2022-01-21 Princeton

Classic trap game. Careful, lads.

Herpa-derp still blatting on WHCU, presumably to be fumigated any moment.

Yep. Fresh, treason-less air.

+ Stienberg and Berard
- Andreev

Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

scoop85

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

Aren't they doing limited attendance?

Bad mistake there, no chance for Shane.

cornell down bad. im just gonna turn the tv off.

One mistake and one fluke deflection.

One uncalled crosscheck from behind and one deflection.

scoop85

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

not sure the crowd will be all that much bigger tomorrow.. STH didnt buy because they didnt have to early in the year..

Honestly Cornell had probably 7-8 Grade A chances and I dont know that they even got more than 1 of them on net.. fluffed almost every solid chance. princeton really generated 1 good chance and then the turnover and fluke goal.

if chances led to actual shots it would have been about a 15-2 type period.

scoop85

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

We were back in Ithaca last weekend, Lynah probably about as empty as the first period tonight, hardly any students back (mostly off-campus, probably had enough time with mom and dad), most due back this weekend but maybe not yet, classes start Monday. Meanwhile, more of Collegetown being bulldozed. The entire block on College Ave. between Catherine and Cook streets. Wonder how many will be subsidized units?

We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Sloppy with guys trying for heroics, not team play. Quite un-Cornell so far.

Was wondering if there was unsportsmanlike after the goal but they are looking at the Kempf hit. This could be huge. Either a Princeton goal or a 5 minute major against Princeotn.

Nope, no penalty, 3-0.

not sure why i turned the tv back on. switching it back off.

Ben Syer’s unbeaten streak behind the bench in jeopardy.

Starting to control down low now.

We are definitely starting to get positional advantage and play as a unit. Not over yet.

Couldn't ask for ma better timed pp; oh well. We still have plenty of time.

ANd now another. OK guys, let's put the biscuit in the basket.

Getting outhustled on the 2nd pp in a row.

Poor final 5 here.

Two of the worst power plays I’ve seen, and I’ve been watching our power play for years. Just making Princeton look like geniuses by being too cute with every potential pass or shot.

Stienberg doesn't look close to 100%.

Very good time for a shawty.

Scersk '97
Two of the worst power plays I’ve seen, and I’ve been watching our power play for years. Just making Princeton look like geniuses by being too cute with every potential pass or shot.

Until O’Leary got us set up in the zone on the 2nd PP I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Trotsky
Classic trap game. Careful, lads.

That and some mediocre officiating. It's too bad the team didn't have the energy throughout the first period.

Iceberg

Trotsky
Classic trap game. Careful, lads.

That and some mediocre officiating. It's too bad the team didn't have the energy throughout the first period.

Couple bad breaks but yes need to bounce back from those.

Anyone else seeing a greenish cast on the ice from the center-ice camera? I Cornell has had issues even with its most recent lighting but I've never seen a video this off balance. On my screen. It could be the brain reacting to the game.

Just when I was going to say we have nothing going, we score off that beautiful play.

Really soft goal allowed by Shane to let Princeton ice the game. Also, why was Shane still in the net down by 2 with under 3min to go? He should have been pulled long before that.

BearLover
Really soft goal allowed by Shane to let Princeton ice the game. Also, why was Shane still in the net down by 2 with under 3min to go? He should have been pulled long before that.

Soft? The guy fired a bullet from between the circles off an excellent feed.

BearLover
Really soft goal allowed by Shane to let Princeton ice the game. Also, why was Shane still in the net down by 2 with under 3min to go? He should have been pulled long before that.

The fourth goal? That wasn't soft. It was a really nice play that fooled everyone to get the puck to an open shooter.

Oh well. They certainly gave it the last minute run. Had Berard potted that one into the empty net it would have been tied before the final minute insanity.

scoop85

BearLover
Really soft goal allowed by Shane to let Princeton ice the game. Also, why was Shane still in the net down by 2 with under 3min to go? He should have been pulled long before that.

Soft? The guy fired a bullet from between the circles off an excellent feed.

I think he means the deke behind the net. It was a great play, it wasn't soft.

ok im done watching cornell hockey for good. ill just follow riley nash coyotes games. good luck, folks.

blackwidow
ok im done watching cornell hockey for good. ill just follow riley nash coyotes games. good luck, folks.

See ya!

Trotsky

scoop85

BearLover
Really soft goal allowed by Shane to let Princeton ice the game. Also, why was Shane still in the net down by 2 with under 3min to go? He should have been pulled long before that.

