Cornell-BU @ MSG postgame

[billhoward]

In 1969 Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds to erase a 29-13 deficit in their football game, leaving both at 8-0-1, and the Harvard Crimson crowed, "Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29." If there was a moral victory Saturday in the 3-3 tie at Madison Square Garden, it wasn't ours. I saw three game-changers:

- The goal (short-handed) that trickled in past Scrivens to cut the lead to 2-1.
- All the penalties Cornell took late: 5 of our 8 in the third period, 2 in the last 3:20.
- Jack Parker's decision to call time-out when Locke Jillson's breakaway made it 2-0 5:27 into the game and calm the team.

The shots advantage said 35-17 BU though the game play didn't seem similarly one-sided except in the third when it was 13-3 BU. The acoustics of a big arena make it hard to tell about the intensity on the ice but Cornell's passion seemed to wane after the first period. We did come to life in overtime and it seemed as if we might win after all.

The game thread recounts fans hearing a whistle before the final goal but the officials were pretty adamant about it being a goal. And their not going to a replay suggests it was clearer in their minds than ours. I'd be curious to hear comments by people watching on TV.

Our power play was more effective, 2x5 vs. 1x6. A coach would say it doesn't matter, but BU's power play STYLE was impressive. They really attacked Cornell. Late in the third, it was morbidly fascinating to see us fall to a 5x3 deficit and then BU pulled the goalie for a 5x3 man advantage with 1:58 to play. After we fought off the 51 seconds of 6x3, it almost seemed a relief when Brendon Nash got back on-ice and I thought, "Heck, we survived a 6x3, how bad can a 6x4 be?"

Attendance was announced as an 18,2000 sellout. It looked as if there were 500, perhaps 1,000 empty seats still, at the end of the first period.  Some Cornell players two years ago suggested the team was unnerved playing in such a big arena. It didn't seem that way this year and for the freshmen it's good experience should we wind up in a big arena should we make the NCAAs. This was an opportunity lost to register a huge win psychologically even if BU was not a quality opponent based on its 3-7-2 record coming in.

Small consolation that Cornell fans seemed to outnumber BU fans by 2-1 or 3-1. Cornell owned this town except for the final scoreboard. Filing out, I felt almost as empty as last Memorial Day after we ran out of gas against Syracuse in the NCAA lax finals and couldn't hold that lead, either. The difference is that one game mattered a lot more. This morning I'm just not sure which one.

[marty]

The only victory for the Big Red seemed to be their ability to bring the puck to the net in OT.  They couldn't finish and that was due in large part to a good defense that met them from BU.

I am wondering how the OT looked to those who were at the rink.

[andyw2100]

The game thread recounts fans hearing a whistle before the final goal but the officials were pretty adamant about it being a goal. And their not going to a replay suggests it was clearer in their minds than ours. I'd be curious to hear comments by people watching on TV.

I just posted in the game thread on this subject. Short summary - the radio guys heard a whistle.

[scoop85]

In 1969 Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds to erase a 29-13 deficit in their football game, leaving both at 8-0-1, and the Harvard Crimson crowed, "Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29." If there was a moral victory Saturday in the 3-3 tie at Madison Square Garden, it wasn't ours. I saw three game-changers:

- The goal (short-handed) that trickled in past Scrivens to cut the lead to 2-1.
- All the penalties Cornell took late: 5 of our 8 in the third period, 2 in the last 3:20.
- Jack Parker's decision to call time-out when Locke Jillson's breakaway made it 2-0 5:27 into the game and calm the team.

The shots advantage said 35-17 BU though the game play didn't seem similarly one-sided except in the third when it was 13-3 BU. The acoustics of a big arena make it hard to tell about the intensity on the ice but Cornell's passion seemed to wane after the first period. We did come to life in overtime and it seemed as if we might win after all.

The game thread recounts fans hearing a whistle before the final goal but the officials were pretty adamant about it being a goal. And their not going to a replay suggests it was clearer in their minds than ours. I'd be curious to hear comments by people watching on TV.

Our power play was more effective, 2x5 vs. 1x6. A coach would say it doesn't matter, but BU's power play STYLE was impressive. They really attacked Cornell. Late in the third, it was morbidly fascinating to see us fall to a 5x3 deficit and then BU pulled the goalie for a 5x3 man advantage with 1:58 to play. After we fought off the 51 seconds of 6x3, it almost seemed a relief when Brendon Nash got back on-ice and I thought, "Heck, we survived a 6x3, how bad can a 6x4 be?"

