ELynah Forum

PWR entering tonight:


Rank Team
1 Boston College
2 Ferris State
3 Minnesota-Duluth
4 Michigan
5 Boston University
[color=#FF0000]6 Lowell vs Merrmiack
7t Minnesota at UNO
7t Miami at Ohio State
9t North Dakota at Denver
[b]9t Cornell vs RPI[/b]
11 Union at Colgate
12 Michigan State at Notre Dame
13t Northern Michigan vs Lake Superior State
13t Denver vs North Dakota
15t Maine at Northeastern
15t Merrimack at Lowell[/color]
17 Ohio State
18 Notre Dame
19 Colorado College
20 Western Michigan
21t Lake Superior State
21t Colgate
23 St. Cloud State
24 Harvard
25t Quinnipiac
25t Northeastern
27t UNH
27t Bemidji State
29 UNO
30 Wisconsin

Quote from: TrotskyPWR entering tonight:

Code Select Expand

Rank Team
1 Boston College
2 Ferris State
3 Minnesota-Duluth
4 Michigan
5 Boston University
[color=#FF0000]6 Lowell vs Merrmiack
7t Minnesota at UNO
7t Miami at Ohio State
9t North Dakota at Denver
[b]9t Cornell vs RPI[/b]
11 Union at Colgate
12 Michigan State at Notre Dame
13t Northern Michigan vs Lake Superior State
13t Denver vs North Dakota
15t Maine at Northeastern
15t Merrimack at Lowell[/color]
17 Ohio State
18 Notre Dame
19 Colorado College
20 Western Michigan
21t Lake Superior State
21t Colgate
23 St. Cloud State
24 Harvard
25t Quinnipiac
25t Northeastern
27t UNH
27t Bemidji State
29 UNO
30 Wisconsin

I signed up to do a workshop with my dog Abby-Baby on Saturday afternoon 3.24, NC$$ regional weekend. I looked at the regional schedule and figured with my luck/karma Cornell will be playing in St. Paul, Minnesota at the same time (and probably v. the gophers). Why worry about the PWR, eh?:-P

I have to wonder, are any engineers offended by RPI's use of the name "Engineers"? Even if it's just because their poor play is offensive? (And, yes, I am recycling my joke.)

Are Ferlin/Esposito/Gotovets back?

no way the first two are.. dont know what happened to gotovets to put him out anyway

Quote from: Greg MAre Ferlin/Esposito/Gotovets back?

If I remember correctly Schaeffer said that Esposito could play but he was going to rest him until the playoffs to give him more time to heal. Also, I think Ferlin is supposed to be out 3-6 weeks (this being the first week). Don't know what happened to Gotovets.

Quote from: jtn27I have to wonder, are any engineers offended by RPI's use of the name "Engineers"? Even if it's just because their poor play is offensive? (And, yes, I am recycling my joke.)

They didn't complain when the football team didn't win a game from October 1959 to October 1965. Why should they complain now? :-D

We also got rid of the RPI Bachelors. Isn't there a limit to one PC name change per school? ;-)

Quote from: Greg MAre Ferlin/Esposito/Gotovets back?

All three out of line-up.  Gotovets hurt vs. SLU.  Kanji backing up Iles according to livestats.  Lines and D pairings same as last night.

Well that sucked.

Yup. Lazy play lead to the loss.

Don't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Greg MAre Ferlin/Esposito/Gotovets back?

If I remember correctly Schaeffer said that Esposito could play but he was going to rest him until the playoffs to give him more time to heal. Also, I think Ferlin is supposed to be out 3-6 weeks (this being the first week). Don't know what happened to Gotovets.

Ferlin out 6 weeks with a broken hand

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

Hugely disappointing.

Thanks for all the Red! chants. The team wearing red appreciated the support. :)

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

At least it wasn't another damn tie!!

Note: Marozzi out of town due to death in the family.
Supposedly several team members suffering from flu.

::help::

Two questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Quote from: ursusminorThanks for all the Red! chants. The team wearing red appreciated the support. :)

I'm sure the team actually named Red did. :)

I admit I grinned at the woman in an RPI jersey holding up a sign that said "Go Red" in Section O.

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

This doesn't exactly answer your question but in the last 13 games (starting with @Princeton), we've had a lead going into the 3rd period 9 times (plus last night we took a third period lead), of those 9 times only 2 games ended in regulation (beat Yale, lost @Colgate). The other 7 (8 including last night), went to OT. We beat Dartmouth and St. Lawrence in OT, lost to RPI, and tied the other 5.

Also, shameless bit of self-promotion here, so feel free to ignore it. Fellow eLynah user Ben and I will be hosting a Cornell sports talk internet radio show. Today is our first show, and if for whatever reason you're interested you can listen live at 4 pm today at slopemedia.org/radio or you can wait until we upload it as a podcast. This, of course, is all assuming that there are no technical difficulties, which is a distinct possibility; we were supposed to start last week but we couldn't get the equipment to work. Don't worry, this will be the last time I post something about this (at least for this semester).

Why not self promote? You'll never succeed without a bit of pride in what you do. Please promote yourself and we may enjoy your success.

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the title in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

On the plus side, hopefully this means the late game on Friday night in AC. First things first, though.

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

Quote from: Jordan 04On the plus side, hopefully this means the late game on Friday night in AC. First things first, though.

It may be a plus for the fans, but it's a minus for the team (whichever it is) that has several fewer hours to recuperate before the Saturday game.

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

I'm sure there's some ridiculous permutation of events that has us losing in the conference finals and still getting in.  I wonder if we'd be better off losing in the semis and playing and beating union in the consolation, rather than losing in the finals to union (or someone else).

Obviously, winning it all is best.  Anyone know if the ECAC reseeds after the first round, or if we're locked into playing the winner of RPI and Clarkson?  I can't remember, but my guess is reseeding, giving us someone out of Princeton, RPI, Dartmouth, SLU, or Clarkson.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

I'm sure there's some ridiculous permutation of events that has us losing in the conference finals and still getting in.  I wonder if we'd be better off losing in the semis and playing and beating union in the consolation, rather than losing in the finals to union (or someone else).

Obviously, winning it all is best.  Anyone know if the ECAC reseeds after the first round, or if we're locked into playing the winner of RPI and Clarkson?  I can't remember, but my guess is reseeding, giving us someone out of Princeton, RPI, Dartmouth, SLU, or Clarkson.

Cornell will play the second-lowest seeded team remaining after the first round. The ECACs reseed and do not use brackets.

Quote from: DafatoneI'm sure there's some ridiculous permutation of events that has us losing in the conference finals and still getting in.  I wonder if we'd be better off losing in the semis and playing and beating union in the consolation, rather than losing in the finals to union (or someone else).

Obviously, winning it all is best.

Yep.  Win the next four (or eight) and none of us will remember the game against RPI.

Of course, Brown could still say the same thing about this whole season (six and ten games for them.)

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

Win our next 4 games and we still are.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

As my grandfather used to say, in Yiddish, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. The team lost those leads because they are the kind of team that loses those leads. The better way to look at it is "if this were good enough to be a national title contender, we'd hold our leads." More to the point, we wouldn't be up by a single goal against RPI at home with three minutes to play.

Dafatone: The season as a whole has been excellent if we are looking at it from the perspective of "would we have taken this result at the beginning of the year." Having lived through the year, and seen how this result came to be... it is incredibly frustrating and I'm not sure why you think being frustrated about it is so eyerolling.

Quote from: ugarteDafatone:  The season as a whole has been excellent if we are looking at it from the perspective of "would we have taken this
result at the beginning of the year." Having lived through the year, and seen how this result came to be... it is incredibly frustrating and I'm not sure why you think being frustrated about it is so eyerolling.

Sums the situation up pretty much perfectly.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: ugarteDafatone:  The season as a whole has been excellent if we are looking at it from the perspective of "would we have taken this
result at the beginning of the year." Having lived through the year, and seen how this result came to be... it is incredibly frustrating and I'm not sure why you think being frustrated about it is so eyerolling.

Sums the situation up pretty much perfectly.

I was probably a little more pissy than necessary.  Yes, it has been a frustrating season, and all the lost 3rd period leads are heartbreaking and very much not what we've come to expect from Cornell over the years.  That being said, there's a difference between being frustrated and giving up on the season, which was the attitude I was responding to.  This team could flame out or go very far.  Hard to figure out which.  I tend to be a little more optimistic than most, but how else is a Mets fan supposed to survive?

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

Hard to believe that anyone who has spent a fair share of time at Messa Achilles Rink Center (Whatever they'll call it when someone else ponies up some dough) would plug their ears at a game.

The bozos at Messa Achilles play god awful mp3s on speakers that look like Mr. Messa couldn't afford Bose's and decided to have a chop shop in Rotterdam throw together something that looks kinda like a Bose.  They're hung from the effin' rafters by chains that were cast off from the aforementioned chop shop and over-amplified to the point that my dear wife is now requesting a pass on visiting an otherwise beautiful campus.

Why in the hell are they trying to make the rink into Schenectady's answer to an NBA arena?

Agreed! You'll never get a good audience for your Cornell sports  talk show if you're restricting yourself from promoting the show at the most vibrant online forum for Cornell sports!

