Hahvahd 3 @ Cornell 1 Postgame

[BCrespi]

Man, I sure wish I had spent less time worrying how to sneak my fish into Lynah...the Red might have won without my stupid time-wasting...

[Give My Regards]

[quote billhoward]I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.[/quote]

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play.  At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Don't laugh, it happened to Maine in 1994, although not right at the end of the season.

[Beeeej]

[quote Give My Regards][quote billhoward]I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.[/quote]

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play.  At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.[/quote]

Well, Schenectady could, like, fall into the sea or something.  You never know.

[PAthologicalLynah]

[quote Give My Regards][quote billhoward]I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.[/quote]

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play.  At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.

Don't laugh, it happened to Maine in 1994, although not right at the end of the season.[/quote]

Actually, you should laugh at Maine, they were sanctioned not once but twice in a three year period.  Fortunately, and completely coincidentally, they only cheated in 1992 and 1994, not in 1993 when they won the NCAA championship, lest the league look bad

[French Rage]

[quote Iwilldunkonyou]Jim Hyla, you must be just like Doug 08, I have probably seen more games this year than you have in your life. Both a bunch of posers..

And it is Lobdoa, morons.[/quote]

Wow, one post containing two claims that are so very incredibly incorrect, that's new levels of trolling.

[calgARI '07]

Donato takes another round against Schafer.  Schafer was obsessed with line matching tonight to the point where shifts lasted 10-15 seconds each and his fourth line was on the ice more than any other.  Truly fascinating how Greening and Nash - far and away the two best offensive players on the team see the ice every fourth shift for 20-25 seconds.  As long as Schafer can get his matchups, none of which proved to be beneficial at any point during the course of the game.  Donato was laughing at Schafer - he kept throwing his top group out there and Schafer would counter with his fourth line.  I like the fourth line and they obviously contribute to the team's success but at one point do you start thinking, maybe we should try and get the offense going a little bit.  Most offensive zone faceoffs saw the fourth line out.  None of the forwards got any flow going or found any comfort level because their shifts were 10-15 seconds all night.  The road team loved every second of it as they want lots of whistles, very short shifts, and very simple hockey.

As a whole, Donato and Schafer painted a brutal picture of the sport tonight.  Neither team got after it at any point, just content to sit back in the neutral zone and watch.  No clue as to why top players like Greening and Nash would want to stay at Cornell for any long period when they play every fourth shift and the team has little interest in getting after it even in the most important game of the season.  No wonder there are players on this team who have shown to little to no improvement during the course of their careers at Cornell - they are asked to play like robots.  

I understand the need to play conservative hockey in such an important game but at what point do you tell your guys to go win the game?  They did get some pressure going to start the third period but at no point during the course of this game did Cornell throw down the gauntlet and really go after a win.  Rather, they were content to play chess with Harvard.  Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining.  

You can play smart, responsible hockey without leaving four guys in the neutral zone and having your forwards play 15 second shifts.  Go with the 2-3 and keep that third man high at all times.  It has worked pretty well for Clarkson this year and their players certainly seem to thrive and improve within that system.

There is no question that Schafer is an outstanding X's and O's coach from the defensive standpoint.  He manages the details of the game very well but there is a point where you overcoach and overmanage and that was very evident tonight.  There needs to be a point where you trust your players and let them go and try to win a game.  Cornell's offensive players did not get a sufficient opportunity to win this game because Schafer was so obsessed with micromanaging the matchups.

Pretty concerning when the team comes out with very poor focus in the biggest game of the season.  This game was lost in the first ten minutes when the team badly squandered three powerplays.

[imafrshmn]

Best post of the night, Ari.

[Scersk '97]

[quote calgARI '07]Pretty concerning when the team comes out with very poor focus in the biggest game of the season.  This game was lost in the first ten minutes when the team badly squandered three powerplays.[/quote]

If you want to go around placing blame, all you have to do is look at the box score:

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0708/boxes/mcorhar1.m01

It's right there:  Scott/M. Kennedy/Sawada -2, -3, -3.  They had to have a big night tonight, and we lost when they didn't.  Scott just seemed "off"--can't put my finger on it--and Sawada was back to being invisible offensively.  He's doing that thing again where he takes the puck on the rush and immediately heads outside, instead of dipping his shoulder and driving like Greening does.

