Post-Game Thread Sat 2/28

Sooo can I ask now in this thread....any word on playoff tix?

Also...anyone at the game or on the web see the guy in the crease? Was he pushed in?

1. Colgate
2. Cornell
3. Brown
4. Dartmouth
----------------
5. RPI
6. Harvard
7. Yale
8. Union
----------------
9. Clarkson
10. SLU
11. Vermont
12. Princeton

Round One:

Princeton at RPI
Vermont at Harvard
SLU at Yale
Clarkson at Union

EDIT -- I can't add. o.b.e.



Post Edited (02-28-04 21:57)

Schafer ties Harkness and Bertrand for the most Ivy League titles as a Cornell coach -- 5. Ned did it in 7 years, Dick in 12, Mike in 9.

[q]Schafer ties Harkness and Bertrand for the most Ivy League titles as a Cornell coach -- 5. Ned did it in 7 years, Dick in 12, Mike in 9.[/q]

This is just for Men's Hockey, right?

Yes.

Another excellent game by the Red. They're ready for the playoffs.

- Moulson's first goal was good, but his second goal was played out so well, I really couldn't believe my eyes. For once, taking one's time and lining up one's shot actually worked. (It also helped that two Clarkson players tripped over themselves and out of the way to help Moulson find the net.)
- McKee was great as always, but aside from a few weird bounces and a few scrums, he didn't see much of a challenge.
- Cornell dominated most of this game. I thought things were unraveling from the middle of the second period (starting a minute or two before the Clarkson goal), but the Red brought it back in the third, and very effectively sat on the lead for the last few minutes.
- When Downs took the penalty, I silently thought, "Crap, we're about to get spanked." And so it happened. Nobody can argue that Downs isn't highly important to Cornell's overall defense.
- I don't think I've seen so many Cornell near-misses in a single game in a while, probably not since last season. The 27 shots on goal in the first two periods really showed how much Cornell was hustling to get the puck and keep control of the game.
- The officiating definitely could have been better. At one point, I shouted at D.Murphy, "Stop taking reffing lessons from Dupree!" The guy just wouldn't call Roughing and Hitting from Behind. To be fair, though, Cornell got away with a few would-be penalties as well.
- One banner down, three to go! (Well, here's hoping, anyway.)

I am pretty concerned about their offense. They have really struggled to score goals since the game at Harvard. Tonight, last night and last saturday, Cornell has failed to convert on quite a few golden opportunities. Maybe it's injuries. Get used to the 2-1 wins.

calgARI '07 wrote:

I am pretty concerned about their offense. They have really struggled to score goals since the game at Harvard. Tonight, last night and last saturday, Cornell has failed to convert on quite a few golden opportunities. Maybe it's injuries. Get used to the 2-1 wins.

We've been used to the 2-1 wins for some time now, Ari.

10 and counting in the last three seasons.

Eight of 'em in a row would suit me just fine right about now.

Beeeej

I forgot to mention this in my last post: YES!!!

Great finish to the season. I couldn't bring myself to wake up at 5am to watch this game from Pakistan, but checking the score was the first thing I did when I woke up. I am very proud of this team and the way that they pulled it together. Ivy co-champs, a tournament championship in the Everblades over two possible NCAA squads, and a strong close to the season to get the ECAC tournament bye.

I still think that the conference winner is going to be the only ECAC representative in the NCAAs, so I'll settle for four 2-1 wins and let the chips fall where they may after that.

[Clarkson roundtable flashback]OUR RED ARE AWESOME!!![/Clarkson roundtable flashback]

This was on the game thread, but...

[Q] Dan Zaccardo '81 wrote:

I've never rooted for a Cornell tie before this evening. Bizarre.[/Q]Then what were you doing during the second quarter-final game against Clarkson in 89? One of the most exciting games I've ever seen, a 0-0 tie.

Since the goal was to be the first team to get 3 points, and we won the night before, our regulation tie was enough to send us forward.

[Q] CalgARI '07 wrote:
I am pretty concerned about their offense. They have really struggled to score goals since the game at Harvard. Tonight, last night and last saturday, Cornell has failed to convert on quite a few golden opportunities. Maybe it's injuries. Get used to the 2-1 wins.[/Q]
I'd be a lot more concerned about the offense if it was not getting a lot of scoring opportunities. I think more pucks will find the net in the quarterfinals.

some thoughts after chapter house and the drive back.

mckee was solid as usual. he had no chance on the clarkson goal as i think it hit a CU defensman in the skate and went in. i actually thought he made more than a couple good saves including good control over the puck and trapping the puck on saves to prevent rebounds.