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

It's a disappointing loss because
a) It hurts our PWR.  Yes, there are some things we can't control, but there are some things we can.  No one is going to regret what UMass does, but we are going to regret missed opportunities by Cornell.
b) We're a better team than RPI.
c) The previous game was awesome. To follow that up with this clunker really killed our momentum going into the postseason (whether momentum actually matters is debatable).  
d) It was senior night, and it just sucks for the seniors (biggest disappointment for me).  Watching the ceremony was more bitter than sweet this year, thanks to the loss.  
e) WE BLEW ANOTHER THIRD PERIOD LEAD

You may not have expected this team to make the NCAAs at the outset of the season, but I did.  Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but if you take a team that was one game away last year and add our best recruiting class in a long time, I think we are perfectly capable of competing nationally.  And even if we weren't expected to make the tourney, it doesn't mean once we have the opportunity it's acceptable to squander it.  This team is really good, and these players aren't going to be around forever, and judging from their reactions this was much more than a typical loss.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

It's a disappointing loss because
a) It hurts our PWR.  Yes, there are some things we can't control, but there are some things we can.  No one is going to regret what UMass does, but we are going to regret missed opportunities by Cornell.
b) We're a better team than RPI.
c) The previous game was awesome. To follow that up with this clunker really killed our momentum going into the postseason (whether momentum actually matters is debatable).  
d) It was senior night, and it just sucks for the seniors (biggest disappointment for me).  Watching the ceremony was more bitter than sweet this year, thanks to the loss.  
e) WE BLEW ANOTHER THIRD PERIOD LEAD

You may not have expected this team to make the NCAAs at the outset of the season, but I did.  Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but if you take a team that was one game away last year and add our best recruiting class in a long time, I think we are perfectly capable of competing nationally.  And even if we weren't expected to make the tourney, it doesn't mean once we have the opportunity it's acceptable to squander it.  This team is really good, and these players aren't going to be around forever, and judging from their reactions this was much more than a typical loss.

As an RPI fan, I see things from a different perspective than you do. Cornell is indeed a better team than RPI, but not by that much. RPI underperformed terribly in the early part of the year. The reasons for that are not relevant to this, but it took a while for the coaching staff to realize that the strength of this team on offense is in the underclassmen. Note that three of five senior forwards did not dress, although one who did, Pat Cullen, had a great game.

What did surprise me was that RPI outshot Cornell despite the disparity in penalties. Someone wrote that Cornell was suffering from the effects of the flu. That probably also was part of the reason for the outcome of the game. I don't think that Cornell took RPI lightly based upon the result of the game in Troy.

Quote from: ursusminorWhat did surprise me was that RPI outshot Cornell despite the disparity in penalties. Someone wrote that Cornell was suffering from the effects of the flu. That probably also was part of the reason for the outcome of the game. I don't think that Cornell took RPI lightly based upon the result of the game in Troy.

Interestingly, Schafer made no comment about flu in his rather scathing remarks about the team's performance Saturday night as reported in today's Ithaca Journal: http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20120226/SPORTS03/202260364/Cornell-suffers-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: ursusminorWhat did surprise me was that RPI outshot Cornell despite the disparity in penalties. Someone wrote that Cornell was suffering from the effects of the flu. That probably also was part of the reason for the outcome of the game. I don't think that Cornell took RPI lightly based upon the result of the game in Troy.

Interestingly, Schafer made no comment about flu in his rather scathing remarks about the team's performance Saturday night as reported in today's Ithaca Journal: http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20120226/SPORTS03/202260364/Cornell-suffers-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

Nor should he, even if there is truth to the rumor.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: ursusminorWhat did surprise me was that RPI outshot Cornell despite the disparity in penalties. Someone wrote that Cornell was suffering from the effects of the flu. That probably also was part of the reason for the outcome of the game. I don't think that Cornell took RPI lightly based upon the result of the game in Troy.

Interestingly, Schafer made no comment about flu in his rather scathing remarks about the team's performance Saturday night as reported in today's Ithaca Journal: http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20120226/SPORTS03/202260364/Cornell-suffers-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

I see that editing in the Ithaca Journal is as high quality as the Troy Record

QuoteSchafer argued afterward that icing should have been called on Union

Quote from: ursusminorI see that editing in the Ithaca Journal is as high quality as the Troy Record

QuoteSchafer argued afterward that icing should have been called on Union

The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Any glaring misspellings in headlines lately http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2012/02/25/sports/doc4f487a252c30f137435272.txt?

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

What percentage of columnists these days are exhibitionists posing as sex experts? I think back when I was a student it was close to 100%.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: ursusminorI see that editing in the Ithaca Journal is as high quality as the Troy Record

QuoteSchafer argued afterward that icing should have been called on Union

The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

The Sun recently insinuated that it is in a completely different league than the Ithaca Journal. While a superior paper, it is not that obviously superior to the Journal. The Sun regrets this error.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

What percentage of columnists these days are exhibitionists posing as sex experts? I think back when I was a student it was close to 100%.

*raises hand* ::moon::

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

It's a disappointing loss because
a) It hurts our PWR.  Yes, there are some things we can't control, but there are some things we can.  No one is going to regret what UMass does, but we are going to regret missed opportunities by Cornell.
b) We're a better team than RPI.
c) The previous game was awesome. To follow that up with this clunker really killed our momentum going into the postseason (whether momentum actually matters is debatable).  
d) It was senior night, and it just sucks for the seniors (biggest disappointment for me).  Watching the ceremony was more bitter than sweet this year, thanks to the loss.  
e) WE BLEW ANOTHER THIRD PERIOD LEAD

You may not have expected this team to make the NCAAs at the outset of the season, but I did.  Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but if you take a team that was one game away last year and add our best recruiting class in a long time, I think we are perfectly capable of competing nationally.  And even if we weren't expected to make the tourney, it doesn't mean once we have the opportunity it's acceptable to squander it.  This team is really good, and these players aren't going to be around forever, and judging from their reactions this was much more than a typical loss.

It does not hurt our PWR ranking much, if at all. One would choose to lose to RPI over many of the teams we played late in the season because they are far from a TUC. I know the notion of choosing losses (that some on here often invoke) is nonsensical, but if Cornell had to choose to lose one game in the closing weeks of ECAC play, it would have been the dud of a game Cornell played against RPI. It seems very unlikely that even if RPI made a strong run in the ECAC Tournament that it would appear as a TUC.

We are a better team than RPI. I think that few unassociated with our Engineer friends in Troy would agree. However, upsets occur. It is disturbingly common with this team, as I stated. Cornell went 2-0-0 last season and most would have agreed that last season RPI had the better team. Cornell is the better team this season and went 0-1-1. One cannot find solace in it, but losing to RPI does not mean all is lost.

I agree that this killed our momentum. No disagreement there. My comment was only that we cannot lose perspective. This loss will not count for anything other than our loss of the Jell-O Mold. The 0-1-1 against RPI won't factor in our PWR for an at-large bid and it did not disadvantage us going into the playoffs in any quantitative way. The team's loss on Senior Night might give them more reason to head into the playoffs with a newfound zeal. They have unfinished business because they were denied regrettably a regular-season send-off with a win. Let's hope the seniors and the team can channel that into post-season success. Collins in interviews has implied that many on the team have set their sights on the NCAA as their season goal.

We blew another third period lead, our defense underperformed in OT, our offensive production was low (the only deficiency that I can rationalize with any satisfaction with key absences), and we played down to a less challenging opponent. The proportionality of our play to the level of our opponent is what is most unsettling about this season.

Cornell going into the ECACs and NCAAs needs to be the team it was on Saturday night.

Why the past tense about season goals? That is about what I was commenting. Most seem to be acting as though the season is done. One can invoke any number of sports cliches about how it has just begun. Cornell won an Ivy League title, to me, that is more important than the Jell-O Mold. Cornell has a first-round bye. Cornell has played well three out of its last four games at Lynah. I would argue with dominance in two of them. The season is not over, Cornell can and will (I believe) make the NCAA Tournament. I was one of the few who believed when Cornell was headed to Colorado Springs that it could win at CC. I have not lost faith in this team. I believe that they will not disappoint. My expectation going into the season were Cornell's thirteenth ECAC title and a berth in the NCAA Tournament. This team raised those expectations...

I think Cornell's seniors have six collegiate wins left in them.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinMost seem to be acting as though the season is done.

I think that was just knee jerk frustration right after the loss; most of the people who posted like that have recanted by the light of the next day's hangover.  

The second season begins March 9, and Cornell has a very good chance to win the trophy in Atlantic City.  Despite the third period problems this has been my favorite team in many years, and I am hopeful they get some hardware to complement the Ivy League championship.

Lots of doom and gloom in this thread. It was certainly disappointing and of course I felt really bad for the seniors. You can speculate and panic but ultimately we're just going to have to see what our lineup is like next week and watch them play some more hockey.

Perhaps watching McCarron's goal will ease the pain? I didn't even realize he bounced it off the ice to knock it home until I watched the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGt19O54bvo

I'll upload the Senior Night ceremony video later.

I assume no one has the no goal to share.

