Quinnipiac 5 Cornell 4, ot

Clash of the last two 1.000 winning percentage teams (Q is 7-0-0).

Q's penalty kill is 25x25 and their pp is 10x27 (37%). Gulp.

they need to clean up the sloppy play on d. the O created tons of chances, but they gave the pack away too often under no pressure last night. Princeton didnt get a tonof shots and still have 3-4 more solid chances they should have gotten in, cornell too it was a 7-5 type game with teams that couldnt convert. cant do that tonight and win.

Mitch gives up a lot of juicy rebounds. Good offensive players will punish that.

OTOH Q fans were bemoaning a sloppy effort by Q last night, saying the only thing that stopped Colgate from blowing them out was Garteig.

Trotsky
Mitch gives up a lot of juicy rebounds. Good offensive players will punish that.

OTOH Q fans were bemoaning a sloppy effort by Q last night, saying the only thing that stopped Colgate from blowing them out was Garteig.

Well, they say the mark of a good team is that it wins even when it doesn't play particularly well. Q has 6 seniors & 10 juniors on its roster, and Pecknold might simply have to bawl them out to get the team to play better. OTOH, it might take more practice and teaching to get a younger Cornell team to clear the defensive zone regularly when faced with a strong forecheck.

Hope for the best, prepare for the ....

This is evidence that bad penalties are indeed bad.

Bummer

But they did send a message that the Red are back. Good luck guys and well played.

tominvb
Bummer

But they did send a message that the Red are back. Good luck guys and well played.

Not sure losing at home when blowing a 3 goal lead sends that message. They appear to be more fun to watch. I'm not sure they're back yet.

Q is undefeated; and remember how we got our 3 goal lead -- scoring on a 5 minute major levied in the first minutes of the game. So "blowing the lead" is not troublesome to me. We lost to a better team but we stayed with them so I can live with the outcome.

we were the better team the first period.. quin was the better team the 2nd period.. we were the better team almost all the 3rd period. the main diff between the teams is quin is still the quicker team in transition and that cost us a few times.. the refs were horrible most of the game.. one ref 20 ft away would call nothing and one half a rink away with no real view of a play would call it. they swallowed the whistle , then would send 2 guys off instead of making the first call time after time.

anyone see the final goal on line to see what looked live to be a high stick goal?

I believe that it deflected off of a Cornell player in front and that our keeper had no real chance on the deflection. I did not see a high stick by Q. .

profudge
I believe that it deflected off of a Cornell player in front and that our keeper had no real chance on the deflection. I did not see a high stick by Q. .

Looking at the "Highlights", by McCrea's motion and reaction, there's a good chance it deflected off him.

upprdeck
we were the better team the first period.. quin was the better team the 2nd period.. we were the better team almost all the 3rd period. the main diff between the teams is quin is still the quicker team in transition and that cost us a few times.. the refs were horrible most of the game.. one ref 20 ft away would call nothing and one half a rink away with no real view of a play would call it. they swallowed the whistle , then would send 2 guys off instead of making the first call time after time.

anyone see the final goal on line to see what looked live to be a high stick goal?

Over-reliance on matching minors to keep players behaved is a sure sign of bad reffing.

While it was surely disappointing to give up a 3 goal lead with less than 25 minutes left, I'm encouraged to see a far more potent attack than we've been used to the past few years, which is something so many people have been asking for. It seems we have better balance up-and-down the lineup, and if the young defense tightens up a bit, we should be in for a pretty enjoyable season. It looks like we have some real impact freshmen, which is just what the doctor ordered.

That being said, it seems like the ECAC is as strong top-to-bottom as its been in my memory, and the team is going to have to work like heck to finish in the upper division. Based on early returns, I can see 3 or even possibly 4 ECAC teams making the NCAA's this season.

scoop85
While it was surely disappointing to give up a 3 goal lead with less than 25 minutes left, I'm encouraged to see a far more potent attack than we've been used to the past few years, which is something so many people have been asking for. It seems we have better balance up-and-down the lineup, and if the young defense tightens up a bit, we should be in for a pretty enjoyable season. It looks like we have some real impact freshmen, which is just what the doctor ordered.

