Cornell vs. Clarkson, game 1 postgame

Go to it!

Headline:

Cornell wins 5-3 in Sudden Death Overtime

Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.

Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.

Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.

Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.

Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?

... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.

Woo!

Hats off to Clarkson for taking it to 2 OTs. They stretched everything they had and survived the wave-offs. It seemed like they were a little more gassed than Cornell in the OTs. Not only did they play well, but this was the cleanest CU-CCT game I can remember in recent years.

No way the refs could've made that call correctly on Moulson's goal at the end of the first OT. When you have 3 things to look at, (puck, green light, red light) it's a tough call. Teet's reactions aren't 0.1 seconds fast and the green light was on before the red light despite the puck in the net. That happens. Great shot by Moulson, and I'm glad we got the frame-by-frame treatment on the CSTV webcast. Great job!

RichH
this was the cleanest CU-CCT game I can remember in recent years.

I noticed that too. It was nice to see. Hope it continues.

billhoward
Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.

Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.

Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.

Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.

Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?

... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.

Bill, nice analysis but would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well and earned the honor?

FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part. Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?

So how hard would it be to make the goal light lockout after the buzzer goes off? It wouldn'ty prove that a goal didn't go in in time but it would prove that it did (except for the unlikely event that the goal judge lit it up too early).

They can do it on Jeopardy, why not in hockey?. Maybe I can make a donation to endow the new goal light system.

Of course, downward pointing video or puck-past-the-goal-line sensors couldn't be that far off either.

I'll take Buzzer Shots for $200 Alex.

That shit was absolutely unbelievable. I'm sorry to swear but it just was fucking unbelievable. I figure that the series should be over because Cornell won twice tonight. Cornell dominated this game. Lack of leadership showed in the third period. Pokuluk assisted on two of their goals. Clarkson had one scoring chance in the two overtimes and it came in the first minute of the first one. Cornell absolutely dominated both overtimes and obviously deserved to win this game 1000 times over. There was no question that that was a goal. No question whatsoever, but ya know what, they stuck with it and won. There were a couple shifts in that second ot where it seemed like Clarkson was taking the momentum but man that third line was absolutely amazing. Scott better be on the top line for the rest of the year because with him on it, they actually looked like a top line. Scott was unbelievable as was Mugford. Gleed and Krantz were outstanding on the blueline. Clarkson had seven scoring chances the whole game and scored on three of them.
3 Stars:
1. Scott
2. Gleed
3. Mugford

Rich S

FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part.

Definitely agree. Leggio didn't stand on his head, but he was very solid and just made the plays on each Cornell rush that he had to make. As the game wore on, I was getting that "can we just solve him one more time?" feeling. They did before fatigue became too much of an issue.

McKee was very solid in the 2nd period. I was back to being confident with his play. Couldn't really see if the 3rd period goals were shaky on his part.

Rich S

billhoward
Yet another game where Cornell lots of things right, puts up a huge number of shots, and doesn't have a walkaway victory to show for it. And yet another game that's solid on defense except for a little lapse here and another one there.

Good to see the three musketeers of defense back and skating. A two-OT game can't be good for the stamina of guys with limited practice time. Plus more ice time equals more change to reinjure yourself.

Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies.

Good to see scoring deep in the ranks, not just the main line.

Time to play the how-many-goals-was-David-McKee-responsble-for contest? Or was he hung out to dry on two of them? three?

... see, it was just like Minnesota last year. Wear them down with your four lines and eventually you'll beat them in OT, if they don't get to you first.

Bill, nice analysis but would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well and earned the honor?

FYI, Leggio has played very well down the stretch. Tonight was no fluke on his part. Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?

What is wrong with you? Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson. Seriously, what is your psychological malfunction?

Great game by both teams tonight. The better team won. Hopefully we'll see a repeat tomorrow.

Roy 82
Headline:

Cornell wins 5-3 in Sudden Death Overtime

6-3 you mean?

And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.

Leggio really impressed me with his composure. The guy is like not even human. Kind of reminds of Kiprusoff in that he is so mentally tough in there and absolutely never loses his composure.
Didn't think McKee could do much about any of the goals.

On the second clarkson goal Mckee had no chance.

Highly respectful? Where?

He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.

Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it.

I have a few things to do so you have 15 mins or so to dig up the "highly respectful" stuff.

Enjoy.

Omie
And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.

