Cornell-RIT postgame

[RichH]

Well, I actually expected that.  Ottawa is nice, but they're no RIT, who in turn is no Clarkson.

The good:  From the start of the 2nd period to the end of the game, Cornell controlled play (is that a trait of CU teams this year?  Control play but lose?).  They applied pressure by applying hits, and that style is definitely further along than it was at this point last season.  Overall, they were disciplined (save for the Greening hit that I missed).  The PP is also trying some different things.  In the 2nd, there were a couple tic-tac-toe plays that I saw that were beautifully set up, but not finished.  Scrivens seems comfortable in net.  Two of the shots that beat him picked the top corner on his stick-side...tough to fault him for those.

The bad: Offense is going to be sparse, I fear.  Little creativity and getting the puck to the net was shown on 5x5.  Sloppy passing and positioning abound, but it's early.  RIT pretty much played a "pylon hockey" defense much of the game and just got in the way of the puck any chance they could...CU needs to learn to get around that.  Look, the problems of last year aren't completely solved.  This team lives and dies by special teams, and the 2 PP goals RIT scored were due to a LOT of open ice being available.  0x7 on the PP is unacceptable.  With that much time on the PP in the 2nd and early 3rd, you've gotta get something in.  The freshmen are still getting their feet and adjusting to this level and this pace.

RIT played well enough to win.  But I disagree with RIT radio saying that we showed them everything we could possibly throw at them.  Luckily, we start the league schedule with Princeton at home.

The crowd:  Sounded great.  5000+ in that building for that game is outstanding.  Band sounded amazing, very happy they made the trip.  Blew RITs band away, even if the radio was taunting that they had more people.  Announcers estimated that there were ~1000 Cornell fans.

[redhair34]

[quote RichH]and the 2 PP goals RIT scored were due to a LOT of open ice being available.  [/quote]

and both were scored after failed clear attempts.  Good analysis of the game; it pretty much echoes my thoughts.

[Tom14850]

Cornell was definitely subject to some first game slip-ups. At least I hope they're first game slip-ups. There were many many times when a Cornell player simply whiffed on a shot or pass when they had control of the puck. I haven't seen them do that so many times in a long time.

The freshman clearly are playing a big role on this team, for better or worse. Nash got a lot of ice time, including a lot of face-offs. He certainly has a lot of room to improve, but I thought he played well enough, especially for his first game. He could definitely use some improvement on his face-offs, but I'll think he'll be a great asset for Cornell as the year progresses. He made a couple awesome passes to set up scoring opportunities.

I was impressed with RIT. I thought they played good defense. It was either them playing well on D or us being predictable and fairly slow. It probably was a bit of both, but I think it's unfair if you don't give RIT substantial credit. They hustled back on D and choked up the middle extremely well. They blocked an incredible number of shots and passes. I'd be surprised if they don't win Atlantic Hockey this season.

Things that perpetually frustrate me: Cornell's seeming inability to finish and Cornell's breakout. It seems their breakout strategy is this: bring the puck out of the back, hand it over to the other team in the middle and hope to get it back before the opponent organizes. Then take advantage of the disorganization to get it into the offensive zone. I feel like this is a coaching challenge because these things have been consistently bad. And I mean bad.

I love that RIT had so many fans at the game and were so passionate about it. The more passion for upstate college hockey the better, as far as I'm concerned. However, did anybody else wonder if their fans got just about every single cheer and chant from Lynah?

[Doug '08]

Just got back from the game.  This team will have a lot to work on if we even want to be competitive in the ECAC.  Puck movement is terrible, especially among our defensemen in our own zone.  Power play was absolutely atrocious.  Team played with absolutely no energy until halfway through the third period.

[sah67]

After just getting back from Rochester, I agree with most of Rich's points, and no need to be redundant on here.  RIT was the faster team tonight, and although we were hitting, I didn't feel like we muscled them around like we could have.  Several of our big hitters (Nichols, Sawada) even seemed to be getting pushed around themselves.

Scrivens looked ok...the first PP goal, the wrister, seemed a little soft, but on the 2nd and 3rd he got absolutely hung out to dry by our D. I remember watching in awe on the 2nd RIT goal as two of our defenseman (I think Devin was one) dropped down expecting to block a shot, but the RIT player hadn't even lifted his stick and simply skated around the downed Cornell D to go right in on Scrivens and score.

As others mentioned, our puck-handling was horrible also...we might have even missed more passes than we completed.  Lots of whiffing on shots and clears too.  There were several good chances in the second, some on wide-open nets while Menard was out of position but we always seemed to fumble the puck everytime.