cornell looked good 2nite except they could not find the back of the net more than twice. i think all around it was a solid effort.

the officiating was aweful both ways. murphy blew the call on the minor that lead to the clarkson goal. the forward was dancing on his skates and fell down on his own. aweful call. then murphy blew his whistle too quickly leading to a shorthander waved off that would have been a goal for clarkson. a lot of dangerous hits ignored and then some phantom interference calls that just baffled me. plenty of hitting from behind and boarding that was not call as well as plenty of dirty and cheap shots from clarksons #42.

the game winning goal was an awesome shot by moulson. the reason the cornell player was on top of the sieve was because a clarkson defensman was on top of him.

unfortunately i will be unable to make the playoff games. i may have vouchers available...

Any word on Flemenella's condition? I'm not one to revel in another player's pain... is he okay?

This may not be a stellar year for the ECAC. But finishing in 2nd place, one point out of 1st plus sharing the Ivy title in a rebuilding year is pretty sweet.

Only need to compare what happened in 87, 93, and 98, the other years we took huge talent hits.

The guys should be proud. Also, this is the first time Cornell has finished 4th or better for 5 straight seasons since the ten year string between 1966 and 1975: [members.cox.net]

So, Mike has something to shoot for.

If we, knock on wood, win out. Provided Colgate makes it to the finals....does the ECAC send two teams to the NCAAs?

It's always irks me when we can only get one team into the tournament....

I think Colgate is currently on the bubble, and if they lose to any teams from this point out, they'll most likely be on the outside, looking in.

RedAR wrote:

I think Colgate is currently on the bubble, and if they lose to any teams from this point out, they'll most likely be on the outside, looking in.

Colgate moved up to 13th from 14th in the PWR even though they only split against two teams with bad records.

Colgate has a very good chance at an at large bid, even if they lose a game before the ECAC championship. They don't, however, control their own destiny. A lot depends on what happens to the other bubble teams, and to teams on the "TUC bubble" (those that have an RPI just above or below 0.500).

From what I've read, a lot of the strength of Colgates PWR comes by barely edging out TUC comparisons with certain teams. If they lose a game to any TUC at this point, their PWR will drop significantly because the comparison will flip.

I don't understand this this stuff all too well, so if someone with a more mathematical explanation can jump in, I'd appreciate it. But if I understand things correctly, Colgate will retain the #13 ranking only if they win out. A single loss to a TUC at this point will put them in a 3 way tie with other teams, and Colgate loses the tie-breaker with the other teams.

Few things:

Colgate at-large: 13 would be the absolute last spot to make it at-large, 15 and 16 will go to the MAAC/CHA champ (as usual), and if Colgate doesn't win the ECAC, then 14 would go to the ECAC champ, so they'd have to lose but not drop (rough), and have no other of the 'Big 4' have a significant upset (more feasible). So we'll see, but it won't be easy.

Murphy: jy3 said it perfectly in the "officiating was awful both ways" paragraph. I'll add one (maybe biased thing) though. There were a lot of awful no-calls, but I think we by far got the worst of the awful "yes-calls". The one that lead to the Clarkson goal, and I can think of TWO in the third that I am SURE (from my perspective) were just a Clarkson player hitting the ice without (or with barely) being touched. But it's not like he was good the other way either.

Our second goal: I was lucky enough to be in CTB yesterday a bit after 11 when they were replaying the game on tv. I was our 2nd goal and saw it in replay 2 or 3 times. The Clarkson guy hooked/tripped/stick between the legs/pushed over Hynes (or whoever it was). Hynes landed on the ice in the crease and slide UNDER Traylen's right leg. He wasn't on top of him, he was under him, knocking him and keeping him somewhat off balance, when Moulson buried it a second later in the top-right (from his perspective).

Traylen has every right to be pissed off from his perspective, he was clearly interfered with, but it wasn't our fault. As for Clarkson people saying Hynes (?) could have gotten up, yes, he could have, but he was UNDER Traylen, so getting up would have knocked Traylen over and then the goal would certainly have been waived off. The smartest thing to do from his perspective was lay there for a second until after the shot. It's a sucky situation for all involved, but it *was* started by Clarkson roughness in the crease. Perhaps the "fairest" call woulda been no goal/2 minutes for tripping/hooking/roughing, but after the 3 or 4 phantom calls against us (one leading to a goal), I feel it was kinda justice .

top 15 results from the weekend:

