2004 All Over Again?

GF-GA, ECAC RS:

2002: 74-34 +40
2003: 89-29 +60
2004: 53-32 +21
2005: 70-26 +44
2006: 59-45 +14

Record, Games 11-22, ECAC RS

2002: 9-1-1
2003: 9-1-1
2004: 7-4-0
2005: 10-0-1
2006: 5-2-2

And of course, 2004 was the only other season Cornell won the Everblades...

OTOH, 2004 was not a terrible season by any means -- it's shadowed by the Clarkson QF elimination, but prior to that it was comparing with the '96 and '97 title seasons.

I see the similarities statistically and even in results, but the two teams are not very similar at all.

I dunno. Moulson was the only one who could score that year, too.

The ECAC is also distinctly better this year than in 2004. In 2004 the only ECAC NCAA representation was the tournament champion Crimson who then proceeded to crash horribly against Maine.

So while our ECAC numbers may seem more like 2004, its not an even playing field.

Trotsky
I dunno. Moulson was the only one who could score that year, too.

I wasn't aware Moulson could score this year.

Man, you've got it out for Moulson the way I had it out for Gary Cullen. Yeah, I know, he's only got 2 or 3 even strength goals, but ferchrissakes, he IS leading the team, in both goals and points, by a ton.

Trotsky
Man, you've got it out for Moulson the way I had it out for Gary Cullen. Yeah, I know, he's only got 2 or 3 even strength goals, but ferchrissakes, he IS leading the team, in both goals and points, by a ton.

Loved Moulson last year but he has been brutal this season, particularly in 2006. I wouldn't even put in Cornell's top five offensive players over the last month. I want him so badly to break out because I think it could be the difference between a deep run into the NCAA's and an early exit. But he is not coming close to getting it done the last several games. It isn't as if he's getting chances, he's just been totally invisible and a non-factor.

Since conference resumed after the break

1/13 1-1-2 (3 Cornell goals)
1/14 0-0-0 (0)
1/20 0-1-1 (5)
1/21 1-1-2 (4)
1/27 1-0-0 (4)
1/28 0-0-0 (2)
2/03 0-1-1 (4)
2/04 0-0-0 (3)
2/10 0-1-1 (1)
2/11 0-1-1 (4)
2/17 1-1-2 (3)
2/18 0-0-0 (3)

Total 4-7-11 (36 goals in 12 games, 3.00 average)

It's still a point per game, and figuring in on nearly 1/3 of all team scoring. It's not Joe Nieuwendyk, but it's not Christian Felli either.

Trotsky
Since conference resumed after the break

1/13 1-1-2 (3 Cornell goals)
1/14 0-0-0 (0)
1/20 0-1-1 (5)
1/21 1-1-2 (4)
1/27 1-0-0 (4)
1/28 0-0-0 (2)
2/03 0-1-1 (4)
2/04 0-0-0 (3)
2/10 0-1-1 (1)
2/11 0-1-1 (4)
2/17 1-1-2 (3)
2/18 0-0-0 (3)

Total 4-7-11 (36 goals in 12 games, 3.00 average)

It's still a point per game, and figuring in on nearly 1/3 of all team scoring. It's not Joe Nieuwendyk, but it's not Christian Felli either.

I'm not talking about numbers. I'm talking about performance.

As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one. I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.

Beeeej

[Q]I wasn't aware Moulson could score this year.[/Q]

Your statement was about scoring, not performance.

Anyway, the point is that we were all very worried that scoring wasn't well-spread in '04. And when the hammer came down against Clarkson, despite being the team leader in scoring, Moulson was indeed bottled up:

Game 1: 0-0-0 (5 goals)
Game 2: 0-1-1 (4)
Game 3: 0-0-0 (1)

But Mike Knoepfli had a hat trick the first night and he and Carefoot (as a frosh) scored 6 goals in the first two games, picking the team up. The problem was goals *against* in that series. After giving up fewer than 3 goals in 15 of the prior 16 games, McKee surrendered 9 goals on 50 shots (plus 1 eng) in the final two games, and IIRC the game descriptions afterwards depicted the red D as wretched.

Beeeej
As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one. I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.

Not a criticism of Moulson per se, but it would be much more helpful---and even he would be more successful---if others would also take SOG's on the power play. Just venting, I guess...