Quote from: TheMatrixLots of doom and gloom in this thread. It was certainly disappointing and of course I felt really bad for the seniors. You can speculate and panic but ultimately we're just going to have to see what our lineup is like next week and watch them play some more hockey.

Perhaps watching McCarron's goal will ease the pain? I didn't even realize he bounced it off the ice to knock it home until I watched the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGt19O54bvo

I'll upload the Senior Night ceremony video later.

That's an incredible video.  Thx!!!

I guess my frustration is that this team is so close to not just being good, but great, and the flaws that this team has are traditional strengths (PK and 3rd Periods). Its pretty clear that the team plays up or down to its opponent - six points against the bottom three proves that - so if we get past Ithaca in two weeks I feel pretty confident in a deep run. But when I look back on the regular season I'm frustrated by missed opportunities. We were so close to beating BU. If we could have held up for 34 more seconds we could have swept CC at CC. We blew third period leads to Mercyhurst, Princeton, Brown and RPI - all solidly in the twenty worst teams in the country. There is so much promise to this team and its so frustratingly close to being great (the only games we didn't hold 3rd period leads in were BU, Colgate at home, Clarkson at home, and UMass.I'm sure that some of the top 5 teams in the country can't even claim to have held a 3rd period lead in over 80% of their games. It just is hard to be optimistic about the result being different next time (even though logically these stretches don't last forever) when you repeatedly witness the same outcome. Anyone who grew up in Philly knows this kind of team. This team is just one of those teams that you can't help but have optimism about, but the moment you let your guard  down, they get gut punched. I know they're really young,but I'm just not ready to raise my expectations for them again. In 3 weeks maybe. Though I really hope not. We play better when I'm not optimistic

Quote from: css228Anyone who grew up in Philly knows this kind of team. This team is just one of those teams that you can't help but have optimism about, but the moment you let your guard  down, they get gut punched.

That's not a Philly thing; everybody believes their team is like that.  It's a by-product of remembering the soul-destroying losses vividly.  Mike Fucking Scioscia.

I don't know why the PK sucks.  Late collapses, though, are a classic symptom of a young team.  I absolutely feel your pain (it's mine too) about the missed opportunities, but I have very high hopes for this team this year and in the future.  The program faced two major challenges since the "Silver Age" of 2002-08: the league's increasing pressure against physical play and the evolution of competing Ivy aid packages.  They answered both.  That tells me Schafer still knows what he's doing and the university is still committed to a strong program.

Quote from: martyI assume no one has the no goal to share.

I forgot about that one. I'm almost positive I have it on video, just need to sort through.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228Anyone who grew up in Philly knows this kind of team. This team is just one of those teams that you can't help but have optimism about, but the moment you let your guard  down, they get gut punched.

That's not a Philly thing; everybody believes their team is like that.  It's a by-product of remembering the soul-destroying losses vividly.  Mike Fucking Scioscia.

I don't know why the PK sucks.  Late collapses, though, are a classic symptom of a young team.  I absolutely feel your pain (it's mine too) about the missed opportunities, but I have very high hopes for this team this year and in the future.  The program faced two major challenges since the "Silver Age" of 2002-08: the evolution of competing Ivy aid packages and the league's increasing pressure against physical play.  They answered both.  That tells me Schafer still knows what he's doing and the university is still committed to a strong program.

Totally understand its not exclusively a Philly thing, but it happens to be something that tends to define our sporting culture. I'm not saying that  Schafer doesn't know what he's doing, all I'm saying is  that I literally feel like our team is the Tom Hanks of third periods.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: ugarteDafatone:  The season as a whole has been excellent if we are looking at it from the perspective of "would we have taken this
result at the beginning of the year." Having lived through the year, and seen how this result came to be... it is incredibly frustrating and I'm not sure why you think being frustrated about it is so eyerolling.

Sums the situation up pretty much perfectly.

If this Cornell team had arrived at the same exact record by falling just short in completing comebacks after spotting the other team a goal or two in the *first* 10 minutes of the game, I believe the following would be true:

1) The frustration level over how the season played out would be much lower
2) People would still be gnashing their teeth and rending their garments over the loss to RPI (hey, we're still fans)

This is purely psychological - blowing a lead is much harder to take than falling just short in a comeback attempt, for fans and players alike.

Disclaimer - I have not seen a single minute of Cornell hockey this year, so maybe these games are intensely frustrating from beginning to end and the third period letdowns are merely icing on the cake. That isn't the sense I'm getting from the comments around these parts, though - sounds more like Cornell is pretty damn good and the team just comes apart in the last 10 minutes. It's weird, to be sure - could be conditioning, could be failing to execute a late-game shift in strategy, could just be wild inconsistency and selective memory. Hopefully it's execution, because that could conceivably be fixed with a solid extra week of practice. Conditioning and random inconsistency, not so much.

Quote from: Brian Sullivan

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

What percentage of columnists these days are exhibitionists posing as sex experts? I think back when I was a student it was close to 100%.

*raises hand* ::moon::

Brian, unless I've been grossly misreading your columns (not likely), they seem to be exactly what Kyle is describing. Here are just a few excerpts from your latest x-rated column (http://www.uscho.com/ecac-blog/2012/02/26/ecacs-regular-season-wrapup/):

"the Engineers... blew the Big Red"
"enjoy a night's 'rest' in its own bed" (internal quotes added)
"coronary-inducing"
"the gate was shut and locked for the frustrated Ivy icers"

And although they weren't in this column a few other frequent ones:
"score"
"put it in the crease"

I'm not going to quote all the times it's been mentioned, but this team has never had momentum. Unless you consider up and down is momentum. I'd say that at no point in the season could you ever be comfortable in feeling we should win or lose against any of the teams we played.

Quote from: Jim HylaI'm not going to quote all the times it's been mentioned, but this team has never had momentum. Unless you consider up and down is momentum. I'd say that at no point in the season could you ever be comfortable in feeling we should win or lose against any of the teams we played.

I agree with that assessment regarding the season after the second half of ECAC play began. However, five consecutive shutouts at Lynah, holding the longest unbeaten streak in the nation at one point, and recording a 7-1-1 ECAC record going into the Winter Break seemed like we had momentum at that point. It was during that span and the CC game that I know that I raised my expectations.

Quote from: jtn27Brian, unless I've been grossly misreading your columns (not likely), they seem to be exactly what Kyle is describing. Here are just a few excerpts from your latest x-rated column (http://www.uscho.com/ecac-blog/2012/02/26/ecacs-regular-season-wrapup/):

"the Engineers... blew the Big Red"
"enjoy a night's 'rest' in its own bed" (internal quotes added)
"coronary-inducing"
"the gate was shut and locked for the frustrated Ivy icers"

And although they weren't in this column a few other frequent ones:
"score"
"put it in the crease"

You should see the stuff I leave on the cutting-room floor.

Ask and ye shall receive. I found the no-goal video and added zoom and slow motion. I apologize for the watermark and run-length but I believe it's the only way you can see what happened. Besides, if you actually care enough about the call to watch the video you probably don't mind blowing 2 minutes. As best as I can tell, at 1:20 of the video, the puck goes off either Collins or the defender. I am not sure if the puck went off the boards behind the goal and bounced into the crease or off the sieve first. The puck then drops straight to the line and never actually crosses. You see something dark that looks like the puck to Collins's left but it is the tip of the defender's stick (not to mention it looks behind or inside the net then suddenly the puck is on the line).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j208srtcu4
Note: it may take a few minutes for the 720p version to be available as I just uploaded it.
Edit: Just for the record, that's not me screaming "THAT'S A FUCKING GOAL!"

For good measure: España.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=291f-JUw7KI

Senior Night ceremony still forthcoming.

From the video, it looks like the puck was about to go in and then hit one of the player's skates and was deflected.

Watching Luke Curadi (RPI #5) in the "non-goal" video, I am wondering like I did when he committed to RPI, why he didn't end up at Cornell. A 6'5", 250+ lb defenseman with red hair. It seems a perfect fit. (Granted that he is a below average skater).

Quote from: Jim HylaI'm not going to quote all the times it's been mentioned, but this team has never had momentum. Unless you consider up and down is momentum. I'd say that at no point in the season could you ever be comfortable in feeling we should win or lose against any of the teams we played.

In mid-November it felt like the team would never lose again, never give up a goal again, etc, etc.  They had played well in sweeping at Harvard and Dartmouth, then come home and blown out Princeton and Q 4-0 on each night.  The freshmen class was brilliant and D'Ags was scoring a ppg every shift.  Gotta admit I felt pretty damn good about the team, just then.  :)

Trotsky,

Considering Trotsky's first and third laws (something doesn't sound right with that ;-) ), is it surprising that the game ended the way it did?

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

If Cornell had defeated RPI we still would have fallen to 13 in Pairwise because of the added TUC loss via UMass.  However losing to RPI lowered our RPI enough to make this irrelevant.  Using the DIY Rankings (http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2012/rankings.diy.shtml) I tried two scenarios to prevent UMass from becoming a TUC: changing their Saturday win over UNH to a loss and removing the game from the data set altogether. In both cases our losing to RPI still drops us to 16.  Our lower RPI flipped all of the comparisons.  UMass just means we're losing some of those comparisons by a wider margin.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWe are a better team than RPI.

