ELynah Forum

Look at the first 3 goals in the MSU game

Quote from: BearLover on January 07, 2026, 12:54:29 PM

Quote from: ugarte on January 07, 2026, 11:34:38 AM

Quote from: BearLover on January 07, 2026, 10:19:35 AM

Quote from: Will on January 07, 2026, 10:15:46 AM

Quote from: BearLover on January 06, 2026, 01:17:25 PM"Then you get the right people," Jones said. "And you know, some guys you lose might be for the right reasons. They might not be the person that fits into our culture, fits into our program. And that's a big part of the long history of Cornell. As you get the right people here, you get good people, hard-working people."

Casey throwing shade at Robertson and Pelletier. Nice!

Maybe, maybe not. I think Casey is too diplomatic to say anything other than, effectively, "I got the guys that I want on the team right now."  He'd never come out and complain, "Those guys who left early for the pros or the transfer portal? Eff 'em."

I'm being tongue-in-cheek. Of course Casey is going to be diplomatic, as he should. You're never going to get more out of a coach than a quote like this one that implies the guys who left weren't "the right people, good people, hard-working people."

I don't think he's talking about Robertson, I think he's talking about recruits that weren't interested. Maybe that means Pelletier but I doubt that too. I think it's generic coachspeak.

It's generic coachspeak but it seems to refer to guys who left or didn't want to come. It directly follows this line in the article: " For what Cornell lost, it appears it gained it all back and then some — seven of the Big Red's nine goals this weekend came off the sticks of freshmen." The quote also comes after the article discusses the departure of Bancroft and Robertson and all of last year's graduating seniors. The point being, Cornell lost a lot, but they brought the right guys in, good people who want to work hard, and that's why they're having success.

A problem, as I see it, is that with some of your posts you start out with declarative statements, then somebody says something and in defense you become more nuanced.

If you started out more nuanced it would be easier to read and not feel one needs to respond.

Sometimes it seems to me that you're making statements so that you will draw responses.

And of course some of those responses will be negative, leading to further responses, etc.

In the above example, you don't know that he was referring to those players, you thought that.

So why not say, I wonder if he's referring to ... rather than "Casey throwing ..." More nuanced, less likely to be jumped upon.
And I'm not saying that any of the responses were negative, just using it as an example.

Quote from: BearLover on December 14, 2025, 02:38:47 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 13, 2025, 12:08:26 PM

QuoteAt this point I am also going to guess that we lose two others, one or two of Walsh/Castagna/Fegaras

I could be wrong (I know nothing, Jon Snow) but I don't see any of our Juniors moving up.  Perhaps Castagna, but I consider it a long (5%) shot after speaking with his parents.  They are sanguine on his chances to make the N.  They are no fools.  Ithaca is where he optimizes his future.  No doubt he'll try minor league hockey but as "hold on to 16 as long as you can," not career development.

IM (worthless) O, contemporary players have become savvy about the depredations of the Masters of the Game.  They understand they are coal shoveled into a fire to warm a few fat assholes' fat asses.

And what about when those players get offered half a million dollars? We'd be very lucky to have Walsh back next year.

Not likely he'd make that playing in the AHL.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 12, 2025, 01:14:43 PM

Quote from: Beeeej on December 12, 2025, 10:14:38 AMI used up all my spare time for today on clearing spam, replying to Greg's post, and watching last night's three goals. Too much job, toddler, estate, finances, and laundry for a research project. Can't wait for retirement! 

Four of those things are lower priority than hockey.  I'll admit laundry goes first.

Yeah, but you can do other things while waiting on laundry. So that doesn't count.

Quote from: Beeeej on December 12, 2025, 10:01:30 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 12, 2025, 09:48:48 AMI suspect not.  http://www.tbrw.info/?/players/cornell_NHL_Alumni.html

Best bet was probably 2016 (Moulson 8, Greening 7, Nash 9).  Then 2002 (Nieuwendyk 25, Manderville 3, Chartrand 7).  Then 2003 (Nieuwendyk 17, Manderville 3, Chartrand 8 ).

I think we would remember if it was 2024 (MacDonald 7, Barron 11, Malinski 3).

IINM in no other season have there been 3 different Cornell goal scorers.

So you'd best best off checking the dates of each goal for the player of the three who scored the fewest goals in each of those years, then check the other two players' stats for those dates. A total of sixteen dates to check (max - assuming that the lowest goal scorer of the three had no multi-goal nights).