I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal. The first one was definitely Pokuluk's fault as he didn't skate backwards and just kept going forwards with his man, allowing him to get the first shot off. That pairing in general struggled, but I was surprised to see them get so much ice time. Krantz and Gleed were both really really good.

Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.

Kyle

To set the record straight:

We watched the Moulson shot on two cameras on slow motion (I run one of them). On my camera, it SEEMED as though his shot did not clear the line before 0.0.

However, on the webcast shot, we ran it frame by frame. Moulson took the shot at 0.4, and at 0.1 it was over Leggio's left shoulder and past the line. Should've been the game winner right there. -- but so tough to see as a ref.

Hey, we won so it's all good. Hats off to both goalies.

And WOW, Glover's goal was awesome.

krose
Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.

Kyle

Offering a different opinion from the one shared by all th ecornell posters here makes me confrontational? You're being a tad close-minded.

Trustnduzt
To set the record straight:

We watched the Moulson shot on two cameras on slow motion (I run one of them). On my camera, it SEEMED as though his shot did not clear the line before 0.0.

However, on the webcast shot, we ran it frame by frame. Moulson took the shot at 0.4, and at 0.1 it was over Leggio's left shoulder and past the line. Should've been the game winner right there. -- but so tough to see as a ref.

Hey, we won so it's all good. Hats off to both goalies.

And WOW, Glover's goal was awesome.

Make sure to check the video suggestions thread

You are a Clarkson fan on a Cornell message board. Deal with it.

krose
Rich, I've defended you several times over the past few months, but you really are approaching "Troll" status for me. Good lord, please stop being so confrontational.

He's comic relief. For God's sake, don't discourage him.

Done, Tuba. Sorry about that....

Trustnduzt
Done, Tuba. Sorry about that....

No prob, thanks for listening to our whining.

Hey, that's what I'm here for.

For God's sake, you need to mature a bit.

I understood that both Pokuluk and O'byrne led to the second goal, mostly O'byrne. But then again I could be wrong.

O'Byrne had the TO on the second goal. Pokulok just missed the puck on the first when he was trying make follow the screen from his teammate.

calgARI '07

Omie
And O'Byrne was horrible leading to two Clarkson goals. Maybe he should heal a bit more.

I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal. The first one was definitely Pokuluk's fault as he didn't skate backwards and just kept going forwards with his man, allowing him to get the first shot off. That pairing in general struggled, but I was surprised to see them get so much ice time. Krantz and Gleed were both really really good.

I thought it was OB on that second one. It looked like he tried to split the two wingers on the point and got stripped of the puck.

The "We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies" comment from Bill can be seen as a backhanded slap, but it is true. I can't remember seeing any amazing saves from Leggio like the one from McKee when he was on his stomach and just tipped the Dodge effort wide and then covered up the wide angle rebound attempt. Sure, you can say "positioning" but we had a bunch of empty net opps when Leggio was clearly beaten and out of position. Don't get me wrong, Leggio stood in tough and stay focused but we're not exactly hitting corners with our shots.

Honestly, I wasn't sure whether or not it was a goal live. I thought it was probably too close to call without replay. And I am a Big Red fan, but I don't know if Hansen could end the game on something that close. I don't have a problem with the call (especially now that they won). Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.

Also, I'd like to give Hansen a thumbs up for the job he did in OT by not calling any penalties. There were a few close plays that could have been called, but I like letting the players play and not having the game end on special teams.

Rich S

Offering a different opinion from the one shared by all th ecornell posters here makes me confrontational? You're being a tad close-minded.

First: ALL the Cornell posters? I suggest you re-read the thread.

Second: having a different opinion isn't confrontational. Saying things like "Or can't you see that?" and "Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it." is being confrontational.

[Q]He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.[/Q]
Some fans like to analyze what their team did right and wrong after games. There is no mandate that people must do the same to the other team.

I suggest you get over it and enjoy this thread, as it offers the most glowing praise of the Clarkson team on this board in a while, rather than looking for every nit that might be interpreted as an insult that you have to defend.

Rich S
For God's sake, you need to mature a bit.

No, Rich: you need to stop being a sociopath. I know where from I am talking, because I am a pretty confrontational guy in person... but at least my brain has the wiring to tell me when enough is enough.

Kyle

Rich, I don't take it as an insult at all.