I'll report a friend's comment immediately after this game: "Cornell has better players, but RPI played like the better team."  I will say that I felt that for the majority of the game, Cornell controlled play. RPI responded with more opportunistic and energetic hockey.

I'll also steal another friend's (Scersk's) observation. This team's play is dependent on it's concentration.  The two most entertaining and well-played games (on both sides) I saw this season were the two Cornell-Union games.  Union's team stats are eye-popping, and they have a lightning-quick offensive setup.  For the first two periods in Schenectady, and the 1st period in Ithaca, Cornell didn't seem to grasp that fact.  They came out as if they were facing Guelph.  For the 3rd period, despite the result, at Achilles and the 2nd & 3rd period at home on Friday, Cornell had made a deliberate adjustment: they spent much of their time focusing more on a puck-possession game, rather than playing (and reacting to) bodies. That style suits this team well, and it's especially important playing a team such as Union.  When they take care of the puck, instead of just playing bodies, this Cornell team is very, very strong.

For a good chunk of the RPI game, Cornell didn't seem to have that concentration on fundamentals at all.   About 10 seconds before RPI tied it, the guy behind me sighed, "Oh, don't do this again..."  and as Coach Schafer himself pointed out, we had 4 guys in the corner before the winning goal while Cullen neatly camped out right in front of the net, alone, just waiting for the pass.  

Concentration is a big problem with with this team.  To me, this explains the getting up for a good opponent, and playing down to weaker ones.

Quote from: nyc94

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

If Cornell had defeated RPI we still would have fallen to 13 in Pairwise because of the added TUC loss via UMass.  However losing to RPI lowered our RPI enough to make this irrelevant.  Using the DIY Rankings (http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2012/rankings.diy.shtml) I tried two scenarios to prevent UMass from becoming a TUC: changing their Saturday win over UNH to a loss and removing the game from the data set altogether. In both cases our losing to RPI still drops us to 16.  Our lower RPI flipped all of the comparisons.  UMass just means we're losing some of those comparisons by a wider margin.

That seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be better for us to lose to a TUC, meaning a team that is somewhat good, instead of a team that is not a TUC and thus not good? I guess that's not how PWR works though.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

I think that's a fair analogy. My point was more that the Journal sucks than that the Sun is good. Although, you would expect the professional newspaper to be better than the student one.

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

I think that's a fair analogy. My point was more that the Journal sucks than that the Sun is good. Although, you would expect the professional newspaper to be better than the student one.

Not really.  With rare exceptions, a professional newspaper in Ithaca isn't going to attract the best journalists, it's generally going to attract the best journalists who already want to live in or near Ithaca.  A student paper at an Ivy League university is going to attract many of the best students who want to be the best journalists.

To belabor what Rich just said, or perhaps to add the corollary, when this team concentrates it is deadly.  What I saw during the second two periods of the Union game was one of the most impressive offensive displays  I have ever seen by a Cornell team, or at least a Cornell team under Schafer.  I have to reach back to the Hughes, Andison, Derraugh years to find a comparison.

Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.  But this team, against the best defensive team in the nation mind you, played facing the net.  Skate, skate, skate, turn, indeed.  Delicate touch plays, fantastic rebound control, everything.  And I've never seen a Cornell team better at smelling blood in the water.  When our D starts rushing the slot, particularly D'Agostino, it's a thing of beauty.

So, if we can win our clutch-and-grab league's tournament, I love our chances vs. defensively undisciplined Hockey Least or WZHA competition.  Don't want to see Miami.  Don't want to see another AHA team.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

I think that's a fair analogy. My point was more that the Journal sucks than that the Sun is good. Although, you would expect the professional newspaper to be better than the student one.

Not really.  With rare exceptions, a professional newspaper in Ithaca isn't going to attract the best journalists, it's generally going to attract the best journalists who already want to live in or near Ithaca.  A student paper at an Ivy League university is going to attract many of the best students who want to be the best journalists.

This is cray talk. The student paper will have teenagers who know fuck-all about anything. The IJ will have a staff that is a combination of young writers building their clip file before trying to move to a bigger paper and more experienced writers that have decided they like horrible weather. The average member of either group should be better than most of the Sun writers. The young writers will have gotten the job based on their own college clip file and the experienced writers are EXPERIENCED WRITERS.

This isn't to say that the IJ is or is not fishwrap, only to point out that teenagers are bad writers and a red sweatshirt doesn't change that. Sorry, Sun staffers. You are probably terrible. Did I mention that I wrote a thing for The Classical (http://t.co/SX2WU5lO)? If you want your revenge, please feel free to tell me that I suck too.

Quote from: Scersk '97Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.

I'll also argue the point that the 2003 era's teams were also strong because they played a puck-possession game. The reason they cycled so much was to maintain puck control.  Those that remember "The Shift" from the regular season game at UNH in 2010 saw that strategy played to perfection.

A couple things I'll add about the Union game on Friday:

1) Our best puck possession guy wasn't even playing, but I saw a couple players have very Ferlin-esque plays.

B) The forechecking!! (Clouds part, angels sing, etc.) That was the most aggressively I've seen CU pressure an opponent in their own end in a long time. A handful of teams have been doing that to us this season, and it's clearly becoming "the book" on Cornell, especially when we try to set up breakouts from behind our own net:  Just send a man in deep right on top of the puck carrier, and we often panic and cough it up.  Very nice to see us turn the tables on another team; I don't think Union expected that from us.

My camera isn't great at low light but here's the Senior Night ceremony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBdvtxOFzxg

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Scersk '97Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.

I'll also argue the point that the 2003 era's teams were also strong because they played a puck-possession game. The reason they cycled so much was to maintain puck control.

Agreed, but I'll add out loud what we've talked about in person, that sometimes in the past we have seemed to cycle the puck with little urgency for getting it to the net.  This team does not do that, and it's very encouraging.

Quote from: Scersk '97when this team concentrates it is deadly.  What I saw during the second two periods of the Union game was one of the most impressive offensive displays  I have ever seen by a Cornell team, or at least a Cornell team under Schafer.  I have to reach back to the Hughes, Andison, Derraugh years to find a comparison.

Yes, the 2003 team's cycle was killer, wearing teams out and grinding them into submission.  But this team, against the best defensive team in the nation mind you, played facing the net.  Skate, skate, skate, turn, indeed.  Delicate touch plays, fantastic rebound control, everything.  And I've never seen a Cornell team better at smelling blood in the water.  When our D starts rushing the slot, particularly D'Agostino, it's a thing of beauty.

Agreed.  I was thinking during the latter stretch that with the exception of some exhibition games against completely outclassed opponents, many of our fans may have never seen a Cornell team play like that.

And also: that is both a style and a level of commanding hockey that wins titles.  This team may yet win nothing (like the 91 team), but it has the capacity to win everything (also like the 91 team).

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: nyc94

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: Redscore

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: RedscoreDon't know what to say, when you have to have it.....
Expect nothing from this team.  I'm looking ahead already.  To next year I mean....

How dare they only finish in 2nd in the conference in a year that they weren't expected to dominate.

How dare they.

::rolleyes::

That was just massive disappointment talking.  Yes, this team has finished higher than we had any reason to expect but I still see the end result as a massive underachievement.  To have the Jell-O Mold in our hand, playing a team well down the standings at home, and blowing the game in the third and in OT....
Not much to feel confident about.

FYP

Why is everyone fixating upon losing a trophy that most of us do not care about typically? The last time we won the ECAC, we began with a number two seed. The only real disappointment that came with the number two seed for me, notwithstanding the poor loss to RPI that caused it, was that we did not prevent Union from winning back-to-back number one seeds. I sat near Union fans during the Friday game and they have begun to view themselves as the "dominant power" in ECAC history. I directed their attention to the rafters. They needed a little perspective. (Also, are hockey fans of a "dominant power" so shocked by how loud Lynah is that they must plug their ears when Cornell scores?).

The team does play proportionately to the quality of our opponents this season. The team has been anything but predictable. Losses to Mercyhurst, UMass, and Brown. Wins and close games with BU, CC, and Union. I am not that worried about the ECAC Tournament. We have the advantage of Lynah in the Quarterfinals. We will have crucial player(s) back. We will face better opponents as a number two seed than we would have as a number one seed. Considering the trend of proportional play, I like our chances playing against a WCHA team in the heart of their territory than playing "mediocre" opponents out East.

It's not the loss of the trophy that is upsetting. It's more the fact that we dropped to 16th in the pairwise rankings. Now we have no margin for error going forward if we want to make the NCAAs; we have to win the ECAC. Had we won, we could have afforded to lose once we got to Atlantic City.

We knew that we would have to perform in the ECACs. That is not news to anyone. ECAC play and our PWR does not exist in a vacuum. UMass reappearing on the PWR affected our rank more than a bad overtime loss to RPI. Cornell had no control over UMass' reappearance on the PWR. If a series of things go right, that would be fruitless to enumerate now because of how many games will be played before the NCAAs, then we have still almost exactly the same probability of getting an at-large as we did going into Saturday's game. 2009, the last time that Cornell got an at-large bid, Cornell needed to make it to the ECAC Final game to assure it. The tone and outlook of the season did not change even though a more than eight year  streak was broken last night.

