MLax: Cornell 16 @ Syracuse 15 (FINAL)

- Just a reminder, SNY (channel 625 on DirecTV) @ 7 PM

Game on!

1st:
1-0, CU, Glynn
2-0, CU, Mitchell (Bartlett)
3-0, CU, Pittard (Lewis)
4-0, CU, Pittard (Seibald), SHG
5-0, CU, Lewis
6-0, CU, Mitchell (Seibald)
6-1, SU, Niewierowski (Rommel), EMO

2nd:
7-1, CU, Mitchell (Bartlett)
7-2, SU, Abbott
8-2, CU, Mitchell
8-3, SU, Nims
8-4, SU, Niewierowski
8-5, SU, Niewierowski (Brooks)
8-6, SU, Rommel (Hardy)

3rd:
9-6, CU, Bartlett (Pittard)
9-7, SU, Brooks (Hardy), EMO
10-7, CU, Glynn
10-8, SU, Perritt
10-9, SU, Brooks
10-10, SU, Rommel (Nims)
11-10, CU, Pittard (Seibald), EMO
11-11, SU, Perritt
12-11, CU, Espey
13-11, CU, Pittard (Mitchell), EMO
13-12, SU, Niewierowski (Abbott)

4th
14-12, CU, Glynn (Pittard)
15-12, CU, Lewis
15-13, SU, Niewierowski (Leveille)
15-14, SU, Hardy
15-15, SU, Brooks
16-15, CU, SEIBALD! (0:04 left)

Well this is certainly a good start. The offense is just beating the syracuse d with speed, drawing a slide, dumping it off to the open guy and scoring.

Dude, you're on a roll! Keep up the good work.

LGR!!

Can hear a nice "Lets go Red" chant in the background.

Jacob '06
Well this is certainly a good start. The offense is just beating the syracuse d with speed, drawing a slide, dumping it off to the open guy and scoring.

Absolutely, that's what its been. And pitiless defense on clears and even after losing a faceoffs, have turned into a lot of possessions and faceoffs that Cuse wins, but never gets into the box. Can't let up on Syracuse though... LGR.

According to laxpower game reports, penn is up 2-0 on princeton. The guy reporting says princeton is getting way outplayed.

Damn! I got distracted by my wife's book club members showing up and Syracuse goes and scores.

Princeton is currently up 3-2 on Penn and my audio feed for that game just cut out.

After they showed the turnover stats for this game, I thought it would be interesting to look at Cornell's turnover differential for the season, and compare it to other teams. I have a feeling we would probably lead that category, but I'm too lazy to do the legwork.

And while i'm writing this princeton scores again, 4-2

Well this isn't a good finish to the half.

we need a timeout

Well, that was a painful last 5 minutes or so. Syracuse has tightened up and isn't letting the Cornell pressure lead to a ton of turnovers. Meanwhile, we need to get back to making the most of our offensive opportunities. Do I really need to wait a whole halftime?

Princeton is now up 8-2 and seem to be in total control of that game.

Wow! That was a seriously crappy end to the half. When did we last give up 4 unanswered goals at a time that it mattered? Time for some serious locker room talk. Let's hope the third period takes on the look of the first again.

really Su can score they just dont play good D.. but since cornell cant win a faceoff they have had limited chances and they messed up 2-3 good transition chances.. if cornell gets back to close to 40% of tehe faceoffs they win easily..

Is anyone else irritated by how openly these guys are cheerleading for Syracuse?

Josh '99
Is anyone else irritated by how openly these guys are cheerleading for Syracuse?

Not really, its a syracuse broadcast so it doesn't bother me.

Jacob '06

Josh '99
Is anyone else irritated by how openly these guys are cheerleading for Syracuse?

Not really, its a syracuse broadcast so it doesn't bother me.

Even so, listen to a Cornell hockey game on the radio and the guy doesn't go "YES!" when we score.

Josh '99

Jacob '06

Josh '99
Is anyone else irritated by how openly these guys are cheerleading for Syracuse?

Not really, its a syracuse broadcast so it doesn't bother me.

Even so, listen to a Cornell hockey game on the radio and the guy doesn't go "YES!" when we score.

Right, he just announces it really loudly when cornell scores and barely actually says they score when the other team does.

worst game by far for the cornell D. considering the cornell goals all come from 3-4 ft out and cornell is giving up goals from 10-12 yds out..