(What do you do, really?  In years past, Sawada would've been watching for a game or two long before now, but it's tough to scratch a captain.  I dearly hope Greening is the single captain next year; he plays every game with fire.)

On the power plays, there were a couple of moments, especially with Nash, Greening, et al., where we started to see what worked vs. Harvard's kill:  the defensemen need to cheat in between the circles on the weak side when the puck gets deep to the opposite corner.  We got quite a few goals from defensemen during Donato's first year, and that option seemed open tonight.  With the second unit, that was where we missed Topher, since he usually feeds those cutters from behind the net.

Those minutes between Harvard's second goal and the empty netter were not too fun to watch, but, hey, a taste of our own medicine--exactly.

[Cactus12]

I agree with this... good post.
These are young guys who should be able to handle long shifts (like 40 seconds) at times. If you want a certain defensive pair against their top line- fine. But to keep the best offensive line off the ice when you're behind is absurd. If you're up by a bunch of goals, by all means roll four lines. And to further this point, I don't think the situation is new to this year. Even back when other production lines, like Moulson/Bitz/Hynes were together, I thought they were drastically underused. It turned out ok because the goals against was so low those years. I understand conservative play, but give your team a chance to win!

[Josh '99]

[quote Beeeej][quote Give My Regards][quote billhoward]I was trying to think of a scenario where in the first round playoffs we'd do so well and there'd be upsets and we'd get to play at home in the quarterfinals ... and I cannot think of a situation which doesn't have us on the road that second weekend, assuming we win the first weekend. Sheesh.[/quote]

The top four seeds get a bye into the quarterfinals and thus are guaranteed home ice, no matter how well any of the first-rounders play.  At this point, the only way Cornell gets home ice for the quarterfinals is if one of the top four is suddenly discovered to have been using an ineligible player for most of the season and has to forfeit a bunch of games.[/quote]

Well, Schenectady could, like, fall into the sea or something.  You never know.[/quote]Given their locations, I have to figure Cambridge is more likely to fall into the sea than Schenectady.

If I had to choose, I'd choose both, though.

[amerks127]

Who are you trying to kid Doug 08? We both know you dont really go to many games. In fact I guarantee you wont be there next weekend.

I'm glad someone finally found the balls to call Doug out on being the only student to make it to every single Cornell game this season.  You can barely call him a fan for that, facetimer!

[jtwcornell91]

First time a Schafer-coached team has lost the season series to Hahvahd.
Longest Schafer-era losing streak vs the Crimson (3 games).
First time we've finished out of the top 4 since 1999 (so first time we've not had a bye since the new playoff system was adopted).

Also, let's not feed the trolls, okay?

[ebilmes]

Absolutely disappointing. This is the second time in three years that we've lost at home to Harvard on senior night with lots riding on the game.

Great post above by Ari.

This team has played its worst hockey this season when it steps back and plays conservatively. That's the cause of all the blown leads (see Florida, Union, etc.) this year. We get up 1, 2, or even 3 goals, and then play to hold on. Maybe the team knew Brown was winning and that they only needed a tie to get a bye?

It's hard to focus on just one player, but Mike Devin was awful this weekend. It's tough to look bad when your team wins 6-0, but Devin did that last night. He looked like Jordan Berk out there tonight against Harvard. It's amazing how much ice time Schafer gives him.

We can beat up on the bottom tier of our shitty conference, but have no success against the top tier teams. I like our chances against Dartmouth next weekend, but we will lose on the road at Union.

I feel bad for the seniors. For all the talk of Schafer being a rabid Harvard-hater who can coach this team to victories against the Crimson, he's done an awful job of this recently, particularly in big games. (2006 senior night, 2006 ecac final, last rs game 2007, and then getting swept this season)

[Will]

I've been saying for a few weeks now that maybe this team needs to play a series on the road in the postseason, just to see how much it can suck, and hopefully the non-seniors will do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen again, win or lose.  The presumed series at Union in two weeks would fit the bill exactly.  (Of course, this scenario assumes Cornell gets past Dartmouth next week, and even given Friday night's result, we should really take nothing for granted.)

[Iwilldunkonyou]

Thats great Amerks127. That's funny, I didnt see you at Clarkson, or St Lawrence, or RPI, or Union, or Princeton, or Yale, or Brown.

Must be a "facetimer" as well..