So, go for it! 

Quote from: stereax on December 06, 2025, 10:52:28 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 06, 2025, 10:41:01 PMI don't know anything about goaltending but Keopple just doesn't look steady. So much wasted motion as compared to Cournoyer. Cournoyer has given up a few soft goals but he hasn't been sliding out of position like Keopple is prone to. It could nerves or something, he's not a small goalie but he kind of slides like an Iles or Shane, whereas Cournoyer sits still like a wall. I feel like Keopple has untapped potential but rolling with Cournoyer makes sense going forward.

Generally, goalies who slide around aren't in the right position and have to compensate with athleticism. The best goalies often do not look like they're the best - because they know where the puck is and they simply are there in time for the shot.

Same idea as famously quoted by Wayne Gretzky

" I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."

Quote from: VIEWfromK on December 10, 2025, 09:53:02 AM

Quote from: stereax on December 06, 2025, 09:53:46 PMFriend who can't yet post on the forums (signup function is broken) informs that "I want it to be said that that was probably the worst looking 7-2 win of all time".

Make of that what you will?

I get the point.  It wasn't flashy but they took care of business.  It's ok to have a relatively easy one once in a while even though for a minute there it got a little hairy.

Most important, I think, is how we responded after SLU tied the game. As opposed to against Clarkson, when they got their 3 goals, we took care of things and won.

Here's all 3

Mitchell

Malinski

Barron

Quote from: Trotsky on December 11, 2025, 02:19:51 PM

Quote from: Jim Hyla on December 11, 2025, 02:15:43 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised.

Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data.  I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.

It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance.  I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.

I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.

I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.

Thank you so much, Jim.

It's really always the work of a handful of weird amateurs that saves these things.  It sure won't be Cornell which would just Lost Ark it and then pulp it in 2040 for an extra $35.  TBH I wouldn't even donate it to them; they don't deserve it.  We need a privately run Cornell Hockey Museum with the university's grubby collaborationist mitts as far away from it as Heidegger from personal accountability.

Okay, I'll let you fund it.

Until then I'm going to try and scan things that maybe someone/somewhere could host.

Maybe Adam would like to host copies of old Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter.

Quote from: Trotsky on December 09, 2025, 06:50:16 AMAs promised.

Some blank areas (e.g., all of the 1971-72 season) are not our failure in the polls, they are just lacking data.  I will code those as grey once I have the full intervals.

It would be wonderful to find the 60s too, if the polling went back that early, to chart our rise and dominance.  I strongly suspect we are solid red from 67-69.

I'll look at The Intercollegiate Hockey Newsletter tonight.

I've just gotten a book scanner and am going to see it I can digitize what I have before donating it all to CU. I'm concerned that like UNH and RPI they may just put them in archive boxes. I think they should be online so anyone can look back through the early years. Unfortunately my collection starts in the 60s.

Quote from: BearLover on December 05, 2025, 10:37:02 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on December 05, 2025, 10:18:26 PM

Quote from: BearLover on December 05, 2025, 10:13:06 PMPer CHN box score, Cornell's xG was 3.1 and Clarkson's was 2.3. Which indicates that (as usual) we were unlucky. But (1) I've read that CHN's xG model is flawed because it looks only at shot location and not at shot type, (2) xG doesn't account for goalie difference, and tonight Cournoyer let in a soft goal, and (3) honestly, Clarkson seems like a pretty bad team so it feels really bad to lose to them. The total lack of discipline and inability to spread out the Clarkson defense were the most glaring things. It was a horrible los that nuked our chances even though the underlying metrics were fine.

It did not nuke our chances.

As I said earlier in this thread, I would guess it decreased our chances of a at-large bid from ~35% to ~20%. These numbers are arbitrary, obviously. But there are extremely thin margins when you're on the bubble. We've been in or out of the NCAA by one game the last several years (looking also at the last two years, where we won the ECAC but if we needed an at-large bid we would have missed by one game). Moreover, this is a game we were supposed to win. It's not the same as losing to Quinnipiac. So when you factor in the fact we lost, which is bad, against a team the rankings would expect us to beat, which is bad, the end result is very bad.

The problem with your post is that you proved that you were wrong when you said it nuked our chances.

Nuke is total annihilation. I have no idea if it's correct, but now you give us a 20% chance.

I'll tell you, I'd take a 20% chance of survival in a nuclear war.