Kyle

krose

Beeeej
As far as that ephemeral, non-quantifiable thing called "leadership" goes, I'm in Ari's camp on this one. I think the only exception has been his willingness actually to take shots at the goal on the PP, which has been one of Cornell's weaknesses this century.

Not a criticism of Moulson per se, but it would be much more helpful---and even he would be more successful---if others would also take SOG's on the power play. Just venting, I guess...

Kyle

One of the problems is that the powerplay is that it is so predictable. It isn't a secret that Moulson can rip it from the high slot and that the one-timer to O'Byrne is the secondary option. Now, it's the one-timer to Bitz. They do not ever try to work the down-low play. Sawada should have a bigger role than to just provide a screen. At the very least, if they try to penetrate the slot a little more on the powerplay, the PK box will close up and Moulson, O'Byrne (when he comes back), and Bitz will have more space to operate with.

One of the problems is that the powerplay is that it is so predictable. It isn't a secret that Moulson can rip it from the high slot and that the one-timer to O'Byrne is the secondary option. Now, it's the one-timer to Bitz. They do not ever try to work the down-low play. Sawada should have a bigger role than to just provide a screen. At the very least, if they try to penetrate the slot a little more on the powerplay, the PK box will close up and Moulson, O'Byrne (when he comes back), and Bitz will have more space to operate with.

I agree with you completely... but every time I make an observation like you have, I think, "Doesn't Schafer know this? Or is there something he knows that we don't?"

I have to admit, I find some of his tactics a little strange (e.g. too much dump and chase for a team that is getting lighter and faster; too many times there's no one on the far post ready to take centering passes) but this is the only one I can think of that truly confounds me because I can't see where I'm wrong.

Additionally, it surprises me because in general he does so many things so well: positioning on D is generally flawless, providing the opposition almost zero chance for 1-0 outside of the occasional Krantz-falls-down or O'Byrne-fat-fingers-a-pass problem, neither of which really have much to do with the system.

cheers,
Kyle

[q]I agree with you completely... but every time I make an observation like you have, I think, "Doesn't Schafer know this? Or is there something he knows that we don't?"[/q]I'm not sure predictability on the power play is purely a problem of coaching (assuming it's a problem). Players fall into patterns sometimes, going with things that they are comfortable with. The coach can try to get them to break out of it through drills, etc. but it's up to the players to execute.

Am I the only one who recalls some fellow named Vesce who did alot of the scoring that year (7 points against Princeton) and whose absence was the biggest reason we had to drive in the Clarkson series?

We need more point players for the PP. Bitz just isn't good there, his slapshot is too inaccurate, and he's not much of a puckhandler or passer. When someone puts pressure on him, he gets scared with the puck.

O'Byrne and Moulson work, though I'd like to see Moulson get chances below as well. Except we need him on the point.

How about Scott at the point? He has no slapshot, but he can penetrate and dish out much better than anyone else on our team.

I was thinking the same thing. I had seen a couple of away games in '04 and took a friend to Lynah for the last game against Clarkson to show her how fun it was to watch hockey there. I was very bummed to find out Vesce was out, as he had been off and on throughout the year. The offense went almost entirely through him, and they simply couldn't get anything going without him in the lineup. I can't remember for sure, but I think he might have played in the 1st game that they won handily.

I was actually thinking of how crucial Vesce's faceoff wins were to our success in '03 against Harvard in the ECAC's and against BC in the NCAA's. The tying goal against Harvard came directly off of his faceoff win in the waning seconds while Lenny was on the bench. We lost way too many faceoffs this past Saturday. Vesce was almost automatic.

French Rage
Am I the only one who recalls some fellow named Vesce who did alot of the scoring that year (7 points against Princeton) and whose absence was the biggest reason we had to drive in the Clarkson series?

Well it was tough losing Vesce - he only played in Game 1 of that series. But even when he was playing, he playing with a severe injury (I think he had a torn abdominal muscle and was playing through it) and wasn't nearly as effective in his last few games due to the injury. There were just too many passengers on that team and there were only two other seniors besides Vesce and the leadership was an issue. I still believe that Varteressian picking the fight with Nickerson at the end of Game 1 was the turning point of that series. It really fired that Clarkson team up. When they picked up their play in Game 2, Cornell's many holes were exposed - lack of scoring, inconsistent goaltending, bad leadership, and not enough take the bull by the horns players.