As for "all" the fans, thanks, you're right. I see that a number of cornell fans here and on the other thread had no difficulty acknowleding the efforts of the opponent. Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

I say again...that's poor sportsmanship.

In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.

As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?

Oh right...you only are supposed to look at your side. I forgot that...silly me.

Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. Please, get over yourself on that idea.

Rich S
Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.

action jackson
Either way, our fans were out of line throwing crap on the ice...it's a bad habit that has to stop. We don't want to be that kind of crowd.

Hear, hear. That shit has got to stop.

<sarcasm>he's just saying you have been able to gather a large amount of wealth. which your cornell education has made significantly easier than those with a non-cornell education</sarcasm>

would throwing the people who throw stuff on the ice be acceptable? or would throwing them into the clarkson locker room be a better idea?

Rich S
Rich, I don't take it as an insult at all.

As for "all" the fans, thanks, you're right. I see that a number of cornell fans here and on the other thread had no difficulty acknowleding the efforts of the opponent. Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

I say again...that's poor sportsmanship.

In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.

As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?

Oh right...you only are supposed to look at your side. I forgot that...silly me.

Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. Please, get over yourself on that idea.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

The first line (Carefoot, Bitz, Moulson) and the first defensive pairing (OB, Pokulok) were absolutely brutal. Pokulok seemed like he was playing in peewee hockey. He couldn't stop, couldn't skate backwards, couldn't pass, couldn't hit, couldn't do anything. I believe that all 5 of those guys were -3 for the night. I was nervous everytime Clarkson was in the offensive zone when those guys were on the ice. The rest of our line combinations were awesome. But, I agree with Ari, leave Scott on that first line.

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but has Carefoot's PK time decreased dramatically. If so, why? He was our best PKer at the beginning of this season and amazing last year.

Trotsky

Rich S
Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.

Oh snap! It's on!

Rich, the series isn't over--Game two is tomorrow! I hope the Clarkson empty gas tank from the OTs carries over to the second game! Let's go Red!

Greg, you're still not allowed to start the game thread tomorrow!

It's Friday night! Peace.

[Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.

Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]

Guess who said those?

Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.

Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.

Either one...as long as they get the ass kicking they deserve. They're not real Cornell fans and those are the kids who shouldn't be getting tickets next year.

RichH
When you have 3 things to look at, (puck, green light, red light) it's a tough call. Teet's reactions aren't 0.1 seconds fast and the green light was on before the red light despite the puck in the net. That happens.

With the help of a friend, you can test your reaction time. Find a ruler marked in centimeters. Sit at a table with your forearm resting on the table and your dominent hand and wrist extending over the edge. Have your friend hold the ruler by the 30 cm end with the 0 mark between your thumb and forefinger, but not touching either. The friend then releases the ruler without warning. When you see the ruler start to move, squeeze your fingers together to catch it. Where you catch it is a good measure of your reaction time. (You rest your arm on the table to prevent to instinctive motion downward that increases your chance of catching it but distorts the measured distance that the ruler falls.)

d (cm)   t (sec)
 5        0.101
10        0.143
15        0.175
20        0.202
25        0.226
30        0.247

It's a fun parlor game. Try it under different conditions - different levels of distraction, physical condition, ...
If you lock out the red light when the green light goes on, you should build in some reaction time for the goal judge.
A finer grained version of the table: [tdserver1.fnal.gov]

Rich S
In analyzing what your team did right and what they did wrong, you're missing the boat if you don't consider what things the other team did to cause you do do things wrong. As a coach as well as a sports writer, I've learned to see both sides.

Well, that's dandy that you're not missing the boat and getting everything you can out of your sports experience, but that's not the way the large majority of passionate sports fans work...all teams, all sports, all levels (well, maybe not curling). I lived in Blacksburg, VA last year and listened to many Hokie fans breaking down football games by only talking about their guys. People tend to talk about what they *know*. They *know* their own players and what they do week-in, week-out. Many don't have the time nor the inclination to analyze the opponent's performance, unless it is outstanding. I'm now in CT and many Huskie fans were beside themselves wondering what they did wrong vs. Syracuse. It seemed that only the Courant had MacNamara as the big story.

So maybe all those people are being poor sportsmen by not discussing opponents at length. I don't see it that way. But you know what? Oh well.

[Q]As for my comments you called confrontational, you might look at the sarcasm he directed at me..."psychological malfunction?" That's not confrontational by your definition?[/Q]
I'm not talking about others. I'm talking about you. You asked what made you confrontational, and I told you.