But on the other hand, at my age I might take a 20% chance on survival for anything.

Probably won't make it. So bring your own newspapers and Snickers.

Quote from: BearLover on November 28, 2025, 09:22:44 PMThis is the softest sports forum I've ever seen lmao. People literally rooting for a player who ditched our team 

If we miss the NCAAs by a couple of games his leaving will be THE biggest cause 

The real ones root against players who ditch Cornell

Please don't accuse me of not being a real CU fan!

My favorite HE team is BU. Why? Because of our 60s & 70s battles with them. I learned to respect them at that time.

My favorite Big Ten team is UM. Sure I went there, but also because we woke up the fans and that's been fun to see, Also because they never treated us like Minny has and they aren't OSU.

NCHC is North Dakota (slightly) because they've changed their ways and I've always found their traveling fans to be very respectful.

I'll root against all of the above if it helps us. Otherwise it's kind of fun to just sit back and observe.

I just hope that someday you can realize that it's a lot more fun to be happy and not negative and accusatory. Trust me, try it and see.

Quote from: TimV on November 28, 2025, 03:16:19 PMI'm imagining Jim Hyla, who has degrees from both schools, sitting by a fire while the snow flies in Syracuse, chuckling to himself.

Totally correct, except no fire. As I was catching up on eLynah posts, I was thinking about my time and education at both schools. Both were my first choice at the time and in no way would I have chosen CU instead of UM for my rheumatology. CU just wasn't as good for me.

School is individual, not collective, even if the colleges want you to believe that. Sure maybe like BearLover showed, it's easy to get into finance, if that's what you like. But UM showed me that rheumatology can be fun and productive. That's why I'm still doing it going on 50 years.

It's really the same as CU hockey. They showed that it can be fun and productive to watch them, through good and bad. And that's why I'm still watching them after 60+ years.

You get out of something what you put into it, not what they say they have. That's why BearLover's stats don't mean anything, because we don't know what Robertson wants from life.

He says "Hugely disappointing in any event for someone who will wish he had a Cornell degree five years from now."

How the hell can we know that. We don't know what he wants out of life. I know if I went to a training program where those who were training me had the feeling that they were the best and everyone should realize it, I'd not come out the satisfied person that I sort of feel I am.

So CU is not the best place on earth for everyone. It was great for me at the time, and I have no idea if I would feel that way today if I was there. Let the students make their own decisions and not criticize them or CU hockey unless we have some sort of inside knowledge. All of them know a lot more than we do.

Endless speculation about things that we have no knowledge about makes this Forum no different than any other social media site. I used to come here for good honest discussion from people who loved watching CU hockey.

I loved hearing about critiques of plays or games, ideas about what we have to do to get to the NCAAs, or having a board near the end of the year where you can analyze who has to beat who for us to attain an end of season position.

Enough said. Now I'll go back to catching up on all that I've missed by not being on eLynah for 2 weeks.

Thanks to those that post about what they've seen from the games. I appreciate it.

Quote from: nmcorm83 on November 25, 2025, 12:07:26 PM

Quote from: Jim Hyla on November 25, 2025, 09:21:14 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 03:17:16 PMContact the ticket office at Lynah (actually Alberding).  We get an away bloc.  Sitting there is a hoot.  In both barns they are quite good seats.

SLU you can sit anywhere you want, unfortunately they have really poor attendance these days.  At Cheel you sit where they tell you and like it.

I think the away bloc went away when you couldn't buy tickets for away games from Cornell.

If you haven't already bought your tickets the usual section for Cornell fans are 12 & 13. When the band is there they get the top of 14A. The Clarkson band is high above the goal at that end.

If you already have your tickets, don't worry you can almost always move over. I disagree with Trotsky here. I've in recent years I've never had problems moving, but of course mostly I like to stand. It's rare for Cheel to be completely full and most Clarkson fans don't want to sit near the Cornell band. I suspect this year will be even easier, considering the awful year Clarkson is having so far.

At SLU it's D, F & sometimes G. That's the side of Cornell bench.

Thanks. I got no reply from either ticket office so I went ahead and bought 2 seats in "D" for SLU and 12 for Clarkson, so we are in the right neighborhood!

An update: the SLU ticket office finally responded and said that Section D is the place to be. My daughter and I are sitting in row C right behind the Cornell bench.

Glad to see that you're going. Lately Cornell representation has not been great. Both rinks are fun places, but certainly very different from each other.