DeltaOne81
The ECAC is also distinctly better this year than in 2004. In 2004 the only ECAC NCAA representation was the tournament champion Crimson who then proceeded to crash horribly against Maine.

So while our ECAC numbers may seem more like 2004, its not an even playing field.

I disagree. If you look at the KRACH rankings, Cornell is the only top 20 team in the league right now. The math from the results indicate the ECAC is not nearly as good as last year, and only marginally if at all improved over 2004. The ECAC might put in 2 teams because the PWR are shaking out better than KRACH, but I would be surprised to see any conference teams win a game in the NCAAs, unless Cornell can turn it around when O'Byrne returns.

Steve M

DeltaOne81
The ECAC is also distinctly better this year than in 2004. In 2004 the only ECAC NCAA representation was the tournament champion Crimson who then proceeded to crash horribly against Maine.

So while our ECAC numbers may seem more like 2004, its not an even playing field.

I disagree. If you look at the KRACH rankings, Cornell is the only top 20 team in the league right now. The math from the results indicate the ECAC is not nearly as good as last year, and only marginally if at all improved over 2004. The ECAC might put in 2 teams because the PWR are shaking out better than KRACH, but I would be surprised to see any conference teams win a game in the NCAAs, unless Cornell can turn it around when O'Byrne returns.

I dunno. The traditional recent powers, us and Harvard, had definte off years. Colgate was possibly better than now, but certainly not noticably. And Dartmouth and Brown wouldnt have made much of a splash. I'd take Cornell and Harvard this year, Colgate's too close too call, and SLU is definitely better than D or B.

I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

daredevilcu
I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

Nickerson didn't play in the next game (I don't remember whether or not he played Sunday). Whether that was due to injury or disqualification, I don't know.

Section A Banshee

daredevilcu
I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

Nickerson didn't play in the next game (I don't remember whether or not he played Sunday). Whether that was due to injury or disqualification, I don't know.

I think your wrong...Nickerson played in both games.


This box score from USCHO confirms that Nickerson played the second game (as he recorded an assist on their first goal).
[www.uscho.com]

redhair34

Section A Banshee

daredevilcu
I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

Nickerson didn't play in the next game (I don't remember whether or not he played Sunday). Whether that was due to injury or disqualification, I don't know.

I think your wrong...Nickerson played in both games.


This box score from USCHO confirms that Nickerson played the second game (as he recorded an assist on their first goal).
[www.uscho.com]

Huh. I distinctly remember looking out for his number and not seeing it on that Saturday. My mistake, I guess.

Section A Banshee

redhair34

Section A Banshee

daredevilcu
I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

Nickerson didn't play in the next game (I don't remember whether or not he played Sunday). Whether that was due to injury or disqualification, I don't know.

I think your wrong...Nickerson played in both games.


This box score from USCHO confirms that Nickerson played the second game (as he recorded an assist on their first goal).
[www.uscho.com]

Huh. I distinctly remember looking out for his number and not seeing it on that Saturday. My mistake, I guess.

Nah, I distinctly remember holding a sign about him up to the glass 5 feet from where he stood in the line-up.

French Rage

Section A Banshee

redhair34

Section A Banshee

daredevilcu
I'm with you on that turning point, Ari. Didn't Varteressian get a game DQ for picking that fight, while Nickerson only got a misconduct?

Nickerson didn't play in the next game (I don't remember whether or not he played Sunday). Whether that was due to injury or disqualification, I don't know.

I think your wrong...Nickerson played in both games.


This box score from USCHO confirms that Nickerson played the second game (as he recorded an assist on their first goal).
[www.uscho.com]

Huh. I distinctly remember looking out for his number and not seeing it on that Saturday. My mistake, I guess.

Nah, I distinctly remember holding a sign about him up to the glass 5 feet from where he stood in the line-up.

And I distinctly remember his beautiful black eyes.

From an entirely non-statistical viewpoint, watching the end of the Harvard game brought back a deja vu feeling from 2004. I remember seeing a Mercyhurst tie and then a home shutout loss to RPI, both of which featured tons of Cornell chances in the closing minutes, but ultimate failures. It seems like several games this year have fit that build; Cornell plays pretty mediocre over the course of the game and finally gets it together too late.

