluejackets.nhl.com]

Jason Weinstein, I believe, called Schafer's and Gadowsky's offensive philosophies polar opposite. Schafer is all about "scoring chances". Pitfalls: forgetting how to finish chances and not generating dirty goals. Gadowsky's system is all about the dirty goals, but perhaps lacks the organization to consistently generate "chances".

ftyuv

BearLover
Most girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or...

"Oh, ha, what an unfortunate typo."

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 06:39PM by BearLover.

... wait, that wasn't the typo?

Hahaha, been a long day. Point still stands about the goals, though.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance. Most goals aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate. The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: [bluejackets.nhl.com]

That's the whole point, the final edition of it, that is. Schafer would look at chances for tip in or rebound as a good scoring chance. A shot on goal, without traffic in front, would not be a good scoring chance. Basically, if the shot is such that any college hockey goalie should stop it, without a juicy rebound, then it's not a good scoring chance. And what should be said about total shots as a proxy for puck possession, is that it's the easiest proxy for possession, but it's certainly not the best measurement for possession.

Scersk '97

Greenberg '97
Aren't CU band/opposing band/DJ/PA cues agreed upon mutually? I just assumed that's what the headsets are for.

Accepting headsets is the first mistake. ([Clandestine unplug. Tap, tap, tap.] "Oh, too bad, it's not working." ) ACM and the band have always been able to handle that delicate dance without much communication at all.

And, no, these arrangements are not arrived at in any sort of mutual fashion these days. More and more, college pep bands are dictated to. Every DJ overreaches, and it's beyond me why they're given license to do so.

It's part of the national sporting conversation that we're not having nearly often enough: are college athletics for the students or not? If they are, and there's a band in attendance, the DJ should take the night off. Let the band play.

(And my advice to the current band: Play over everyone and everything except opposing bands and rink announcers. We always did—"Nobody puts Bâby in the corner." Anyway, running interference on those who would muzzle you is what head managers are for.)

Opposing band cues are mutual. As Scersk says, the DJ/PA pretty much dictate who can play when. I feel incredibly fortunate to have been a member of a pep band with a home rink where the number of times the PA talks during stoppages can be counted on one hand. For all of the criticisms we have about the current Lynah atmosphere, the fact that there's no canned music and limited advertising announcements IS special and should be cherished.

Scersk, I'm not sure that undergrad band leaders read eLynah. If you want them to read your advice, you could probably e-mail them directly.

The "stick it to the man" attitude of the pep band wasn't that strong when I was in it. I think there a couple of possible reasons for this:

1. The band isn't louder than a modern PA system, so if the powers that be in MSG think that we're playing when we shouldn't, they will (and have) play canned music over the band.
2. Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games. I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

Jim Hyla
From today's USCHO article, an interesting quote.

“I’m shocked,” said Cornell head coach Mike Schafer when asked about the play of his team’s young goalies. “Not having Joakim Ryan on the blue line and having all of those new defensemen to go along with two new goaltenders, then looking at our defensive performance leaves me shocked.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

And more from Adam's article in CHN:

Schafer coaches patience, cycling, waiting for the high percetage shot; Gadowsky trains his teams to throw the puck on net from everywhere, and create havoc in front. They represent the two extremes of options that all coaches emply, in varying degrees, from time to time.

The result Saturday, in shot differential, was typical: Penn State outshot Cornell, 38-25.

"I told my guys, don't look at the shot clock," Schafer said. "They fire shots from everywhere. After the first period, as badly as we played (Penn State outshot Cornell, 12-5), when we tracked the statistics, they had three really good scoring chances, and we had two. Shots and plus-minus are some of the biggest misleading statistics in the game."

I'm pretty sure SOG is the most representative commonly used statistic regarding how good a team is...not sure why Schafer thinks it's misleading.

