Cornell 5 Clarkson 3, Postgame Thread

[Trotsky]

4 point weekend. :-)

[Trotsky]

RPI 4 Yale 0, final.  Cornell alone in first by pct and points.

[Oat]

We broke out of the 0-for-32 PP slump!

[Al DeFlorio]

We broke out of the 0-for-32 PP slump!

And outscored Clarkson 3-2 while a man up.::worry::

[Trotsky]

Finals:

SLU 3 Colgate 2, ot
Brown 2 Union 2, ot

Standings

.769 9-2-2 20 Cornell
.643 7-3-4 18 St. Lawrence
.643 7-3-4 18 Union
.643 8-4-2 18 Yale

Cornell with a game at hand.

[Trotsky]

The 3 ppg put Cornell back at #1 in conference in powerplay.  Most of the 0x32 must have been in non-conference games.

[Dpperk29]

That was a pretty decent game. Cornell played well, so did Clarkson. The officials were definitely on cornell's side, but I am not sure it cost Clarkson the game. Oh well, maybe this will set up for another playoff series @ Lynah between Clarkson and Cornell, those are always fun (see ECAC quarterfinals 2004).

[Jim Hyla]

That was a pretty decent game. Cornell played well, so did Clarkson. The officials were definitely on cornell's side, but I am not sure it cost Clarkson the game. Oh well, maybe this will set up for another playoff series @ Lynah between Clarkson and Cornell, those are always fun (see ECAC quarterfinals 2004).

??
I think what caused Clarkson the game was a 42-21 shot differential. After all we were only a net 1 on PPs.

[Drew]

Jim, To a degree, much of the reason you were 42-21 on shot differential was that Clarkson was on the PK much of the night, no?  Which is what devin was trying to point out ( i believe ). Would you not agree that it is more difficult for the team on the PK to get shots on goal when they are a man down?  
Either way, I don't think it would have mattered much as we kind of.. sort of.. suck a lil bit.
Cheers,
Drew

[Trotsky]

PPs were 7 to 4.  We don't keep shots on pp, but I'll bet it didn't hurt.

Cornell has outscored conference opponents, net, in all six 2-game weekends this season.  That's the longest string of consistently good pairs since 9 straight back in the 2005 and 2006 seasons.  Of course, the 2003, 04 and 05 teams did it 24 straight times. But still, Cornell has been consistent in league play so far.  That's particularly important when you consider this time last year, when they followed up a 9-1-2 league start with 1-4-1.

[Drew]

PPs were 7 to 4.  We don't keep shots on pp, but I'll bet it didn't hurt.

Cornell has outscored conference opponents, net, in all six 2-game weekends this season.  That's the longest string of consistently good pairs since 9 straight back in the 2005 and 2006 seasons.  Of course, the 2003, 04 and 05 teams did it 24 straight times. But still, Cornell has been consistent in league play so far.  That's particularly important when you consider this time last year, when they followed up a 9-1-2 league start with 1-4-1.

Yes Trots, PP shots are not differentiated from even strength shots, which is the the argument I am trying make. PK masks the "opportunity costs" that effect a team when down a man. Tough to get shots on goal when you are a man down. That being said, we did not deserve to win.
Drew

[Avash]

While on its seven power plays, Cornell outshot Clarkson 20-2.

http://cornellbigred.com/documents/2010/1/30/cumih20.pdf?id=2617

[Jim Hyla]

Jim, To a degree, much of the reason you were 42-21 on shot differential was that Clarkson was on the PK much of the night, no?  Which is what devin was trying to point out ( i believe ). Would you not agree that it is more difficult for the team on the PK to get shots on goal when they are a man down?  
Either way, I don't think it would have mattered much as we kind of.. sort of.. suck a lil bit.
Cheers,
Drew

To a degree, I agree. But even at even we out shot you 22-15, and you only had 4 shots in 4 PPs. So any way you look at it we had territorial advantage on both PP and even. The only advantage you had was SH.::worry:: I guess more than anything I was reacting to the comment "The officials were definitely on cornell's side". Just because we had more PPs doesn't mean we had the officials in our pocket. You are the most penalized team in the league, so maybe they're against you all the time.::thud::

[philmaywalt]

Big difference in Video Feed--The feed for SLU (which was at best, horrid) as opposed to the Clarkson feed (astounding--even in color).  The feed of the SLU game, which was a nail-biter start to finish, was unwatchable.  Is there a difference as to who was running the video feed (company-wise), or do we just have bad RedCast nights???

Thanks for any feedback.

Phil

[Dpperk29]

That was a pretty decent game. Cornell played well, so did Clarkson. The officials were definitely on cornell's side, but I am not sure it cost Clarkson the game. Oh well, maybe this will set up for another playoff series @ Lynah between Clarkson and Cornell, those are always fun (see ECAC quarterfinals 2004).

??
I think what caused Clarkson the game was a 42-21 shot differential. After all we were only a net 1 on PPs.

Alright, I'll try to stay calm.

There were at least 2 Clarkson penalties that got called that just flat out were not penalties (Holding on Rufenach and Elbowing on Cayer). And there were several times cornell players got away with some of the exact same stick work that Clarkson got penalized for. So yes, I really do think that the officials were on cornell's side. Though I do think cornell probably would have won either way.

And cornell fans of anyone should know that shots mean about as much as spy satelites over canada. I remember many a cornell game where cornell would have huge shot totals and lose 2-1 (or some similar score).

And one more thing, nearly every home team in the world usually gets some help from the referees. It's just the way it is I think. For some reason or another the zebras always seem to call the questionable call on the visitors and let it slide on the home team. I have no hard evidence of this theory, just unrecorded observations.