Soft? The guy fired a bullet from between the circles off an excellent feed.

I think he means the deke behind the net. It was a great play, it wasn't soft.

Looked to me in real time like Shane overplayed the guy with the puck and was left out of position once the guy made the pass, sometime I’ve noticed all three Cornell goalies do this season. Upon review, the defense was worse than the goaltending on that play. The defenders were embarrassed by both the passer and the shooter and failed to contain either one. Maybe they were gassed at that point.

scoop85

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

The crowd is pathetic mostly because Cornell banned fans from purchasing tickets with no prior warning.

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Going down 3-0 to a Princeton team on a nine-game losing streak (okay, losing by a lesser margin), it's the optics that are harmful.

As opposed to beating P handily Friday, letting Q go up 3-0 Saturday, battling back to lose by only 5-4, that's understandable.

Our comeback in the third period gives Cornell a lift heading into Saturday. And Q was bloodied Friday in that Colgate scored on them. 5-1 Q.

Looking a long way ahead to March and Cornell making it to Lake Placid, it would be nice to avoid Q until the title game.

billhoward

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Going down 3-0 to a Princeton team on a nine-game losing streak (okay, losing by a lesser margin), it's the optics that are harmful.

As opposed to beating P handily Friday, letting Q go up 3-0 Saturday, battling back to lose by only 5-4, that's understandable.

Our comeback in the third period gives Cornell a lift heading into Saturday. And Q was bloodied Friday in that Colgate scored on them. 5-1 Q.

Looking a long way ahead to March and Cornell making it to Lake Placid, it would be nice to avoid Q until the title game.

Cornell looked exhausted by the end of the game. Tomorrow could be ugly.

scoop85
Ben Syer’s unbeaten streak behind the bench in jeopardy.

Mike was out for the ND series, last weekend, and now. Seems too long. I hope he’s not having complications.

I couldn’t believe how many pucks we didn’t handle. This was a very un-Cornell game. Princeton was opportunistic, but our unforced sloppy play is why we lost.

BearLover

billhoward

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Going down 3-0 to a Princeton team on a nine-game losing streak (okay, losing by a lesser margin), it's the optics that are harmful.

As opposed to beating P handily Friday, letting Q go up 3-0 Saturday, battling back to lose by only 5-4, that's understandable.

Our comeback in the third period gives Cornell a lift heading into Saturday. And Q was bloodied Friday in that Colgate scored on them. 5-1 Q.

Looking a long way ahead to March and Cornell making it to Lake Placid, it would be nice to avoid Q until the title game.

Cornell looked exhausted by the end of the game. Tomorrow could be ugly.

Exhausted but we were playing some of our best hockey???

BearLover

scoop85

Trotsky
Ithaca low tonight: -5 F.

Which would explain in part the pathetic crowd.

The crowd is pathetic mostly because Cornell banned fans from purchasing tickets with no prior warning.

I disagree. There was a good crowd on the townie side, but students are remote till 2/4. So don’t expect many tomorrow and maybe even next weekend. I suspect some may come back for the Harvard game. All you need to see was the small band to realize that students were not in Ithaca

billhoward
Meanwhile, more of Collegetown being bulldozed. The entire block on College Ave. between Catherine and Cook streets. Wonder how many will be subsidized units?
.

Subsidized? Ha! At least it'll take a little bit of pressure off the local housing market. [ithacavoice.com]

absolute nightmare of a result. do feel good about next year though, which is a very weird feeling. they're close but they're not likely to get there this year. I'll take a bid, but even that will feel like gravy.

ugarte
absolute nightmare of a result. do feel good about next year though, which is a very weird feeling. they're close but they're not likely to get there this year. I'll take a bid, but even that will feel like gravy.

They're talented but unexperienced. High highs and low lows. Given the year off, I'm all for it.

ugarte
absolute nightmare of a result. do feel good about next year though, which is a very weird feeling. they're close but they're not likely to get there this year. I'll take a bid, but even that will feel like gravy.

They're talented but unexperienced. High highs and low lows. Given the year off, I'm all for it.

Jim Hyla

BearLover

billhoward

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Going down 3-0 to a Princeton team on a nine-game losing streak (okay, losing by a lesser margin), it's the optics that are harmful.

As opposed to beating P handily Friday, letting Q go up 3-0 Saturday, battling back to lose by only 5-4, that's understandable.

