ELynah Forum

It's hard to understand 3 losses to Harvard in one season when the skill level on the 2 teams seems approx the same.  Seems like Donato has Schafer's number at least for now.  For the Red, the talent is there and the defense is mostly there.  To me, it seems the team is missing a top notch goalie (I like Scrivens but I don't think he's Lenny, McKee, or even Underhill) and finishers.  On the finishers, I blame Schafer to some extent.  I think he needs coaching help on O.  Why wasn't Sawada put in front a la Tim Kerr as described above?  Or someone else.  But I feel like Sawada size and skills were largely wasted.  I don't see any real offensive scheme or plan and as a result the scoring chances, while there, are generally from outside and from poor angles.  Even though I think the D is mostly good, this Red D seems to let up a lot more shots than the past grade A defenses.  It wasn't unusual for Lenny or McKee to face fewer than 20 shots in a game.  Seems like Scrivens has been facing more on average, which of course makes his job harder.  This is pure speculation but seems to me the O has been worse ever since Jamie Russell left.  The stars on the Murray, Baby, Vesce teams weren't blue chip prospects so it's possible to get back to that level.  I'd say slightly better D and better finishing on O are the key to get back there.  In terms of next year, unless Garman is a huge stud, I don't see a great reason to expect a much better finish.  That said, if Greening and R. Nash stay and step it up, they should be 2 of the top 5 players in the league.

If it wasn't Milo's choice not to be on the team anymore, then he comes back only if he wants to and Schafer reverses course on a recent decision -- seems unlikely.  Given Milo's success on the diamond, it's also unlikely he's going to decide now to give that up.  The trend of players leaving early or not being asked back for whatever reason is a bit disturbing.  I'd expect it if we were realistically anticipating Frozen Four appearances every year (see North Dakota and Minnesota) but our rate of departures seems high for the quality of play we put on the ice.  I may be mistaken but I'd bet over the last few years we have one of the higher attrition rates.

Does anyone have any solid information on why Milo won't be playing hockey for the Big Red anymore?  Very surprised he won't be playing anymore given the hype he came in with and the amount he played as a freshman.  

Have there been Red hockey players who played another varsity sport at Cornell?

If Fontas and Scali aren't close to Milo, Gallagher, and Romano, then fine but if they are then I'd favor giving at least one of them some game time.  I thought last night, the Red could have used some more gritty players and from what I gather that's what Fontas and Scali would bring to the table.  Also, maybe Fontas could win some faceoffs.  I don't think sitting one of the other guys for a game or two is going to stunt their growth.  It might spur their growth by making them hungrier and more focused.

Great, lucky win.  In the USCHO recap, Donato said the Red played a "bend but don't break" style for most of the game.  That seems accurate if not a bit generous.  I credit the win in large part to Troy Davenport.  He looked great to me.  I also thought the CSTV guys were giving Richter too much credit -- "playing like an upperclassman" blah blah blah.  He didn't face many tough chances and when he did, they went in, especially the first and third goals.  The second one he probably never saw.  I wonder if this game will stick with him mentally -- he's got to be blaming himself for the loss since it's pretty clear the rest of his team outplayed Cornell thoroughly.  Harvard looked very good but I am happy to say I think we have the better goaltender.  Unless Richter or Tobe play better, the Crimson's impressive play may continue to be wasted.  Need a better performance all around tonight from the Red.  Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

[quote billhoward]

This overtime-loss-in-the-Midwest-Regional-to-a-Local-Team schtick is getting kind of old after two years.

[/quote]

So True.  

Hail to McKee.  That was an incredible display.

Everything has gone dead.  Come on Red!

[quote dbilmes]I agree with all of the comments on this post so far. However, the key play in this game was the power-play goal Harvard scored in the final minute of the second period. We had momentum on our side, having scored two goals to cut Harvard's lead to 3-2. You had the feeling that if we came out for the third period only down by one goal, after such a dreadful start, that we had a good shot at pulling this one out. But first we had to kill a power play at the end of the period. There was a faceoff in our end, and the linesman kicked Pegararo out of the faceoff circle. We lost the faceoff, and the Harvard players pushed it toward the net and slid the shot past McKee. It definitely was a soft goal, and from a psychological standpoint, it was a killer. Now we were down 4-2 heading into the third period, and once Harvard took advantage of the bad carom off the boards for their fifth goal, you knew it wasn't going to be our night.[/quote]

I agree completely.