Although it's hard to say any of our players played well, if I had to say one player played above the others tonight, it was Topher.  Sawada and Barlow who were really contributing offense at the end of last season seemed almost non-existent tonight.  Topher put in a lot of effort even if he ended up getting tied up a few times.  Nicholls had some good hits (and unfortunately, penalties as well), and I was also impressed by the Devins, the Kennedies, and Berk.  Seminoff was quite capable as usual, but not spectacular as he has been in the past.  Troublingly, Krantz and Krueger seemed pretty flat-footed and out of gas at several points in the game...I think the return of Brendon Nash will have an important impact on the D.

Devin's goal was far from anything even resembling "pretty", but once it went in between Menard's legs and he lost track of it, we knew it was going in, and at that point, were willing to take what we could get.

I was impressed with the RIT fans for the most part...very vocal, even if the "R...I...T" thing did get repetitive, and the "DE-FENSE" chant was stupid as usual, but they did overpower us vocally which I haven't seen in some time.  But on that note, I was really disappointed with the Faithful showing.  We were achingly quiet for most of the games...very few chants were started, and even fewer got going when several of us tried to start them., Doug was nice and loud on the Cowbell, and put their Cowbell-er to shame  

Most of our fan section seemed to consist of Rochester-area alumni who were content to just sit in their seat and not make a peep.  Even the band seemed out of it cheer-wise, not really starting any, and even when the RIT idiots came over to taunt them, they just sat there looking irritated and didn't utter anything until I started a "Safety Schooool" chant out of desperation.. we were getting out-cheered in our own fan section by 4 RIT guys.  At one point I remarked to my girlfriend that you could hear the buzz of the arena lights louder than the Faithful...something I'd never witnessed at any Cornell away game.

One thing about RIT student fans though...they were several total asshole moves...and not just from one or two people: many kids throwing full soda bottles and pucks at our players after the game had ended; several dumbasses in wigs jumping in front of Cornell fans on the street outside Blue Cross and screaming "WOOOOOOOOOOO...YOU LOST, BITCHES!"; and multiple cars in the parking garage blaring their horns and screaming insults at Cornell fans as they walked by...made the Bonesaw Brigade look like angels

[redice]

[quote sah67] RIT was the faster team tonight, and although we were hitting, I didn't feel like we muscled them around like we could have. BTW, did anyone see the Greening infraction?  I didn't see anything that would warrant a game misconduct. [/quote]

I agree.  In the early part of the first period, RIT was definitely taking it to CU.  Around mid-period CU began to assert itself.   It was around that point that the officials clamped down.  Nichols for charging was one pretty lame call.   And, what's with the open-ice hitting-from-behind call on Riley Nash?   It was my impression that the hitting-from-behind penalty was intended to prevent injuries caused by players being driven head-first into the boards.   RIT beat CU fair & square!!   But, I felt the the officials took CU off their game by not allowing the hard-hitting style that CU needs to play to win.



[quote sah67]I was impressed with the RIT fans for the most part...very vocal, even if the "R...I...T" thing did get repetitive, and the "DE-FENSE" chant was stupid as usual, but they did overpower us vocally which I haven't seen in some time.  But on that note, I was really disappointed with the Faithful showing.  We were achingly quiet for most of the games...very few chants were started, and even fewer got going when several of us tried to start them. [/quote]

In my 40+ years of watching CU hockey, I've never seen the fan base seemingly collapse because they got "out yelled" early in a game.   There was no attempt, on the part of the CU fans, to rally themselves & their team to overcome the RIT fans & team, respectively.   It was just lame ::rolleyes::    As a group, we sat on our hands for most of 2-1/2 periods of hockey.   My wife lamented the lack of CU students at the game.    Since there were empty seats on the CHA booster bus, I have to assume that there was little interest in attending the game.   Probably halloween parties took precedence ;-)

All in all, a very disappointing way for CU & its fan base to start a season. ::cry::

[rstott]

Same problem as last year -- special teams.  In 2006-7 we were the best team in the ECAC at even strength but the special teams killed us.  RIT 2-4 on the PP Cornell 0-7.  

As for being muscled.  This is not a big team.  I was looking at the program for the 2005 quarterfinals with Clarkson.  We started eleven 200 pounds or more players compared to five last night.

[Doug '08]

It seems that in general the Cornell fanbase is deteriorating.  I have gotten to watch it first hand over my four years here... each season, each game, each road trip seems slightly less impressive than the one before it.  To a certain extent I blame the fans, however athletics really needs to make it easier for students without cars to get to games.  While winning cures all ills, this is probably the easiest road trip to make of the year.  There was very little publication of the CHA bus for those not already in the CHA; Cornell needs to do something else in its own right.  I think there were at most, 10 of us there last night.  

This program is in desperate need of a frozen four appearance.