That being said, it seems like the ECAC is as strong top-to-bottom as its been in my memory, and the team is going to have to work like heck to finish in the upper division. Based on early returns, I can see 3 or even possibly 4 ECAC teams making the NCAA's this season.

It seems like Q, Harvard and Yale are all for real. Let's hope we're that fourth squad.

There were long stretches in which Cornell had problems with the breakout; on the other hand when we did get moving we showed more creativity than in past years, and we had a smooth transition and didn't wind up impaled on the opposing blue line like last year.

This team has a lot of depth, and we've got three freshmen who are already among the best players on the squad (Angello, McCrae, Vanderlaan) and another who is not far behind (Starrett). Also loving how a few of the returning players have significantly improved from last year (Weidner, Anderson, Rauter, Fiegl).

Is Tschantz hurt? I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

The defense is a weakness right now, but that's obviously Mike's strong suit and I'm sure it will come around.

Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

Trotsky

scoop85
While it was surely disappointing to give up a 3 goal lead with less than 25 minutes left, I'm encouraged to see a far more potent attack than we've been used to the past few years, which is something so many people have been asking for. It seems we have better balance up-and-down the lineup, and if the young defense tightens up a bit, we should be in for a pretty enjoyable season. It looks like we have some real impact freshmen, which is just what the doctor ordered.

That being said, it seems like the ECAC is as strong top-to-bottom as its been in my memory, and the team is going to have to work like heck to finish in the upper division. Based on early returns, I can see 3 or even possibly 4 ECAC teams making the NCAA's this season.

It seems like Q, Harvard and Yale are all for real. Let's hope we're that fourth squad.

There were long stretches in which Cornell had problems with the breakout; on the other hand when we did get moving we showed more creativity than in past years, and we had a smooth transition and didn't wind up impaled on the opposing blue line like last year.

This team has a lot of depth, and we've got three freshmen who are already among the best players on the squad (Angello, McCrae, Vanderlaan) and another who is not far behind (Starrett). Also loving how a few of the returning players have significantly improved from last year (Weidner, Anderson, Rauter, Fiegl).

Is Tschantz hurt? I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

The defense is a weakness right now, but that's obviously Mike's strong suit and I'm sure it will come around.

Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

I believe Tschantz has some type of injury -- not sure of the type or severity. I agree he would be another weapon and a good presence in front of the net.

In addition to the 3 teams you mentioned, St. Lawrence, Clarkson and RPI are showing that they may be contenders too. Union, although stumbling a bit, will almost certainly improve over the course of the season. Colgate is certainly no pushover, and we saw that Princeton is improved. Dartmouth and Brown seem to be the weakest teams out of the gate, but we know that they will be feisty.

Trotsky
Is Tschantz hurt? I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

I thought I read somewhee that due to injuries and illness the squad was down to a bare minimum of forwards. If so then that would imply that Tschantz is in fact hurt.

Trotsky
The defense is a weakness right now, but that's obviously Mike's strong suit and I'm sure it will come around.

Agreeed. If the biggest issue a Schafer coached team has in November is playing defense then this bodes well for the upcoming season.

KeithK

Trotsky
Is Tschantz hurt? I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

I thought I read somewhee that due to injuries and illness the squad was down to a bare minimum of forwards. If so then that would imply that Tschantz is in fact hurt.

In the post-game comments after the Niagara weekend, Schafer mentions Knisley and Tschantz as being guys who are "dinged up" and that we'll "hopefully get those guys back in the next 2-3 weeks."

[youtu.be]

Everyone who was healthy was playing. Our depth has helped to keep a full squad, but we've reached the limit.

Trotsky
Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

You could say that about last season's pair of last-minute 1-0 losses, too.

I guess I'm more disconcerted that a Cornell team blew a 3-goal lead than other people. They had a 4-1 lead with 8 minutes left in the 2nd. Not only couldn't they hold it for the game, they did not even hold that lead for the period.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

when a game turns in a PP fest anything can happen.

