ELynah Forum

I'm pretty sure we are in with Quinnipiac and OSU losses.  No teams below #17 in current pairwise can get in (other than Robert Morris which would push Air Force out).  In other words, 16 of the current top 17 teams will be in.  I do not think our RPI can fall below OSU's so we should be in.

edit: forgot WCHA autobid since they are not playing tonight.

RPI will be the only comparison that matters with Minnesota and Ferris. . .record against common opponents is actually meaningless for these comparisons.  Since TUC has been eliminated, there are only three comparisons.  For teams that do not have head-to-head match-ups there are only two (RPI and Common Opponents).  Since RPI is the tie breaker, it is the only comparison that matters.  This will be the case in all comparisons in which there are not head-to-head match-ups.

CHN is definitely counting the Colgate win twice.  Our RPI is too high and check out the individual comparison against Ferris State. . .shows our record against Colgate at 2-2.

Just ran it on USCHO which has our record against TUC at 7-4-3 where CHN has it at 8-4-3. . .difference is that it flips at leaset the Michigan comparison if WM wins. Didn't figure out which one is right, but my guess is that CHN is double counting our win against Colgate (at least for TUC purposes).

The last post over simplified the analysis a little, but I think Denver gets sent east (most likely Albany).  If BC and St. Cloud both win, I think 3-6 are Wis, St. Cloud, BC, ND in which case St. Cloud would likely stay in Minnesota with Wisconsin and Denver going to Albany and Worcester. If BC and ND win, I think 3-6 are Wis, BC, ND, St. Cloud in which case BC would get Worcester, Wisconsin would go to Minnesota  (with St. Cloud as the #6) and Denver to Albany.  If BC loses, Wis. is #3 and BC is #6 with St. Cloud and ND #4 & #5 in which case St. Cloud and ND would be in Minnesota, Wisconsin would go to Worcester (with BC at the #6) and Denver would get sent to Albany.

I also think a Winsconsin win over Denver locks them in for a #1 seed (#3 overall) and they would likely get sent to Minnesota since it is pretty close for them. . .Denver will be traveling pretty far either way.

If we win, then it looks like we are #7.  The #1-2 seeds are between Denver and Miami which will come down to their TUC and is very close.  If Miami does better than Denver today it will get the overall #1 seed  (i.e., Denver loss with Miami win or tie or Denver tie and Miami win).  If Miami takes the #1 seed, then Denver as the number #2 seed would likely be in Albany with us as the #7.  If Denver gets the overall #1, then it looks like we are headed west unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance.

I've been trying since before the game started so I was probably okay with the connection limit.  I think it must be something with the settings.  There website says to make a change to some setting, but I can't find that setting when I follow their instructions.

Is any one else having problems getting the SLU video to work?  Any suggestions on how to make it work?

There are a few points that have not been mentioned so I thought I would add my opinion.  

Overall, I thought this was the most encouraging games over the past month (especially the second and third periods) with signs of work on several of the key problems.

Veteran leadership - I thought the veterans, Bitz in particular, stepped up the effort last night.  It was nice to see the older guys play with some intensity and win battles for the puck on a regular basis.

Penalty Kill - I know we gave up two shorthanded goals, but I saw some effort on the PK that I liked.  We really pressured the puck, even at the RPI point and on the RPI breakout (including deap in the RPI zone) which is something recent teams with the great PKs have done and I haven't seen out of this team yet.  The first shorthanded goal way too easy for RPI, but I think that was largely a result of having three forwards on the ice and one defenseman (probably because we only had five defense dressed and I think it was Davenport in the box).  The 5-3 goal was a great adjustment by RPI after the timeout and, as was mentioned somewhere else, if a team exeuctes with crisp plays on a 5-3 they will score some goals.  

Quality Opportunities - We were able to move the puck into quality scoring areas better than I've seen all year.  A few partial breakaways and many shots from the slot area (especially in the third).  Hopefully that is a result of a real focus on that area and not just a result RPI being tired from killing off so many penalties in the second period.

