Waaaah waaaah
Ok come on give me some details!!!!
I can conclusively say that the Cornell '08 Boston meetup (at John harvards of course) was living and dying by my CHN app. But tell us about the game!!
Quote from: BMacWaaaah waaaah
Ok come on give me some details!!!!
I can conclusively say that the Cornell '08 Boston meetup (at John harvards of course) was living and dying by my CHN app. But tell us about the game!!
Still gotta win another, but I don't mind being wrong.
What kind of Cornell meetup is scheduled during a hockey playoff game? Cornell was opportunistic. They were generally outplayed, scored 2 PPGs in a game, which they've only done to open the season at CC, home against Clarkson, and at St. Lawrence, and got a lot of help from the iron behind Iles and unlucky whiffs by Q players looking at wide-open nets. I hope they have more than that for tomorrow.
That was our first win against a national #1 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rpt1p/rpt1p_Cornell_Top_10_Opponents.html) since 11/15/96 against Vermont, and our first win at a national #1 since the second game of the Denver NCAA series on 3/22/86.
Might want to wait to see if we win the series before making such posts.
Quote from: BMacWaaaah waaaah
Ok come on give me some details!!!!
I can conclusively say that the Cornell '08 Boston meetup (at John harvards of course) was living and dying by my CHN app. But tell us about the game!!
Q's recap here (http://www.quinnipiacbobcats.com/sports/mice/2012-13/releases/20130315fel6x0). ::banana::
i hate to admit it, but cornell got terribly lucky. they aren't going to win one of the next two if they keep playing like this. still...whoever said cornell has no chance does not understand the randomness of hockey
Quote from: TrotskyThat was our first win against a national #1 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rpt1p/rpt1p_Cornell_Top_10_Opponents.html) since 11/15/96 against Vermont, and our first win at a national #1 since the second game of the Denver NCAA series on 3/22/86.
And our first MEANINGFUL win at a #1 since (I expect Greg to tell us), because that Denver win was somewhat less than meaningful since it was a total goals series and we won the game but lost the series.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: TrotskyThat was our first win against a national #1 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rpt1p/rpt1p_Cornell_Top_10_Opponents.html) since 11/15/96 against Vermont, and our first win at a national #1 since the second game of the Denver NCAA series on 3/22/86.
And our first MEANINGFUL win at a #1 since (I expect Greg to tell us), because that Denver win was somewhat less than meaningful since it was a total goals series and we won the game but lost the series.
Last I checked, there is at least (multiply, shift, carry the one...) one game left.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: TrotskyThat was our first win against a national #1 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rpt1p/rpt1p_Cornell_Top_10_Opponents.html) since 11/15/96 against Vermont, and our first win at a national #1 since the second game of the Denver NCAA series on 3/22/86.
And our first MEANINGFUL win at a #1 since (I expect Greg to tell us), because that Denver win was somewhat less than meaningful since it was a total goals series and we won the game but lost the series.
Thye Pioneer game could have been pretty damn meaningful, and we were indeed leading the total goals for the series after breaking out to a 3-0 lead (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19860322.pdf) in the second game to move the aggregate goals to 5-4, with the winner heading to Providence to take on a Harv ard team we had already beaten. But after we took the lead exhaustion, luck, and a really skilled Denver team wore us down.
To respond to andyw, because I have very spotty record for team ranking prior to the 80's I do not have a clue what the last significant win at a national #1 was, other than... tonight's. :)
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: TrotskyThat was our first win against a national #1 (http://www.tbrw.info/reports/rpt1p/rpt1p_Cornell_Top_10_Opponents.html) since 11/15/96 against Vermont, and our first win at a national #1 since the second game of the Denver NCAA series on 3/22/86.
And our first MEANINGFUL win at a #1 since (I expect Greg to tell us), because that Denver win was somewhat less than meaningful since it was a total goals series and we won the game but lost the series.
Last I checked, there is at least (multiply, shift, carry the one...) one game left.
I wasn't implying anything about this series. All I was saying is that there was a big difference between this game and the game at Denver in 1986. At the end of that game the buzzer sounded, we looked at the scoreboard, we had more goals than the other team, yet they were the ones celebrating and our season was finished. After tonight's game we were the ones celebrating. Not celebrating a series win, but still celebrating.