RichH

Trotsky
Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

You could say that about last season's pair of last-minute 1-0 losses, too.

I guess I'm more disconcerted that a Cornell team blew a 3-goal lead than other people. They had a 4-1 lead with 8 minutes left in the 2nd. Not only couldn't they hold it for the game, they did not even hold that lead for the period.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

My feelings exactly. Especially with the winning goal coming as a result of an undisciplined penalty.

We'll see how QU matches up against another top team since they host Sucks this weekend. The league seems to be better than it was last year

Quick question about this game, and whether or not there has been a rule change.

Unless I'm mistaken, in the past if there was a question as to whether a shot puck that wasn't ruled a goal had actually been in and out of the net, play was not stopped to make that determination. At the next stoppage the refs would check the video. If it was in fact decided that a goal had been scored, the clock was reset to that point, and play continued from there. But on Saturday night shortly after the Quinnipiac shot that was eventually ruled a goal, the refs seemed to stop play for no reason other than to review the video. (We were moving the puck up ice at the time, as I recall.) Also, once they ruled it a goal, I don't believe any time was put back on the clock.

So...rule change or just odd officiating?

andyw2100
Quick question about this game, and whether or not there has been a rule change.

Unless I'm mistaken, in the past if there was a question as to whether a shot puck that wasn't ruled a goal had actually been in and out of the net, play was not stopped to make that determination. At the next stoppage the refs would check the video. If it was in fact decided that a goal had been scored, the clock was reset to that point, and play continued from there. But on Saturday night shortly after the Quinnipiac shot that was eventually ruled a goal, the refs seemed to stop play for no reason other than to review the video. (We were moving the puck up ice at the time, as I recall.) Also, once they ruled it a goal, I don't believe any time was put back on the clock.

So...rule change or just odd officiating?

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession. Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty). I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

jtwcornell91
My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession. Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty). I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that. Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores. The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

it has happened that a team scored and then a review took it away.. i think it was only a couple years ago in an NCAA game.

i am surprised we even had a shot of the puck going in to change the original call. my question would be if the ref thought it went in live why didnt he blow the whistle and rule it good then

Trotsky

Huh, never heard that. Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

At least I'm in good company!

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession. Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty). I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that. Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores. The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

Robb

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession. Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty). I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that. Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores. The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

As you well know, it doesn't work that way, but otherwise it would be a great way to get a hat trick.

Personally I like that a delayed penalty can result in a goal followed by a penalty shot goal scored at the same time. Even better would be a delayed penalty own goal followed by a penalty shot goal, resulting in goals by both teams scored at the same time.

I wonder if the rule book explicitly states that if that latter scenario took place in overtime the own goal would end the game. I can imagine the uplifting philosophical debate that would take place in an ECAC final between, say, Schafer and Pecknold...

Trotsky

Robb

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession. Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty). I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that. Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores. The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

As you well know, it doesn't work that way, but otherwise it would be a great way to get a hat trick.

Personally I like that a delayed penalty can result in a goal followed by a penalty shot goal scored at the same time. Even better would be a delayed penalty own goal followed by a penalty shot goal, resulting in goals by both teams scored at the same time.

I wonder if the rule book explicitly states that if that latter scenario took place in overtime the own goal would end the game. I can imagine the uplifting philosophical debate that would take place in an ECAC final between, say, Schafer and Pecknold...

I thought there was some stipulation that you can't have two goals on the same stoppage, and therefore a penalty causing a penalty shot following a reviewed and counted goal was always a power play.

Might be NHL only, though. This happened to the Penguins vs the Leafs a few years ago. Pens take a shot, hits off the bar in the back of the net but the refs thought it hit crossbar, comes flying the other way, Pens pull down a Leafs player for a penalty shot. But they look, award a goal on the initial shot, and wind up giving the Leafs a PP.

Then they don't score on the PP, and the Pens score again immediately after jumping out of the box. Gotta love Leafs games.