[Q]Oh that's a hoot about my enjoying this thread because it's "glowing praise of Clarkson." Like I need to hear that here. [/Q]
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that that's what you criticized bill for. I apologize for being wrong.

Please, get over yourself on that idea.

Good ol' deflecting my own phrase back on me. You do that a lot. I don't get into "I know you are, but what am I?" fights like you do, so I'll ask you this: What did you think of the game? You've talked about your coaching experience a lot, and you obviously know a lot about hockey. Yet you never talk about the games. You spend most of your posts here getting into fights and swapping insults with people about how biased we all are as Cornell fans. So I'll ask you directly: What are your honest thoughts on tonight's game? This is a post-game thread that is generally used for that end. Instead of yelling at us for not including anything about Clarkson, how about some education about the Knights and if they performed well tonight like I postulated? I admittedly don't know as much about their current roster as you do.

So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.

Sociopath? ROTFL.

You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.

Being outnumbered has never bothered me. I'm a goalie, I can stand the heat, thanks.

jtwcornell91
So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.

Yeah, it does. I meant to respond to that, but I forgot

Rich S
\You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.

Y'know, I'd think after spending as much time as you do on this forum you would understand Greg better than you apparently do.

Rich S

You should share that wiring with Trotsky etal who feel compelled to hurl crap at me for daring to participate in this forum and offer a different view.

What different view? You say you have one, but you never let us know what view that is. Other than "You're all biased."

What did you think of the game?

jtwcornell91
So, I'm confused. My understanding is that when the clock reaches 0:00.0 the green light goes on and the red light is indeed locked out.

That's correct. The point is that when a goal is scored with only 0.1 seconds left, normal human reflexes of the goal judge prevent the goal from being scored before the green light.

Shucks John, I didn't know that "Trotzky" is Greg's new name. The guy has so many identities, I can't keep up.

I'm not as gifted when it comes to psychoanalysis as he is.

Rich S
Shucks John, I didn't know that "Trotzky" is Greg's new name. The guy has so many identities, I can't keep up.

I'm not as gifted when it comes to psychoanalysis as he is.

But what did you think of the game?

Rich S
Highly respectful? Where?

He gave Leggio a backhanded compliment and that's all. No other mention of Tech at all.

Don't play shrink Trots...you're not good at it.

I have a few things to do so you have 15 mins or so to dig up the "highly respectful" stuff.

Enjoy.

Rich, I've also tried to come to your defense when we over play our criticism of you. But, I agree this time you really had to look hard and find something to complain about. I mean, do you consider "Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. " a backhanded compliment?

As far as his next statement about us making a lot of goalies the goalie of the week, you are on this board often enough to know that we have serious concerns about our teams ability to finish off the plays.

So my only conclusion is that you were trying to pick a fight and I'm glad that we didn't take the bait. Seriously, tomorrow in the light of day look at Bill's post again and see if you come to the same conclusion. I have the luck, good or bad, of not being able to post till at least an hour after the game ends, as it takes me that long to get home, sometimes that lag period adds some clarity to ones thought, try it and see.

No disrespect intended to David Leggio. He played a great game.

My perspective, maybe or maybe not shared by others, is that averages say that in the ECAC odds 1 of the 11 best performances by the Clarkson goalie or the Union goalie or the RPI goalie or the Princeton goalie or the Darmouth goalie (or the combination of goaltender and defense) would come against Cornell, 1 would come against Harvard, 1 against Dartmouth, etcetera. Some fate has it that Cornell saw more than 1/11 of the best goaltending performances this ECAC season, and I'd attribute it to the opponent getting extra-psyched for Cornell, and to our ability to put up a lot of shots that someone don't light the lamp.

with UMD defeating Denver we just went up to 5t with MSU on PWR (using 3-2-1 bonus). If we defeat Clarkson tomorrow and they drop off TUC will that hurt us much?

Rk Team             PWR Rec  W-L-T    Win % Rk RPI 
1 Minnesota          31 1   26-6-5    .7703 1  .5859* 
2 Wisconsin          30 3   24-9-3    .7083 2  .5793* 
3t Miami             28 2   24-7-4    .7429 3  .5635* 
3t Boston University 28 7   22-9-4    .6857 4  .5594 
5t Michigan State    26 12t 20-11-8   .6154 5  .5567 
5t Cornell           26 6   18-7-4    .6897 9  .5464 
7 Harvard            23 15t 17-11-2   .6000 10 .5461 

DeltaOne81
[Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.

Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]

Guess who said those?

Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.

Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.

"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."


The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."

Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.

I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.

Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.

If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.

Rich S
Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.

If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.

OK, but what did you think of the game?

RichS,

What did Clarkson do well besides Leggio having 50 saves? The second Clarkson goal was clearly a misstep by two Cornell defensemen. So we are all waiting to hear what Clarkson did so exceptionally well that we should recognize, besides those 50 saves by Leggio that we said were awesome and are due to a combination of his goaltending skills AND the fact that Cornell shoots a lot but doesn't come through with the goal.

A little off-topic here...I was delighted to see the bear mascots on the ice. Does anyone know why they have not been out there this year?

So what did you think of the game, Rich? What is your take? With us asking it 10 times now, if you're not answering, its on purpose.

Omie
RichS,

What did Clarkson do well besides Leggio having 50 saves? The second Clarkson goal was clearly a misstep by two Cornell defensemen. So we are all waiting to hear what Clarkson did so exceptionally well that we should recognize, besides those 50 saves by Leggio that we said were awesome and are due to a combination of his goaltending skills AND the fact that Cornell shoots a lot but doesn't come through with the goal.

That's a good question, Omie. Although that's a few more words than I would've used...

Hang on. I'm busy helping Greg with the hunt for Bill's praise of Clarkson.

Really, give me a few minutes and I'll respond, I've got a few things on my plate right now.

Don't tell me that you're waiting this long to hear my opinion!

Rich S

DeltaOne81
[Q]Bill's review was highly respectful of Clarkson.

Great game by both teams tonight.[/Q]

Guess who said those?

Seriously, you can't come on here expecting out and out praise of Clarkson. Just like there's never going to be out-and-out praise of Cornell on the roundtable. At least not until we're all on the same team in the NCAAs.

Please change your standards for behavior to what you would hold you and your fellow Clarkson fans to in reverse on your board. Or just don't come here.

"Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves. We make ECAC goalie of the week out of a lot of goalies."


The above was the only comment in Bill's review that I commented on. Hardly "highly respectful."

Greg made the other statement, right? Or was it John. Fine.

I don't expect out and out praise for the opponent here or on any forum. But to not recognize the oponent's efforts in a game that went to 2 OTs is taking a very narrow view. The implication is that cornell had to go to 2 OTs only because of their own occasional poor play. That's silly.

Please don't lecture me about my behavior here. Clean up your own house first. When inaccurate or narrow-minded statements are made, I'll call you on it. If you want to throw stones at me, be prepared to catch a few coming back.

If you want to whine about that, then you're dishing it out but are unable to take it as I have said before.

For someone who wasn't at the game, and didn't even see the video, you're being a tad cocky. You must have run up quite a tab with Ms. Cleo to get this stunning perspective. Not trying to be a troll but seriously... you weren't there and didn't watch the video feed so please try and believe those of us who were there.

I was right there for four out of seven goals tonight (yay for section G) I'll say that Clarkson played a good game and capitalized on our two big mistakes. By the second part of the first OT, however, they were mainly icing the puck every chance they got and didn't really have many chances. Lots of cross ice feeds to a mystery 6th skater who was invisible to the rest of us (when they actually managed to get something set up) but not many "ohshitohshit" moments.

Trotsky

Rich S
Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.

Whatever made your psychoanalytic mind think of that?

You may have me confused with an inbred "Chicken counting" major classmate of yours.

Rich S

Trotsky

Rich S
Something that Trotzky can't bring himself to do.

Are you coming on to me, Rich? I don't recall us being related.

Whatever made your psychoanalytic mind think of that?

You may have me confused with an inbred "Chicken counting" major classmate of yours.

I'm glad that's what was on your plate, rather than talking hockey.

What did you think of the game?

Just got back from a fund raiser, see you boys pulled out the first one. Too late for me to read all the threads, sysnopsis for me is always shots on goal, 50ish-30ish it appears you carried the game. if so, nicely done. 2ot's say my boys hung tough.
Ok, so tomorrow, time permitting, I will try ruloffs for a pregame beer and burger, after the game the chapter house for post game festivites ....and as delta was kind enough to provide the menu for the hot truck, will be there afer hours for sure. Appreciate everyone's tips on my first trip....see ya up there!