Because he is more concerned with scoring chances, which I admit is somewhat subjective, than just any shot on goal. In fact I can take it one step further. Sometimes when the puck is just flipped down the ice, no SOG nor save is registered. However if he doesn't stop it, it would be a goal, so shouldn't it be a save, but not a scoring chance?

But almost every shot on goal IS a scoring chance. Most goals aren't pretty--they come on tips or rebounds or go off a player's skate. The two most popular advanced stats look at total shots as a proxy for puck possession, which is the best measure of a team's success: [bluejackets.nhl.com]

That's the whole point, the final edition of it, that is. Schafer would look at chances for tip in or rebound as a good scoring chance. A shot on goal, without traffic in front, would not be a good scoring chance. Basically, if the shot is such that any college hockey goalie should stop it, without a juicy rebound, then it's not a good scoring chance. And what should be said about total shots as a proxy for puck possession, is that it's the easiest proxy for possession, but it's certainly not the best measurement for possession.

Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

RatushnyFan
Was that Rob Pannell on the ice during the second intermission?? I was in the presence of greatness!

Yes, along with (if I recall correctly) John Glynn. They rather stunk up the joint when pitted against Penn State lacrosse alumni in the "score a goal from the red line, the far blue line, and the far faceoff circle" contest, but given all they did for the lacrosse team, I think maybe we can let it slide.

KGR11
2. Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games. I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

I get this; the leash is so short these days. But, still, threats are threats. There would be quite a brouhaha if the band were prevented from playing. The band has quite a bit more latitude than it thinks.

As far as keeping it classy goes? Of course. In my day, we were, you might be surprised to hear, always classy. Cutting, sardonic, cruel, obnoxious, yes, but always classy.

Scersk '97

KGR11
2. Zealous (and sometimes classless) cheering by the band led to threats from Athletic Directors to revoke the privilege to play at games. I know that I was a more cautious band leader because of these events and wouldn't be surprised if that had a ripple effect to future years.

I get this; the leash is so short these days. But, still, threats are threats. There would be quite a brouhaha if the band were prevented from playing. The band has quite a bit more latitude than it thinks.

As far as keeping it classy goes? Of course. In my day, we were, you might be surprised to hear, always classy. Cutting, sardonic, cruel, obnoxious, yes, but always classy.

Yes, you can cheer the house down and still keep it classy. Just check my signature below. We even were loud back then.

I'm guilty of holding several empty seats. We had tickets, as for all the MSG games this century, but I spent Saturday doped up in a hospital trying to flush out some kidney stones.

David Harding
I'm guilty of holding several empty seats. We had tickets, as for all the MSG games this century, but I spent Saturday doped up in a hospital trying to flush out some kidney stones.

That would be a legitimate excuse.

ugarte
Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

adamw

ugarte
Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

ugarte

adamw

ugarte
Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

Puck possession stats are necessarily affected by the strategies that the teams employ. If you took a bunch of teams with neutral "shot strategies" (middle ground between Schafer and Gadowsky) I can believe that puck possession would correlate well with talent. Likewise if you had a sample of teams with the same extreme strategy. But the different strategies are likely going to throw noise into the data and make it difficult to interpret the data conclusively.

IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

KeithK

ugarte

adamw

ugarte
Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

Puck possession stats are necessarily affected by the strategies that the teams employ. If you took a bunch of teams with neutral "shot strategies" (middle ground between Schafer and Gadowsky) I can believe that puck possession would correlate well with talent. Likewise if you had a sample of teams with the same extreme strategy. But the different strategies are likely going to throw noise into the data and make it difficult to interpret the data conclusively.

IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

That's the clue, especially with the minimal data that we have for college hockey.

Jeff Hopkins '82

David Harding
I'm guilty of holding several empty seats. We had tickets, as for all the MSG games this century, but I spent Saturday doped up in a hospital trying to flush out some kidney stones.

That would be a legitimate excuse.

No. No it's not. Man up, you pussy. Those IV stands have rollers on 'em.

