Cornell @ Quinnipiac 1/31/2020

Since Princeton is unranked (#53 in Pairwise & RPI, #50 in Krach), but Q is #18 (#19 Pairwise & RPI, #27 Krach), this game deserves its own topic.

So I'll continue something I started over on the Princeton game topic. I bought a ticket for tomorrow's game, but it is SRO. In fact, there were only 32 tickets left when I bought it. So it looks as if the game is sold out, even if the arena won't necessarily be 100% full.

Hopefully, Cornell fans will nonetheless outnumber Q's.

Go Red!

I have been to almost every regular season and postseason game Cornell has played at Q, and our fans have never come close to outnumbering their fans, even with the hundreds of empty seats in a "sold-out" arena. There are always more Cornell fans when we play at Yale, which is only about 15 minutes away.

If Q's road contingent is any measure they have great fan support. They have sent excellent crowds to Lake Placid and also to NC$$ sites.

OK, obviously my last post jinxed us so I am buying it. Let's see if we can turn this around in the third.

Evidently that wasn't it.

I hope that at least our fans outnumbered theirs!

i would like to know how that over turned that goal.. ref is looking right at it doenst blow the whistle. no replay even shows where the puck is so i dont know what they would say happened.. you cant control the puck with your toe.

Not that I expected a beat down, but we’re clearly not as sharp the past few weeks. While we started decently with a few great chances, after QU scored the 1st goal we seemed to lose all the mojo. We’ve been screwing up odd man rushes consistently, such as in the 2nd period when we had a 3-on-1 and didn’t get off a shot.

Tomorrow we need to see the team re-establish its identity.

Terrible game. We gave up too many odd-man rushes. Galajda not sharp. If we had capitalized on one of our scoring chances during the flurry we had right before Q's 3-goal outburst, things might have gone differently. Once they went to review our goal, you knew it was going to be overturned. It was that kind of night. Hopefully, this will be our clunker for the regular season and we'll get back on track at Princeton. And no, the Cornell fans did not outnumber the Q fans. We never do in Hamden.

upprdeck
i would like to know how that over turned that goal.. ref is looking right at it doenst blow the whistle. no replay even shows where the puck is so i dont know what they would say happened.. you cant control the puck with your toe.

Q goalie Petruzzelli had it under his pad and it was there for 1-2 seconds before Barron pushed goalie's leg and puck into the net. It was not a good goal. Good reversal by the refs. If the same play had happened but at Cornell's end, Mike Schafer would be under medical care right now after going ballistic.

It was not Cornell's night. Maybe this will convince Cornell to work even harder. This is a team that could win it all, but the frozen four could disappear in a heartbeat in the first or second round of the NCAA regionals if we play halfway as bad as tonight, or the opponent played as well as Q.

None of this stopped the Q students from leaving early in the third. Party time.

Mike's going to get some teachable moments from this. The beat down was bad but the reaction was even worse. Galajda's having an off night so what do we do? Give him 3 or 4 odd man rushes to deal with on lazy clears or bad turnovers. We get eaten up by Q in the first so how do we respond? 3 SOG in the first 15 minutes of the second period.

We came out great, played a fine first 3 minutes, and then crawled up our own ass. What I'm trying to say here is: bad.

Beat PU and come home. We have lots to work on.

No sense losing by one.

This is why you play a full season and not judge a team by its first 11 games. It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in uncertainty.

I don't know how good this year's team is. I don't think it's right to say this is some Jekyll and Hyde situation where the team is either "on" or it isn't. They stunk last night. I am going to average this result in with the others and not dismiss last night as an aberration.

This was an even game in terms of talent. We were lucky to beat Q at Lynah this year, which involved them not scoring on three consecutive odd-man rushes and us winning by one goal. Cornell could lose to Northeastern 4-0 in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They could lose to Clarkson, Harvard, or Q 4-0 in the ECAC semis. They could also go all the way. But I don't think it's helpful to think in those terms. This is a team we are still learning about, and that is still learning about itself.

BearLover
It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in.

Here we go. An annual tradition like no other.

BearLover
This is why you play a full season and not judge a team by its first 11 games. It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in uncertainty.

I don't know how good this year's team is. I don't think it's right to say this is some Jekyll and Hyde situation where the team is either "on" or it isn't. They stunk last night. I am going to average this result in with the others and not dismiss last night as an aberration.

This was an even game in terms of talent. We were lucky to beat Q at Lynah this year, which involved them not scoring on three consecutive odd-man rushes and us winning by one goal. Cornell could lose to Northeastern 4-0 in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They could lose to Clarkson, Harvard, or Q 4-0 in the ECAC semis. They could also go all the way. But I don't think it's helpful to think in those terms. This is a team we are still learning about, and that is still learning about itself.

