UHN Pregame Thread (RIT and Denver too)

[ben03]

It seemed to me last weekend that the boards in Albany were very rough and unpredictable -- the puck was often not where the guys expected it.  The ice also seemed soft or something, contributing to passes being less crisp than they should have been.  More practice with these conditions might help.

It was also quite warm in Albany last weekend. In the rink was colder than outside but it was still pretty warm in the rink.

i was going to ask the same question ... any thoughts about our experience on this ice just a week ago? how might this change the way UHN, DU and  RIT will have to play? does this really equate to an advantage?

[Josh '99]

It seemed to me last weekend that the boards in Albany were very rough and unpredictable -- the puck was often not where the guys expected it.

The boards in Albany are shitty; recall that one of Harvard's goals in the 2006 title game came from a Lynah bounce.  (Can we still call it that now that it's been eliminated at Lynah?)  Getting away from those boards is certainly one good thing about the Atlantic City move.

[Jim Hyla]

It seemed to me last weekend that the boards in Albany were very rough and unpredictable -- the puck was often not where the guys expected it.

The boards in Albany are shitty; recall that one of Harvard's goals in the 2006 title game came from a Lynah bounce.  (Can we still call it that now that it's been eliminated at Lynah?)  Getting away from those boards is certainly one good thing about the Atlantic City move.

Not until we see what that ice is like.

[Jim Hyla]

It seemed to me last weekend that the boards in Albany were very rough and unpredictable -- the puck was often not where the guys expected it.  The ice also seemed soft or something, contributing to passes being less crisp than they should have been.  More practice with these conditions might help.

It was also quite warm in Albany last weekend. In the rink was colder than outside but it was still pretty warm in the rink.

i was going to ask the same question ... any thoughts about our experience on this ice just a week ago? how might this change the way UHN, DU and  RIT will have to play? does this really equate to an advantage?

It's always an advantage to have played in the rink, but I doubt much of one here. The temp is going to be a lot cooler, so at least the rink temp should be more like hockey.

[sockralex]

It's supposed to be clear through tomorrow so worst case tey'd probably fly out a day late and lose their practice day. (Which won't bring any complaints from me!)

Dumb question but... wouldn't they just practice at home?

Not if they're twiddling their thumbs in the airport, hoping for the all-clear.

I think this could be an impact.  There's a reason Denver is one of the choices for the Elf travel poll at the top - they don't travel much.  They took a long trip to Alaska and Ohio early in the season for a couple of weekends and the rest were games along the Mississippi and west.  My brother just got in from Denver at 4am today and that's because he left before the storm even hit - who knows how long it could take to dig out and get the airport running.  Traveling isn't easy.

Now, I am obligated to cheer for RIT on Friday, so some of this may be more hope than reason.

As for UHN-Cornell.  I don't know what to expect.  There are good things going Cornell's way and good things going UHNs.  What scares me the most is how amazing we played in January on their Olympic ice and if we can repeat that performance or get complacent.  I think the regular rink will help us if we can lock down UHN on the transition - which we do really well (except when we played Colorado College).  

Basically, if we bring December team, we are done.  If we bring January 3rd team, we will do well.  Only question is, what team will UHN bring?  A team rusty from 2 weeks off or a healthy team eager to win again?

[andyw2100]

I'm a little surprised no one has brought this up yet.

Not looking past UHN or anything, but the last game Cornell played against Denver in the NCAA tournament Cornell won.

[mnagowski]

Um, why does everybody misspell UNH?

[munchkin]

Um, why does everybody misspell UNH?

Because they misspelled it with poster boards at one point years ago.

[sockralex]

Um, why does everybody misspell UNH?

Yeah, it's a long story that involves their own fans' inability to put their U-H-N signs in correct order.  The story ends with them sucking and not deserving respect when being discussed in pregame discussion.

[Greenberg '97]

Um, why does everybody misspell UNH?

Yeah, it's a long story that involves their own fans' inability to put their U-H-N signs in correct order.  The story ends with them sucking and not deserving respect when being discussed in pregame discussion.

Somewhere in the middle of the story is the tale of a goal that was waved off on a "high stick" that was clearly at waist level.  But my toddler has torn those pages out of the book.

[ebilmes]

Um, why does everybody misspell UNH?

Yeah, it's a long story that involves their own fans' inability to put their U-H-N signs in correct order.  The story ends with them sucking and not deserving respect when being discussed in pregame discussion.

Somewhere in the middle of the story is the tale of a goal that was waved off on a "high stick" that was clearly at waist level.  But my toddler has torn those pages out of the book.

The U-H-N was in Worcester in 2002. The questionable call was Buffalo in 2003.

[Larry72]

In the 2003 Frozen Four semi-final game against UHN, Shane Palahicky scored the first goal during the first period on a shot deflection.  The "ref" waived the goal off saying that Shane deflected the puck with a high stick.  The "ref" was incorrect according to all the replays that followed that showed Shane's stick below the cross-bar as it deflected the puck.  UHN went on to win the game 3-2.  Every time, there is a deflection goal that looks just like Shane's I think back to that bad-call that very likely caused Cornell a shot at the NCAA championship game in 2003.

[Greenberg '97]

In the 2003 Frozen Four semi-final game against UHN, Shane Palahicky scored the first goal during the first period on a shot deflection.  The "ref" waived the goal off saying that Shane deflected the puck with a high stick.  The "ref" was incorrect according to all the replays that followed that showed Shane's stick below the cross-bar as it deflected the puck.  UHN went on to win the game 3-2.  Every time, there is a deflection goal that looks just like Shane's I think back to that bad-call that very likely caused Cornell a shot at the NCAA championship game in 2003.

They even looked at replays for two or three minutes.  We did not get replays in the arena, but I think ESPN was certain they were going to overturn the call.  Apparently, it was conclusive to everyone but the ref.

In the postgame, Schafer was asked about that play, and he said something like, "What, you mean the goal?"

[sockralex]

They even looked at replays for two or three minutes.  We did not get replays in the arena, but I think ESPN was certain they were going to overturn the call.  Apparently, it was conclusive to everyone but the ref.

In the postgame, Schafer was asked about that play, and he said something like, "What, you mean the goal?"

I guess it's a good thing I can't find that clip on the YouTube.  I am getting much more favorable clips of UHN vs Cornell when doing queries.  Hopefully after Friday there'll be a couple more happy ones on there.

[Jacob '06]

In the 2003 Frozen Four semi-final game against UHN, Shane Palahicky scored the first goal during the first period on a shot deflection.  The "ref" waived the goal off saying that Shane deflected the puck with a high stick.  The "ref" was incorrect according to all the replays that followed that showed Shane's stick below the cross-bar as it deflected the puck.  UHN went on to win the game 3-2.  Every time, there is a deflection goal that looks just like Shane's I think back to that bad-call that very likely caused Cornell a shot at the NCAA championship game in 2003.

They even looked at replays for two or three minutes.  We did not get replays in the arena, but I think ESPN was certain they were going to overturn the call.  Apparently, it was conclusive to everyone but the ref.

In the postgame, Schafer was asked about that play, and he said something like, "What, you mean the goal?"

Two or three minutes? Seemed more like 10 in the arena. I think that was the worst part of it, we had momentum then and the length of the review followed by the no goal call sucked everything out of the team for a little while. If the review had been brief I would've been OK with it, but taking forever made it over the top.