As Hillel said, our ssdm is our weakness.

Anyone else listening to some-Access occasionally think that Tom LaFalce (the color guy, a fellow '94) is playing in this game? The BPB guy keeps referring to him by his full name...

Okay, I'm a lacrosse newbie, and have noticed quite quickly that this is not the sport to watch while multi-tasking (i.e. moving furniture, unpacking the dishwasher, coaxing the dog to eat). A few weeks ago, I saw the end of the Orange-Loyola game where the greyhounds barely hung on to win, and I did pick up that Syracuse can score, and score quickly.

I'm still trying to figure the rest of the game out and I have a few questions which I could probably figure out if I saw a game in person. However, given that I'm watching on TV and with the camera angles, I'm having trouble figuring out the the following: 1) How many players are on the field at the time? 2) How many have "long sticks" v. short sticks and are there limits on the number ob each you can have on the field at a given time? 3) are there restrictions as to what parts of the field players can go to?

Thanks .

P.S. (I can wait until the end of the game for the answers ).

COME ON RED!

Time left?

Rita
I'm still trying to figure the rest of the game out and I have a few questions which I could probably figure out if I saw a game in person. However, given that I'm watching on TV and with the camera angles, I'm having trouble figuring out the the following: 1) How many players are on the field at the time?

10, counting the goalie

Rita
2) How many have "long sticks" v. short sticks and are there limits on the number ob each you can have on the field at a given time?

I believe this is generally up to the coach or player rather than a rule. Typically, the 3 defense players have long sticks and the three attack have short. Midfielders have long, short, or middle-length sticks. The more defensive your play, the longer the stick; the more offensive, the shorter. If you have a long stick it's easier to check someone else but easier to be checked.

Rita
3) are there restrictions as to what parts of the field players can go to?

There is a midfield line. You must have 4 players, counting the goalie, in your defensive zone and three in your attack zone. The midfielders typically go in both zones, although you will sometimes see a defender cross midfield on a clear (with a middie back in the offensive zone). I've even see a goalie do it.

Rita
Okay, I'm a lacrosse newbie, and have noticed quite quickly that this is not the sport to watch while multi-tasking (i.e. moving furniture, unpacking the dishwasher, coaxing the dog to eat). A few weeks ago, I saw the end of the Orange-Loyola game where the greyhounds barely hung on to win, and I did pick up that Syracuse can score, and score quickly.

I'm still trying to figure the rest of the game out and I have a few questions which I could probably figure out if I saw a game in person. However, given that I'm watching on TV and with the camera angles, I'm having trouble figuring out the the following: 1) How many players are on the field at the time? 2) How many have "long sticks" v. short sticks and are there limits on the number ob each you can have on the field at a given time? 3) are there restrictions as to what parts of the field players can go to?

Thanks .

P.S. (I can wait until the end of the game for the answers ).

There are 10 players, 1 goalie 3 defenseman, 3 midfielders, and 3 attackmen. You have to have 4 people on the defensive side of the field and 3 people on the offensive side at all times. You can have a maximum of 4 long sticks on the field at once (this usually only happens when you are on defense).

Edit: I apparently type way too slow

time?

15-15 CU timeout with :08 left.

SEIBALD!!!!!!!!

well we won, but if we want to contend, we're going to need better goaltending

Wow.

YEA RED!

Take that, Swami!

WHEW!


We can't play like that in the tournament.

Pretty boring game, huh?

Well that's a relief. (I guess winning is relieving rather than exciting when you're #1.)

Why did Coluccini (who played a hell of a game, by the way) think that last goal shouldn't have counted?

Josh '99
Well that's a relief. (I guess winning is relieving rather than exciting when you're #1.)

Why did Coluccini (who played a hell of a game, by the way) think that last goal shouldn't have counted?

My best guess is that he thinks Max got into the crease before the shot went in, but I'm pretty sure from the replay that he didn't.

What a finish! However, the TV announcers were terrible. It was obvious that the Syracuse goalie thought the final goal should have been waved off, but the announcers never said why (perhaps he though Seibald was in the crease?).

Robb
Take that, Swami!

I don't know what the Swami can take, but I can tell you my heart can't take too many of those.