If Cornell had defeated RPI we still would have fallen to 13 in Pairwise because of the added TUC loss via UMass.  However losing to RPI lowered our RPI enough to make this irrelevant.  Using the DIY Rankings (http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/tbrw.cgi?2012/rankings.diy.shtml) I tried two scenarios to prevent UMass from becoming a TUC: changing their Saturday win over UNH to a loss and removing the game from the data set altogether. In both cases our losing to RPI still drops us to 16.  Our lower RPI flipped all of the comparisons.  UMass just means we're losing some of those comparisons by a wider margin.

That seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be better for us to lose to a TUC, meaning a team that is somewhat good, instead of a team that is not a TUC and thus not good? I guess that's not how PWR works though.

PWR involves a few different components.  One is RPI, which is an overall rating based on your record and your opponents' records and your opponents' opponents' records (I think).  Losing to a TUC would hurt less here than losing to a team that isn't a TUC.

Another component is record vs. TUCs.  So a TUC loss hurts here, whereas losing to a team that isn't a TUC has no impact.

Quote from: Dafatone

Quote from: jtn27That seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't it be better for us to lose to a TUC, meaning a team that is somewhat good, instead of a team that is not a TUC and thus not good? I guess that's not how PWR works though.

PWR involves a few different components.  One is RPI, which is an overall rating based on your record and your opponents' records and your opponents' opponents' records (I think).  Losing to a TUC would hurt less here than losing to a team that isn't a TUC.

Another component is record vs. TUCs.  So a TUC loss hurts here, whereas losing to a team that isn't a TUC has no impact.

The Pairwise was not designed to be a logically consistent ranking system that is valid incrementally. If you're looking for that you need to look to something with a more rigorous mathematical basis, like KRACH (Bradley-Terry). KRACH should have the behavior that jtn27 is expecting, were a loss to a good team is better than a loss to a cellar dweller. (At least I think so. Correct me if I'm wrong please.)

In fact, I don't think PWR was really "designed" at all.  It developed more or less organically from the set of metrics that the tournament committee was using for tourney selection back when bids were done in the smoke filled room.  So it's based on what the coaches thought was important. They thought that beating good teams (TUCs) was a good metric of a team's quality so that's a factor. It's not an unreasonable metri, but it leads to a ranking system that has some counter intuitive behavior when viewed over time.

Keep in mind also that PWR was never "designed" to be used at any time other than the end of the hockey season when bids are awarded. That is, no attempt has been made to address the odd behavior of the relative rankings that happen from week to week and game to game due to small perturbations (like a team losing or gaining TUC status). The committee would argue that this is irrelevant because PWR only is applied at season's end. (The argument that this demonstrates the inherent instability of the ranking method is either over their heads or simply not of interest to them.)

Considering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

FYP

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

I was thinking that it was probably in the line of tradition surrounding the Prince of Wales Trophy. Actually, I was probably hoping in some ways that that is what Cornell has done and why it has done it. Was hoping that someone familiar with the trophy tradition would back my and your thoughts up about it.

Speaking of Union making a big deal out of winning the Jell-O Mold, has anyone seen this? I stumbled upon it the other day.

Union College Banner Raising Ceremony 2011-12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIOlxC4J8Bc)

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

I was thinking that it was probably in the line of tradition surrounding the Prince of Wales Trophy. Actually, I was probably hoping in some ways that that is what Cornell has done and why it has done it. Was hoping that someone familiar with the trophy tradition would back my and your thoughts up about it.

Speaking of Union making a big deal out of winning the Jell-O Mold, has anyone seen this? I stumbled upon it the other day.

Union College Banner Raising Ceremony 2011-12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIOlxC4J8Bc)

And to go up to date, Ken Schott's blog on "Union will be presented Cleary Cup Tuesday night at Bombers Burrito Bar". (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2012/feb/27/union-will-be-presented-cleary-cup-tuesday-night-a/)

If anyone has the correct info on our team not touching the cup, I'd like to email it to him.

My vague recollection is that in '02 and/or '03 the captains were presented the trophy before a home game after they'd clinched. They politely accepted the trophy, put it down, and moved on with their lives. It certainly wasn't skated or anything of the sort in either year.

I specifically recall Clarkson being given the trophy in 2001 at Lake Placid. Of course, fittingly, the team didn't qualify to be there to accept. I got the sense at the time that the trophy was new that year and I'm not sure it had been named yet.

Quote from: css228It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

This is probably (1)blasphemous and (2)the non-American sports fan in me, but I usually value regular season success above tournament success. A team that plays the best over twenty-two games is probably better than one who wins four (or six) games in the playoffs. The larger sample size reduces the importance of bad calls, weird bounces, and balances out home advantage. (This obviously doesn't work as well with an unbalanced schedule.)

Quote from: Chris '03My vague recollection is that in '02 and/or '03 the captains were presented the trophy before a home game after they'd clinched. They politely accepted the trophy, put it down, and moved on with their lives. It certainly wasn't skated or anything of the sort in either year.

I specifically recall Clarkson being given the trophy in 2001 at Lake Placid. Of course, fittingly, the team didn't qualify to be there to accept. I got the sense at the time that the trophy was new that year and I'm not sure it had been named yet.

That was the incident to which I was referring. I certainly remember it vividly, as you described, but it may not have been 2005. I'm too lazy to look up the standings, but it may not have been presented to them at Lynah in 2005.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

In addition to what previous repliers have said about mirroring the tradition farther up the hockey food chain, the Cornell program has a history with Bill Cleary that is somewhat different from the classy, honorable image Harvard presents of him and that the ECACHL "honored" by naming the cup after him.

Cleary and his Harvard team won the 1989 Frozen Four, and it wasn't even that improbable a victory - they had a lot of great players on that team, including Hobey Baker winner Lane McDonald, and they had won the ECAC tournament in 1987 (though not in 1988 or 1989).  A number of very strong players returned for the 1989-1990 season, and expectations were high for at least a repeat appearance in the NCAAs, and it was all the more meaningful because everyone knew it would be Cleary's final season at the helm before he stepped into an administrative position as Harvard's Athletics Director.  Somewhere along the way, the wheels came off a bit, and they finished 6th in the ECAC at 12-9-1, and only 13-14-1 overall.

At the time, we were in the 10-team playoff structure, where 7 hosted 10 and 8 hosted 9 for the first round, and the top 6 got a bye, so with Cornell's #3 finish, we would host Harvard after the bye week no matter what happened in the first round.

Cornell's 1990 team included some pretty serious firepower themselves, including future NHLers Kent Manderville, Corrie D'Alessio, Dan Ratushny, and Ryan Hughes (though the latter three only had a cup of coffee in the NHL), plus the infamous scoring machines on Hughes's line, Trent Andison and Doug Derraugh.  When Harvard arrived at Lynah, Cornell pretty much shut them down, sweeping the "quintafinals" 6-2 and 4-2.  Cleary's coaching career was over, and it didn't end prettily.

If I recall correctly - and it's entirely possible that I don't, but this is how I remember it - after the second game, despite giving Cornell coach Brian McCutcheon a hug, Cleary directed his players to skate off the ice without shaking the Cornell players' hands.

And that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

Quote from: BenThis is probably (1)blasphemous and (2)the non-American sports fan in me, but I usually value regular season success above tournament success. A team that plays the best over twenty-two games is probably better than one who wins four (or six) games in the playoffs.

True, but a tournament trophy doesn't represent the best team, it represents winning, often over better competition.  Cardiff City certainly isn't the second best team in the English football league, but they came within a couple bad pens of their League Cup.

I think both have great value. and should be recognized.

Quote from: BeeeejAnd that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

I recall the incident, but honestly I doubt that has carried through to today's staff, and of course to today's players Bill Cleary might as well have skated with Hobey Baker.

Considering what a great ambassador for American, college and in particular ECAC hockey Cleary has been, I think he deserves the kind of respect the hockey community has for another gritty and sometimes divisive competitor who went on to be a high profile spokesmen for the sport, Laing Kennedy.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinConsidering throughout this thread it has seemed as though some lament not winning the Cleary Cup, I was wondering if someone can explain the events around and background of the event described in the tweet from Saturday evening. It's an occurrence with which I am not familiar from the annals of Cornell history and it just precedes my time on the Hill. I cannot find anything written about it with a quick Google search either.

Quote from: @ELynahLast time Cornell got the Cleary, they left it on the ice an wouldn't touch it. No banner for RS "Champs" and remember who it's named for.

I know that it's named for former Harvard coach, Bill Cleary, but was curious if there was more history/background about how the 2005 team acted. Is this what all Cornell teams have done? Just trying to add to my Cornell hockey history knowledge.

In addition to what previous repliers have said about mirroring the tradition farther up the hockey food chain, the Cornell program has a history with Bill Cleary that is somewhat different from the classy, honorable image Harvard presents of him and that the ECACHL "honored" by naming the cup after him.