Attendance was announced as an 18,2000 sellout. It looked as if there were 500, perhaps 1,000 empty seats still, at the end of the first period.  Some Cornell players two years ago suggested the team was unnerved playing in such a big arena. It didn't seem that way this year and for the freshmen it's good experience should we wind up in a big arena should we make the NCAAs. This was an opportunity lost to register a huge win psychologically even if BU was not a quality opponent based on its 3-7-2 record coming in.

Small consolation that Cornell fans seemed to outnumber BU fans by 2-1 or 3-1. Cornell owned this town except for the final scoreboard. Filing out, I felt almost as empty as last Memorial Day after we ran out of gas against Syracuse in the NCAA lax finals and couldn't hold that lead, either. The difference is that one game mattered a lot more. This morning I'm just not sure which one.

Good analysis.  BU controlled more of the play, and their puck possession and stick skills were tremendous.  That being said, the game was nowhere like 2007 when we had the deer-in-the-headlights syndrome and were totally outclassed.  We certainly played well enough to win, and I thought we could hold on after killing the 5-on-3.  

It was a real positive that we came out in OT and played like we had the 1st 10 minutes of the game.  We had the better OT chances.

While the tie was disappointing, there's no comparison with what happened last Memorial Day.  I was able to enjoy last night more, as the stakes were nowhere near as high.  The Cornell crowd was fabulous, and it made for a memorable experience for my kids as well.  Even my wife (who's a BU grad :-O) remarked that "Cornell has amazing school spirit."

[Al DeFlorio]

It was a real positive that we came out in OT and played like we had the 1st 10 minutes of the game.  We had the better OT chances.

Yes, that was a positive.  But it begs the question:  Why didn't we play at all like that for the remaining 50 minutes of regulation?  Was it a deliberate decision to go into a shell With a 2-0 lead?

[sah67]

I am wondering how the OT looked to those who were at the rink.

Although it was very end-to-end, we appeared to control most of the OT period, and BU seemed to be running out of gas.
 
BU supporters seemed to find their energy in double OT though, and by that I mean sen'08 and I being harassed and repeatedly challenged to a fight by some drunk BU jocks as we walked down 33rd st.  Although we managed to successfully to ignore the one standing a few inches behind me screaming in my ear for the length of 33rd, they finally found the brawl they were looking for at 8th avenue with a group of equally drunk Cornell supporters.  I use "supporters" in this case instead of "fans", since neither the BU group nor the Cornell group appeared to be wearing any sort of school colors or apparel.

The fight was thankfully short-lived, and after a few bloody noses and some wrestling on the ground, it was broken up by a homeless man who sent each group on their respective ways.

[scoop85]

It was a real positive that we came out in OT and played like we had the 1st 10 minutes of the game.  We had the better OT chances.

Yes, that was a positive.  But it begs the question:  Why didn't we play at all like that for the remaining 50 minutes of regulation?  Was it a deliberate decision to go into a shell With a 2-0 lead?

I don't know if we deliberately went into a shell as much as BU's level of desperation was racheted up.  I was struck by BU's ability to control the puck in center ice, and their players have a lot of ability with the puck.  Our D was trying to be careful not too pinch too much, while BU pinched on every opportunity. Once in OT it seemed to be a bit of role reversal, as we raised our "desperation" level, while BU seemed intent to not squander the tie.

[ugarte]

Cornell's offense seems to rely a lot on setting up highlight reel goals instead of setting up in the offensive zone and creating scoring chances. The shot totals seem off but they weren't. BU was getting the puck to the net while we were passing into traffic all night.

[Al DeFlorio]

It was a real positive that we came out in OT and played like we had the 1st 10 minutes of the game.  We had the better OT chances.

Yes, that was a positive.  But it begs the question:  Why didn't we play at all like that for the remaining 50 minutes of regulation?  Was it a deliberate decision to go into a shell With a 2-0 lead?

I don't know if we deliberately went into a shell as much as BU's level of desperation was racheted up.  I was struck by BU's ability to control the puck in center ice, and their players have a lot of ability with the puck.  Our D was trying to be careful not too pinch too much, while BU pinched on every opportunity. Once in OT it seemed to be a bit of role reversal, as we raised our "desperation" level, while BU seemed intent to not squander the tie.

Maybe we need to raise our "desperation" level more than ten minutes a game.

[TimV]

I see it much differently on many of your points.

In 1969 Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds to erase a 29-13 deficit in their football game, leaving both at 8-0-1, and the Harvard Crimson crowed, "Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29." If there was a moral victory Saturday in the 3-3 tie at Madison Square Garden, it wasn't ours.