Faceoffs:

The ball is between the netting of two opposing midfield players' sticks. The other midfielders line up on lines to the side in the midfield section of the field. The ref blows the whistle. The side middies can and typically do rush into the center. Meanwhile, the center middies struggle for the ball. Often, there's a fair amount of checking until one team wins possession. The ref signals when s/he judges a team to have possession. Then the attack and defenders can enter the middle section of the field.

Killer

Robb
Take that, Swami!

I don't know what the Swami can take, but I can tell you my heart can't take too many of those.

So much worse listening on the radio too, I got the shakes now.

Wow! What a finish! So apparently only stick checking is allowed? Seibald basically got to the net untouched. I thought there was some contact and checking allowed in Men's Lacrosse.

FYI, the game will be reshown tomorrow at 3 pm on Direct TV 625/SNY.

Rita
Wow! What a finish! So apparently only stick checking is allowed? Seibald basically got to the net untouched. I thought there was some contact and checking allowed in Men's Lacrosse.

FYI, the game will be reshown tomorrow at 3 pm on Direct TV 625/SNY.

Checking is allowed, just not from behind or with a cross-check.

I believe that it's typically easier to dislodge the ball with a stick check rather than a body check, but I always chose the latter since I was horrible at controlling the ball anyway.

Rita
There is a midfield line. You must have 4 players, counting the goalie, in your defensive zone and three in your attack zone. The midfielders typically go in both zones, although you will sometimes see a defender cross midfield on a clear (with a middie back in the offensive zone). I've even see a goalie do it.

One brief clarification. The 4 need not include the goalie - if the goalie goes up field, which the Cuse goalie did a couple times this game - then someone else just needs to stay back.

And there is a limit on long-stick men. I think its 4.

Jacob '06

Josh '99
Well that's a relief. (I guess winning is relieving rather than exciting when you're #1.)

Why did Coluccini (who played a hell of a game, by the way) think that last goal shouldn't have counted?

My best guess is that he thinks Max got into the crease before the shot went in, but I'm pretty sure from the replay that he didn't.

Agreed and agreed (meaning, I'm pretty sure that's what he thinks, and I'm pretty sure he's wrong (watched it a few times on my TiVo) ).

DeltaOne81

Rita
There is a midfield line. You must have 4 players, counting the goalie, in your defensive zone and three in your attack zone. The midfielders typically go in both zones, although you will sometimes see a defender cross midfield on a clear (with a middie back in the offensive zone). I've even see a goalie do it.

One brief clarification. The 4 need not include the goalie - if the goalie goes up field, which the Cuse goalie did a couple times this game - then someone else just needs to stay back.

And there is a limit on long-stick men. I think its 4.

Thanks everyone for the answers.. it helps!

Rita,

I used to coach youth lacrosse. We had lost something like five games in a row before we finally won. In that game, we had one kid who could dodge and beat any of their defenders one-on-one. So we put in a play at halftime that everyone else would clear out, and this kid would try to dodge and get a clear shot. If they double-teamed him or slid over to help, our other guys would move to the corners of the crease for a pass and quick shot.

While body checking from in front is allowed, if you miss your check you are beat. Defenders learn to stay on their toes and between their man and the goal. This is easier said than done against someone like Seibald.

Ronald '09
well we won, but if we want to contend, we're going to need better goaltending

While McMonagle has been incredible, this was not one of his best, or even good, days. 11 saves on 26 shots on goal, including 1 on 7 shorts in the third quarter. If McM had saved 50% (which isn't necessarily good itself) in the 2nd & 3rd quarters, it would have been a 3 or 4 goal game late.

Everyone's entitled to a bad game, and its great we still won, but lets just hope its an oddity (if anyone with more lax knowledge wants to say why Syracuse was having great shots instead, I'm more than happy to listen, but from my perspective I saw a lot of outside shots making it into the net one after another).

Great win and very exciting watching the updates on Laxpower!

I have a question. Is the Carrier Dome's field artificial turf, and has CU played much on artificial turf this year?

This may have something to do with the high score and the scoring from 12 yards out.

Awesome game. A win is a win. Take 'em anyway you can get them. Team showed heart not to fold. (What cliches have I missed?)

So, we're not invincible, but we're also not beaten. Shows we can put up big offensive numbers on lots of teams. Need to keep the other guys from figuring out our defense.

Amazing ending by Seibald. After a certain point in your life (say, 25?) you seem to recall more times when you're the team that gives up goals like this. Feels great when it's your team scoring them.