Oh...wait... I forgot - MSG makes you discard your bottles on the way in. Never mind.

ugarte

adamw

ugarte
Ryan Lambert wrote an interesting article on Penn State and their shooting strategy in the context of shots-for analysis (it follows his discussion of Merrimack): [www.collegehockeynews.com]

For the record, I disagree, somewhat with Lambert - and told him so before I published his article

If shots were the end all be all, Penn State would win every game.

But he basically says that Penn State's strategy is a good strategy for Penn State; they take a lot of bad shots because, given their talent level, the alternative would be "very few shots" instead of "better shots". He basically credits Gadowsky for optimizing the performance of a weak team. It isn't strictly in praise of a raw number. Anyway, thanks for hitting publish on it.

Right. Where I disagreed with him is that, Gadowsky has always played that way, no matter how much or little talent he has.

KeithK
IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

That is exactly the issue I have with hit. Not that it isn't useful - but that some people - particularly the secondary proponents/disciples of the original statisticians - are too absolute in their conclusions.

adamw

KeithK
IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

That is exactly the issue I have with hit. Not that it isn't useful - but that some people - particularly the secondary proponents/disciples of the original statisticians - are too absolute in their conclusions.

People who don't have a strong understanding of statistics tend to overstate their position. I find it equally irritating that so many people dismiss and denigrate statistical analysis from a position of ignorance.

Find people who draw reasonable conclusions and publish them. You can even debate them on the merits and they'll likely engage in a productive manner. Ignore the rest.

FWIW, I thought that article was well-reasoned, and I'm glad you published it. The fact that Gadowsky always employs that strategy doesn't really take away from the conclusion that his strategy might be beneficial to a team with Penn State's talent, and you can make the same general complaint about the Merrimack example (although I don't know anything about Merrimack's coach, the fact is that good teams also employ that strategy). My main takeaway there was that you shouldn't discard the metric over a couple of outliers, especially if there are reasonable explanations for why those outliers exist. The impact of these strategic choices on teams of given talent levels would be a subject for a whole different article.

My only quibble was I wanted a little more discussion over the distribution of the metric. Shots for percentage in college is correlated with success, but the scatter plot was pretty much a big cloud. I'm used to dealing with that, but as an outsider to hockey analytics I have no idea where that places the metric in terms of usefulness compared with other available stats. I mean, does the variance decrease a lot if we consider PP time, or time spent with a 2+ goal lead? Both of those should be at least straightforward to compute.

I recognize that I am actually a stats nerd, though, so I don't think this is a meaningful complaint for a publication catering to the average college hockey fan.

Tom Lento

adamw

KeithK
IMO sports analytics proponents have a tendency to draw conclusions that are too strong given the available data.

That is exactly the issue I have with hit. Not that it isn't useful - but that some people - particularly the secondary proponents/disciples of the original statisticians - are too absolute in their conclusions.

People who don't have a strong understanding of statistics tend to overstate their position. I find it equally irritating that so many people dismiss and denigrate statistical analysis from a position of ignorance.

Find people who draw reasonable conclusions and publish them. You can even debate them on the merits and they'll likely engage in a productive manner. Ignore the rest.

Sorry to self promote, but relevant ..... I don't know if you guys saw my article on analytics from the preseason, which has many coach comments and gives various perspectives:

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

one thing you cant tell from the shot chart is how good a shot something is.. you can have 2 people take the same shot from 20ft away and get vastly different results. coach would rather see the film to decide is something was a good scoring chance. you also dont usually see computed how many goals get created from taking bad shots and to whether ths goals created offsets the goals allowed.

All shots are not created equal.

All saves are not created equal.

Adfing a qualitative component to these statistics to make them more valuable and telling.

margolism
All shots are not created equal.

All saves are not created equal.

Adfing a qualitative component to these statistics to make them more valuable and telling.

And all assists are not created equal.

marty

margolism
All shots are not created equal.

All saves are not created equal.