Our comeback in the third period gives Cornell a lift heading into Saturday. And Q was bloodied Friday in that Colgate scored on them. 5-1 Q.

Looking a long way ahead to March and Cornell making it to Lake Placid, it would be nice to avoid Q until the title game.

Cornell looked exhausted by the end of the game. Tomorrow could be ugly.

Exhausted but we were playing some of our best hockey???

I dunno, the goals started going in but the team wasn’t getting after pucks with much energy in the finals minutes. Check out the sequence that led to the fourth Princeton goal. The top lines were getting crazy ice time and they were gassed.

BearLover

Jim Hyla

BearLover

billhoward

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Going down 3-0 to a Princeton team on a nine-game losing streak (okay, losing by a lesser margin), it's the optics that are harmful.

As opposed to beating P handily Friday, letting Q go up 3-0 Saturday, battling back to lose by only 5-4, that's understandable.

Our comeback in the third period gives Cornell a lift heading into Saturday. And Q was bloodied Friday in that Colgate scored on them. 5-1 Q.

Looking a long way ahead to March and Cornell making it to Lake Placid, it would be nice to avoid Q until the title game.

Cornell looked exhausted by the end of the game. Tomorrow could be ugly.

Exhausted but we were playing some of our best hockey???

I dunno, the goals started going in but the team wasn’t getting after pucks with much energy in the finals minutes. Check out the sequence that led to the fourth Princeton goal. The top lines were getting crazy ice time and they were gassed.

But if they had played like that from the beginning, they would have won and would have been so far ahead that they could have coasted at the end.

Swampy
I couldn’t believe how many pucks we didn’t handle. This was a very un-Cornell game. Princeton was opportunistic, but our unforced sloppy play is why we lost.

This was also my takeaway.

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

Very uneven night. Some guys looked tired. I hope everyone is healthy. Glad to see two EA goals.

Scersk '97
One uncalled crosscheck from behind and one deflection.

The hit from behind before the goal looked like a penalty to me.

There were multiple stretches of domination.. But then we had so many wayward passes or pucks bounce that led to no shots on goal. The few times Prince actually had any kind of offense led to a few solid chances.

Too many times we are passing to an area and not to a person, turns simple plays into recovery mode..

nshapiro

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

I am slavishly repeating what I have heard. My intuition is they should be exactly the same impact provided we play both teams the same number of times.

I guess it is arguably more likely that by the end of Placid we will have played Q more.

Trotsky

nshapiro

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

I am slavishly repeating what I have heard. My intuition is they should be exactly the same impact provided we play both teams the same number of times.

I guess it is arguably more likely that by the end of Placid we will have played Q more.

Yes, but the number of times you play is still irrelevant to *your* record. If you end the season 18-2, then you are .900, whether your two losses are to Yale or Quinnipiac. If they're to Yale, well, then that means you beat Q every time you played them - good on ya! But the inconsistency of losing to Yale is still reflected in your .900. Beating the best team and throwing clunkers to bad teams is seen as exactly as valuable as losing to the best teams and then beating everyone else. It doesn't matter if your 18-2 record included other games against Q or Y - your record is still .900.

Where playing someone more times does matter is how your opponents do. If the records are what they are, and you ask the question, is it better for Y or Q to take an extra loss, *then* the answer would be "whichever one we played fewer times." When calculating our opponents' record, each opponent's record get included each time we play them. So you always want the teams you've played to do well in their other games, and that goes even more strongly for the teams you play more times.

ice
Very uneven night. Some guys looked tired. I hope everyone is healthy. Glad to see two EA goals.

Trying to recall how often, how recently we iced a game with a 175-foot empty netter. I'm pretty sure it wasn't at the Clarkson game.

Robb

Trotsky

nshapiro

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

I am slavishly repeating what I have heard. My intuition is they should be exactly the same impact provided we play both teams the same number of times.

I guess it is arguably more likely that by the end of Placid we will have played Q more.

Yes, but the number of times you play is still irrelevant to *your* record. If you end the season 18-2, then you are .900, whether your two losses are to Yale or Quinnipiac. If they're to Yale, well, then that means you beat Q every time you played them - good on ya! But the inconsistency of losing to Yale is still reflected in your .900. Beating the best team and throwing clunkers to bad teams is seen as exactly as valuable as losing to the best teams and then beating everyone else. It doesn't matter if your 18-2 record included other games against Q or Y - your record is still .900.