Q has 9 losses this year. I hope Cornell plays them in March.

what angle show it under control as opposed to being under part of the pad?

CU2007

BearLover
It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in.

Here we go. An annual tradition like no other.

Yep. Wish people wouldn't link to that site every year.

ice

BearLover
This is why you play a full season and not judge a team by its first 11 games. It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in uncertainty.

I don't know how good this year's team is. I don't think it's right to say this is some Jekyll and Hyde situation where the team is either "on" or it isn't. They stunk last night. I am going to average this result in with the others and not dismiss last night as an aberration.

This was an even game in terms of talent. We were lucky to beat Q at Lynah this year, which involved them not scoring on three consecutive odd-man rushes and us winning by one goal. Cornell could lose to Northeastern 4-0 in the first round of the NCAA tournament. They could lose to Clarkson, Harvard, or Q 4-0 in the ECAC semis. They could also go all the way. But I don't think it's helpful to think in those terms. This is a team we are still learning about, and that is still learning about itself.

Q has 9 losses this year. I hope Cornell plays them in March.

Minnesota-Duluth (two-time defending champs and #6 in the Pairwise) has nine losses also. A regional with Q and UMD in it would allow us to coast into the Frozen Four.

CU2007

BearLover
It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in.

Here we go. An annual tradition like no other.

AKA: Where's Facetimer when you need him?

BearLover

CU2007

BearLover
It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in.

Here we go. An annual tradition like no other.

Yep. Wish people wouldn't link to that site every year.

The frustration is that, in a year where we're around .500 right now, there aren't many posters looking at projected odds and saying, "gee, law of averages says our chances are going up!"

Essentially, the imbalance between pessimism and optimism can be frustrating. We're having a stellar season (with a bit of a road bump at the moment) and it's not like anyone's being overly optimistic. But on a less-than-great year, the sky is falling.

upprdeck
what angle show it under control as opposed to being under part of the pad?

There is overhead video here:

[youtu.be]

ice

upprdeck
what angle show it under control as opposed to being under part of the pad?

There is overhead video here:

[youtu.be]

I don't know what the video review rule is, but the whistle didn't blow till after the puck was in. I also don't know where the puck was, under the pad or skate. Nor can I say that the goalie had control of it.

Maybe they had a better review angle, a net cam would be useful, but I'm not sure what the ruling was to overturn it. So without knowing their ruling, it's had to argue.

The apparent absence of physical disabilities on the Cornell team makes this loss difficult to explain or rationalize. Wait. That wasn't a loss. That was a butt-kicking.

ice

upprdeck
what angle show it under control as opposed to being under part of the pad?

There is overhead video here:

[youtu.be]

yeah but where is the puck to say he has control. his leg could have been 6 inches off the ice from that angle with the puck under it.

the fact coach just laughed off the explanation pretty much sums it off.

But how much does it matter? Would your reaction, or more importantly that of the players, to the game be different if the final score were 5-1?

5-1 with 10 ish to go is not something that cant happen. the goal was to get it to 5-3 so you could pull the goalie and hope for a miracle.

CU2007

BearLover
It's also why you don't put faith in a website like playoffstatus.com that assigns teams odds based on their records across tiny sample sizes without pricing in.

Here we go. An annual tradition like no other.

Don't think anyone has pointed this out yet explicitly about the Christmas break.


Before January 1: 9-0

Since January 1: 5-1-4


So what happened over break? I don't know.

One thing that we can see though, is that as our ranking went up near the top, everyone we play is bringing their A game to knock off the big dog.

Has anyone taken the night off against us since.new years?

None of that explains last night's stinker, but as long as we're top 5 in the country we need to be prepared for teams being super amped against us, which means we have no margin for error.

Our shooting percentage was unsustainably high before the break and it feels unsustainably low right now. Last night, though, it seems like we had a very rough two minutes that we couldn't recover from. Unlike the Dartmouth loss, which was against the run of play, last night was a legit loss that variance turned into a blowout. If tonight it's more if the same, then I'll start to worry.

abmarks
Don't think anyone has pointed this out yet explicitly about the Christmas break.


Before January 1: 9-0

Since January 1: 5-1-4


So what happened over break? I don't know.

One thing that we can see though, is that as our ranking went up near the top, everyone we play is bringing their A game to knock off the big dog.

Has anyone taken the night off against us since.new years?

None of that explains last night's stinker, but as long as we're top 5 in the country we need to be prepared for teams being super amped against us, which means we have no margin for error.

Actually before 1/1 we were 10-1-0

If you look at ties and 1 goal games (not counting ENG) Before 3-1-0 After 1-0-4

Flip a few goals from before to after and the results are the also flipped.