We put it to BU for most of the game.  The shot totals do not tell the story. The first period we were outshot by about 3 when BU had 2 PPs to our one.  Second period BU put on more pressure and outshot us by 5, mostly because we put fewer of ours on goal, not because we went into a shell.  Third period we take 5 penalties, including an atrocious call that set up the 6 on 3. BU needed to scramble to salvage a tie aganst the second place "EZAC" team, and needed significant zebra help to get it.  As you point out, he needed to use up his one time out (although there were several others that appeared to be TV time-outs? at other times in the game) to rally his team.

I saw three game-changers:

- The goal (short-handed) that trickled in past Scrivens to cut the lead to 2-1.
- All the penalties Cornell took late: 5 of our 8 in the third period, 2 in the last 3:20.
- Jack Parker's decision to call time-out when Locke Jillson's breakaway made it 2-0 5:27 into the game and calm the team.

BU's shorty was answered in 90 seconds.  Not a game changer.  Agree with the second one you list.  Parker's TO was not a game changer as I stated above.  It was a panic-mode move.  Induced by OUR pressure.

The shots advantage said 35-17 BU though the game play didn't seem similarly one-sided except in the third when it was 13-3 BU. The acoustics of a big arena make it hard to tell about the intensity on the ice but Cornell's passion seemed to wane after the first period. We did come to life in overtime and it seemed as if we might win after all.

Agree with your feelings on the shot advantage.  From my seat about 12 rows above the ice, the intensity was outstanding throughout. I was surprised at our effort to press the attack in OT - but pleased to see it.

The game thread recounts fans hearing a whistle before the final goal but the officials were pretty adamant about it being a goal. And their not going to a replay suggests it was clearer in their minds than ours. I'd be curious to hear comments by people watching on TV.

I was in Section 92, about 12 rows up, as I said, just about at the goal line on the side that the puck went in.  Both I and my next-seat neighbor thought a whistle blew just before the puck went in.  The referee right behind the goal gestured very emphatically that the goal was scored, but it seemed to me there were a lot of bodies in the crease.  It was notable that this "goal" was the only one of the night NOT replayed on the video screen.  And I have no idea why they wouldn't do a video review of such a major play.

Our power play was more effective, 2x5 vs. 1x6. A coach would say it doesn't matter, but BU's power play STYLE was impressive. They really attacked Cornell. Late in the third, it was morbidly fascinating to see us fall to a 5x3 deficit and then BU pulled the goalie for a 5x3 man advantage with 1:58 to play. After we fought off the 51 seconds of 6x3, it almost seemed a relief when Brendon Nash got back on-ice and I thought, "Heck, we survived a 6x3, how bad can a 6x4 be?"

Well said.

Attendance was announced as an 18,2000 sellout. It looked as if there were 500, perhaps 1,000 empty seats still, at the end of the first period.  Some Cornell players two years ago suggested the team was unnerved playing in such a big arena. It didn't seem that way this year and for the freshmen it's good experience should we wind up in a big arena should we make the NCAAs. This was an opportunity lost to register a huge win psychologically even if BU was not a quality opponent based on its 3-7-2 record coming in.

I think BU is much better than that record.  They may have been "Post NCAA Title Fat" coming in, but my money is on their recovery to the top of Hockey East.  They look great.  And we stayed with them every step.  I'm very optimistic.

Small consolation that Cornell fans seemed to outnumber BU fans by 2-1 or 3-1. Cornell owned this town except for the final scoreboard. Filing out, I felt almost as empty as last Memorial Day after we ran out of gas against Syracuse in the NCAA lax finals and couldn't hold that lead, either. The difference is that one game mattered a lot more. This morning I'm just not sure which one.

No comparison to that game.  None.  Zero.  I, and I hope the team, see this game as a sign of progress made and a confidence builder. They outplayed BU for long periods of time, especially defensively.  They had a little trouble with BU's trap, but still broke it successfully frequently enough.  They lack the shooting skill of BU, and were outshot, and STILL BU needed 3 minutes of power play including 1+ minutes of 6 on 3 to gain the tie.

No way was this as important as the lacrosse loss.  No way was this as heartbreaking as dropping a national championship in our first final in 20 years in the last four seconds.  I know you're disappointed, Bill, as am I.  But that last sentence defines Hyperbole.

[SirJW]

Anyone know if the jerseys from the game which had the Red Hot Hockey patch  will be auctioned off?

[Jim Hyla]

I see it much differently on many of your points.

In 1969 Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds to erase a 29-13 deficit in their football game, leaving both at 8-0-1, and the Harvard Crimson crowed, "Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29." If there was a moral victory Saturday in the 3-3 tie at Madison Square Garden, it wasn't ours.