Nickerson got a 2 and 10 I think while Varteressian got a five and the DQ and didn't play Saturday. It wasn't a huge loss not having him in the lineup seeing as he wasn't dressing regularly anyways, but the emotional lift it gave Clarkson was the most significant part and the turning point of the series as I said.

redhair34

This box score from USCHO confirms that Nickerson played the second game (as he recorded an assist on their first goal).
[www.uscho.com]

He also took 10 PIMs Saturday for a total of 20 in the series. The fight apparently only garnered him a double minor: [www.collegehockeystats.net]

Saturday I distinctly remember Nickerson playing because your entire student section chanted "It's all Nickerson's fault" after a PPG where he was in the box.

I don't think your generalization fits "several games this year." But, I wouldn't be surprised if much of the Faithful agree with you. I've had the dubious distinction of attending all but one of our losses this year and in my honest opinion, I think only the Clarkson loss and the Priceton loss (based on accounts of the faithful/radio broadcast) fit the "mold." I think the other losses (excluding the Dartmouth debacle) fit into another category: we failed to put away our opponents when we were outplaying them, and then we laid back a bit and they took advantage.

I don't think its fair to say we played mediocre over the course of the game against Harvard. If you have All Access or taped the game, watch the 1st period again. We dominated Harvard in the first period. When I watched the game on video I noticed 4 grade A scoring chances in the period--including a tap in that Mugford should have had (watch the replay its hard to fathom how he couldn't put it in) before he was pummeled to the ice. We could have and should have put away Harvard in the 1st period but we didn't.

Trotsky
OTOH, 2004 was not a terrible season by any means -- it's shadowed by the Clarkson QF elimination, but prior to that it was comparing with the '96 and '97 title seasons.

I don't think I'd make that comparison. The '96 team put it all together after that rotten game against Army (and the legendary bus ride), and after they got one more period of bad play out of their systems -- which unfortunately cost them their next game, against Colgate -- they ripped off a 14-1-1 run, culminating in the championship. The '97 squad had no such run, but despite a few "what the --" losses, they still managed to give the impression that, once the post-season started, they would own it -- which they did.

I got no such feeling from the '04 squad, and I'm sorry, but I don't get it from this year's team either. It seems like whenever the Big Red have looked like they are going to become the dominant team they were expected to be, something happens. Dartmouth crushes them. They host Union and RPI and get ONE point. They lose to Princeton. They get one point (and have to scramble like crazy for that) on the North Country trip. The major penalty against Harvard.

In fact, in terms of unrealized potential (what a god-awful phrase), this team reminds me a lot of the 90-91 squad. Back then, Cornell had 13 NHL draft picks on its roster. OK, this was pre-European-invasion, and three of the picks were in the supplemental draft, but still, this was a wildly talented Big Red team. And yet, in a not terribly strong year for the ECAC, they wound up blowing the Ivy League title, blowing the regular-season title on the final weekend, losing a horrible ECAC semifinal game, and after shocking Michigan in game 1 of a best-of-three first-round series, bowing out of the NCAA's. Will we be living through something like that again?

[vent off] Of course, I will very happily eat my words if this year's team goes on an ECAC championship tear and/or goes deep in the NCAA's.

redhair34
I don't think your generalization fits "several games this year." But, I wouldn't be surprised if much of the Faithful agree with you. I've had the dubious distinction of attending all but one of our losses this year and in my honest opinion, I think only the Clarkson loss and the Priceton loss (based on accounts of the faithful/radio broadcast) fit the "mold." I think the other losses (excluding the Dartmouth debacle) fit into another category: we failed to put away our opponents when we were outplaying them, and then we laid back a bit and they took advantage.

I don't know if I'd say the Princeton loss fits the "effort coming too late" mold. Cornell outplayed Princeton for pretty much the entire game, and if not for the fluke first goal, Cornell isn't pressing quite so hard and Princeton doesn't get the breakaway for the second goal, and the empty netter never happens.

At least, that's the way it plays out in my head.

fenwick
In fact, in terms of unrealized potential (what a god-awful phrase), this team reminds me a lot of the 90-91 squad. Back then, Cornell had 13 NHL draft picks on its roster. OK, this was pre-European-invasion, and three of the picks were in the supplemental draft, but still, this was a wildly talented Big Red team. And yet, in a not terribly strong year for the ECAC, they wound up blowing the Ivy League title, blowing the regular-season title on the final weekend, losing a horrible ECAC semifinal game, and after shocking Michigan in game 1 of a best-of-three first-round series, bowing out of the NCAA's. Will we be living through something like that again?