Team        (First Place)    Record  Pts   
 1 Boston College       (40)    25-3-4  600     W, L (New Hampshire)
 2 North Dakota                 22-6-3  552     W, W (Minnesota-Duluth)
 3 Maine                        23-6-3  506     L, W (Mass.-Lowell)
 4 Michigan                     23-8-1  474     L, L (Notre Dame)
 5 Minnesota-Duluth             22-8-3  465     L, L (North Dakota)
 6 Wisconsin                    18-9-7  379     W, W (Alaska-Anchorage)
 7 Minnesota                   20-11-3  374     L, L (Denver)
 8 New Hampshire               17-10-5  280     L, W (Boston College)
 9 St. Cloud State             18-10-4  260     L, L (Colorado College)
10 Miami                       18-11-3  256     T, W (Western Michigan)
11 Denver                      19-10-5  202     W, W (Minnesota)
12 Ohio State                  20-14-0  135     idle
13 Colgate                      18-9-5  119     L, W (Clarkson, St. Lawrence)
14 Michigan State              21-14-1   92     idle
15 Massachusetts                16-9-6   30     idle

Meanwhile, teams ranked #16-#20 (Colorado College, Brown, Cornell, Notre Dame, RPI) went a combined 9-1-0 this weekend.



Post Edited (02-29-04 15:42)

Anyone know how much, if any, of the ECAC tournament will be on TV? I know the Final Four in Albany will be on CSTV. Is that it though?

Avash '05 wrote:

Anyone know how much, if any, of the ECAC tournament will be on TV? I know the Final Four in Albany will be on CSTV. Is that it though?

I believe it's just the ECAC championship game that CSTV will televise. On Friday night, they're showing the CHA championship game.

As of now, at least, the TV package for the ECACs is not nearly as good as last year's.

Well, most of us. Chief still is not used to it...

We don't rebuild! We reload!

Just got home from the weekend trip to Ithaca...

The first 30 minutes of the game against Clarkson was the best first 30 minutes of the season out of the games I've seen (home games, Albany, New England). We will score. The effort was awesome and Traylen got lucky with flailing, diving saves/misses/posts--ugh!

Nickerson was not impressive from the get go. We got in his head all night...he made a lot of mistakes, never got a big shot on net, slammed his stick on the ice a bunch of times, looked slow, and generally played like a goon (but some said the same about Murray his first year and look how he turned out). We did a bunch of overweight chants in B and I especially rid him for being fat when he got in the box.

McKee gave Nickerson a long embrace during the handshakes...anyone know their connection and want to save me from researching?

I really liked Cook bringing the puck out of the d zone on the rush and there were no fancy loopings around the net before the break out! Maybe we have found our solution?

Wow, Murphy sucks. Against RPI he called nothing--completely swallowing the whistle and then this weekend he calls a lot of dinky, questionable calls (missing diving and skaters simply tripping over their own feet) and misses huge, dangerous hits.

George, I hope you watched the game film today. You whined and complained all night to Murphy and every time you were wrong. Maybe that's how you level with Murphy but to me you looked like a fool. I hope you enjoyed your first trip to Ithaca, sucka.

oh, and one other thing that I don't think was mentioned...Murphy had a slow whistle in Albany and this weekend he blew the whistle really really quickly. On the boards, in front of the net, you name it.

Nickerson and McKee played together on the Texas Tornados last year.

Man, I am annoying...

One other thing that I just remembered that I noticed...Nickerson was on stick duty last night. He had to go to the bench and bring all of the sticks into the locker room after the game! hahahaha! Stupid freshman!

Adam:

There are two Murphys...John and Dan. John reffed the CU/St Lawrence game and the CU/RPI game in Troy. Brother Dan "called" the CU/Clarkson game. They look a bit a like, but Dan sees a very different game than John!!

Larry

Larry Baum '72 wrote:

They look a bit a like, but Dan sees a very different game than John!!

Oh, we all see a very different game than John.

John actually used to be the good one. Dan used to be the one who called every ticky-tacky piece of crap for 40 minutes and then swallowed the whistle and let mass hysteria ensue.

[q]From what I've read, a lot of the strength of Colgates PWR comes by barely edging out TUC comparisons with certain teams. If they lose a game to any TUC at this point, their PWR will drop significantly because the comparison will flip.[/q]

It is conceivable though that if Colgate get a non-TUC in the quarters (I don't think they can get a TUC in the quarters, unless they lose and that team wins it all) and then again in the semis, loses the semis and goes to the consolation where they meet and defeat a TUC, they can back into the tournament like they did in 2000.

Colgate also benefits in the TUC comparisons from the fact that the teams they are competing with on the bubble will all have to play conference tournaments almost exclusively against TUCs.

Does it seem counterintuitive to anybody else that Colgate would be hurt more by losing to a better team?

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

Does it seem counterintuitive to anybody else that Colgate would be hurt more by losing to a better team?