What is the crease violation rule now: Can't enter the crease? Can't end the play in the crease unless pushed? Or can't cross the vertical plane of the crease? Syracuse could argue Seibald came close to crossing the plane but he sure would have had a nudge from Syracuse to get him there. At least he didn't take 5 steps without dribbling like the DII (III?) final game.

Now to get past this weekend and then get ready for Princeton.

Swampy
Great win and very exciting watching the updates on Laxpower!

I have a question. Is the Carrier Dome's field artificial turf, and has CU played much on artificial turf this year?

This may have something to do with the high score and the scoring from 12 yards out.

Schoellkopf is (as far as I know, still) artificial turf.

DeltaOne81

Ronald '09
well we won, but if we want to contend, we're going to need better goaltending

While McMonagle has been incredible, this was not one of his best, or even good, days. 11 saves on 26 shots on goal, including 1 on 7 shorts in the third quarter. If McM had saved 50% (which isn't necessarily good itself) in the 2nd & 3rd quarters, it would have been a 3 or 4 goal game late.

Everyone's entitled to a bad game, and its great we still won, but lets just hope its an oddity (if anyone with more lax knowledge wants to say why Syracuse was having great shots instead, I'm more than happy to listen, but from my perspective I saw a lot of outside shots making it into the net one after another).

I never said I don't have confidence that he will play better the rest of the season, but today, he was the reason the game was so close. That was not a good thing.

Swampy, have you seriously never noticed that our home field is an artificial surface? Our field is astroturf and I'm pretty sure cuse plays on field turf (correct me if I'm wrong about that), but as far as speed of the game, that should not make that big a difference.

My bad. But hey, the last time I attended a lacrosse game in Ithaca, they were using wooden sticks. Give me a break.

Edit: already answered

Men's Lacrosse Rules condensed
[www.uslacrosse.org]

Ronald '09
well we won, but if we want to contend, we're going to need better goaltending

Agreed, but losing 75% of faceoffs won't help us, either.

Ronald '09
I never said I don't have confidence that he will play better the rest of the season, but today, he was the reason the game was so close. That was not a good thing.

Agreed.

What is the crease violation rule now: Can't enter the crease? Can't end the play in the crease unless pushed? Or can't cross the vertical plane of the crease? Syracuse could argue Seibald came close to crossing the plane but he sure would have had a nudge from Syracuse to get him there. At least he didn't take 5 steps without dribbling like the DII (III?) final game.

Well I was thinking it was that the ball had to enter the net before you touched the crease grass/turf, but I think that's the old rule, so I decided to look up the current wording.

SECTION 9. Under the following conditions, a goal shall be disallowed:
...
c. When the ball passes through the plane of the goal and when any part of
the body of a player of the attacking team is in the goal-crease area at
the time (my note: this must mean on the ground, see later interpretations)
...
k. After a player in the act of shooting or his teammate makes contact with
the goalkeeper in the crease or touches any part of the goal or netting
before the ball enters the goal
...
m. If an attacking player deliberately leaves his feet by jumping or diving
and his momentum carries him into the crease area, regardless of
whether he lands in the crease before or after the ball enters the goal.

There is also this section:

a. If an offensive player deliberately leaves his feet by diving or jumping and his own momentum carries him into the crease, and his shot goes into the goal, the goal is disallowed.

A.R. 87. A1 drives toward goal and jumps or dives into the crease. (1) The ball goes into the goal; or (2) The ball does not go into the goal. RULING: (1) No goal. Ball awarded to defensive team. (2) Play-on or whistle.

A.R. 88. A1 dives or jumps towards the crease and, while in the air, gets illegally checked into the crease. (1) Ball goes into the goal or (2) ball does not go into the goal. RULING: (1) Flag down, goal counts (unless A1 is in the crease before the ball enters the goal) assess penalty; (2) Flag down, assess penalty.

A.R. 89. A1 dives or jumps into the crease and, while in the air, gets legally pushed or checked. (1) Ball goes into the goal or (2) ball does not go into the goal. RULING: (1) No goal. Ball awarded to the defensive team. (2) Play-on or whistle.

A.R. 90. A1 dives or jumps through the air space of the crease with the potential to land outside the crease. (1) The ball goes in the goal; or (2) The goalkeeper contacts A1 while he is in the air. RULING: (1) Goal counts. (2) No goal. Award ball to defensive team.