Adfing a qualitative component to these statistics to make them more valuable and telling.

And all assists are not created equal.

For sure some assists are not equal, watch Saulnier (19) on CU's second goal. It starts around 1:10. Now that's an assist.

Assists are almost always given to the last two players to handle the puck before the scorer. I recall, however, that back in the late 60s or early 70s erstwhile referee Giles Threadgold awarded an assist to a Cornell player who never touched the puck, arguing that his screen and movement in front of the goal was integral to the score. I think that Bardreau's effort on Hilbrich's first goal last night might so qualify as he clearly diverted the Denver goalie's attention and helped make the goal possible. Moreover, he nicely positioned himself for the rebound that never happened. At the very least, he deserves kudos from the coaching staff and fans.

I feel that an assist should be given to any player that played an instrumental role in the score. This should NOT be limited to players that touched the puck.

George64
Assists are almost always given to the last two players to handle the puck before the scorer. I recall, however, that back in the late 60s or early 70s erstwhile referee Giles Threadgold awarded an assist to a Cornell player who never touched the puck, arguing that his screen and movement in front of the goal was integral to the score. I think that Bardreau's effort on Hilbrich's first goal last night might so qualify as he clearly diverted the Denver goalie's attention and helped make the goal possible. Moreover, he nicely positioned himself for the rebound that never happened. At the very least, he deserves kudos from the coaching staff and fans.

Although most referees today are rather bland, Giles Threadgold was an exception. For those of you too young to remember him, here's an interesting article from the March 17, 1970 edition of the Sun.

has anyone read the hockey stat guide? is it even possible to award an assist by rule to someone who doesnt touch the puck? in hockey can you award more than 2 or someone other than the last 2 ? in basketball you can but its hardly ever done.

George64
Although most referees today are rather bland, Giles Threadgold was an exception.

Emphatically seconded. Giles would often hop up and stand on the dasher ledge when a scrum occurred at the boards and balance there with his arms folded, looking down at the battle beneath him like a Greek god amused at the antics of the mere humans below. I loved him.

George64

Although most referees today are rather bland, Giles Threadgold was an exception. For those of you too young to remember him, here's an interesting article from the March 17, 1970 edition of the Sun.

My father was just talking about Giles last month and commented about how the crowd would cheer him. Timely post.

upprdeck
has anyone read the hockey stat guide? is it even possible to award an assist by rule to someone who doesnt touch the puck? in hockey can you award more than 2 or someone other than the last 2 ? in basketball you can but its hardly ever done.

From the 2009 NCAA Ice Hockey Statisticians Manual

Crediting assists: When a player scores a goal, an assist
shall be credited to the player or players taking part in the play
immediately preceding the goal, but no more than two assists
can be given on any goal.
(1) Goaltender Exception: A goaltender may only be credited
with an assist if he or she clearly and intentionally
directs the puck toward a teammate, or moves a puck
into a set position to be picked up by one of his or her
teammates. Simply stopping the momentum of a puck
does not warrant an assist.
(2) Each assist shall count one point in the player’s record.

There are five examples offered for clarification, but every one involves platers touching the puck.

Jim Hyla

marty

margolism
All shots are not created equal.

All saves are not created equal.

Adfing a qualitative component to these statistics to make them more valuable and telling.

And all assists are not created equal.

For sure some assists are not equal, watch Saulnier (19) on CU's second goal. It starts around 1:10. Now that's an assist.

"Big Red puts up an impressive 8 points against the Golden Knights, with a final score of 8-3 at Cheel Arena," wrote someone who works for ECAC Hockey but doesn't know the word "goals".

Our two non-BU opponents liked the experience.