Well, yes. Just one more flaw in the TUC criterion.

Only thing I could find were game notes from Vermont saying that Femenella had surgery and would likely be out for the rest of the season. Don't like to see anyone get hurt, but the guy is an ass.

Also, what the hell was up with the jackasses throwing the alma mater lyrics on the ice in the second intermission? There were probably 20 or 30 thrown before the ushers waddled down and looked sternly about. Starting to feel like Starr in there.

Self-police. [beagleweb.com]



Post Edited (03-02-04 10:17)

Cowbell Guy wrote:

Also, what the hell was up with the jackasses throwing the alma mater lyrics on the ice in the second intermission? There were probably 20 or 30 thrown before the ushers waddled down and looked sternly about. Starting to feel like Starr in there.

I seriously felt like killing large chunks of B, D, E, and F after seeing that. Okay, maybe not large chunks, but I did want to personally hunt down and destroy each and everyone one of the papertossers. Not only is it stupid to do because of the rules, it's disrespectful to Cornell.

I swear, if the Redline gets to have any sort of authority in the ticket line next year, or at least we get to distribute Lynah Faithful pamphlets, can we put "Except for newspaper, fish, and toothpaste (and maybe toys if that continues), don't fuckin' throw shit on the ice!" in big bold red letters on the first page?

I dunno, but I'd pay to hear Arthur announce that verbatum before the lineups.

There's a good chance those throwing things belong to the same class of persons not present before Arthur announces said lineups.



Post Edited (03-02-04 11:14)

or the same class of people that were not on the hill last year ...

Cowbell Guy wrote:

Also, what the hell was up with the jackasses throwing the alma mater lyrics on the ice in the second intermission? There were probably 20 or 30 thrown before the ushers waddled down and looked sternly about. Starting to feel like Starr in there.

Not only that, but another effect is that little kids in J-L started doing it as well. At least I hope it was only kids. My guess is that they see the student sections do it, so they now think it's OK to as well. One youngster in J tried to launch his crumpled sheet up over the net multiple times, even after the players were out warming up for the 3rd.

Don't forget hats.

Yeah that pissed me off as well. All it takes is a few jackasses and everyone starts to copy. After my friends and I yelled at them to stop, they then proceeded to throw the alma mater's at us. Hey, at least that way they didn't end up on the ice.

Tom'06 wrote:

Yeah that pissed me off as well. All it takes is a few jackasses and everyone starts to copy. After my friends and I yelled at them to stop, they then proceeded to throw the alma mater's at us. Hey, at least that way they didn't end up on the ice.

That doesn't change the fact that it's disrespectful to Cornell. I would somewhat expect visiting fans to do that, but not Cornellians.

Sigh...do we really need a total dominance season (like that of last year) to bring out the best in fans? Zod help us should we ever have a truly bad season in the near future.

Eh, most of the idiots (hopefully) won't be back next year since this season was sooooo horrible. I mean, for heaven's sake, they lost games at home!.

My wife and I checked our pulses last year in Providence at the end of the third period against BC. Just watching that game, we were in the moderate aerobic range! I don't think my heart could stand eight 2-1 games in a row, not at this level. I would much prefer eight 4-1 games, ala St. Lawrence, thank you.

One of the guys who got revenge on Volonnino wrote:

Sigh...do we really need a total dominance season (like that of last year) to bring out the best in fans? Zod help us should we ever have a truly bad season in the near future.

Nonono. you got it backwards. The reason the fans were so great in 03 was because at least some of them remembered 00 and 01.

The lean years are good for the diehard fanbase because it weeds out the idiots.

But by their estimation, this will have been a lean year. If they only knew...

John E Hayes '98 '00 wrote:

Nonono. you got it backwards. The reason the fans were so great in 03 was because at least some of them remembered 00 and 01.

The lean years are good for the diehard fanbase because it weeds out the idiots.

Okay, I understand. Still, it's sad that we need to have a few lean years in order to periodically weed out the idiots. I hate to think that the price of potentially having a team in the future that may be great year-in year-out for a number of consecutive years will be to have to put up with a couple hundred idiotic "fans".

hmmm... this got me thinking...

maybe that's why the VAST MAJORITY of UND fans are complete and utter idiots.

just a guess, but a few lean years can't be too bad.

Naturally, the Faithful in the late 60's and early 70's were exceptions.

[Q]Greg wrote:

Naturally, the Faithful in the late 60's and early 70's were exceptions.[/Q]You are so right.

Seriously, I was throwing candy then (not during the singing mind you ) and told them that they didn't deserve any.



Post Edited (03-03-04 22:11)