So I gave in and bought another month of All Access to use through my gf's Dell. It'll cover the rest of the lax season.
Note: I will not be around to do this next week. I'll be out of town, so someone else needs to do the thread ;)
1st
0-1, Drt, Koch (Gillam), EMO, 13:39
1-1, CU, Glynn (Seibald), 12:04
2-1, CU, Mitchell (Seibald), 4:22
3-1, CU, Pittard (Mitchell), 3:14
4-1, CU, Pittard, 2:29
5-1, CU, Pittard, 1:21
... we're sorry, this event has not yet begun...
... oh wait, I guess it has ...
6-1, CU, Lewis, 0:42
2nd:
7-1, CU, Espey, 10:51
8-1, CU, Espey, 9:34
8-2, Drt, Gillam (Koch), 6:17
9-2, CU, Mitchell, 5:43, SHG
10-2, CU, Bartlett, 0:27
3rd:
11-2, CU, Mitchell (Seibald), 14:45
12-2, CU, Mitchell (Glynn), 9:34
13-2, CU, Bartlett (Glynn), 3:32
14-2, CU, Fynn (Pittard), 2:19
15-2, CU, Mitchell (Moyer), 1:02
4th:
15-3, Drt, Bordman, 8:07
16-3, CU, Romer (Hurley), 3:27
17-3, CU, Hurley (Fynn), 2:46
(the other online things says 17-3, I think I missed a goal somewhere :) )
[quote DeltaOne81]
Note: I will not be around to do this next week. I'll be out of town, so someone else needs to do the thread ;)
[/quote]
I'd do it but I'll be at the game.
It sounds like we have a bit of a Syracuse hangover.
Josh Gilliam is playing for Dartmouth. He was a highly regarded hockey recruit this past season who didn't really have a big impact on the ice.
Dartmouth sounded like they basically dominated possession in the first 5 minutes, mainly by forcing Cornell turnovers on the clear, but we sure as heck adjusted. Lets keep it up.
[quote DeltaOne81]Dartmouth sounded like they basically dominated possession in the first 5 minutes, mainly by forcing Cornell turnovers on the clear, but we sure as heck adjusted. Lets keep it up.[/quote]
When this team dominates faceoffs they are pretty unstoppable.
Navy 11-Army 9 right now. Under 4 minutes left and Army is a man up for 22 more seconds.
Navy 12- Army 9 final.
Thanks for posting this. I couldn't pick up the game anywhere else.
[quote DeltaOne81]
4th:
15-3, Drt, Bordman, 8:07
16-3, CU, Hurley (Fynn), 2:46
(the other online things says 17-3, I think I missed a goal somewhere :) )[/quote]
I think there was another Cornell goal in the 4th. Romero I think.
Duke and Virginia are heading into OT tied 6-6. If Virginia wins, I assume Swami will belittle a one goal victory over Duke ::rolleyes::
[quote scoop85]Duke and Virginia are heading into OT tied 6-6. If Virginia wins, I assume Swami will belittle a one goal victory over Duke ::rolleyes::[/quote]
And if Duke win's a 1 goal loss to Virginia will still count for more than a 1 goal win over Duke.
(note: Swami actually *picked* Duke, btw. Yet Princeton is ahead of us on the strength of a loss to UVa while we 'only' beat Duke. Please.)
Duke wins in OT 7-6. The game winner was apparently scored on a behind-the-back shot.
Duke wins in OT.
But of course a 1 goal loss to UVa is still better than a 1 goal win over Duke. Of course.
Swami: Cornell's offense in the Ivies is slipping. It had been at 19 and 20 the last couple games in the Ancient Eight and now has fallen to the mid-teens.
I seem to remember that a couple of years ago, Swami was high on Cornell when no one else was and the Big Red surprised most people by going deep into the NCAA tournament. Just want to point out that he hasn't always had an anti-Cornell "bias".
So what do you think his top few will look like this week?
My guess:
1) Princeton - "1 goal loss to a very good UVa team
2) Duke - "impressive win over UVa"
3) Uva - "best qualitative record in D-I"
4) Cornell - 1 goal win over a struggling Syracuse squad
Yup, that's right. We'll win 2 games, scoring 33 goals, the team that Princeton lost to that is primarily responsible for their ranking lost yet they move up, the team we 'only' beat moves up past us, and we move down. That's my guess.