Cleary and his Harvard team won the 1989 Frozen Four, and it wasn't even that improbable a victory - they had a lot of great players on that team, including Hobey Baker winner Lane McDonald, and they had won the ECAC tournament in 1987 (though not in 1988 or 1989).  A number of very strong players returned for the 1989-1990 season, and expectations were high for at least a repeat appearance in the NCAAs, and it was all the more meaningful because everyone knew it would be Cleary's final season at the helm before he stepped into an administrative position as Harvard's Athletics Director.  Somewhere along the way, the wheels came off a bit, and they finished 6th in the ECAC at 12-9-1, and only 13-14-1 overall.

At the time, we were in the 10-team playoff structure, where 7 hosted 10 and 8 hosted 9 for the first round, and the top 6 got a bye, so with Cornell's #3 finish, we would host Harvard after the bye week no matter what happened in the first round.

Cornell's 1990 team included some pretty serious firepower themselves, including future NHLers Kent Manderville, Corrie D'Alessio, Dan Ratushny, and Ryan Hughes (though the latter three only had a cup of coffee in the NHL), plus the infamous scoring machines on Hughes's line, Trent Andison and Doug Derraugh.  When Harvard arrived at Lynah, Cornell pretty much shut them down, sweeping the "quintafinals" 6-2 and 4-2.  Cleary's coaching career was over, and it didn't end prettily.

If I recall correctly - and it's entirely possible that I don't, but this is how I remember it - after the second game, despite giving Cornell coach Brian McCutcheon a hug, Cleary directed his players to skate off the ice without shaking the Cornell players' hands.

And that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

Thanks for the historical scope. Also, I could not find anything about why there is a specific level of animosity between the Lynah Faithful and Cleary other than the typical Cornell-Harvard rivalry, thank you for providing that context. I agree that it is reason enough for the team not to act Union-like when it wins the Cleary (admittedly, Union has no reason to have any reservations other than abstract values of sportsmanship because they were not slighted historically by Cleary and his Harvard team). I hope that future Cornell teams when they win the regular season remember how Cleary acted. It is truly something that should be added to the institutional memory of Cornell hockey both within the the team and the Faithful.

Why did the league name neither trophy after Ned Harkness? I know that Union is a recent addition, but Harkness is the common thread through the two historically most successful programs on the national stage. Harkness' legacy is the common connection between Cornell and RPI, with their history and current levels of competitiveness, and Union, with its status as a respectable program.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BeeeejAnd that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

I recall the incident, but honestly I doubt that has carried through to today's staff, and of course to today's players Bill Cleary might as well have skated with Hobey Baker.

Considering what a great ambassador for American, college and in particular ECAC hockey Cleary has been, I think he deserves the kind of respect the hockey community has for another gritty and sometimes divisive competitor who went on to be a high profile spokesmen for the sport, Laing Kennedy.

I realize that I should have said "I" instead of "we," though I know that at least a few other members of this board feel the same way.  But I also have doubts about your statement concerning today's staff, particularly since Schafer, the leader of the staff, once shot a puck at Cleary during a game where Harvard blew us out 11-3 (in Nieuwendyk's last season, no less); and since Schafer was an Assistant Coach at Cornell when we swept Harvard in 1990.  It's also not beyond imagination that he would pass on Cleary stories to his players.

Anyway, I'm just answering a question about a cup that a large number of us don't really care about.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: css228It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

This is probably (1)blasphemous and (2)the non-American sports fan in me, but I usually value regular season success above tournament success. A team that plays the best over twenty-two games is probably better than one who wins four (or six) games in the playoffs. The larger sample size reduces the importance of bad calls, weird bounces, and balances out home advantage. (This obviously doesn't work as well with an unbalanced schedule.)

I agree that regular season success is usually a better indicator of who the best team is, but ultimately, its all about who's the last one standing. My favorite team won 102 games last season, was probably the best team in its franchises history, and provided me with countless hours of entertainment last summer. But they didn't win it all and that stung a little. I will never say the '08 team was better than the '11 team, but at the same time, I'll always have more fond memories of the '08 team because that's the team that won it all. At the same time '10 may be my favorite season despite not winning it all because well post-season no-hitters and regular season perfect games are awesome.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWhy did the league name neither trophy after Ned Harkness? I know that Union is a recent addition, but Harkness is the common thread through the two historically most successful programs on the national stage. Harkness' legacy is the common connection between Cornell and RPI, with their history and current levels of competitiveness, and Union, with its status as a respectable program.

I can't answer that question with any certainty, but it's probably worth knowing that almost everybody besides RPI resented Ned for recruiting so many Canadian players at a time when American college hockey was still largely populated with Americans (it was much more common by the time he arrived at Cornell, but still stirred the pot a bit).  And although he brought RPI to a national title, I think they had some lingering resentment about his departure for Cornell.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffin

Quote from: css228It wouldnt be that surprising a tradition. many teams in the NHL believe in the superstition of not touching the Campbell Bowl or the Prince of Wales Trophy, so I wouldn't be surprised that tradition had moved its way down the chain. After all if your expectations are so low that winning a Cleary is the be all and end all of a successful season, you're not really that great a program (Here's lookin' at you Union). I would have loved to have that 1 seed, but all will be forgiven if we win the ECAC Title and a game or two in the NCAA's.

I was thinking that it was probably in the line of tradition surrounding the Prince of Wales Trophy. Actually, I was probably hoping in some ways that that is what Cornell has done and why it has done it. Was hoping that someone familiar with the trophy tradition would back my and your thoughts up about it.

And to go up to date, Ken Schott's blog on "Union will be presented Cleary Cup Tuesday night at Bombers Burrito Bar". (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2012/feb/27/union-will-be-presented-cleary-cup-tuesday-night-a/)

If anyone has the correct info on our team not touching the cup, I'd like to email it to him.

I know we have been speculating about if there is a superstition around winning the Cleary Cup and why one would not touch it. So, while I awaited comments regarding the Cornell-specific reasons for not acting Union-like upon winning it, I crunched the numbers to see if history warranted the supposition of a curse. Admittedly, the Cleary Cup has been awarded only since 2001 so there is a very small sample size. However, the following is the results of my analysis:

73% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup loses the Whitelaw Cup

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup makes the ECAC Championship Final

27% of the time winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in the ECAC Championship Semifinal

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in ECAC Tournament Quarterfinal

Yale, in 2009, and Cornell, in both 2003 and 2005, are the only teams to have won both the Whitelaw Cup and the Cleary Cup since awarding of the Cleary Cup began in 2001.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWhy did the league name neither trophy after Ned Harkness? I know that Union is a recent addition, but Harkness is the common thread through the two historically most successful programs on the national stage. Harkness' legacy is the common connection between Cornell and RPI, with their history and current levels of competitiveness, and Union, with its status as a respectable program.

I can't answer that question with any certainty, but it's probably worth knowing that almost everybody besides RPI resented Ned for recruiting so many Canadian players at a time when American college hockey was still largely populated with Americans (it was much more common by the time he arrived at Cornell, but still stirred the pot a bit).  And although he brought RPI to a national title, I think they had some lingering resentment about his departure for Cornell.

I overlooked that. It is somewhat difficult with how Cornell has such a tradition of relying upon talent from Canada (pioneered by Harkness) to remember that fact. Often, I pay no attention to our players's nation of origin (as a born Upstater, I do take special notice of the players from my region of New York State). It seems like flagrant disrespect that no accolade in our conference is named for the college hockey coach who owns still the best collegiate win percentage of any coach and who coached most of his collegiate career in the ECAC.

This is also just speculation, but I had the impression that it wasn't about superstition as much as it was about refusing to impart any importance to it. Kind of a "we haven't accomplished anything yet" thing.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI overlooked that. It is somewhat difficult with how Cornell has such a tradition of relying upon talent from Canada (pioneered by Harkness) to remember that fact. Often, I pay no attention to our players's nation of origin (as a born Upstater, I do take special notice of the players from my region of New York State). It seems like flagrant disrespect that no accolade in our conference is named for the college hockey coach who owns still the best collegiate win percentage of any coach and who coached most of his collegiate career in the ECAC.

It's also seriously contradicted by how his players felt and feel about him; I've never heard of any college hockey player whom Ned coached disliking him, and many of them felt like he was their second father.  When Ned left Union College after the first six games of the 1977-78 season amid rumors that he had violated recruiting rules or pressured the college to compromise their admissions standards, the entire varsity team stepped down and refused to play for the remainder of the season.  (JV and intramural players were cobbled together to form a varsity, and lost every remaining game, the first one by the score of 19-1.)

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI know we have been speculating about if there is a superstition around winning the Cleary Cup and why one would not touch it. So, while I awaited comments regarding the Cornell-specific reasons for not acting Union-like upon winning it, I crunched the numbers to see if history warranted the supposition of a curse. Admittedly, the Cleary Cup has been awarded only since 2001 so there is a very small sample size. However, the following is the results of my analysis:

73% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup loses the Whitelaw Cup

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup makes the ECAC Championship Final

27% of the time winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in the ECAC Championship Semifinal

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in ECAC Tournament Quarterfinal

Yale, in 2009, and Cornell, in both 2003 and 2005, are the only teams to have won both the Whitelaw Cup and the Cleary Cup since awarding of the Cleary Cup began in 2001.

But still slightly better than the odds of the second-, third-, or fourth-place teams winning the Whitelaw Cup as the ECAC tourament champion? The only immutable fact: Every year since 2001, Harvard ______.