A.R. 91. A1 dives or jumps through the air space of the crease and, while in the air, (1) Gets legally pushed into the crease with the ball entering the goal before A1 lands in the crease; or (2) Gets illegally pushed into the crease. RULING: (1) Goal counts. (2) Flag down. Goal counts if ball enters the goal before A1 lands in the crease.

A.R. 92. A1 dives or jumps outside the crease and (1) Gets checked illegally into the crease; or (2) Gets checked legally into the crease. RULING: (1) Flag down, goal counts if ball goes in goal before A1 contacts the ground. Penalty eliminated unless for personal foul. (2) Goal counts, provided that the ball entered the goal before A1 contacted
the ground.

So...

My reading of all this is that you can't jump into the crease under your own power and score a goal. However, if you're checked into the crease when you were really jumping by it/over it (with the potential to land outside), then its a goal as long as the ball went in before you hit the ground.

However, its not a goal if you make contact with a goalie (whos in the crease) in any way.

I think... anyway. If I'm missing something in the rules

So it seems to me that the goalie would have had to be complaining the Seibald actually landed in the crease under his own power (I don't believe so although it was close), or that he contacted the goalie in the process (just watched it a few times, and that was definitely not the case).

Even if Seibald did barely land in the crease (and I still don't think so), the wording is "with the potential to land outside the crease", and it depends if that means as long as its reasonably close, or if it means landing outside so long as you aren't touched.

All in all, I'm still pretty sure it was good

Robb
Take that, Swami!

"Syracuse sucks this year - and Cornell only beat them by one?!"
- Swami

Well, to my view, the winning goal was questionable at best. Siebald beat their best defenseman, but definately went airborne. He had a slight stick check from behind when he was in the air. At no time was he in the crease, so that's not a point. However this rule eliminates the Air Gait type of goal and I think you could make a good case to disallow it.

Jim Hyla
Well, to my view, the winning goal was questionable at best. Siebald beat their best defenseman, but definately went airborne. He had a slight stick check from behind when he was in the air. At no time was he in the crease, so that's not a point. However this rule eliminates the Air Gate type of goal and I think you could make a good case to disallow it.

Which part of that rule disallows a goal if the player never goes in the crease? If a guy's 40 feet away from the crease and jumps in the air while shooting, that's not a goal???

That's not how I read the rule.

Jim Hyla
Well, to my view, the winning goal was questionable at best. Siebald beat their best defenseman, but definately went airborne. He had a slight stick check from behind when he was in the air. At no time was he in the crease, so that's not a point. However this rule eliminates the Air Gate type of goal and I think you could make a good case to disallow it.

[q]A.R. 90. A1 dives or jumps through the air space of the crease with the potential to land outside the crease. (1) The ball goes in the goal; or (2) The goalkeeper contacts A1 while he is in the air. RULING: (1) Goal counts. (2) No goal. Award ball to defensive team.
[/q] This sounds to me as though it is explicity allowing an Air Gait type of goal.

Jim Hyla
Well, to my view, the winning goal was questionable at best. Siebald beat their best defenseman, but definately went airborne. He had a slight stick check from behind when he was in the air. At no time was he in the crease, so that's not a point. However this rule eliminates the Air Gate type of goal and I think you could make a good case to disallow it.

From my reading of the rule, what you can no longer do is jump with the intent/obviously result of landing in the crease, but put the ball in the net before you hit the ground. Thats what the Gait boys did.

Look at this (although here the try didn't work):




Also here (but not the first goal in the clip, the next few though):



The one starting at the 2 minute mark is also a good example of a jumping-with-the-intent-to-land-in-the-crease goal.

In those cases, they were going to land in the crease all along, but its good when the ball goes in first.


The new rules do not prevent you from jumping *over* the crease and scoring, it just doesn't allow it to be a goal if you jumped *into* the crease.

A.R. 90. A1 dives or jumps through the air space of the crease with the potential to land outside the crease. (1) The ball goes in the goal; or (2) The goalkeeper contacts A1 while he is in the air. RULING: (1) Goal counts. (2) No goal. Award ball to defensive team.

My only question is what 'potential to land outside the crease' means. Does it mean you must land outside the crease (unless checked while in the air), or does it mean you must get close? Either way, it doesn't seem to matter here and it looks from all angles that Seibald cleared the crease.

