Cornell 4 Colgate 3 @ Newark postgame

[billhoward]

The atmosphere was much more low-key than the 2007, 2009 and most likely 2011 Cornell-BU games at Madison Square Garden. Attendance was soft (5,000?), like an ECACs consolation game. Cornell was the majority of the fans, the only band, the one side with the cheers. Still, it was nice to have a big-arena experience and that may benefit the new players.

Cornell outshot Colgate by 2-1 in the first 2 periods but Colgate got lucky. Cornell finally came untracked in the third. Three goals on something like 7 shots.

Good points: Cornell won, Cornell didn't give up, four different players scored. Not-so-good points: Cornell got beaten to the puck, got ridden off the puck, lost some battles along the boards, and made defensive lapses that gave Colgate scoring chances. Were Cornell one step quicker we would have 2, 3 more goals. Cornell ran its power play from the points and (although surely it's more sophisticated than this) it appeared that Cornell's plan was to take a slapshot then poke home the rebound. Note the one PPG, by Sean Collins, came off a broken play that started at mid-ice and involved no set-up. Add in the beautiful breakaway goal and we've got two scores where Cornell was opportunistic and quick, sort of like playing Yale's game and making it work without quite having Yale's quickness.

In the third, Iles left the net to play a pass (dump-in? that caromed off the boards, took a funny bounce, and drift past Iles into the goal crease. That was a scary 2 or 3 seconds until a Cornell defenseman cleared the puck awy.

Not a perfect game but a win. I always thought we were the most dangerous 2-6, non-top-25 team in the country.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

[ajh258]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.

In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

[jeff '84]

Have to disagree on the attendance -- looked to me like there were significantly more Cornell fans than Colgate.

[CAS]

I agree with Jeff.  The 5,413 in attendance were primarily Cornell fans.  Exciting win, the 300th of his career, for Coach Schafer

[billhoward]

Give Colgate credit for getting its fans to turn out. When you're not playing BU in MSG in odd-number years, this is a significant event. It gave them an alternative to the highlight of their Saturday being the BC-Syracuse game on TV; before we left, I heard not saw BC was winning and thought Donahue was performing a minor miracle already when it was just football.

Give Cornell a lot of credit for coming back from a 3-1 deficit with three straight goals in eight minutes.

It's not a major game but, c'mon Cornell, it's almost half a day since the game ended and the Cornell site still has only a short blurb and a "more to come" teaser.

[billhoward]

Have to disagree on the attendance -- looked to me like there were significantly more Cornell fans than Colgate.

Including the one Cornell fan wearing a rounded furry (bear?) hat who got interrupted mid-bite by the Prudential's fan cam.

[scoop85]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.


In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

So, please share with us this "new strategy that works for the individual players" that our obviously incompetent coaching staff has been unable to implement?::wtf::

[Towerroad]

A win is a win and I bleed as Red and anybody but the reality is that it required 3rd period heroics to beat a team that was 1 8 1 coming into the game last night. I think this is more than the result of "rebuilding" and "learning to play together".

Perhaps as some have suggested the ECAC is getting better but our fall is petty precipitous given that 3/4 of the team has played together for at least a year.

[ajh258]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.


In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

So, please share with us this "new strategy that works for the individual players" that our obviously incompetent coaching staff has been unable to implement?::wtf::

I said this earlier in the thread about Yale.

I agree with BigRedHockeyFan that Schafer needs to adjust his strategy based on the players' individual skills. We can already see the advantage of that on a limited basis with Mowrey and Gotovets on second shift and I think our starters just need some good support strategies that can help them bring their potential out.

With this in mind, Jim hits it right on the spot - our defense needs work - more specifically puck handling in our own zone. I am not sure what works best for current players to counter those two man forechecks that Elie is describing, but they are definitely a big issue. One way to minimize those situations, however, and to save time, is to ditch our old setup behind the net and go straight up the ice once puck possession is established. Then, two blueliners should fall back and follow behind the offensive shift and let them take the puck down the ice. By focusing play in the neutral zone and not bringing the puck back, we minimize defensive risks that happen on our side and will keep pressure on the opposing team. Of course, when you're dealing with teams who deploys that same strategy, we need to think of a way to take advantage of our size to dominate the neutral zone, as well as make sure our defensive players know where to position themselves to prevent successful breakaway goals.

Although Colgate did not use the two-man forecheck, we still underperformed in our zone. In addition, don't forget that we are 1–5–0 at Lynah this season so far. Despite being a loyal fan, I would not really boast about how awesome our team is this year by beating Colgate, who is 0-5-1 in the ECAC and 2-9-1 overall.


About the attendance, maybe I'm looking at the wrong sections but I felt like about 2/5th of the rink was Raiders' fans.

[Tom Lento]

A win is a win and I bleed as Red and anybody but the reality is that it required 3rd period heroics to beat a team that was 1 8 1 coming into the game last night. I think this is more than the result of "rebuilding" and "learning to play together".

Perhaps as some have suggested the ECAC is getting better but our fall is petty precipitous given that 3/4 of the team has played together for at least a year.

In terms of game experience it's more like 2/3 of the team as measured by bodies, probably closer to 50% of the team as measured by ice time, and probably even less than that as measured by time on ice as a line/d-pairing. Obviously practice matters so the gap isn't as big as playing time makes it look, but this is still pretty telling.