BTW I will be ready to stick it to you bastards tomorrow!

Cheers!
Drew

Rich, if you're still up, would you remember to put out the cat and turn off the lights? I've got an early start for Ithaca. Hope you can make it. If you decide to drive up Sunday, the rink might be dark.

shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game

Drew
Just got back from a fund raiser, see you boys pulled out the first one. Too late for me to read all the threads, sysnopsis for me is always shots on goal, 50ish-30ish it appears you carried the game. if so, nicely done. 2ot's say my boys hung tough.
Ok, so tomorrow, time permitting, I will try ruloffs for a pregame beer and burger, after the game the chapter house for post game festivites ....and as delta was kind enough to provide the menu for the hot truck, will be there afer hours for sure. Appreciate everyone's tips on my first trip....see ya up there!

BTW I will be ready to stick it to you bastards tomorrow!

Cheers!
Drew

Rich(S) - see? This is how it's done. Drew calls us bastards to our face, and only makes me want to buy him a beer all the more (keep dreaming - I'm in LA ), while even your sincere compliments (and I think I have read a few from you over the years) just piss me off.

You are truly a twisted human being. I really hope your life is not as empty as you make it appear here.

We have a dog, no cats allowed here.

Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04?

Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.

Rich S
We have a dog, no cats allowed here.

Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04?

Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.

Excellent. What did you think of the game?

Robb,

Hey we all have different personalities and styles, what else can I say. Drew's works for him and that's cool.

Chalk mine up to having been a "Billy Smith type" of goalie I guess...loved to battle!

If you're in LA, I'd say you're the "twisted" one. I traveled out there a lot on biz back in the 90s and met and worked with plenty of entertainment industry types. 'nuff said.

Ok "bastard"....where's my beer? I'm due for a West Coast trip.

Rich S
Robb,

Hey we all have different personalities and styles, what else can I say. Drew's works for him and that's cool.

Chalk mine up to having been a "Billy Smith type" of goalie I guess...loved to battle!

If you're in LA, I'd say you're the "twisted" one. I traveled out there a lot on biz back in the 90s and met and worked with plenty of entertainment industry types. 'nuff said.

Ok "bastard"....where's my beer? I'm due for a West Coast trip.

hahaha!! What did you think of the game?

nr53
shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game

Nope.

a) I'm a writer and I dont believe in plagarizing.

b) not that devious.

Rich S

nr53
shh don't rush him, he's waiting for the recap to be posted on uscho so he can find out what actually happened at the game

Nope.

a) I'm a writer and I dont believe in plagarizing.

b) not that devious.

Touche, nr53. What did you think of the game, Rich?

(waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)

redhair34
(waiting to hear what Rich thought of the game...)

or maybe more like

That's officially my favorite post tonight.

just to help out

[cornellbigred.collegesports.com]

I really haven't chimed in on the RichS issue, aside from one brief comment that earned me a "grow up" comment from Rich. But it's just getting ridiculous when we have these threads that are so ensnared by this bickering that it's difficult to sift out the actual hockey chatter. Simply put, this is the Cornell hockey fan forum. We have no obligation to give credit to opponents, portray both sides of an issue, or be gracious winners. Many of us choose to give small compliments to worthy opponents, but we are by no means required to write objectively. Opposing fans are certainly welcome to come and give insight about opponents or about their take on the game. But I don't see where any opposing fan has a right to instigate posting wars. Read what you want, post what you want, and think what you want, but we don't always have to say what you want.

Jim,

Thanks for your comments, thoughtful as always. It's so much easier to read them and to try to respond in kind as opposed to reading the sarcastic and mean-spirited junk that is the stock in trade of many of your colleagues.

The backhanded compliment comment pertained to his statement that cornell made him look like the GOTW. I'm confident that I know what I'm talking about re: goalies, having played the position and now coached quite a few for a number of years.

No goalie makes 50 saves without deserving a lot of credit. Cornell may have trouble finishing but even the odds say you should get a few on that many shots. Or that the goalie will allow a softie facing that many. Am I mistaken or did Leggio not allow any soft goals? Didn't he keep his team within striking distance allowing them to come back to tie? Did he not keep it tied in th eOT when cornell outshot Clarkson handily? Ok, I'm guilty of perhaps applying a writer's standard to the comments of a partisan fan. I can handle the criticism.

No, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. It's about discussing hockey. It seems easy for you guys to conclude that when you read a dissenting opinion. Me thinks it's often some of you that are ready to leap at any comment that takes a more balanced view.

I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great. But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"

Mull it over. Thanks.

calgARI '07
I could be wrong but wasn't Pokuluk the one that got stripped of the puck (reminiscent of Jason Dailey's OT giveaway against Yale that one year) that led to the second Clarkson goal.

The only Jason Dailey OT giveaway against Yale that I know of wasn't a stripping at all; he quite literally passed the puck from behind the Cornell net directly to a Yale player in front of it, who scored easily as a result. Nothing like any of tonight's goals, IMHO.

Beeeej

Not until I get my beer. Heck I didnt even eat dinner all night!

Help me out here Rich...who asked first and who asked that question more times since this lunacy started? You or was it Bill?

Rich S
We have a dog, no cats allowed here.

Can't make it Sunday in any case. Aren't you being a bit smug with the "dark rink" comment? No lessson learned from '04?

Uh oh...Now I've done it again...here comes the wrath of the almighty ones.

Good. You got the hidden meaning, and in just a couple minutes. You're a natural to try the Wonderlic. Pat McInally, watch your backside.

The lesson from 2004 is beat your opponent on the ice, keep your gloves on, don't play down to an oponent's level, and don't give your opponent a psychological edge by winning a battle while neglecting the war. But in all deference to Clarkson -- I'm serious here -- what pixellated images came across to my TV seemed to indicate this was nothing like the 2004 street brawl and its attendant hard feelings.

Clarkson is not No. 12 Brown, but Adam D'Alba's goaltending exploits against St. Lawrence were also amazing, maybe even more so than Legg-- wait, I won't go there -- but it seemed like the best Leggio could do would be to get lucky once. Question is, did David Leggio have his one lucky and good night Friday, has he got more of the same in him Saturday, or will he be just good and not lucky?

Not many nights a team loses in overtime 5-3.

is that what you're doing while you're waiting?

Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.

But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars. The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off. So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks. If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back. Fair enough?

You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.

But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.

But, Rich, seriously. You attacked Bill right out of the gate and insulted him for his opinion. No one attacked you. Bill just didn't compliment Clarkson enough and you insulted him.

It wasn't you disagreeing with the opinion, it was you insulting Bill harshly for his opinion.

Rich S
Sure, you dont have to say what vistors want to hear.

But you're wrong to charge vistors with instigating posting wars. The war starts when one or more of you let a dissenting opinion tick you off. So you respond with vitriol or trashing my opinion along with snarky remarks. If you throw trash at me, I'll often fire back. Fair enough?

You don't have to be a supremely gracious host; that's certainly not my expectation.

But I'd expect that you'd respond with more civility and less arrogance and at least acknowledge that someoen else's view has some validity, as least some of the time.

...

Rich S
I've read Bill's comments over already and the comments about the 4th line, the injured D-men returning, etc are great. But not even a throw away "Clarkson really hung in there?"

I personally took "Leggio deserves credit for making 50 saves" to mean that Bill was impressed with Leggio, despite what he said next. You apparently didn't. Maybe it's because I was there, and also feel Leggio deserves credit. Frankly I think we had a lot more decent chances than usual tonight, rather than hitting Leggio in the chest constantly as we've done much of the season (and as Clarkson did to McKee for most of their shots tonight, aside from the ones we coughed up to them). Ergo, Leggio good. You read it a different way, fine.

But to criticize an analysis of the game (that, mind you, wasn't written for publication) because in your opinion it does an improper job of praising everything the defeated team did right is really kind of petty, I think, and it's an absurd expectation. As much as you know about hockey, 98% of your "contribution" to this board seems to be criticism of the way other people behave on it, while for some reason you are incapable of seeing that your own behavior often leaves a lot to be desired.

Best of luck tomorrow night. If you wish, come find me in Section C. I'll be the one with too many pins on his sweatshirt.

Beeeej

really Rich S, all you have to do is say "I wasn't there, I really don't know enough to have a straight opinion on the game". Don't worry, it won't hurt that badly in fact its actually good to have that ego balloon popped every once in a while (my grades ensure mine is never close to full so I can attest to this ). If you can't formulate an answer to "what did you think about the game" 3+ hours after it ended, just toss in that towel and leave it at that.