Ugh. The more I think about it...

That was probably the most painful season during my tenure, in terms of a season-long slide down the razor blade of "what might have been." 1987 and The Season That Didn't Happen (hint: ends in a "3" were more nausea-inspiring, and the '03 SF bow-out gets the "so close and yet..." award, but for sheer frustration, yeah, you've nailed it, 2006 has had a trace of the tin foil tang of 1991.

Still plenty of time, though. To 'er, lads!

Trotsky
the '03 SF bow-out gets the "so close and yet..." award

I can't count how many times I said the phrase "Just 2 more gaaaaaaames!" in the days following the semifinal loss in '03. That was a rough week.

Kyle

krose
I can't count how many times I said the phrase "Just 2 more gaaaaaaames!" in the days following the semifinal loss in '03.

You only get so many chances. To have THAT good a complete package, playing THAT well...

Anyway. Yes. Dammit.

krose

Trotsky
the '03 SF bow-out gets the "so close and yet..." award

I can't count how many times I said the phrase "Just 2 more gaaaaaaames!" in the days following the semifinal loss in '03. That was a rough week.

I had dinner last night with Whit Watson, in town with the Magic for a game with the Nets, and recounted my personal recollections of that game and the quarterfinal against BC. He asked, "Still bitter?"

I'll never be over Macho Grande,

Beeeej

Beeeej
I'll never be over Macho Grande,

I stayed home from work that day to watch the game. I was literally on the edge of my seat for 3 hours, and took a very long, depressed walk afterwards, muttering to myself the entire time. That is the low point of my sports-following life: easily the most personally devestating loss I've ever witnessed.

I think I hate UNH more than Harvard. Seriously.

Kyle

[q]That is the low point of my sports-following life: easily the most personally devestating loss I've ever witnessed. [/q]

At the danger of turning the thread toward "worst sports moments ever," I wanted to mention that you guys have caused me to recollect the previously-buried horror of seeing this game in 2003. It was made so much worse as I was sitting in the same section of the HSBC where I watched Brett Hull 'score' to end the 1999 NHL season. Both days I was wearing the wrong color, too. Ugh.

And it's such a young building. So many bad memories.

Let's bring up Buffalo again...yuck. UHN fans are the worst. Alcohol and I did manage to steal one of those "UHN Wildcats/Cornell Big Red" t-shirts from a bar though, assuaging some of my misery. That was almost the highlight of the weekend. I seriously almost puked at the end of the game though...the image of Steve doubled over by the bench in the waning seconds of the game is seared into my memory.

krose

Beeeej
I'll never be over Macho Grande,

I stayed home from work that day to watch the game. I was literally on the edge of my seat for 3 hours, and took a very long, depressed walk afterwards, muttering to myself the entire time. That is the low point of my sports-following life: easily the most personally devestating loss I've ever witnessed.

I think I hate UNH more than Harvard. Seriously.

Kyle

I didn't hate UNH more than Harvard before, but I sure do now. I traveled 3000 miles, mostly on a red eye to see my first Cornell game live in 17 years that day. To follow up on Greg's theme, not only was Cornell incredibly talented and playing so well, they had as close to a home ice advantage as they will ever have in a Frozen Four. I won't ever be completely over it unless we win an NC in my lifetime. I hate to blame officiating for an outcome of a game, but every time I see a deflected goal reviewed and hear the announcers invariably say "the video replay has to be conclusive to overturn the call," the memory of that day makes my blood boil all over again.

The really sad thing about the disappointing trend of this season is that the last class of that Frozen Four team will be gone after it ends.

fenwick
In fact, in terms of unrealized potential (what a god-awful phrase), this team reminds me a lot of the 90-91 squad. Back then, Cornell had 13 NHL draft picks on its roster. OK, this was pre-European-invasion, and three of the picks were in the supplemental draft, but still, this was a wildly talented Big Red team. And yet, in a not terribly strong year for the ECAC, they wound up blowing the Ivy League title, blowing the regular-season title on the final weekend, losing a horrible ECAC semifinal game, and after shocking Michigan in game 1 of a best-of-three first-round series, bowing out of the NCAA's. Will we be living through something like that again?