I would happily continue my undergradute years if Cornell offered a course in the Statistics of Sport (and Reflections on the Real World). Maybe offered online via eLynah and we hired the Redcast Guy to do the video? Just tell the prof not to walk too quickly toward either end of the chalkboard.

Quote from: BeeeejI realize that I should have said "I" instead of "we," though I know that at least a few other members of this board feel the same way.  But I also have doubts about your statement concerning today's staff, particularly since Schafer, the leader of the staff, once shot a puck at Cleary during a game where Harvard blew us out 11-3 (in Nieuwendyk's last season, no less)

For shame, Beeeej!  That was during 1985-86 (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19851208.html), Joe's second-to-last season.

Quote from: billhowardThe only immutable fact: Every year since the beginning of the universe, Harvard _ sucks _.

Fixed & completed.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI overlooked that. It is somewhat difficult with how Cornell has such a tradition of relying upon talent from Canada (pioneered by Harkness) to remember that fact. Often, I pay no attention to our players's nation of origin (as a born Upstater, I do take special notice of the players from my region of New York State). It seems like flagrant disrespect that no accolade in our conference is named for the college hockey coach who owns still the best collegiate win percentage of any coach and who coached most of his collegiate career in the ECAC.

It's also seriously contradicted by how his players felt and feel about him; I've never heard of any college hockey player whom Ned coached disliking him, and many of them felt like he was their second father.  When Ned left Union College after the first six games of the 1977-78 season amid rumors that he had violated recruiting rules or pressured the college to compromise their admissions standards, the entire varsity team stepped down and refused to play for the remainder of the season.  (JV and intramural players were cobbled together to form a varsity, and lost every remaining game, the first one by the score of 19-1.)

For one year when I was living in Princeton, my primary care physician was one of those Union fill-ins who got their asses handed to them every game.  He didn't share great stories, but he had memories of the camaraderie and the blowouts.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: BeeeejI realize that I should have said "I" instead of "we," though I know that at least a few other members of this board feel the same way.  But I also have doubts about your statement concerning today's staff, particularly since Schafer, the leader of the staff, once shot a puck at Cleary during a game where Harvard blew us out 11-3 (in Nieuwendyk's last season, no less)

For shame, Beeeej!  That was during 1985-86 (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19851208.html), Joe's second-to-last season.

Of course it was, and I should know that, having worked with Joe's graduating class, 1988, while I was on Cornell's staff, and remembering that he left before his senior year.  For some reason I had it in my head that he left in 1986 right after Cornell won the ECAC tournament and then lost to Denver by splitting one of those stupid two-game "total goals" series.

It's also worth mentioning in the context of this thread that Harvard lost the national championship game by one goal in 1986.

Quote from: Beeeejin 1986 right after Cornell won the ECAC tournament and then lost to Denver by splitting one of those stupid two-game "total goals" series.

It's also worth mentioning in the context of this thread that Harvard lost the national championship game by one goal in 1986.

Also a good place to mention that Cornell was leading Denver, the #1 team in the country, in total goals midway through the second game, but surrendered two goals to lose the series (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19860322.html).  Had Cornell advanced they would have played Harvard in the 1986 NCAA SF in Providence.

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinI know we have been speculating about if there is a superstition around winning the Cleary Cup and why one would not touch it. So, while I awaited comments regarding the Cornell-specific reasons for not acting Union-like upon winning it, I crunched the numbers to see if history warranted the supposition of a curse. Admittedly, the Cleary Cup has been awarded only since 2001 so there is a very small sample size. However, the following is the results of my analysis:

73% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup loses the Whitelaw Cup

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup makes the ECAC Championship Final

27% of the time winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in the ECAC Championship Semifinal

36% of the time the winner of the Cleary Cup is eliminated in ECAC Tournament Quarterfinal

Yale, in 2009, and Cornell, in both 2003 and 2005, are the only teams to have won both the Whitelaw Cup and the Cleary Cup since awarding of the Cleary Cup began in 2001.

But still slightly better than the odds of the second-, third-, or fourth-place teams winning the Whitelaw Cup as the ECAC tourament champion? The only immutable fact: Every year since 2001, Harvard ______.

I would happily continue my undergradute years if Cornell offered a course in the Statistics of Sport (and Reflections on the Real World). Maybe offered online via eLynah and we hired the Redcast Guy to do the video? Just tell the prof not to walk too quickly toward either end of the chalkboard.

Sucks.

Here's the breakdown by seed.

% of times that a given seed has won the Whitelaw Cup:
45% second seed
27% first seed
9.1% third seed
9.1% fourth seed
9.1% team outside of the top four seeds

Quote from: Aaron M. Griffinand Union, with its status as a respectable program.

A shiver just went down my spine. :-}

A brief history lesson: After turning Division I in 1992, Union made their first advancement in the ECAC tournament in 2009.  Before that, over the course of 17 years and 11 tournaments, Union's playoff record was 2-21-0 (if my TBRW counting is accurate).  To include the recent successes since 2008, (7-6 in 3 years), that pulls their ECAC tournament record up to 9-27-0 over 20 years and 14 tournaments.  They've reached the ECAC Championship weekend once, losing the 2010 Championship game to somebody.

So I completely understand why they would go crazy and make a big deal about it. They won SOMETHING. There's actually something to look at in a trophy case now.  Even though that's about as weird to me as seeing banners now hanging in Ingalls and Baker.  At least Brown is still flying those Pentagonal league championship banners proudly.

Good ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Now if Union fans could actually make noise without the help of bells or milk jug rattles, or just grunting "U!!" over other teams' cheers, I could think about respecting them.

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Yes, they shared it with Colgate in 2006, and had the #1 seed in the tournament, losing in the seminfinals to Harvard 10-1.  It wasn't pretty.

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Dartmouth won the RS title in 2006 (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).

To be fair to Union, they have finished in the top 4 seeds in 4 of the last 5 years.  We oldsters think of them as awful, but that's a good run, and their roster is dominated by young players so they should continue it in the near future.

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

2006. Dartmouth websites mention it probably. One example (http://www.dartmouthsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11600&ATCLID=623098):

QuoteWhile at Dartmouth, the program has enjoyed a tremendous resurgence, capturing the 2005-06 Cleary Cup as the ECAC Regular Season Champions.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Yes, they shared it with Colgate in 2006, and had the #1 seed in the tournament, losing in the seminfinals to Harvard 10-1.  It wasn't pretty.

So they did. My mistake in quickly jumping between charts and hastily scanning data.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Dartmouth won the RS title in 2006 (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).

To be fair to Union, they have finished in the top 4 seeds in 4 of the last 5 years.  We oldsters think of them as awful, but that's a good run, and their roster is dominated by young players so they should continue it in the near future.

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.  And that Cornell team didn't really lack for talent, either, though we only finished 5th (we lost in the ECAC title game to St. Lawrence).

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Yes, they shared it with Colgate in 2006, and had the #1 seed in the tournament, losing in the seminfinals to Harvard 10-1.  It wasn't pretty.

The next night wasn't so hot either...

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Yes, they shared it with Colgate in 2006, and had the #1 seed in the tournament, losing in the seminfinals to Harvard 10-1.  It wasn't pretty.

The next night wasn't so hot either...

For that year, I prefer to remember instead our improbable comeback against Colorado College the week after, followed the next night by one of the single greatest college hockey games ever played, our 3OT 0-1 loss to eventual national champions Wisconsin.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Dartmouth won the RS title in 2006 (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).

To be fair to Union, they have finished in the top 4 seeds in 4 of the last 5 years.  We oldsters think of them as awful, but that's a good run, and their roster is dominated by young players so they should continue it in the near future.

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.  And that Cornell team didn't really lack for talent, either, though we only finished 5th (we lost in the ECAC title game to St. Lawrence).

I never want to be fair to Union. They've been the source of way too many "losing points to a cellar dweller" over the years.  In 1998, we gave them half of their league wins, the year before their infamous 4-point Season. I'm still trying to get momentum for my brilliant "Trade-Union-For-RIT" plan. Sell high!! :-)

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Dartmouth won the RS title in 2006 (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_History/ecac_RS_Champs_Icon.html).

To be fair to Union, they have finished in the top 4 seeds in 4 of the last 5 years.  We oldsters think of them as awful, but that's a good run, and their roster is dominated by young players so they should continue it in the near future.

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.  And that Cornell team didn't really lack for talent, either, though we only finished 5th (we lost in the ECAC title game to St. Lawrence).

I never want to be fair to Union. They've been the source of way too many "losing points to a cellar dweller" over the years.  In 1998, we gave them half of their league wins, the year before their infamous 4-point Season. I'm still trying to get momentum for my brilliant "Trade-Union-For-RIT" plan. Sell high!! :-)

We looked so good against RIT the last time we played them (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2010/10/30/MICE_1030104855.aspx?path=mhockey). Cornell would lose also the ability to claim that we were the last ECAC team to make the Frozen Four without conditionalities. I do like a Cornell-RIT travel partnership though.

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

The alternate world is called 2012-2013.

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

The alternate world is called 2012-2013.

Here's hoping.