Were we playing better before than after? Sure, but maybe the differences were not as strong as we think.

The Q loss colors everything. Let's get a few games under our belts -- it may have simply been an anomaly. Scary, sure. But there is also a reason that even Harvard 89 and RPI 85 and, for that matter, Cornell 67 didn't match Cornell 70.

Trotsky
The Q loss colors everything. Let's get a few games under our belts -- it may have simply been an anomaly. Scary, sure. But there is also a reason that even Harvard 89 and RPI 85 and, for that matter, Cornell 67 didn't match Cornell 70.

Nor any other team in modern D-I history.

But what I find both scary and encouraging from the team's mid-season regression-to-the-mean is that this year we've have few long-duration injuries. Last year it seemed we were always playing without a few key players, whereas this year such occasions have been relatively rare. Yet last year we made it to the second round of the regionals. If our relative health keeps up, I'll be really disappointed if we don't advance beyond the regionals.

This is scary because one would think having a healthy team would give us an advantage, and we would not have tied those games we could have won, much less throw up a stinker like Friday's. OTOH, it's encouraging because during this period we've not only come back down to earth, but also have played far below what we know we're capable of; nonetheless, the team has managed to get through this time with only one loss.

Could it be that the Cornell game is some version of a one-trick pony and the opposition has noticed this?

osorojo
Could it be that the Cornell game is some version of a one-trick pony and the opposition has noticed this?

I mean, it could be. I was thinking it's possible that our freshmen took opponents by surprise and now have been figured out a bit. They will adjust and then the opponents will have countermeasures and so on forever. The only reason we noticed it this year is (1) our freshmen are really good, so when they had the element of surprise they were able to do damage, and (2) there are so many of them.

This would explain both the fall off in play and also the apparent plateau/regression of Malinski, Dirven, Malone, and Mitchell. OTOH the Tupkers have been stepping up, and they are the very guys who didn't have much time early and thus for whom there is less "tape" to study.

If there's truth to that then time will iron it all out.

the teams have really concentrated on controlling out breakouts with much heavier forecheck, and those teams quick enough to pull that off have given us issues..

upprdeck
the teams have really concentrated on controlling out breakouts with much heavier forecheck, and those teams quick enough to pull that off have given us issues..

Another issue that makes coaching so different than it was 15-20 years ago is that everyone can watch (tapes of) every game.

Harvard controls us, Q and Pecknose watch the tape and attempt to control Cornell the same way.

marty

Another issue that makes coaching so different than it was 15-20 years ago is that everyone can watch (tapes of) every game.

That knife cuts both ways, no? Is our scouting worse than everybody else's? Like our inability to figure out Harvard's power play?

TimV

marty

Another issue that makes coaching so different than it was 15-20 years ago is that everyone can watch (tapes of) every game.

That knife cuts both ways, no? Is our scouting worse than everybody else's? Like our inability to figure out Harvard's power play?

I dont know about coaching but I think Harvard's talent is significantly above our recruitment pool.

blackwidow

TimV

That knife cuts both ways, no? Is our scouting worse than everybody else's? Like our inability to figure out Harvard's power play?

I dont know about coaching but I think Harvard's talent is significantly above our recruitment pool.

Who the heck would want to go to that snobby school? You have to wear a blazer when you go to class, even during chemistry labs. No water falls, no gorges, no ice creamery, not even a single cow. Cambridge gave me the creeps.

blackwidow

TimV

marty

Another issue that makes coaching so different than it was 15-20 years ago is that everyone can watch (tapes of) every game.

That knife cuts both ways, no? Is our scouting worse than everybody else's? Like our inability to figure out Harvard's power play?

I dont know about coaching but I think Harvard's talent is significantly above our recruitment pool.

Yes. And even prima donnas can learn team work. I think Donato has learned over his years as coach to better deal with his recruits.

Good coaches help players improve over the course of a season but also improve themselves. I hope Harvard is always second to Cornell but he has improved.

TimV

That knife cuts both ways, no? Is our scouting worse than everybody else's? Like our inability to figure out Harvard's power play?

Northeastern most have figured something out. They just held Harvard scoreless for a nearly two minute long 5x3.

2-1 Northeastern in the third.

so the replay challenge was not that the goalie had control it was changed because it was ruled barron pushed the goalies pad causing the puck to go in the net.

not clear on how that rule reads..

if the goalie doesnt have control of the puck are you not allowed to push the puck and then the goalie over the line? would you have to pull the puck out of the crease and shoot it over the goalie? i thought you couldnt push the puck if it was controlled over the line?

the ref had the better view than the camera and didnt bow the whistle so he must have ruled he could see it?