[quote DeltaOne81]So what do you think his top few will look like this week?
My guess:
1) Princeton - "1 goal loss to a very good UVa team
2) Duke - "impressive win over UVa"
3) Uva - "best qualitative record in D-I"
4) Cornell - 1 goal win over a struggling Syracuse squad
Yup, that's right. We'll win 2 games, scoring 33 goals, the team that Princeton lost to that is primarily responsible for their ranking lost yet they move up, the team we 'only' beat moves up past us, and we move down. That's my guess.[/quote]Not to be nasty, but who cares? We need to beat Princeton, then all will be right in the world.B-]
I'm just enjoying giving Swami a hard time, not that he'll ever read it. It amuses me to make fun of the windbag.
Hey Hillel (or someone else),
Someone on laxpower correctly noticed that Jake Meyers *did* play some time against Binghamton, for 7+ minutes. Is this little enough to still possibly qualify for a redshirt?
[quote DeltaOne81]Hey Hillel (or someone else),
Someone on laxpower correctly noticed that Jake Meyers *did* play some time against Binghamton, for 7+ minutes. Is this little enough to still possibly qualify for a redshirt?[/quote]
That is a damn good question. I forgot that he played a bit against Binghamton. I wonder what the eligibility rules are. Anyone know?
[quote Hillel Hoffmann][quote DeltaOne81]Hey Hillel (or someone else),
Someone on laxpower correctly noticed that Jake Meyers *did* play some time against Binghamton, for 7+ minutes. Is this little enough to still possibly qualify for a redshirt?[/quote]
That is a damn good question. I forgot that he played a bit against Binghamton. I wonder what the eligibility rules are. Anyone know?[/quote]
Found this: http://www.princeton.edu/~ivyorg/IvyManual2004_2005.pdf
Its a couple years old, buy says the following (emphasis mine):
Quote4. Medical hardships [Ivy Office, 1989]
a. A student may be granted an additional year of eligibility on the basis of a medical hardship that prevents or terminates athletic participation when an illness or injury occurs prior to the completion of the first half of the season and prior to participation in more than 25% of the scheduled in-season contests (excluding pre-season scrimmages), and results in incapacity to compete for the remainder of the season. [Council/Policy, 1978]
b. The NCAA rule for such exceptions is more stringent than the Ivy rule—prior to participation in more than 20% of all contests, including scrimmages [B.14.2.5.(c)]—and applies to all "NCAA" and "ECAC" sports. The underlying Ivy rule thus currently applies only to men's squash and other sports in which there is no Ivy, ECAC or NCAA championship.
c. Medical and contest count information should be documented...
First, I'm a bit confused because you guys said the Ivy rule was more strict. Although I guess it may be on the subjective level of determining what qualifies.
I also found elsewhere, something that says that if 20% of the season is a fraction, round up. Cornell has 16 games scheduled this year (including scrimmages), assuming Jake was in the scrimmages (was he?), that would be 4 games. 16 * 20% = 3.2, but if you round up to 4, then he's okay.
Sources on rounding:
http://www.aggieathletics.com/nonsports/COMP/pdf/20040112_090339__Compliance%20101%20-%20medical%20hardships.pdf
http://www.hokiesports.com/compliance/competition/seasons.html
[quote DeltaOne81]
First, I'm a bit confused because you guys said the Ivy rule was more strict. Although I guess it may be on the subjective level of determining what qualifies.
[/quote]
The Ivies are certainly more restrictive about red-shirting in genera;. You just can't do it in the Ivies except for medical reasons. That's probably what you are thinking about.
[quote djk26]I seem to remember that a couple of years ago, Swami was high on Cornell when no one else was and the Big Red surprised most people by going deep into the NCAA tournament. Just want to point out that he hasn't always had an anti-Cornell "bias".[/quote]
I don't think the windbag has an anti-Cornell bias. I think his primary objective during the season is to make his pre-season rankings look as good as he can for as long as he can. So he constructs curious logic to continue to rank Princeton ahead of Cornell, because that's how he ranked the two teams before the season started. It's an ego thing.