David Harding
[q]A.R. 90. A1 dives or jumps through the air space of the crease with the potential to land outside the crease. (1) The ball goes in the goal; or (2) The goalkeeper contacts A1 while he is in the air. RULING: (1) Goal counts. (2) No goal. Award ball to defensive team.
[/q] This sounds to me as though it is explicity allowing an Air Gait type of goal.

Just to repeat myself (I know I posted my last post after you posted yours), no. In an Air Gait goal, there was absolutely no potential to land outside the crease. It was only good because the ball went in before gravity finished its job. That is what is now specifically now allowed.

Jim Hyla
Well, to my view, the winning goal was questionable at best.

Nothing questionable that I could see. I just watched it again on Tivo and Max lept before entering the crease, was illegally pushed in the back, and, despite that, he landed fully outside the crease. Goal is good.

Game was never in doubt. (I think I'll go to the bathroom and throw up now.)

You guys are right. I thought about this as I was going to sleep and realized the Air Gait rule only applies if you land in the crease, and he never was in. I thought about it on the way home and was on SU's side, but I guess it shows the value of sleeping on it. Now back to bed, for other wonderful thoughts, and to wait and see what's written about it in the papers. Coluccini obviously thought it was no goal as he broke his stick after the game and got a 1 minute penalty at the end.

Game summary on lax.com -- [www.lax.com]

Seibald's goal was #1 Top Play of the Day on Sports Center this morning.

Edit: Whoops. Sorry, someone beat me to it.

Local media:
[cornellsun.com]

[ithacajournal.com]

“We also had a play where we were going to use a backside feed with Eric Pittard, and then when they called the timeout, to be very honest with you, Max came to me in the huddle and said, ‘Coach I can get underneath,'” Tambroni said. “And I said, ‘If you can get underneath, you go.' To his credit, he got underneath and hit a shot that he had missed a couple minutes earlier.”

(also mentioned in the Sun article, but the quote is more complete in the Journal)

Winning goal (as well as some nice saves by Syracuse keeper) was play of the day on ESPN this morning.

schoaff
Winning goal (as well as some nice saves by Syracuse keeper) was play of the day on ESPN this morning.

You can never announce this too many times.

Not sure if this was mentioned elsewhere, but the game is being replayed several times on Time Warner 26:

[web.twcny.com]
04-11-2007 5:00 PM Men's Lacrosse : Cornell at Syracuse Replay
04-12-2007 7:30 PM Men's Lacrosse : Cornell at Syracuse Replay
04-13-2007 3:00 PM Men's Lacrosse : Cornell at Syracuse Replay
04-15-2007 10:30 AM Men's Lacrosse : Cornell at Syracuse Replay

And a second Sun article w more quotes and game details...

[cornelldailysun.com]

MINIteam8s
And a second Sun article w more quotes and game details...

[cornelldailysun.com]

One of the better written articles that I've seen in the Sun in quite a while.

scoop85

MINIteam8s
And a second Sun article w more quotes and game details...

[cornelldailysun.com]

One of the better written articles that I've seen in the Sun in quite a while.

Definitely.

Here's what I take away from the Syracuse game:

* Cornell's weakness at short-stick defensive midfield was exposed by Syracuse's deep and talented middies, as expected, even though Brooks seemed to be slowed by injury. There are few teams that will be able to do this as effectively as Syracuse did. That's why this win was so important: Cornell may have eliminated the team that was the Big Red's worst possible playoff opponent.

* Although the faceoff game continues to be a concern, Cornell's wing play has improved so much -- both in terms of picking up loose balls and swarming the other team's FOGO -- that this weak area has moved down to number three on the list of Yucky Stuff That Could Derail Us, replaced by...

* Penalties, penalties, penalties. How can you not love the newfound defensive aggression and the extension of Cornell's pressure defense all over the field? But there is an unpleasant side effect: an inevitable surge in penalties. More aggression causes more turnovers, but it also brings flags. Some players (Gradinger, for example) are having a hard time controlling their bodies and sticks. In the last three games, opponents have averaged about three more man-up opportunities per game than Cornell. That can't continue in the playoffs.

* John Glynn is GOLD. What a player. Three more goals agains Syracuse. In his first year as a starter, he already has 26 points in nine games and is leading the team in assists with 15. Compare that to last year's middie stars, Boulukos and Seibald, who ended up with 37 and 33 points respectively in 14 games. (True, Glynn doesn't get the pole nearly as often as Boulukos or Seibald did.)