Ugh........don't get me started. Losing to LSSU and Colgate in the holiday tourney after a decent start, losing 5-4 to I believe then #1 BC at Lynah and watching their goalie skate around giving the crowd the finger (Ryan Hughes scored all 4), losing to Vermont and RPI the last weekend of the ECAC regular season (come on! we swept them on the road), losing 4-3 to SLU in the ECAC tourney semis in Boston after a 2-0 lead (including Dan the Man's sweetest goal ever) after just crushing Colgate at him in the quarterfinals, etc.

That team was stacked. No way you could compare this year's (79 goals in 27 games) squad to them in terms of offensive talent. Doug Derraugh went for 30 goals and a relentless worker, Ryan Hughes was the #22 pick in the '90 draft, Trent Andison was a consistent scorer, Kent Manderville was the #24 pick in the '89 draft, Dan Ratushny (#25 pick in the '89 draft) and Bruce Frauley were gifted offensively at defense (and Etienne Belzile, who didn't pan out as hoped, was also a second round pick in the '90 draft), Joe Dragon was a fast skater and decent scorer......I have to believe that the '90-'91 squad was the most offensively talented Big Red squad since '84-'85 (143 goals in 32 games).

Maybe in terms of letdowns in games they should win, but I don't think this team is as talented. Better coach, better system, definitely.

That's because he never got a punch off. I don't think Nickerson was quite ready for anyone to go after him, Varteressian kind of took him by surprise. It only lasted a few seconds, and the linesmen put an end to it.

It was more like Varteressian 5 for fighting and a Game DQ, while Nickerson got 4 for taking it.

Assuming Cornell gets through the ECACs well enough to win or merit an NCAA bid, anything can happen in four games. Including losing on opening night, or having a four-point first weekend.

There's room for hope: O'Byrne comes back healthy enough to be a factor, we hope. Moulson has a chance to play up to his potential, we hope. McKee is a great goalie and he shows it in the playoffs, we hope. A freshman-influenced team has a lot more effect in March than November, we hope.

Rather than comparing Cornell to Cornells of recent years, think about the NCAA final four teams the last couple years that weren't so highly regarded a month before the season ended. Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.

oceanst41
That's because he never got a punch off. I don't think Nickerson was quite ready for anyone to go after him, Varteressian kind of took him by surprise. It only lasted a few seconds, and the linesmen put an end to it.

It was more like Varteressian 5 for fighting and a Game DQ, while Nickerson got 4 for taking it.

I'm pretty sure both coaches and both players knew it was coming before the faceoff before it happened. I would think that Nickerson's coach told him to just take it so he wouldn't get a DQ because he was so important to their team.

Steve M
I won't ever be completely over it unless we win an NC in my lifetime. I hate to blame officiating for an outcome of a game, but every time I see a deflected goal reviewed and hear the announcers invariably say "the video replay has to be conclusive to overturn the call," the memory of that day makes my blood boil all over again.

The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

Winnabago
The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game. One look at the replay would convince anyone.

Al DeFlorio

Winnabago
The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game. One look at the replay would convince anyone.

Only trying to justify the events of that tournament to myself, obviously things could have gone better official-wise. The BC call was questionable in that a crease violation happens far more than it gets called. We were lucky that it was reversed, that video was available, that the Eaves factor wasn't considered, etc. Maybe 2 out of 5 times in NCAA competition a player entering early gets ignored?

I do wish that they were more strict (and even more importantly, consistent) about in-the-crease rules at all levels. The olympic refs seem to be always-aware, and they even have that rule that stops play, like a lane violation in baskeball. It makes them look at the puck/net more. It's not like college level, where "let em play" is one night, and "find a reason to disallow goals" is the next.

Not trying to argue about 2003, I was devestated as well.

Winnabago

Al DeFlorio

Winnabago
The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game. One look at the replay would convince anyone.

Only trying to justify the events of that tournament to myself, obviously things could have gone better official-wise. The BC call was questionable in that a crease violation happens far more than it gets called. We were lucky that it was reversed, that video was available, that the Eaves factor wasn't considered, etc. Maybe 2 out of 5 times in NCAA competition a player entering early gets ignored?

I do wish that they were more strict (and even more importantly, consistent) about in-the-crease rules at all levels. The olympic refs seem to be always-aware, and they even have that rule that stops play, like a lane violation in baskeball. It makes them look at the puck/net more. It's not like college level, where "let em play" is one night, and "find a reason to disallow goals" is the next.