Penn State/Michigan hockey will take place at MSG on Jan. 30, 2016

— College Hockey News (@chnews) December 8, 2014

I haven't commented, but considering I'm a regular critic of the Athletic Department's administration, I will tip my hat for the MSG production this season. For past Red Hot Hockey (Hockies?), it seemed to me that the event was heavily tilted in BU's promotional direction, despite the CU attendance advantage. This time, it was decidedly a Cornell Event all the way. The outside of the building was lit up red, all of the scoreboard content was Cornell-related. About the only thing we didn't have was Arthur on the PA and Dave driving the Zamboni.

This one didn't sell out, but I'm putting the blame squarely on our guest this time. Had PSU done any promotion and gotten anywhere close to the attendance that BU and Michigan had, that matches previous attendances. On TicketMaster a day before the game, they had a seating option for"Penn State Fan Section," which I take to mean that their ticket allotment got released to the public. Their end was easily the emptiest section of the arena, and I noticed that a scattering of Red fans had taken advantage of the lax (and friendly) usher-ing and moved down into the PSU end to get better seats by the 3rd period.

There were Penn State fans scattered around other sections, to be sure. I overheard a couple near the top of my section talking about how surprised they were at the extent that Penn State was outnumbered, fan-wise. That never happens, I guess? Or they just need to learn that there are some big fan bases in the Hockey world from schools you don't expect. They also found out that shouting "WE ARE..." when surrounded by Cornell fans who can think of clever ways to finish that sentence doesn't lead to expected results.

One question: if this game wasn't televised (since it sounds like the ILDN feed came from the scoreboard), why were there TV timeouts? They had the red lightbulb signal from the scorer's box and everything.

PS football game + lack of fan base (alumni and students) surrounding new D1 sport = lack of PS fan attendance at MSG

margolism
PS football game + lack of fan base (alumni and students) surrounding new D1 sport = lack of PS fan attendance at MSG

Additionally, I heard from a reputable source that Cornell was not happy that Penn State did almost nothing to publicize the game. Better attendance would increase our leverage in negotiating with MSG going forward.

After Cornell and BU, who is the most obvious NYC metro area alumni D-1 school? Yale? Colgate? Princeton? UConn?

Here are the appearances in the ECAC Holiday Festival held at MSG between 1962 and 1977:

11 SLU
10 Clarkson
 7 Cornell
 7 BC
 6 Brown
 4 Yale
 3 BU
 2 Colgate
 2 Northeastern
 2 Notre Dame
 2 Bowdoin
 1 Army
 1 Providence
 1 Princeton
 1 Dartmouth
 1 Minnesota
 1 RPI
 1 Harvard
 1 Penn
 1 Vermont
 1 St. Louis

Trotsky
After Cornell and BU, who is the most obvious NYC metro area alumni D-1 school? Yale? Colgate? Princeton? UConn?

Given its football history with NYC, Notre Dame should be on the short list.
[www.ndnyc.org]

Trotsky
After Cornell and BU, who is the most obvious NYC metro area alumni D-1 school? Yale? Colgate? Princeton? UConn?

Here are the appearances in the ECAC Holiday Festival held at MSG between 1962 and 1977:

11 SLU
10 Clarkson
 7 Cornell
 7 BC
 6 Brown
 4 Yale
 3 BU
 2 Colgate
 2 Northeastern
 2 Notre Dame
 2 Bowdoin
 1 Army
 1 Providence
 1 Princeton
 1 Dartmouth
 1 Minnesota
 1 RPI
 1 Harvard
 1 Penn
 1 Vermont
 1 St. Louis

Confining your thinking to alumni bases specifically misses the larger draw of "name" schools like Michigan. Plenty of folks who've never been to Ann Arbor are Michigan fans and you see Sioux jerseys all over the place. Name recognition beyond the college hockey world is important. For me, beyond BU, it's:

Tier one:
Notre Dame
Michigan

Tier Two:
North Dakota
Boston College


Tier Three:
UConn (for now)
Penn State
Minnesota

Tier Four:
Wisconsin
Ohio State

Tier Five:
Michigan State
Vermont
Arizona State


Syracuse would be a natural opponent too if they ever fielded a men's team.