I also thought one of the big turning points (besides being called for 5 penalties in the first period) was giving up the second goal with 5 seconds left on H's 5x3.  If they could have just made it through the 5x3 then maybe they kill the rest of the 5x4 and it's still a 1-0 game.  Bigger than that and probably the biggest turning point was giving up H's 4th goal to make it 4-2 right at the end of the 2nd period.  That was the killer.  The Red were right back in it at 3-2 and had some momentum.  All goals in the last minute of the period hurt and that one was no exception.  I don't think the Red can look to the ref as an excuse for the loss, but I thought the officiating was awful both ways.  Cornell certainly had its share of PPs and couldn't convert like Harvard did.  That being said, I would have liked the Red to have the first 5 PP oppurtunities like H did (including a 5x3).  Harvard is very good and could definitely make noise in the NCAAs.

So the Red travel to Green Bay to play Colorado College.  For once, the ice size won't be an issue but controlling Marty Sertich and Brett Sterling certainly will be.  CC hasn't been playing well but then again neither have the Red.  The Red are higher seeded but I would certainly count a win against CC as an upset.

Here's the next paragraph:

Though not in its stated list of guidelines, the committee has made a concerted effort in the two years the 16-team field has existed to maintain a strict bracket. In other words, teams are given overall seed numbers, 1-16. The brackets are arranged 1-6-8-9, 2-15-7-10, 3-14-6-11, 4-13-5-12. Adjustments are then made for factors such as avoiding intra-conference matchups, and host schools playing in their home region. But otherwise, the committee has attempted to adhere to this philosophy and a strict reading of the PWR list. Whether that continues in the future, is anyone's guess.

I hope you are right; I hope Cornell stays east.  I wouldn't count on it.

I don't think they try to keep teams closest to their home brackets unless the teams are No. 1 seeds.  Seeds 5-16 are sent to the necessary regional so that 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, etc.  This is the formula except when intraconference first round matchups get in the way.

According to CHN we're headed to GB to play Michigan in the first round.

The Red are 4-1-1 against the possible semis opponents.  All tough teams, though.  

From PWR perspective, I'm assuming Harvard or SLU would be the best teams to play.

From a just win perspective, it's hard to say.  Colgate hasn't seemed that strong down the stretch but they usually play their best against Cornell.  Plus, they'd have even more incentive to get up for their biggest rival given the regular season results.  Harvard and Cornell are incapable of playing anything but one goal games.  SLU has a lot of offense even without Zeiler.  I can't decide what team I'd like to see in the semis.  I guess if forced, I would say Colgate or SLU.  Whoever it is, I think it's safe to say we won't have the shot advantage like we did this weekend.  Most of all, I'd like to see Dartmouth lose in the semis.  They are on quite a run.

[quote oceanst41]I think the best odds for Cornell winning in Albany rests on playing Clarkson this weekend (obviously since we have to win to move on I know). The point is rather than having an opponent Cornell knows it can and should beat like say QU, Cornell has a tough series instead. This series is by no means an afterthought on the way to Albany, so the team will be more mentally prepared than perhaps they have been against some weaker competition this year. That way they are more ready to face their next opponent in Albany if they get that opportunity.

I couldn't picture a better team to come into Lynah to get these guys up for the playoffs, other than maybe Harvard.[/quote]

It's not a good sign if the guys are going to need a reason to get up for the playoffs.  They should have plenty of reasons without having to seek motivation from who the opponent is.  First and foremost on the list of motivations might be giving the seniors a better sendoff from Lynah than they did on Senior Night.

Ah yes, I was trying to forget about that.  I didn't recall that Harvard was the 3 seed that year.

When was the last time a 3 seed won the ECAC tournament?  I couldn't find the answer on USCHO or the ECAC website.