Not trying to argue about 2003, I was devestated as well.

The BC game wasn't just in the crease, it was goaltender interference. Lenny was holding the post, the BC guy skated through the crease, elbowed/shouldered/otherwise bumped (unintentionally) Lenny in the head, pulling him off the post, and the shooter sent it into the net between Lenny and the post - i.e. where he had just been.

Crease may or may not have been called, but that *had* to be.

billhoward
Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.

It also has Minnesotas. They seem to take issue with Cinderellas.

Al DeFlorio

Winnabago
The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game. One look at the replay would convince anyone.

What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time. IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Bâby all over him.

jtwcornell91

Al DeFlorio

Winnabago
The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game. One look at the replay would convince anyone.

What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time. IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Bâby all over him.

Sounds about right. I remember a skate hitting it but not being ruled deliberate.

I think you are giving Nickerson too much credit

He didn't have to be baited into a fight, he would go at any time. If that fight never happened Nickerson would've gone on until he seriously hurt someone - Cornell had to step up and let him know they weren't about to sit back and take it.

He was either totally focused on the crowd or his next cheap shot, it a wonder he ever got any points.

billhoward
Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.

I guess it depends on how you define "Cinderellas". For instance, last year, North Dakota was surely a surprise to the outsider watching only the tournament games (there were a 3 seed if memory serves). However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential. The talent was there, and things finally clicked (for them it was the freshmen Spirko-Zajac line and defensemen like Matt Smabby finally finding their role/game). So while ranking-wise they were a "Cinderella" after seeing the Final Five at the Xcel Center I pretty much expected them to make it (not to sound like a know-it-all). Of course, the talent may be there for Cornell to do a similar thing, but remember NoDak lost when they played a better team (which Minnesota definitely is this year).

jtwcornell91
What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time. IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Bâby all over him.

Agree. But I think it was Mark McRae, not Bâby, that was taking him out.

What really torqued Schafer was that the ref didn't call the play at all, and just let the guys with the video make the decision. The BC guy may not have been able to see the puck, but he sure made a deliberate movement with his feet toward the goal.

And I'll say once again: There was nothing "questionable" about the disallowed BC goal in the third period.

[q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small. A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title. You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.

KeithK
[q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small. A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title. You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.

Wait a second, though. If I'm not mistaken, haven't you said in the past that you'd like to see the NCAA tournament only include teams that win their conferences? Isn't that pretty much the ultimate way to heavily weight strong performance late in the season?

jmh30

KeithK
[q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small. A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title. You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.

Wait a second, though. If I'm not mistaken, haven't you said in the past that you'd like to see the NCAA tournament only include teams that win their conferences? Isn't that pretty much the ultimate way to heavily weight strong performance late in the season?

Well, if I were starting college hockey from scratch I'd get rid of league tournaments (you don't need 'em with balanced schedules) and send just the league RS winner to the NCAAs. So I'm only inconsistent insofar as the current system forces me to be.

KeithK
Well, if I were starting college hockey from scratch I'd get rid of league tournaments (you don't need 'em with balanced schedules) and send just the league RS winner to the NCAAs. So I'm only inconsistent insofar as the current system forces me to be.

The ECAC has a balanced schedule, but it isn't clear to me that all of the other "big four" conferences do--particularly if you differentiate between playing a team "at home" or "on the road."

ajec1

billhoward
Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.

I guess it depends on how you define "Cinderellas". For instance, last year, North Dakota was surely a surprise to the outsider watching only the tournament games (there were a 3 seed if memory serves). However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential. The talent was there, and things finally clicked (for them it was the freshmen Spirko-Zajac line and defensemen like Matt Smabby finally finding their role/game). So while ranking-wise they were a "Cinderella" after seeing the Final Five at the Xcel Center I pretty much expected them to make it (not to sound like a know-it-all). Of course, the talent may be there for Cornell to do a similar thing, but remember NoDak lost when they played a better team (which Minnesota definitely is this year).

The tournament should be big enough that Cinderalla can get in and be good enough to make the final or frozen four. Eight teams is not enough for the outlier with late-season talent, 12 is probably right, and 16 may be a little too big for a 60-team sport, but it makes sense to have a 2^4 number of teams for two weekends of action.