If all first games repeated (http://www.tbrw.info/ecac_Tournament/ecac_Tournament_frame.html), the QF would be:
9. Cornell at 3. Yale
7. Brown at 4. Union
Quote from: TrotskyThye Pioneer game could have been pretty damn meaningful, and we were indeed leading the total goals for the series after breaking out to a 3-0 lead (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19860322.pdf) in the second game to move the aggregate goals to 5-4, with the winner heading to Providence to take on a Harv ard team we had already beaten.
Uh, dude, we didn't beat Harvard that year. 85-86 was the start of -- well, never mind what it was the start of, but it lasted -- well, never mind how long it lasted.
Although this may posted elsewhere (other than by me) tonight's game is televised live on NESN.
Quote from: BearLoveri hate to admit it, but cornell got terribly lucky. they aren't going to win one of the next two if they keep playing like this. still...whoever said cornell has no chance does not understand the randomness of hockey
I definitely don't deny that we got some bounces last night. However, we did play well enough
that those bounces mattered. If Q had played its best game and we played our worst, Q would have been "unlucky" even more often - they probably would have missed twice as many open nets while potting 10 goals. In those cases, though, you don't notice the bad bounces because they're hidden under the layer of A playing better than B.
We've all seen this Cornell team play much, much worse hockey than they did last night - they're still a work in progress, but they're definitely still improving. I wasn't expecting them to out-skate, out-pass, and out-create Q last night - they weren't going to turn into the 1970 team overnight. Tonight is going to be a war - strap in and foil up!
Quote from: Give My RegardsQuote from: TrotskyThye Pioneer game could have been pretty damn meaningful, and we were indeed leading the total goals for the series after breaking out to a 3-0 lead (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1986/box19860322.pdf) in the second game to move the aggregate goals to 5-4, with the winner heading to Providence to take on a Harv ard team we had already beaten.
Uh, dude, we didn't beat Harvard that year. 85-86 was the start of -- well, never mind what it was the start of, but it lasted -- well, never mind how long it lasted.
You're right.
But don't call me dude.
I disagree with the people who make it sound like we were completely outplayed Friday night and were lucky to win. Yes, Q did control the puck more and have more quality scoring chances than us. But after the expected slow start, we did settle down, and we had a great second period. While Q did keep the pressure on for most of the third period, it didn't feel like we were on the verge of disaster every second. It also didn't help that the refs let most borderline penalty calls go in the third period.
Iles, meanwhile, played a great game. It should be noted that I believe this is seven consecutive games where he has not surrendered more than two goals, and that includes at Princeton last weekend after he suffered some type of injury late in Game 1.
There were long stretches of 5-on-5 play where Q had a good cycle going, reminiscent of our most recent dominant teams, but still had trouble getting quality scoring chances.
Dias took a terrible penalty which resulted in Q's first goal, but that was an unlucky break for us. From my vantage point, it looked like the Q shot actually deflected off Lowry's stick, not his skate, and past Iles. Dias made up for that later with only his second career goal.
Q's second goal came during a terrible shift by our top line (Miller, Ferlin, Lowry) in which we looked lackadaisical trying to clear the puck out of our zone. Ferlin made up for that later by scoring the game-winning goal, after which he gestured to the pep band to crank the music up.
Axell's injury from last night, whatever it was, will hurt us. We just don't have as much depth as we had with some of our stronger teams. But our third and fourth lines are playing solidly, and DeSwardt has really cut down on his penalties since the start of the season.
We need to use our size advantage. There were a few shifts where we were throwing our bodies around and forcing some turnovers. Also, for some strange reason, many of our players kept losing their edge in the first period. I was joking with my friend that maybe the team had packed the wrong type of skates. Thankfully, that wasn't as much of a problem the rest of the game.
I'm looking forward to Game 2 tonight. The pep band should be there on time and we know Q is going to come storming out of the opening faceoff. But it should be fun!
I blame OP for tonight. Hopefully he didn't jinx away the whole series.
I said we CAN'T possibly win. CAN'T.
YOU HEAR ME, HOCKEY GODS?
CAN'T!
Reverse woofing is punished with even greater wrath by the Hockey Gods.
Our only chance now is they assume you're a Q agent provocateur.
Quote from: RobbIf Q had played its best game and we played our worst, Q would have...pott[ed] 10 goals.
Sheesh. If only I could put this skill to use picking lottery tickets!
It's all my fault...