Cornell 1 RPI 2 (ot)

[ajh258]

Here's the breakdown by seed.

% of times that a given seed has won the Whitelaw Cup:
45% second seed
27% first seed
9.1% third seed
9.1% fourth seed
9.1% team outside of the top four seeds

Very convincing evidence that we might win in Atlantic City.

[ursusminor]

Why did the league name neither trophy after Ned Harkness? I know that Union is a recent addition, but Harkness is the common thread through the two historically most successful programs on the national stage. Harkness' legacy is the common connection between Cornell and RPI, with their history and current levels of competitiveness, and Union, with its status as a respectable program.

I can't answer that question with any certainty, but it's probably worth knowing that almost everybody besides RPI resented Ned for recruiting so many Canadian players at a time when American college hockey was still largely populated with Americans (it was much more common by the time he arrived at Cornell, but still stirred the pot a bit).  And although he brought RPI to a national title, I think they had some lingering resentment about his departure for Cornell.

Yes indeed there was. I arrived in RPI in the fall of 1964, a full year after he left, and that resentment was told to us by the upper classmen. It took many years before that wore off, but it did, and he was honored several times by RPI.

[marty]

Two questions -- how many 3rd period leads have we blown this year and what is our record in those games?

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

In an alternate world where we hold even a reasonable proportion of those leads we're a national title contender.

The alternate world is called 2012-2013.

Who's afraid of the big bad woof?

[Aaron M. Griffin]

Games in which we have blown third period leads:

Game # / Opponent / Result / Notes

1 / Merchyhurst / L / Led 4-3 with 10 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
3 / at Brown/ L / Led 4-3 with 8 mins to go, gave up 2 goals.
15 / at CC / T / Led 3-2 with 30 seconds to go, gave up 1 goal.
17 / Princeton / T / Led 3-0 with 17 minutes to go, gave up 3 goals.
18 / Dartmouth / W / Led 3-2 with 11 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
19 / Harvard / T / Led 2-1 with  minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
21 / at Colgate / L / Led 3-1 with 16 minutes to go, gave up 4 goals including an empty netter.
22 / at RPI / T / Led 2-0 with 18 minutes to go, gave up 2 goals (in 90 seconds).
23 / at Union / T / Led 4-3 with 3 minutes to, gave up tying goal.
26 / at Clarkson / T / Led 1-0 with 7 minutes to go, gave up tying goal.
27 / at St. Lawrence / W / Led 3-2 with 16 minutes to go, gave up tying goal but won in overtime.
29 / RPI / L / Led 1-0 with 3  minutes to go, gave up tying goal but lost in overtime.

So, the answers to your questions are 12, and 2-4-6.

In an alternative universe in which Cornell holds all 12 leads, they finish 20-1-1 in the ECAC and 25-3-1 overall.

You're missing one. We let the Hockey East official take that puck right out of the net during the BU game and we lost a 2-1 third-period lead as a result.

[Give My Regards]

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

[Beeeej]

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

Would it help if I also brought up Leeor Shtrom?

[Chris '03]

They also beat us the first time they ever played us at Lynah, in 1991-92, their very first year in the conference when they were pathetically bad - one of their only two conference wins the entire season.

I don't care if you are a moderator -- bringing up that game should be grounds for suspension. ::cuss::

Would it help if I also brought up Leeor Shtrom?

Only if you quote Ian Burt too:

"We were just having a conversation, I just asked him how the game was," Burt said. "I asked him why he didn't jump me and he was like, 'Oh, your back was turned.' He was like, 'You want to go with me?' and I [said], 'Not really, you'll probably beat me up.' He said, 'Well, let's go then,' and throws his gloves off."

To replay a six year old conversation: http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,80935,80935#msg-80935

[jtn27]

The Ithaca Journal is perhaps best known for sucking. I don't think that there's any question that the Sun is the best paper in Ithaca (although as a Sun writer I am a bit biased).

Being "the best paper in Ithaca" is kind of like being the toughest kid in second grade. And if you took all my posts on this forum over the years about individual examples of horrendous writing or editing in the Sun and laid them end to end, they'd... well, they'd reveal how much time I've spent complaining about horrendous writing or editing in the Sun, I guess.

I think that's a fair analogy. My point was more that the Journal sucks than that the Sun is good. Although, you would expect the professional newspaper to be better than the student one.

Not really.  With rare exceptions, a professional newspaper in Ithaca isn't going to attract the best journalists, it's generally going to attract the best journalists who already want to live in or near Ithaca.  A student paper at an Ivy League university is going to attract many of the best students who want to be the best journalists.

This is cray talk. The student paper will have teenagers who know fuck-all about anything. The IJ will have a staff that is a combination of young writers building their clip file before trying to move to a bigger paper and more experienced writers that have decided they like horrible weather. The average member of either group should be better than most of the Sun writers. The young writers will have gotten the job based on their own college clip file and the experienced writers are EXPERIENCED WRITERS.

This isn't to say that the IJ is or is not fishwrap, only to point out that teenagers are bad writers and a red sweatshirt doesn't change that. Sorry, Sun staffers. You are probably terrible. Did I mention that I wrote a thing for The Classical? If you want your revenge, please feel free to tell me that I suck too.

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

[jtn27]

Here's the breakdown by seed.

% of times that a given seed has won the Whitelaw Cup:
45% second seed
27% first seed
9.1% third seed
9.1% fourth seed
9.1% team outside of the top four seeds

Very convincing evidence that we might win in Atlantic City.

Unfortunately for us that type of statistic doesn't hold much weight in determining the outcome of this year's tournament (or future tournaments). I hope the pattern holds though.

[Ben]

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

[RichH]

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

[css228]

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

[Ben]

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

Not really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

[css228]

I don't mean to harp on this and I promise this will be the last thing I say on the subject, but the fact that I think the Sun is better than the IJ has little to do with the quality of writing. The IJ has some good writers and as students we at the Sun are prone to make mistakes. The main reason the Sun is better is that the Sun has more writers. Sun writers are volunteers, but IJ writers are paid, meaning the Journal can't afford to hire as many as they need. With a shortage of writers the Journal can't always cover everything that deserves coverage and it also means that reporters write more articles and thus spend less time on some articles than an article deserve.

Anyway, that being said, back to hockey...

By this logic, Bleacher Report is better than ESPN.

Well, at least Bleacher Report covers more than one sport...

A better analogy is SB Nation

Not really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Not its fan posts

[Ben]

Not really, SBN pays its writers (yes, I would know).

Not its fan posts

True, but that's not the main body of content on SBN sites and sbnation.com.