In hoops, it's good to root for the newest team that makes the dance and hope Cinderalla knocks off one or two old-line powers, or for the team that snubs the NCAA where possible (U Hawaii for wearing rainbow color shirts until the NCAA put an end to free expresson), or else the academically superior team (Cal, Duke grudgingly). I'd love Gonzaga in the final four. As a little kid I thought it was cool that UTEP started five blacks against Kentucky (and won!) and now it's sort of cool that 40 years later Montana (?) starts five minorities. That Bucknell or Vermont that scores a first round upset improves the tournament ... so long as you're not the first-round upsettee.

It would have been a nice twofer in 1973 if Syracuse and Cornell won the NCAAs. Syracuse did its part.

Al DeFlorio

KeithK
Well, if I were starting college hockey from scratch I'd get rid of league tournaments (you don't need 'em with balanced schedules) and send just the league RS winner to the NCAAs. So I'm only inconsistent insofar as the current system forces me to be.

The ECAC has a balanced schedule, but it isn't clear to me that all of the other "big four" conferences do--particularly if you differentiate between playing a team "at home" or "on the road."

The other conferences don't have a balanced schedule. The CCHA and WCHA have an unbalanced number of games - some teams you play twice and some four times per year. HE has three games per team, but that leaves the home/road problem. (I don't really know about AH and the CHA.)

But if I get to start college hockey from scratch then I get to insist on truly balanced schedules!

[q]The tournament should be big enough that Cinderalla can get in and be good enough to make the final or frozen four. [/q]By this logic, the squeakball tournament is way too big. To be honest it probably is. It's definitely one too many - the 64-65 playin game thing is ridiculous.

billhoward
It would have been a nice twofer in 1973 if Syracuse and Cornell won the NCAAs. Syracuse did its part.

Also in 2003, but we've already been down Sadism Boulevard in this thread.

KeithK
[q]The tournament should be big enough that Cinderalla can get in and be good enough to make the final or frozen four. [/q]By this logic, the squeakball tournament is way too big. To be honest it probably is. It's definitely one too many - the 64-65 playin game thing is ridiculous.

I don't see what's wrong in giving teams, in the words of Amarillo Slim, "A chip, a chair and a chance."

ajec1

KeithK
[q]The tournament should be big enough that Cinderalla can get in and be good enough to make the final or frozen four. [/q]By this logic, the squeakball tournament is way too big. To be honest it probably is. It's definitely one too many - the 64-65 playin game thing is ridiculous.

I don't see what's wrong in giving teams, in the words of Amarillo Slim, "A chip, a chair and a chance."

To clarify, I don't mind the #65 team getting in. that slot was added when a new conference qualified for an auto-bid. But they should have taken away one of the at large bids at the same time to keep it a 64 team tournament.

KeithK
(I don't really know about AH and the CHA.)

AH will be anything but balanced with the addition of Air Force next year - which, I remember correctly, will lead to a situation in which each team only plays them every other year (other than Army).

And due to the same move, it still looks like the CHA may be a non-factor.

Winnabago

Steve M
I won't ever be completely over it unless we win an NC in my lifetime. I hate to blame officiating for an outcome of a game, but every time I see a deflected goal reviewed and hear the announcers invariably say "the video replay has to be conclusive to overturn the call," the memory of that day makes my blood boil all over again.

The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

The in-the-crease call on BC wasn't at all questionable. Lenny would have stopped the shot easily had he not been interfered with.

Agree with you on the 2nd point. The delay was pathetic.

I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I rememember Minnesota being SCARY good that year. I think they proved that they were the best team in the country.

But yeah, of course I wish Cornell could have beaten New Hampshire and gotten their shot at Minnesota and a chance to prove that THEY were the best. Ugh...that disallowed goal...

djk26
I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I rememember Minnesota being SCARY good that year. I think they proved that they were the best team in the country.

But yeah, of course I wish Cornell could have beaten New Hampshire and gotten their shot at Minnesota and a chance to prove that THEY were the best. Ugh...that disallowed goal...

Yeah, the Vanek-lead Gophers were quite deserving that year, but it will always be a what-if year for our boys. What if Dougie had hit the net on just ONE out of those ten blue line cannons, what if Lenny had covered the top corner just a little better on their third (or was it second?) PP goal, and of course - what if Ayers' mask didn't get in the way in the winding seconds? Does this wreck with anyone else's sleep?