I'm not going to go over each point by point, but I liked what you did even if I disagree. We did not look good, at least by Redcast. Never, never, never should we lose a game 3-1 in third period. If we do we have no hope in the NCAAs. We cannot expect to keep up with the great teams. We need to be opportunistic and to play good defense. Once we get to the NCAAs all the teams are as good, or better than BU. They played well but so far are not the class of their league. We can't expect to win like Q did over UMass.

I expect them to come out to play for 60 min. and in too many games lately they haven't. I thought it was just getting the season going, but now I'm starting to get concerned. We need to show we can beat good teams and so far we're not doing well on that. They have times of great play, which needs to last longer. I think BU controlled 60-75% of the game yesterday and played good enough to win. We didn't.

Most of you know I'm basically an optimist, and I'm still optimistic about this team. They have shown they can do well on offense but need to pick up their D. Do you remember the quote, I think from Moulson, that 4 years with Coach Schafer teaches you to have good puck control, well we need to do a much better job. We can't turn it over and not expect good teams to put it to us. As we were saying on chat last night we need more of the D of the late 90s and early 00s to go along with an offense that is much better than recent years.

We can show a lot next weekend. The Capital district teams are not great, but are much better than prior years. It won't be easy to beat them, but if we want to go far we should.

[redice]

I'm a great admirer of Mike & the job that his coaching staff does at CU.    But, I feel strongly that he cost his team a victory by going into a defensive shell for the whole third period.    I spotted it in the first two minutes.   And, the shell lasted until the end of the period.   Granted, there were penalties to kill.   But,at even strength, there seemed no urgency to forecheck.  If they had spent more time in the BU end, which they seemed quite capable of doing, BU doesn't get so many shot or goals.   And, maybe we're not scrambling and taking penalties in the defensive zone.  When the OT started, CU applied the offensive pressure that was missing for most of the third.

[ebilmes]

BU was a different team than any other we've played this year. They were better, and I'm not sure why their record is so bad (I guess it's Millan's fault?).

I hope our guys learned something from watching their powerplay. I know we've had great special teams this year, but imagine how often we could score if we passed like they did! Some good stops by Scrivens and a few missed open nets, otherwise we would never have been ahead by two goals.

Most of our forwards, in ECAC play, are able to make a strong move with the puck along the boards by the blue line and at least succeed in dumping the puck into the corner. BU's defensemen seemed to anticipate this and did a great job of hitting every Cornell player who attempted this and sending the puck back out of the zone most of the time. Overall I thought BU played a more physical game, which is very rare to see in a Cornell game.

Shots would have been even more lopsided if we hadn't blocked so many. BU seemed pretty content to shoot from anywhere, at any time, which meant that there were plenty of crappy shots.

Plenty could be written about the penalties, but I'll leave it at this:

First period:
COR-2 Patrick Kennedy (2-Holding)    17:47 

Second period:
COR-3 Mike Devin (2-Cross-Checking)    17:58 

Third period:
COR-7 Brendon Nash (2-Cross-Checking)    16:40 
COR-8 Patrick Kennedy (2-Slashing)   18:02

Colgate second period:
COR-4 Joe Scali (2-Interference) CLG 2x4    19:46

Yale second period:
COR-5 Brendon Nash (2-Interference) YAL 0x4    19:06 

I'm not sure if it's a mental letdown at the end of the period, fatigue, or just the consequence of extra effort and intensity, but we are taking way too many dumb penalties at the end of periods. Finally caught up to us at the end of the game last night.

[Jim Hyla]

Some interesting quotes from the USCHO article:

"When they made it 3-2, we stopped making plays," Schafer said. "Sometimes that happens. You're up 3-1, and you start protecting the lead, sitting back too much. We didn't take care of the puck."

Things got really interesting, though, when two Cornell penalties with 1:58 remaining led Parker to pull the goalie for a six-on-three power play for 39 seconds.

Asked if he could remember the last time he had opted for such a strategy, Parker was quick to reply. "Yeah, the 12th," he said. After letting the media scratch their head over that for a moment, he added, "The 12th of never." He went on to explain that he had never tried the tactic in his 37 years of coaching, but that former assistant Ben Smith had been "haunting him" to try it. So, oddly enough, the team practiced the formation for the first time this week.

"We actually worked on a six-on-three this week; it's funny that we got one," Connolly said. Cornell got the first man back, but the Terriers scored six-on-four. Bonino threw the puck at the net, and Vinny Saponari got a piece of it. Scrivens thought he had squeezed it between his pads, but Connolly saw otherwise.

"Myself and the ref were the only ones who saw that the puck was free between the goalie's legs, so he was in great position to see that. I was fortunate enough to pull it out and just stuff it in."--