* Cornell is the hardest riding team I've seen in decades. It's just too cool. (For all of David Mitchell's goals, he's even better on the ride -- and better still on ground balls.) Cornell's hard ride is more effective in this wimpy conservative modern era of lax because so few teams do it now, which means that opponents are less prepared. This could really help in the playoffs. An analogy: John Chaney's infamous match-up zone defense often helped Temple go deeper than they'd otherwise go in the basketball tournament because many opposing teams had never seen anything like it during the regular season.

Hillel Hoffmann
Cornell may have eliminated the team that was the Big Red's worst possible playoff opponent.[/Q]or we may have just set it up so that if we both win out, we play them for our first game.


[Q]Although the faceoff game continues to be a concern, Cornell's wing play has improved so much -- both in terms of picking up loose balls and swarming the other team's FOGO -- that this weak area has moved down to number three on the list of Yucky Stuff That Could Derail Us, replaced by...*

I still think this is our number one concern. We can't give them the ball 60-70% of the time. While you can beat them with turnovers, I just don't think you could win out through the playoffs like that.

Hillel Hoffmann
Here's what I take away from the Syracuse game:

* Cornell's weakness at short-stick defensive midfield was exposed by Syracuse's deep and talented middies, as expected, even though Brooks seemed to be slowed by injury. There are few teams that will be able to do this as effectively as Syracuse did. That's why this win was so important: Cornell may have eliminated the team that was the Big Red's worst possible playoff opponent.

* Although the faceoff game continues to be a concern, Cornell's wing play has improved so much -- both in terms of picking up loose balls and swarming the other team's FOGO -- that this weak area has moved down to number three on the list of Yucky Stuff That Could Derail Us, replaced by...

* Penalties, penalties, penalties. How can you not love the newfound defensive aggression and the extension of Cornell's pressure defense all over the field? But there is an unpleasant side effect: an inevitable surge in penalties. More aggression causes more turnovers, but it also brings flags. Some players (Gradinger, for example) are having a hard time controlling their bodies and sticks. In the last three games, opponents have averaged about three more man-up opportunities per game than Cornell. That can't continue in the playoffs.

* John Glynn is GOLD. What a player. Three more goals agains Syracuse. In his first year as a starter, he already has 26 points in nine games and is leading the team in assists with 15. Compare that to last year's middie stars, Boulukos and Seibald, who ended up with 37 and 33 points respectively in 14 games. (True, Glynn doesn't get the pole nearly as often as Boulukos or Seibald did.)

* Cornell is the hardest riding team I've seen in decades. It's just too cool. (For all of David Mitchell's goals, he's even better on the ride -- and better still on ground balls.) Cornell's hard ride is more effective in this wimpy conservative modern era of lax because so few teams do it now, which means that opponents are less prepared. This could really help in the playoffs. An analogy: John Chaney's infamous match-up zone defense often helped Temple go deeper than they'd otherwise go in the basketball tournament because many opposing teams had never seen anything like it during the regular season.

Thanks for the analysis. I agree with pretty much all of it, but I just want to add a few of my own observations...

- It was a fantastic game. #2 Cornell sporting event of the year so far (behind Harvard game at Lynah). There was a pretty big Cornell contingent at the game--larger than any away hockey game the last two years.

- Belisle has to be one of the most underrated defensemen in the country. He absolutely owned Leveille all night long.

- I thought our shot selection and to some degree our decision making was very poor in the second half.

- McMonagle, who is usually outstanding, had a pretty weak game. He didn't seem to come out and challenge the shooters and cut down angles as much as usually does. I kept waiting for that one big save at the end of the game to seal it for us, but it never came. He really should have saved Brooks game tying goal.

- The best thing about this team is that they never let up.

I can't wait for the Princeton game.

Good points, Jim. You're right, Syracuse could win out. But I think Cornell's win significantly reduced the chances that we'll face them in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I still think faceoff may end up being Cornell's kryptonite. But I'm not nearly as concerned as I was last year. There are other reasons for that besides the ones I outlined above. First, Cornell's faceoff game, even without the greatly improved wing play, has improved a lot compared to last year. Also, with a couple of exceptions, many of the teams most likely to make the playoffs have equally weak (or even weaker) faceoff situations. Believe it or not, Cornell actually has one of the highest faceoff win percentages among the top-ranked teams (the highest in that group is Virginia, winning a feeble 54 percent -- Cornell is at 52 percent). Last year's playoff teams were loaded with killer faceoff men, such as Deane from Massachusetts, Snider from Denver, Tamberrino from Maryland, and G. Peyser from Johns Hopkins. Not so in 2007. This year, the guys above are gone and the best faceoff men, for the most part, are on teams that have tanked (Delaware, Harvard, Syracuse, and Yale, for example).