[redice]

[quote Doug '08]It seems that in general the Cornell fanbase is deteriorating.  I have gotten to watch it first hand over my four years here... each season, each game, each road trip seems slightly less impressive than the one before it.  [/quote]

Agreed.   As an oldtimer at Lynah, I've seen many such cycles.  With a championship team, this too, shall pass.

[quote Doug '08] To a certain extent I blame the fans, however athletics really needs to make it easier for students without cars to get to games.  While winning cures all ills, this is probably the easiest road trip to make of the year.  There was very little publication of the CHA bus for those not already in the CHA; Cornell needs to do something else in its own right.  I think there were at most, 10 of us there last night.[/quote]

With an undergrad enrollment of 13000+, 10 students at a game in Rochester is pitiful.  That fact, and the failure to sell out the student season tickets, is an indication of declining interest.  Winning will fix that too!!    Everybody loves a winner.  That applies to Cornell students, as well.

[quote Doug '08]This program is in desperate need of a frozen four appearance.[/quote]

We're back to the chicken or the egg question..  ;-)

[mnagowski]

I was able to bring a mix of seven from Buffalo--recent alums and siblings/cousins. I was pleased with the turnout of Rochester alumni, wish more Buffalo alums would have made the trip, but I was disappointed with the student section. It's only a 90 minute drive after all. I suspect a lot of student's don't realize how good the RIT hockey program has gotten. Plus it was the first regular season game of the year. If this game turns into an annual event at the BCBS arena (which I would love to see happen), expect to see a rather nice rivalry develop. RIT is certainly gunning for us, their fans' rather unsportsmanlike demeanor not outstanding.

I didn't think we were that quiet, however. We comprised 4+ sections of the arena, and a lot of the older alums were chanting along with the Let's Go Red chant, and it wasn't like the cheering was completely dominated by RIT, whose fanbase was probably surprised at the number of Cornell supporters in the crowd.

The pep band, however, sounded fantastic, and really out-classed RIT's band, even though their conductor was wearing some sort of tuxedo with white gloves get up.

[calgARI '07]

So they've played the three of the worst teams they'll play this year and have 1-1-1 record scoring once in two of the games.

[oceanst41]

[quote redice]And, what's with the open-ice hitting-from-behind call on Riley Nash?   It was my impression that the hitting-from-behind penalty was intended to prevent injuries caused by players being driven head-first into the boards.[/quote]

It is my understanding that hitting from behind is called for an open ice hit and results in a 2 min minor, whereas boarding is called for a dangerous hit near the boards and results in the 5 min major and early shower.

[grizzdan24]

It seems that in general the Cornell fanbase is deteriorating. I have gotten to watch it first hand over my four years here... each season, each game, each road trip seems slightly less impressive than the one before it.

I'm a senior and went up with one of my friends and I agree the student showing was pitiful.  For $8 student tickets they could have put together a $15-$20/person package (bus/ticket/dinner) to make it easier for us to get up there.  

Along the same lines, I agree with the above, but I also think that the Lynah student crowd has deteriorated some as well.  I partially attribute this to the change in ticket procedures for underclassmen.  We came in expecting to go through hell and high water to get tickets, resulting in the most dedicated fans getting tickets (and getting the best tickets).  Year 1 that happened, Year 2 was the great stampede (which failed on almost every level, but the hype was great) and the last two years there has been almost no hype.

[Cop at Lynah]

You are correct that the fanbase deteriorating.  There are several reasons but the most glaring are:

1) cost - season ticket prices for non-students are too expensive for most families.  Athletics is using the hockey teams past success to try and fund the other non revenue sports, especially football.  Only one true sell out last year (Harvard) should tell athletics something.

2) treatment by athletics - it's really no fun to go the games anymore.

3) pay for everything - no free audio or video to cultivate new fans or keep those interested in keeping up with the team on the road.

[David Harding]

This was a "Point of Emphasis" for 2006.  

Hitting From Behind

This dangerous act continues to be an area of concern to the committee.  Any hit from behind must be penalized without exception and regardless of the severity of the hit. Boarding and charging penalties were redefined by the committee to distinguish from hitting from behind.

Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or charge an opponent.  Charging is the action of a player, who as a result of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
b. A player shall not charge or otherwise foul a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within the crease or privileged area (see 6-19-b-2-g).
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.

Boarding
SECTION 3. A player shall not body check, cross-check, elbow, charge or trip an opponent from the front or side in such a manner that causes the opponent to be thrown violently into the boards (see 6-23).
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee, based on degree of violence of the impact with the boards.

Hitting From Behind
SECTION 23. a. A player shall not push, charge, cross-check or body check an opponent from behind.
PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee.
b. Hitting from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage is a flagrant violation.
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee.
Note: This dangerous act continues to be an area of concern to the committee. Any hit from behind must be penalized without exception and regardless of the severity of the hit.