ELynah Forum

General Category => Hockey => Topic started by: Greg Berge on May 22, 2003, 06:01:37 PM

Title: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 22, 2003, 06:01:37 PM
The record for home winning and home undefeated streaks at Lynah is 63.

Currently, Cornell is undefeated in 25 straight games at Lynah.  Their home winning streak is 18.

No, I don't expect them to beat either record, bit it's nice to be remotely in the ballpark,
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Jordan 04 on May 22, 2003, 06:14:38 PM
2 1/2 to 3 seasons is "remotely in the ballpark"?  

Yikes ::uhoh::
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 22, 2003, 06:28:28 PM
Remotely, absolutely.  I'm sure it is the longest Lynah undefeated streak since The Streak itself.

Yikes my ass.
Title: Re: 63
Post by: jtwcornell91 on May 22, 2003, 06:35:10 PM
It's nice to be within an order of magnitude...

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 22, 2003, 06:41:21 PM
Exactly... ;-)
Title: Re: 63
Post by: ugarte on May 22, 2003, 07:36:08 PM
QuoteGreg wrote:

The record for home winning and home undefeated streaks at Lynah is 63. . . Cornell is undefeated in 25 straight games at Lynah . . . nice to be remotely in the ballpark
Remotely, my fanny.  I shrug when ballplayers have 30 game hitting streaks also.

But the more interesting thing: there were no ties in the 63 game unbeaten streak?

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Al DeFlorio on May 22, 2003, 08:15:39 PM
Quotebig red apple wrote:

[But the more interesting thing: there were no ties in the 63 game unbeaten streak?

Ten minute OTs back then, IIRC, and I'd bet (too lazy to look it up) that not many games went to OT at Lynah in that era.



Post Edited (05-22-03 22:56)
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 22, 2003, 10:42:54 PM
I count one overtime game during the streak:

1/9/71, 5-4, Harvard
Title: Re: 63
Post by: jkahn on May 23, 2003, 02:42:52 PM
1/9/71, 5-4, Harvard
That one resulted in some highly positive deja vu this year for me.  As in this year's ECAC final, we had tied that game after pulling the goalie.   Kevin Pettit tied it on a deflection of a Ron Simpson slapshot and we won it in overtime on a shorthanded goal by Jim Higgs.
The Yale loss before the streak started would have been the previous overtime game at Lynah.

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 27, 2003, 11:28:14 AM
The Cornell media guide does not contain overtime references before 1979 and it isn't possible to determine whether RS overtimes before then were always 10 minutes.  Anybody know if they were?  Prior to Lynah (1957), overtime rules were likely unstable.
Title: Re: 63
Post by: jkahn on May 27, 2003, 02:02:34 PM
At least from '66-'67 to '71-'72 they were ten minutes.  I don't know when it changed to five.  It seems that ten minute overtimes were used for playoff games up through 1990.  See http://www.uscho.com/m/ncaad1/?data=longest_games

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Jeff Hopkins \'82 on May 27, 2003, 05:03:15 PM
It would seem that our game against BC this year would make the list.

Looks like the table's already out of date.   ::nut::

JH
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Jeff Hopkins \'82 on May 27, 2003, 05:16:14 PM
I take it back.  We missed #40 it by 48 seconds.

JH
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Greg Berge on May 27, 2003, 10:30:21 PM
IIRC, it was changed to 5 min the late 80's.  At least in the mid 80's it was ten, because Dave Shippel's overtime game winner at Bright burned into my brain forever the scoreboard's time remaining: 5:55.
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Give My Regards on June 02, 2003, 03:18:25 PM
QuoteGreg wrote:

IIRC, it was changed to 5 min the late 80's.  At least in the mid 80's it was ten, because Dave Shippel's overtime game winner at Bright burned into my brain forever the scoreboard's time remaining: 5:55.

OT was changed to 5 minutes for the 89-90 season.

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Al DeFlorio on June 02, 2003, 06:12:46 PM
QuoteBill Fenwick wrote:

OT was changed to 5 minutes for the 89-90 season.

Anyone remember why it was changed?  With the shorter duration of games since the new face-off rule, I'd like to see it changed back to 10 minutes.



Post Edited (06-02-03 20:16)
Title: OT
Post by: jtwcornell91 on June 03, 2003, 07:56:58 AM
QuoteAl DeFlorio wrote:
With the shorter duration of games since the new face-off rule, I'd like to see it changed back to 10 minutes.
It'd be nice to see something good come out of the fast faceoff rule. ;-)

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Give My Regards on June 03, 2003, 10:20:39 AM
QuoteAl DeFlorio wrote:

Anyone remember why it was changed?  With the shorter duration of games since the new face-off rule, I'd like to see it changed back to 10 minutes.

As I recall, it was a move to shorten the game, and it wasn't just the shorter OT.  When OT was ten minutes, the ice would be resurfaced before it started.  With the extra session only five minutes, the ice is not resurfaced, so the break between regulation and OT is a lot shorter.

Title: Re: 63
Post by: jtwcornell91 on June 03, 2003, 10:57:51 AM
QuoteBill Fenwick wrote:
As I recall, it was a move to shorten the game, and it wasn't just the shorter OT.  When OT was ten minutes, the ice would be resurfaced before it started.  With the extra session only five minutes, the ice is not resurfaced, so the break between regulation and OT is a lot shorter.
But these days international hockey is played with a 10-minute OT which I'm pretty sure has no resurfacing before it.

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Al DeFlorio on June 03, 2003, 11:46:54 AM
QuoteJohn T. Whelan '91 wrote:
But these days international hockey is played with a 10-minute OT which I'm pretty sure has no resurfacing before it.
That's OK as long as they don't play at the Providence Civic Center...::rolleyes::

Title: Re: 63
Post by: Jeff Hopkins \'82 on June 03, 2003, 12:54:03 PM
Let me tell you, the players were none to thrilled with the surface in Albany, either.

JH
Title: Re: 63
Post by: cquinn on June 03, 2003, 02:19:13 PM
[Q]Let me tell you, the players were none to thrilled with the surface in Albany, either.[/Q]

Don't knock it too much.  There was that lovely moment when the bad ice caused the puck to tip up on edge and roll wide of the empty net.
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Jeff Hopkins \'82 on June 03, 2003, 05:02:19 PM
Point well taken.  :-P
Title: Re: 63
Post by: Josh '99 on June 03, 2003, 05:52:42 PM
QuoteAl DeFlorio wrote:
QuoteJohn T. Whelan '91 wrote:
But these days international hockey is played with a 10-minute OT which I'm pretty sure has no resurfacing before it.
That's OK as long as they don't play at the Providence Civic Center...::rolleyes::
Somehow I doubt there's much international hockey being played at the Providence Civic Center.