The 74-43 GF-GA compares favorably with every year gong back to 2005. It's also the 7th season in the last 9 that Cornell gave up < 2.0 GA in conference play.
2000 70-54
2001 44-44
2002 74-34
2003 89-29
2004 53-32
2005 70-26
2006 61-48
2007 69-60
2008 60-43
2009 56-41
2010 74-43
Quote from: TrotskyThe 74-43 GF-GA compares favorably with every year gong back to 2005. It's also the 7th season in the last 9 that Cornell gave up < 2.0 GA in conference play.
2000 70-54
2001 44-44
2002 74-34
2003 89-29
2004 53-32
2005 70-26
2006 61-48
2007 69-60
2008 60-43
2009 56-41
2010 74-43
But why couldn't we have been 2003?:`-(
Because 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Quote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Those were "freak" years, too. Like the 100-year storm.
Quote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Greg, each of those years should have 24 regular season games. Three more in the ECAC playoffs plus two in the NCAA's will account for the 29 total.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Greg, each of those years should have 24 regular season games. Three more in the ECAC playoffs plus two in the NCAA's will account for the 29 total.
I think those are ECAC regular season stats, not including out-of-conference regular season games--to make apples-to-apples comparisons with the recent stats posted earlier in the thread.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Greg, each of those years should have 24 regular season games. Three more in the ECAC playoffs plus two in the NCAA's will account for the 29 total.
I believe he's only showing ECAC RS games.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Those were "freak" years, too. Like the 100-year storm.
That is if you consider Harkness a 100 year storm.**]
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: jkahnQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Greg, each of those years should have 24 regular season games. Three more in the ECAC playoffs plus two in the NCAA's will account for the 29 total.
I believe he's only showing ECAC RS games.
my bad
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Those were "freak" years, too. Like the 100-year storm.
That is if you consider Harkness a 100 year storm.**]
We haven't seen his like since, and I don't expect to...sadly. Once was not enough...but it
was quite special.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Those were "freak" years, too. Like the 100-year storm.
That is if you consider Harkness a 100 year storm.**]
We haven't seen his like since, and I don't expect to...sadly. Once was not enough...but it was quite special.
Yeah, when I was talking to Dan Lodboa yesterday, he also mentioned how he was like a second father to him as well. He had a lot of sons.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioI think those are ECAC regular season stats, not including out-of-conference regular season games--to make apples-to-apples comparisons with the recent stats posted earlier in the thread.
Yes.
Harkness had a lot of "sons" and few daughters-in-law too. There is a surprising legacy of Cornell (and Ithaca) spouses that came out of those years as well. Not to mention a goodly number of grandchildren as well! The Lynah mystique was also born in those years as well.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: TrotskyBecause 2003 was a freak year.
Then again:
1967 106 32 (20 GP)
1968 144 29 (20)
1969 139 39 (20)
1970 142 39 (21)
Those were "freak" years, too. Like the 100-year storm.
That is if you consider Harkness a 100 year storm.**]
We haven't seen his like since, and I don't expect to...sadly. Once was not enough...but it was quite special.
Yeah, when I was talking to Dan Lodboa yesterday, he also mentioned how he was like a second father to him as well. He had a lot of sons.
I had a chance to talk with Ned just a couple of times. He was, far & away, the most engaging person that I've ever met. I walked away and thought to myself: "I can now understand why his players would skate through brick walls for him". He had a way of making you feel like, at that moment, you were the center of the universe; his universe. There was a serious "wow factor" for me.
Makes you wish Harkness had lunch with Pete Carril and talked about the jpys of lifetime tenure in the Ivy League vs. striking out in the pros. We got Harkness because RPI paid poorly. But I bet Harkness' inflation-adjusted salary in 1970 doesn't match what a top tier Ivy coach makes now in hockey or hoops. $200,000 in today's dollars deflates to $36,000 in the 29-0 year. Maybe it would be a good conversation for Steve Donahue to have with Carril.
(I know Carril was only 4-5 years into his Princeton tenue at the point Harkness struck out for Detroit.)
Final ECAC regular season color chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Color_ECAC.html) illustrates how even the team's play was over the year: no winning streak > 3, no consecutive non-winning streak.
On the "warmth chart (http://www.tbrw.info/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html)," they spent nearly the max time comfortably orange, but never quite broke into the red, finishing +9.
(Seasons in the Red and Coaches in the Red aren't up to date, yet.)
Compared to expectations the team fell short IMO. Too much trouble with fast-skating teams. Too many problems on Saturday. I go into the post-season feeling they probably have earned a bid to the NC$$, but I won't be surprised with a 1-and-out, and I'll be shocked if they make it to the Frozen Four.
When falling short of expectations means finishing #2 in the conference with a good shot at making the tournament we are blessed.
Quote from: KeithKWhen falling short of expectations means finishing #2 in the conference with a good shot at making the tournament we are blessed.
Not when you consider this was the year we were supposed to be doing our best. I don't consider this good enough. Next year is to me a rebuilding year. If we do this well then, I'll be overjoyed, but not now.