Power Play - Despite the positive signs, the power play really needs some work.  As was mentioned last week by someone, not being able to convert early in the game on the power play is really killing us.  I thought there was decent effort by the team at the start of the game, but the inability to convert on the PP is what I think led to the 3-0 deficit.  Much of our momentum was taken away after not converting on the first couple of PP opportunities and then RPI seized on this by turning the momentum in their favor and converting for a couple of goals.   Momentum is so important and the lack of ability to convert is killing it for us and giving momentum to the other team.  Not to bring up bad memories, but the UNH game in 2003 was the perfect example of this.  Cornell absolutely dominated the beginning of the game, but UNH fed off the phantom high stick call negating a goal and it was 2-0 in just a couple of minutes.  In order to have successful season, the PP needs to start clicking soon, not for the goals it will produce, but because the momentum shifts resulting from failing to convert.

RPI's 3rd goal - This was just bad.  Banging it in on a scramble is fine, but allowing the guy to skate in outnumbered behind our net, come back around into the slot to fire off a shot without being touched.  Even when the momentum has swung the other way, we can't allow that type of play.

Teams Effort to Fight Back - I like to end on a positive and the team's effort to fight back from 3-0 down is great and hopefully this result is something the team can build on.

LGR!

I don't know what number they reported, but the game was definitely not a sellout.  The rink was pretty full, but there were plenty of open seats.

Two of the guys that were planning on going with us had to cancel for a business trip at the last minute so I had two extra tickets to dump.  When we got there a five minutes before the game the ticket office told me they had plenty of seats left and asked my what Section I preferred to seat in (not standing room, but actual seats).  I actually missed the first couple of minutes of the game waiting nearly ten minutes before I sold the tickets to the first person looking to buy tickets.  

Havard probably did not want to report anything less than a sellout since they plugged the game so heavily.

I was at the game as well and will add a few thoughts:

--Decent size crowd for a Harvard game, but very quiet all game.  Harvard's band lame.  BC fans surprising lame (expected many more students to make it three miles from Chesnut Hill).

--I think both teams struggled quiet a bit with BC looking better and dominating the play during the longer streches of five on five (most of the second period).
 
--I thought Harvard was good at limiting quality scoring chances, on the power play & in transition.

--Thought Richter was strong, but do not think BC did a great job of testing him.  BC did not take advantage a couple of times when they had him beat, did not get off many shots for the slot area nor make him move side to side.  Agree that we will need solve him early if possible.

--Power Play.  Harvard does try to work the puck down low out of the right corner with DU parked on the left post.  When BC collapsed down on the play out of the right corner, Harvard's point did a good job at taking the shot (not particularly strong shots, but at least tried to throw the puck towards the net).  

--Transition.  Harvard tried to capitalize on turnovers in the neutral zone and turn them into quick offensive opportunities.  They hit the long pass from the top of the defensive zone to the forward cutting across at center ice well (also tried to sneak the forward behind the D for similar pass along the right boards on the power paly).  They generally made a quick effort on the forecheck and then backed off letting BC breakout relatively easily (a few times BC had the puck underneath the circles in their defensive zone and Harvard already had 4 guys behing center ice).  Besides the power play and quick transition, I didn't think Harvard created a lot of offensive pressure.

--Harvard's penaltly kill was pretty aggressive, especially until BC got set up in the offensive zone.  A quick set-up in the offensive zone can catch them out of their box and open up good scoring opportunities.  

--Harvard really struggled to breakout of their defensive zone, even when BC put on very little pressure.  Defense made some really poor passes out of their end and generally seemed afraid to make a play often firing the puck off the glass along the left boards.  I think there is an opportunity to take advantage of their inability to break-out well, but we have to be careful. The last goal was a poor breakout combined with good transition play.  Harvard's defenseman couldn't make a paly and just fired the puck up the left boards high off the glass by the BC point.  BC's point hesitated to turn since it would be icing, but the puck hit the linesman settling at center ice.  Harvard got two guys out in transition and did a nice job converting on a 2 on 1.  Bad break for BC, but nice conversion by Harvard.

That's my thoughts. . . it was a good game to get a preview of Harvard before Friday's game.

Let's go Red!

How much extra content does the $99 All Access provide for hockey.   Are there other schools that broadcast video through All Access so you can watch games not otherwise availalbe on video (most importantly, schools Cornell will play this year).