FWIW, supposedly RPI was invited to the ECAC Holiday Festival several times but could not go because of conflicts with its own tourney. The one year they went, the RPI Tourney was after New Year's Day.

[quo?te=ursusminor]
FWIW, supposedly RPI was invited to the ECAC Holiday Festival several times but could not go because of conflicts with its own tourney. The one year they went, the RPI Tourney was after New Year's Day.[/quote]Right after they turned down their Ivy League invite, eh?

Robb

ursusminor
FWIW, supposedly RPI was invited to the ECAC Holiday Festival several times but could not go because of conflicts with its own tourney. The one year they went, the RPI Tourney was after New Year's Day.

Right after they turned down their Ivy League invite, eh?

I never heard that RPI was invited to be a member of the Ivy League, and I doubt it.

There was a rumor, never verified, that RPI and Johns Hopkins were negotiating with the Patriot League at the time when their ability to offer athletic scholarships as D-III schools was being challenged. But that is not exactly the same thing.

Chris '03

Trotsky
After Cornell and BU, who is the most obvious NYC metro area alumni D-1 school? Yale? Colgate? Princeton? UConn?

Here are the appearances in the ECAC Holiday Festival held at MSG between 1962 and 1977:

11 SLU
10 Clarkson
 7 Cornell
 7 BC
 6 Brown
 4 Yale
 3 BU
 2 Colgate
 2 Northeastern
 2 Notre Dame
 2 Bowdoin
 1 Army
 1 Providence
 1 Princeton
 1 Dartmouth
 1 Minnesota
 1 RPI
 1 Harvard
 1 Penn
 1 Vermont
 1 St. Louis

Confining your thinking to alumni bases specifically misses the larger draw of "name" schools like Michigan. Plenty of folks who've never been to Ann Arbor are Michigan fans and you see Sioux jerseys all over the place. Name recognition beyond the college hockey world is important. For me, beyond BU, it's:

Tier one:
Notre Dame
Michigan

Tier Two:
North Dakota
Boston College


Tier Three:
UConn (for now)
Penn State
Minnesota

Tier Four:
Wisconsin
Ohio State

Tier Five:
Michigan State
Vermont
Arizona State


Syracuse would be a natural opponent too if they ever fielded a men's team.

I might consider BC to be part of the top tier (large alumni base, many of whom are located in the NYC metropolitan area, most of whom are hockey fans to some degree) but that's splitting hairs; pretty much agree with all of this otherwise.

Edit: Except Vermont. Screw those losers.

Josh '99

Chris '03

Trotsky
After Cornell and BU, who is the most obvious NYC metro area alumni D-1 school? Yale? Colgate? Princeton? UConn?

Confining your thinking to alumni bases specifically misses the larger draw of "name" schools like Michigan. Plenty of folks who've never been to Ann Arbor are Michigan fans and you see Sioux jerseys all over the place. Name recognition beyond the college hockey world is important. For me, beyond BU, it's:

Tier one:
Notre Dame
Michigan

Tier Two:
North Dakota
Boston College


Tier Three:
UConn (for now)
Penn State
Minnesota

Tier Four:
Wisconsin
Ohio State

Tier Five:
Michigan State
Vermont
Arizona State


Syracuse would be a natural opponent too if they ever fielded a men's team.

I might consider BC to be part of the top tier (large alumni base, many of whom are located in the NYC metropolitan area, most of whom are hockey fans to some degree) but that's splitting hairs; pretty much agree with all of this otherwise.

Edit: Except Vermont. Screw those losers.

I'll re-order the list in terms of (non-ECAC) fanbases most likely to travel to NYC for hockey:

Tier One:
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Minnesota
BC

Tier Two:
UNH
Notre Dame
Maine
Michigan State

Tier Three:
UConn
Vermont
Penn State
Ohio State
RIT
Army (I mean, they could bus down as many Cadets as they want)