Of the 20 players who got more than 10 games last season, 6 graduated and 1 went pro. That's 6 skaters and 1 goaltender. Here are the 6 skaters:

Blake Gallagher (37 pts)
Colin Greening (35 pts)
Brendon Nash (19 pts)
Justin Krueger (12 pts)
Joe Scali (6 pts)
Riley Nash (35 pts)

Three of these guys (Nash, Nash, and Greening) are currently in the AHL, and all of them are doing well enough that they might get at least a cup of coffee in the NHL down the line. Look at the current roster and think about how many of those guys you expect to see in the AHL next year, much less doing well there. Personally, I think Kennedy and Joe Devin are the only two with a reasonable shot, and I doubt more than one of them gets there and gets a regular shift.

Krueger and Nash were arguably the top 2 D-men on the team and got huge minutes. If they were paired, that means you're either replacing your best d pairing with a couple of new players or (more likely) you're juggling most or all of your pairings to balance out the loss. If they weren't paired, that means you're changing at least 2/3 of your D pairings.

Scali's line had to be broken up, and he was a key part of its success. I don't know if Gallagher/Greening/Nash were all on the same line all the time, but the same calculation applies - either you replace far and away your top scoring line with a bunch of new players, or you juggle several of your lines to balance out that loss - either way, that's a bunch of ice time for new combinations. Best case you've changed 50% of your forward lines. Worst case you've changed all 4 of them.

And, of course, you've got a guy with about 6 games of NCAA experience as your seasoned veteran goaltender who's supposed to stabilize things until the freshman gets used to the speed of the NCAA game. Not a good situation for a young team with relatively few veterans and a bunch of new line combinations.


It is definitely a precipitous drop from last season to the current state of affairs, but honestly a precipitous drop is kind of what everyone should have expected. A top 4 finish in the ECAC was always the best case scenario. 4th place is not out of reach, but it sure does look optimistic at this point. 6th-8th is more likely, and based on the little I've been able to see on the video I think 6th place is about where Cornell will end up. Better than now, but pretty far from the past two seasons.

If Cornell has another strong recruiting class, and if they get next year's recruits on board quickly, I'd expect a much more dangerous Big Red team next season and an ECAC title contender in 2 seasons, with a decent shot at a solid if unspectacular NCAA run. If not, well, there are more 4th-6th place finishes (or worse) in this team's future.

[KGR11]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.

In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

Probably part of the reason why they didn't look great last night was because it was the first game all season that Jillson and Craig were not dressed.  Jillson is one of the fastest veterans on the team and Craig is part of a good checking line with Nicholls and Kary.  It makes sense that the team would have at least some difficulty without them.

[Jim Hyla]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.

In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

Probably part of the reason why they didn't look great last night was because it was the first game all season that Jillson and Craig were not dressed.  Jillson is one of the fastest veterans on the team and Craig is part of a good checking line with Nicholls and Kary.  It makes sense that the team would have at least some difficulty without them.

And Schafer said in the pregame something about a couple of other guys who were sick and wouldn't have played if they didn't need them. I don't remember who.

[ajh258]

It looks like part of Cornell's problem this year may be that the conference has improved.  According to the newly posted pairwise at CHN, 8 of the top 25 teams are from the ECAC.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/ncaapwcr.php

We beat Clarkson and Quinnipiac, yet we are still 2-6. Did our league improve or did we merely start to suck?


Edit: BTW, I wouldn't call Cornell attendance a "majority" although that might be factually correct. Colgate had about just as many fans show up, but we certainly had a tad more with the band.

In any case, the game was basically a competition between two really bad teams trying to suck less than the other. Fortunately, we came up on top, but it could have easily gone the other way. I feel like the team has not improved at all from weekends past and the frustration just keeps growing. We don't have to win every game but many the losses this year could have been wins - our players have the talent and skill to be an outstanding team despite this being a rebuilding year. There is a way for us to start improving and the first step is implementing a new strategy that works for the individual players.

Probably part of the reason why they didn't look great last night was because it was the first game all season that Jillson and Craig were not dressed.  Jillson is one of the fastest veterans on the team and Craig is part of a good checking line with Nicholls and Kary.  It makes sense that the team would have at least some difficulty without them.

And Schafer said in the pregame something about a couple of other guys who were sick and wouldn't have played if they didn't need them. I don't remember who.

I understand that not all players were dressed, especially in Jillson's situation, but I also feel that I keep being told to lower my expectations week after week. Now we're at near bottom of the league and there's just more excuses about why we didn't win. Instead of focusing on the bad, why not try stuff that makes up for what we lack? Why not try new things? What could possibly go wrong at this point to make the season worse? A loss is a loss despite having great PK or GAA numbers. Looking at the December schedule, I can't imagine why we wouldn't go try new strategies against these great out-of-conference teams.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm sure I'm not the only one frustrated with where we are so far. Is asking for a .500 team without one or two key players every game per game too much? I'm sure other top 20 teams have to deal with unforeseeable events as well, why are they still there?

[jkahn]

Some thoughts about the evening:
My guess would be about a 4/3 Cornell/Colgate fan ratio not counting the upper level which was not fully visible from the my seats high in the lower on the same side.
On the first Colgate goal, a Colgate player was down and hurt in front of Andy.  I think we may have let up a little expecting the whistle to blow.
I thought Greg Miller played a great game, even if you exclude his assists - and it was a great pass to Roeszler.  Miller work hard without the puck all evening and apparently Mike has a lot of faith in him, as he was on the ice at the end when Colgate pulled its goalie.
Nick D'Agostino plays a high risk, high reward type game.  A goal and an assist, but frequently out of position or out of the play defensively,  One time he broke up a Colgate rush with a backcheck at the blueline, but he was the last of the five Cornell skaters back.  If he continues to go in deep, others will have to do a better job covering for him.