Quote from: css228I guess my frustration is that this team is so close to not just being good, but great, and the flaws that this team has are traditional strengths (PK and 3rd Periods). Its pretty clear that the team plays up or down to its opponent - six points against the bottom three proves that - so if we get past Ithaca in two weeks I feel pretty confident in a deep run. But when I look back on the regular season I'm frustrated by missed opportunities. We were so close to beating BU. If we could have held up for 34 more seconds we could have swept CC at CC. We blew third period leads to Mercyhurst, Princeton, Brown and RPI - all solidly in the twenty worst teams in the country. There is so much promise to this team and its so frustratingly close to being great (the only games we didn't hold 3rd period leads in were BU, Colgate at home, Clarkson at home, and UMass.I'm sure that some of the top 5 teams in the country can't even claim to have held a 3rd period lead in over 80% of their games. It just is hard to be optimistic about the result being different next time (even though logically these stretches don't last forever) when you repeatedly witness the same outcome. Anyone who grew up in Philly knows this kind of team. This team is just one of those teams that you can't help but have optimism about, but the moment you let your guard  down, they get gut punched. I know they're really young,but I'm just not ready to raise my expectations for them again. In 3 weeks maybe. Though I really hope not. We play better when I'm not optimistic

These are characteristics of a very talented YOUNG team.

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinHere's the breakdown by seed.

% of times that a given seed has won the Whitelaw Cup:
45% second seed
27% first seed
9.1% third seed
9.1% fourth seed
9.1% team outside of the top four seeds

Very convincing evidence that we might win in Atlantic City.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinWhy did the league name neither trophy after Ned Harkness? I know that Union is a recent addition, but Harkness is the common thread through the two historically most successful programs on the national stage. Harkness' legacy is the common connection between Cornell and RPI, with their history and current levels of competitiveness, and Union, with its status as a respectable program.

I can't answer that question with any certainty, but it's probably worth knowing that almost everybody besides RPI resented Ned for recruiting so many Canadian players at a time when American college hockey was still largely populated with Americans (it was much more common by the time he arrived at Cornell, but still stirred the pot a bit).  And although he brought RPI to a national title, I think they had some lingering resentment about his departure for Cornell.

Yes indeed there was. I arrived in RPI in the fall of 1964, a full year after he left, and that resentment was told to us by the upper classmen. It took many years before that wore off, but it did, and he was honored several times by RPI.

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: css228

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: KenPTwo questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

The alternate world is called 2012-2013.

Who's afraid of the big bad woof?

Quote from: TrotskyGames in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

You're missing one. We let the Hockey East official take that puck right out of the net during the BU game and we lost a 2-1 third-period lead as a result.

Quote from: BeeeejThey also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

Quote from: Give My Regards

Quote from: BeeeejThey also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

Would it help if I also brought up Leeor Shtrom?

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Give My Regards

Quote from: BeeeejThey also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

Would it help if I also brought up Leeor Shtrom?

Only if you quote Ian Burt too:

"We were just having a conversation, I just asked him how the game was," Burt said. "I asked him why he didn't jump me and he was like, 'Oh, your back was turned.' He was like, 'You want to go with me?' and I [said], 'Not really, you'll probably beat me up.' He said, 'Well, let's go then,' and throws his gloves off."

To replay a six year old conversation: http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,80935,80935#msg-80935

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: jtn27The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

I think that's a fair analogy. My point was more that the Journal sucks than that the Sun is good. Although, you would expect the professional newspaper to be better than the student one.

Not really.  With rare exceptions, a professional newspaper in Ithaca isn't going to attract the best journalists, it's generally going to attract the best journalists who already want to live in or near Ithaca.  A student paper at an Ivy League university is going to attract many of the best students who want to be the best journalists.

This is cray talk. The student paper will have teenagers who know fuck-all about anything. The IJ will have a staff that is a combination of young writers building their clip file before trying to move to a bigger paper and more experienced writers that have decided they like horrible weather. The average member of either group should be better than most of the Sun writers. The young writers will have gotten the job based on their own college clip file and the experienced writers are EXPERIENCED WRITERS.

This isn't to say that the IJ is or is not fishwrap, only to point out that teenagers are bad writers and a red sweatshirt doesn't change that. Sorry, Sun staffers. You are probably terrible. Did I mention that I wrote a thing for The Classical (http://t.co/SX2WU5lO)? If you want your revenge, please feel free to tell me that I suck too.

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

Quote from: ajh258

Quote from: Aaron M. GriffinHere's the breakdown by seed.

% of times that a given seed has won the Whitelaw Cup:
45% second seed
27% first seed
9.1% third seed
9.1% fourth seed
9.1% team outside of the top four seeds

Very convincing evidence that we might win in Atlantic City.

Unfortunately for us that type of statistic doesn't hold much weight in determining the outcome of this year's tournament (or future tournaments). I hope the pattern holds though.

Quote from: jtn27I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: jtn27I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: jtn27I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

Quote from: css228

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: jtn27I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

Not really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: css228

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: jtn27I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

Not really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Not its fan posts

Quote from: css228

Quote from: BenNot really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Not its fan posts

True, but that's not the main body of content on SBN sites and sbnation.com.

Quote from: Ben

Quote from: css228

Quote from: BenNot really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Not its fan posts

True, but that's not the main body of content on SBN sites and sbnation.com.

My point was more the'yre both semi-respectable.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Chris '03

Quote from: RichHGood ECAC trivia: Current teams to never win either title?  Brown, Dartmouth, & Quinnipiac.

Didn't Dartmouth win or share the regular season title recently?

Yes, they shared it with Colgate in 2006, and had the #1 seed in the tournament, losing in the seminfinals to Harvard 10-1.  It wasn't pretty.

The next night wasn't so hot either...

For that year, I prefer to remember instead our improbable comeback against Colorado College the week after, followed the next night by one of the single greatest college hockey games ever played, our 3OT 0-1 loss to eventual national champions Wisconsin.

As for how Harvard fared in the NCAAs, look down there

|
|
|
V

Quote from: BeeeejIn addition to what previous repliers have said about mirroring the tradition farther up the hockey food chain, the Cornell program has a history with Bill Cleary that is somewhat different from the classy, honorable image Harvard presents of him and that the ECACHL "honored" by naming the cup after him.

Cleary and his Harvard team won the 1989 Frozen Four, and it wasn't even that improbable a victory - they had a lot of great players on that team, including Hobey Baker winner Lane McDonald, and they had won the ECAC tournament in 1987 (though not in 1988 or 1989).  A number of very strong players returned for the 1989-1990 season, and expectations were high for at least a repeat appearance in the NCAAs, and it was all the more meaningful because everyone knew it would be Cleary's final season at the helm before he stepped into an administrative position as Harvard's Athletics Director.  Somewhere along the way, the wheels came off a bit, and they finished 6th in the ECAC at 12-9-1, and only 13-14-1 overall.

At the time, we were in the 10-team playoff structure, where 7 hosted 10 and 8 hosted 9 for the first round, and the top 6 got a bye, so with Cornell's #3 finish, we would host Harvard after the bye week no matter what happened in the first round.

Cornell's 1990 team included some pretty serious firepower themselves, including future NHLers Kent Manderville, Corrie D'Alessio, Dan Ratushny, and Ryan Hughes (though the latter three only had a cup of coffee in the NHL), plus the infamous scoring machines on Hughes's line, Trent Andison and Doug Derraugh.  When Harvard arrived at Lynah, Cornell pretty much shut them down, sweeping the "quintafinals" 6-2 and 4-2.  Cleary's coaching career was over, and it didn't end prettily.

If I recall correctly - and it's entirely possible that I don't, but this is how I remember it - after the second game, despite giving Cornell coach Brian McCutcheon a hug, Cleary directed his players to skate off the ice without shaking the Cornell players' hands.

And that is part of why we don't have much respect for Cleary, and part of the reason why we don't have much respect for the cup named after him.

Pedant alert: they were still quarterfinals in 1990, since the four winners went on to to the ECAC semifinals in Boston.  "Quintafinals" refers to the five series (1v10, 2v9, etc) whose winners went on to either the semis or the 4v5 playin game, which took place from 1998 to 2002.

The other thing about that 1990 quarterfinal series is that Cornell entered with an 11-game losing streak vs Harvard, dating back to 1985.  IIRC someone associated with the Hahavahd program provided some good locker room quotes about how lucky they were to have drawn Cornell in the playoffs...

Quote from: jtwcornell91Pedant alert: they were still quarterfinals in 1990, since the four winners went on to to the ECAC semifinals in Boston.  "Quintafinals" refers to the five series (1v10, 2v9, etc) whose winners went on to either the semis or the 4v5 playin game, which took place from 1998 to 2002.

Of course... I was confused by seeing the tourney results on TBRW? and noting the 7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9 matchups prior to the quarterfinals, which I barely remembered existing at all.

Quote from: jtwcornell91Pedant alert

The pedants are revolting.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: jtwcornell91Pedant alert

The pedants are revolting.

Bloody pedant!

Oooh what a giveaway!

Quote from: TrotskyThe pedants are revolting.

Revolting??  You're a fine one to talk -- you're pretty repulsive yourself.  :-)