Where playing someone more times does matter is how your opponents do. If the records are what they are, and you ask the question, is it better for Y or Q to take an extra loss, *then* the answer would be "whichever one we played fewer times." When calculating our opponents' record, each opponent's record get included each time we play them. So you always want the teams you've played to do well in their other games, and that goes even more strongly for the teams you play more times.

How about this: since a loss brings Q's winning percentage down farther than Princeton's it is better to beat Princeton? Any takers?

Isn’t there a bonus for beating teams in the top 20? In which case, beating Q and losing to P is more valuable than vice versa. I imagine the bonus is quite small, however.

BearLover
Isn’t there a bonus for beating teams in the top 20? In which case, beating Q and losing to P is more valuable than vice versa. I imagine the bonus is quite small, however.

I think they got rid of that? But I'm very uncertain.

Consider the possibility that Princeton is simply a better hockey team. It appears it was last night, at least.

Trotsky

Robb

Trotsky

nshapiro

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

I am slavishly repeating what I have heard. My intuition is they should be exactly the same impact provided we play both teams the same number of times.

I guess it is arguably more likely that by the end of Placid we will have played Q more.

Yes, but the number of times you play is still irrelevant to *your* record. If you end the season 18-2, then you are .900, whether your two losses are to Yale or Quinnipiac. If they're to Yale, well, then that means you beat Q every time you played them - good on ya! But the inconsistency of losing to Yale is still reflected in your .900. Beating the best team and throwing clunkers to bad teams is seen as exactly as valuable as losing to the best teams and then beating everyone else. It doesn't matter if your 18-2 record included other games against Q or Y - your record is still .900.

Where playing someone more times does matter is how your opponents do. If the records are what they are, and you ask the question, is it better for Y or Q to take an extra loss, *then* the answer would be "whichever one we played fewer times." When calculating our opponents' record, each opponent's record get included each time we play them. So you always want the teams you've played to do well in their other games, and that goes even more strongly for the teams you play more times.

How about this: since a loss brings Q's winning percentage down farther than Princeton's it is better to beat Princeton? Any takers?

I think so, given that a loss to Princeton and Win over Q impacts both those percentages more than the reverse.
Where I get completely lost is the *, which means that an RPI is adjusted to make sure that winning over a team with a bad record does not negatively affect your RPI. Does this mean that if at the moment you beat a team, and your RPI would fall, that game is removed from your schedule? Is that a permanent decision? If the team you beat goes on a winning streak, and adding that win back in would later help your RPI, does that happen?

Trotsky

Robb

Trotsky

nshapiro

Trotsky

billhoward
We were thinking this could be a 1W 1L weekend. Better the L is today.

That isn't true for PWR.

Could you explain that please - is it because of the clause that prevents a team's RPI suffering if it beats a bad team?

Otherwise, I would not think it would matter much, since RPI has three criteria:

A team's own winning percentage (25%) - Cornell's winning percentage would be unaffected
The average of the team's opponents' winning percentages (21%) - I guess the boost to Princeton's winning% is less that the hit to Q's - is this where it matters?
The average of the team's opponents opponents' winning percentages (54%) - I can't believe this is significantly impacted by swapping the wins.

And in this case, a loss to Q will flip the NoDak pairwise comparison.

I am slavishly repeating what I have heard. My intuition is they should be exactly the same impact provided we play both teams the same number of times.

I guess it is arguably more likely that by the end of Placid we will have played Q more.

Yes, but the number of times you play is still irrelevant to *your* record. If you end the season 18-2, then you are .900, whether your two losses are to Yale or Quinnipiac. If they're to Yale, well, then that means you beat Q every time you played them - good on ya! But the inconsistency of losing to Yale is still reflected in your .900. Beating the best team and throwing clunkers to bad teams is seen as exactly as valuable as losing to the best teams and then beating everyone else. It doesn't matter if your 18-2 record included other games against Q or Y - your record is still .900.

Where playing someone more times does matter is how your opponents do. If the records are what they are, and you ask the question, is it better for Y or Q to take an extra loss, *then* the answer would be "whichever one we played fewer times." When calculating our opponents' record, each opponent's record get included each time we play them. So you always want the teams you've played to do well in their other games, and that goes even more strongly for the teams you play more times.

How about this: since a loss brings Q's winning percentage down farther than Princeton's it is better to beat Princeton? Any takers?

No, because games against you don’t count when tallying your opponents’ record in RPI. If Q is undefeated against everyone else and you beat them like a borrowed mule 8 times, then you get credit for beating an undefeated team in each of those 8 games.