But you don't have a view except that we don't share yours, if you at least express your view/opinion of the game then we'd be alright but you just say "you are wrong" without backing it up.

"Attacked"? "Insulted harshly"?

Those are overstatements for sure on your part.

I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game. But again, I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.

What if Clarkson, despite having been so severely outshot, won on a great individual effort on one of their few shots in OT?

Or on a fluke goal that a cornell D man kicked past McKee in OT ?
Would that have altered the tenor off his comments? I wonder if he'd have said in effect, "We dominated them, we had goals waved off, they got lucky."

One team dominated. A key player kept the other team close. Mistakes and opportunism tied the game. Better team could have lost. Better team won.

Beeej,

Thanks.

Your math leaves something to be desired. A big % of my posting is in responding (defending?) to inane, tasteless, and often inaccurate comments directed towards me and the Clarkson team and program. You guys critize me incessantly and that must be acceptable to you.

But if I do the same, it ticks you guys off. That's odd.

I neither expected nor asked for praise of "everything" Clarkson did right. But he only mentioned the goalie. To not mention anything else that they must have done right to take a rightfully highly favored team to 2 OTs is absurd.

I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go. Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards. You know where to look for me if you like.

I don't recall saying "you are wrong" without offering backup. What are you referring to?

Rich S
I was surprised he'd offer such a one-sided analysis of a tight 2 OT game.

Not every game that goes to OT has necessarily been "tight." Few who were there tonight - including, I dare say, the dozens of Clarkson folks - would claim the Golden Knights played as well as the Big Red. Nearly twice as many shots by Cornell, enormous differential in time spent in the offensive zone. Take away two dumb-as-a-post defensive giveaways, it's a 3-1 game that barely raises the pulse rate.

Obligatory Praise of Opponent: That Clarkson capitalized on those giveaways, and that Leggio played a very, very good game, were the high points for your boys.*

But "tight" this game was not.

Beeeej

*Rule 1(d): All cheers must contain praise for Laing Kennedy.

Rich S
"Attacked"? "Insulted harshly"?

Those are overstatements for sure on your part.

"would it kill you to acknowledge that just maybe those goalies played well..."

"Give the other guys some credit in a tight game. Or can't you see that?"


I dunno. Coming from a guy who just gave his honest assessment of a game - one which is naturally coming from a Cornell persepctive - your insults to him were completely uncalled for. I'm not saying you insulted him personally, but rather than stating a disagreement calmly, you outright insulted his opinion and attacked his ability to evaluate the game.


[Q]I'm probably using my own standards in my local sportwriting so maybe it's not fair of me to expect him to do anything more than throw Leggio a nod.[/Q]

I don't think it is fair to expect more than that. Throwing the other team a nod is called sportsmanship. Praising them just ain't gonna happen. Do you really want me to go to the Roundtable and find the thread from after the Clarkson beat Cornell at Cheel a few weeks back? If a person or two threw a Cornell player or two a nod, that's about all I could possibly expect.

If they didn't even do that, that's fine, its their board.


Meanwhile, its nearly 4 hours later. And your full opinion on this game seems to be that our opinion is wrong. Without actually expressing an opinion of your own. If you're so sure we're wrong and biased, so what is your (totally unbiased, I'm sure) view of the game, so that we can discuss it. Seriously, I'm honestly asking.

Rich S
I'm making a long road trip tom'w if indeed I can go. Another road trip to your section isn't in the cards. You know where to look for me if you like.

Honestly? I'm rather surprised and put off by your response to my friendly invitation, and can't imagine why you'd think I would accept yours instead.

Or perhaps you don't really think I would, since you didn't give any description of yourself anyway.

Enjoy the game.

Beeeej

I've never liked that "better team lost" concept. If the winner is defined by the one that had the most goals or runs or whatever, doesn't that make them "better" by the only measure that really matters?

For example, IF a hockey game winner took advantage of three defensive miscues to win 4-3 after trailing 3-1, doesn't that make them the "better" team by definition despite having been outshot by a wide margin?

Better at capitalizing on the other guys errors? Better at finishing than the team that controlled play and got 55 shots? Better because their goalie held them in and gave them a chance to come back?

And if the losing team played poorly on D to make that many mistakes that led to so many cheap goals, how can they say they were the better team?