Dafatone
I thought there was some stipulation that you can't have two goals on the same stoppage, and therefore a penalty causing a penalty shot following a reviewed and counted goal was always a power play.

Might be NHL only, though.

My memory of this comes from a WHL game from some time ago. Portland gets a power play, gets another delayed penalty, scores with the extra man. Penalty shot is awarded, Portland scores again, then resumes the original power play. Portland coaches complain to the officials that the "resuming" power play should be for the full two minutes because the initial man advantage was caused by the first penalty, which should now be wiped out by the non-penalty shot goal. Officials don't buy it, coach blows a gasket and gets ejected. The box scores reads Portland scoring two goals and having their coach thrown out all occurring at the same moment.

upprdeck
when a game turns in a PP fest anything can happen.

That's what she (/he/they) said.

WE'll know soon enough, but my biggest worry after a game like this is that Somebody is going to decide, "See what happens when you try to open it up?" and by early January we'll be back to the 2-1 games, with the occasional 0-0 tie thrown in.

How exactly did this game signify Cornell "opening it up"? There was someone in the box basically the entire game--I think that accounts far more for the uptick in offense than any change in strategy. Q was stunningly undisciplined for a top team in the 1st period. Had they kept their heads in check, Cornell would not have even come close to winning this game. Some of the Cornell penalties were stupid ones too, but the majority of them were smart ones, committed to prevent a clear path to the goal. Cornell was outshot almost 2-to-1 in this game, and 3/4 goals came with a man advantage. I don't see this game as anything other than a frustrating missed chance to luck out a win against a much better team.

BearLover
How exactly did this game signify Cornell "opening it up"? There was someone in the box basically the entire game--I think that accounts far more for the uptick in offense than any change in strategy. Q was stunningly undisciplined for a top team in the 1st period. Had they kept their heads in check, Cornell would not have even come close to winning this game. Some of the Cornell penalties were stupid ones too, but the majority of them were smart ones, committed to prevent a clear path to the goal. Cornell was outshot almost 2-to-1 in this game, and 3/4 goals came with a man advantage. I don't see this game as anything other than a frustrating missed chance to luck out a win against a much better team.

+1 (+100 if possible)

It signifies "opening it up" because of the style of play that CU has shown. Although some may not want to acknowledge it, CU's style has changed. They carry it in much more than years ago. I'd even go so far to say that their first choice is to carry it in and only dump it as a last resort or line change. I don't have the stats to back this up, but it certainly looks that way. This has been evolving over a few years, but seems to be more successful (so far) this year. It may be hard to admit but Coach Schafer has changed his style.

I'll admit that the Q game was not the best example. They have decidedly better talent than we do. They are faster and better passers than we are, so we cannot expect to be as successful skating with them as with other schools. But even against them we didn't play a "dump and chase" game. I hope we can be somewhat successful, as it will allow us to attract more of the type of players that can be successful in the new style of play.

Seeing,and hearing, how well this team seems to play together, the notion that the departed class was a difficult one appears to fit. Just remember their sophomore season when we lead the ECAC in PIM/game. Nothing Coach Schafer did seemed to work.

So far I'm enjoying watching this team.

RichH

Trotsky
Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

You know I'm also concerned about blowing leads of any kind, but I think you have to remember that this is a profoundly young team. Willcox , the lone senior, played every game of his freshman and sophomore seasons and then was injured last year; Patrick McCarron, a junior, played every game of his freshman year and then was injured last year. Those are your top 2 D. Anderson is effectively a sophomore. Bliss is great, but he's only a sophomore too. We're playing two true frosh. That's one of the youngest, most inexperienced defensive groups that I can remember.

On the forward side, things aren't much different. Both Hilbrich and Knisley have really only played about 2/3rds of the games available over their careers; Tiitinen is, effectively again, a junior. This is a profoundly young lineup.

And (the) last year('s/s') team(s) didn't/haven't provided many object lessons in holding leads. This group is going to need to learn. Thankfully, they seem to be willing to do so. Whatever happens this year, I hope that experience carries forward well——if next year's group of frosh turns out to be similarly excellent, it could be a very successful season.