Can offensive skills be taught at this level?

[Jim Hyla]

Second violation of face off by same team on same faceoff: minor penalty.

I wonder if that has ever been called in the history of hockey.

With the NCAA and the pros both using the newly-adopted rule (actually I guess it isn't even all that new anymore) not to allow teams a line change before the faceoff following an icing, I've thought on more than one occasion that teams so penalized should have three or four skaters who they don't really want taking the faceoff to each go to the circle and get tossed out of the draw deliberately before the actual designated faceoff-taker takes his turn.  This rule would seem to discourage that sort of trickery, though, as you noted, it'd be surprising if a penalty has ever been given for it.

I've always wondered: what happens if they all get thrown out?  Do you just cycle back to the first one?  I've only ever seen two get thrown out, but hey if you're down to 3...

Maybe they'd call the minor penalty, and thus consider the faceoff for the PP a different faceoff, at which point all players are eligible to take it.

I also wonder: a team ices the puck, and then gets a minor on the ensuing faceoff, do they still have to keep (a subset of) the same players on the ice for the PK? Or does the PK count as a totally new segment, one not bound by the consequences of the icing?

Interesting question. I'm certainly not sure, but I'd guess it's a new play, so they change. If not, it's likely TO time.

[David Harding]

And in the 67 Semis, we beat ND 1-0 with a "disputed" Stanowski goal.

Which up until three weeks ago had been the only 1-0 playoff win in Cornell history.

I have never heard about the "disputedness" of the Stanowski goal (or for that matter even the story of the goal).  I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate.  All's I know is this.

I'll try to look up the write-up when I get home, but as I remember he came out of the penalty box to get a pass. The question was whether he was onside. If I remember correctly, there was some rule about having to be "behind the play" before he could get the pass. But I have the game write-ups at home so I'll check them.

Jim, I'll save you the trouble.

Here are the Ithaca Journal article, and the relevant rule from the NCAA hockey rule book (1968 version, but the rule hadn't changed from the previous year).

That school year's "Sun" is one of the few that is still waiting to be digitized for lack of funding. http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/cornell?a=p&p=funding&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN

[Icy]

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. "

~unknown

[Trotsky]

Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

[Jim Hyla]

Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP):-) Jim Hyla '67:-D

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

[Scersk '97]

Whilst scanning through this summary of scoring by class, I noted some dropoffs five or so years after assistant coaching changes. One would think these were the senior years of classes for which there was likely a bit of recruiting "chaos." For example, look at 1999, the graduating year of the first class that Schafer et al. brought in, and then the next couple of years. Not exactly stellar classes. The Carlin/Garrow to Brekke/Russell transtion seems to have gone unusually smoothly, and then some hiccups in the late 00s. The 2011 seniors are the last fruits of Brekke's association with the program, perhaps, and then there would be chaos for 2012–14. Perhaps 2015 is the last class that Casey has his stamp on, and then there's another transition.

Whether I'm grasping at straws here or "seeing deep patterns," I can't tell. But I'm trying to come up with a way to evaluate assistant coaches, both behind the bench and on the trail. Which brings me to my point:

We'd best have a fantastic freshman class next year. If we do, I think we're set up for another 2002–2006 kind of cycle, as long as we see strong development out of this year's freshmen/next year's sophomores, who I kind of like as a group; if not, methinks it's time for a change in assistant coaches.

[Trotsky]

Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP):-) Jim Hyla '67:-D

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

I could create one.  I could even run a regression analysis on winning percentage as a function of special teams, gfa, and gaa, if I remembered (1) how to do that and (2) whether it was methodologically sound (since all the variables would not be entirely mutually independent).

[Swampy]

Special teams now updated.

To give an idea of the impact of the junior class, here's a summary of scoring by graduation year.

And it looks like the best class was:

1967, GP 732 (sixth), G 322 (first), Pts 810 (first), and last but not least PIM 1017 (third, but probably first in PIM/GP):-) Jim Hyla '67:-D

Greg, do you have the special teams data and yearly records on a single spreadsheet, so they could be easily compared?

I could create one.  I could even run a regression analysis on winning percentage as a function of special teams, gfa, and gaa, if I remembered (1) how to do that and (2) whether it was methodologically sound (since all the variables would not be entirely mutually independent).

Whether it's methodologically sound only pertains to whether or not you should run the regression. If this were a criterion for whether or not people could run a regression, we'd have but a small fraction of the regression models we have now. ::rolleyes::