There is one big exception. Among the teams that are most likely to make the playoffs, one that I fear is Navy. Like Syracuse, they have the right weapons to prey on Cornell's weaknesses, including a great faceoff guy (Will Wallace).

More excellent points, redhair34. I'm with you on everything. Indeed, McMonagle was weak; it was his second bad performance in the Carrier Dome. He was even worse in 2005. In two games at Syracuse, McMonagle gave up 29 goals and made only 17 saves. How ironic that he's the first Cornell goalie to win two road games against Syracuse since the Dome was built.

Jim Hyla
or we may have just set it up so that if we both win out, we play them for our first game.

I have a conveyor belt of favorite lax teams after Cornell that just so happens to match Syracuse's remaining schedule. I want Syracuse out, because (a) I'm feeling spiteful (I have an unhealthy dislike of Syracuse --there, I said it), and (b) I don't want them to get a second chance at Cornell.

Jim Hyla

Hillel Hoffmann
Cornell may have eliminated the team that was the Big Red's worst possible playoff opponent.[/Q]or we may have just set it up so that if we both win out, we play them for our first game.

Hard to imagine that if we were to win out (not woofing, just speculating) that we wouldn't get the MAAC champion.

scoop85

Jim Hyla

Hillel Hoffmann
Cornell may have eliminated the team that was the Big Red's worst possible playoff opponent.

or we may have just set it up so that if we both win out, we play them for our first game.

Hard to imagine that if we were to win out (not woofing, just speculating) that we wouldn't get the MAAC champion.

Actually, that's just not how it works in lacrosse. Only the top 8 teams are 'ranked' (1 to 8). The bottom 8 are all equal from the committee's perspective ('unranked'). So 9 = 10 = 11 ... = 16. The first round matchups are done, I believe, mainly geographically - hence the reason we could host the Orange.

DeltaOne81
Actually, that's just not how it works in lacrosse. Only the top 8 teams are 'ranked' (1 to 8). The bottom 8 are all equal from the committee's perspective ('unranked'). So 9 = 10 = 11 ... = 16. The first round matchups are done, I believe, mainly geographically - hence the reason we could host the Orange.

Yup, Fred's right. That's why MAAC champs Providence ended up playing at third-seeded Hofstra last year instead of top-seeded Virginia or second-seeded Maryland. Only the top eight teams are seeded.

The geographic placement of unseeded tournament teams seldom works out neatly, especially when a team like Denver makes the tournament. The committee seems to do whatever it can to reduce air travel, and distant unseeded teams often seem to end up playing in locations where flights are cheap and plentiful (thus Denver at Maryland last year?).

Here's a scary thought. If Albany stumbles in the final weeks of the season, Cornell's reward for a top seed might be a first-round date with the Danes.

Didn't want to start a new thread for this...

Sunday's Syracuse-Rutgers game will be on SNY (625 on DirecTV); game starts at 1pm. Go Scarlet Knights!

Hillel Hoffmann
Here's a scary thought. If Albany stumbles in the final weeks of the season, Cornell's reward for a top seed might be a first-round date with the Danes.

I have a hard time believing a hypothetical 13-1 Albany team wouldn't be a top 8 seed when *everyone* else has at least two losses.

Josh '99

Hillel Hoffmann
Here's a scary thought. If Albany stumbles in the final weeks of the season, Cornell's reward for a top seed might be a first-round date with the Danes.

I have a hard time believing a hypothetical 13-1 Albany team wouldn't be a top 8 seed when *everyone* else has at least two losses.

A hypothetical 13-1 Albany team doesn't sound much like stumbling in the final weeks of the season to me. At this point, they could still go 11-4, thus justifying the lower half of the field as Hillel seemed to me to be suggesting.

JasonN95
Didn't want to start a new thread for this...

Sunday's Syracuse-Rutgers game will be on SNY (625 on DirecTV); game starts at 1pm. Go Scarlet Knights!

Well, it might be better for us if SU wins. But I know that can't overcome the dislike some have for SU.