Cornell at Harvard 11/16

[VIEWfromK]

Yes yes yes. Love the D on the shootout.

Can anyone find another instance of 2 D men winning a shoot out on 2 shots? Gutsy move.

Is it possible that Rego could have been third in line for the shootout if it had gone that far?  Looks genius now unless we later find out they went Billy Martin style and pulled the order out of a hat.

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the ice scrape?  The NHL did away with it right away.  Why is the NCAA still requiring it?  Makes everyone sit around unnecessarily.

[David Harding]

I looked back at the highlights and a few things:

There were several stupid or unnecessary penalties...on both sides. The Bancroft hit that resulted in the major got a lot of attention but the boarding penalty Harvard's MacDonald took late in the 3rd was peak idiocy and resulted in Cornell tying the game on a nice low-slot passing play.

The 2nd Harvard goal should've been called back for being offside. I wasn't sure at first in real time since I was at the other end of the ice, but on the highlights, it's clear that a portion of the puck was over the blue line. Too bad Cornell couldn't challenge at that point.

The 1st Harvard goal was some of the worst PK coverage I've ever seen. No way should a player be left alone like that in front of the net. Net front defense improved as the game went on but definitely some of the same issues we saw last weekend

The entire puck has to be all the way across the blue line into the neutral zone, not just a portion of it, before its return to the offensive zone results in an offside.

[David Harding]

I remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.


It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.

Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.[/quote]

7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.

The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student.  Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of  regualr time and overtime.  I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.

[jtwcornell91]

I remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.

Could it be that you have memories of playoff games mixed in there?

5 (or 10) minutes OT vs 20 minutes is an important distinction for long-game purposes because you have to resurface the ice for the latter and not for the former.

[scoop85]

I remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.


It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.

Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.

7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.

The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student.  Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of  regualr time and overtime.  I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.

When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.

[Al DeFlorio]

I remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.


It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.

Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.

7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.

The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student.  Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of  regualr time and overtime.  I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.

When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.

As in 61-66.

[George64]

The most memorable overtime I recall was at the Boston Arena Christmas Tournament in 1966.  I was back in Ithaca and listened to it on WHCU.  The game ended in a 3-3 tie after the second overtime.  The following week, Yale beat us 4-3 in overtime at Lynah.  The only two blemishes in our 27-1-1 NCAA Championship season.
.

[Trotsky]

When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.

I will always remember the time on the Bright scoreboard when Shippel scored in overtime on 2/16/85:

Code Select Expand


5:55


[adamw]

Anyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel.  Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk.  Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.

[abmarks]

Anyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel.  Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk.  Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.

And with that bearlover is now forever to be referred to as clownlover

[BearLover]

Anyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel.  Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk.  Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.

Yawn. Really weak take completely devoid of substance. Obviously I think Schafer is an amazing coach and I say that all the time. That doesn't make him infallible, as you seem to believe. Moreover, changing two coaches in the offseason including the head assistant is obviously going to require an adjustment. You mentioned 30 years of Schafer. How about 12 years of Syer (gone). He coached the PK, which has been awful this year. How about trying to incorporate a longtime head coach from another program into some two-headed monster coaching structure which nobody ever tries? The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches. The details were way more precise last season. Why do YOU think that is?

[chimpfood]

The obvious answer is just small sample size. Also even though we only lost Seger he was a massive part of the offense. I completely agree that the special teams have been bad so far but I'm hopeful it is just a combination of those two factors and will improve over the course of the season.

[BearLover]

The obvious answer is just small sample size. Also even though we only lost Seger he was a massive part of the offense. I completely agree that the special teams have been bad so far but I'm hopeful it is just a combination of those two factors and will improve over the course of the season.

I'm sympathetic to sample size arguments but from watching the games this season, the team has not looked good to my eye. We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals and things have gone downhill from there. We've made a lot of mistakes which haven't ended up in the back of our net, particularly against Harvard—we were lucky to come out with a tie. I mean, everybody's standards were really high and this team hasn't even come close to meeting them so far. Not just results-wise but also how they've played.

[ugarte]

... We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals ...

flukey? we scored 7 goals in two games plus a pair of empty netters. they had injuries but as you know, so do we. we started the season beating a good team and have gotten more injured since, not less. i think the depletion of our offense goes a long farther to explaining why the special teams look weak - that's going to be our best players after all - than coaching does. breathe, man. breathe. you may be right but time will tell. you've put down your marker but you don't get extra points by relentlessly eeyoring it up in mid-november.

[BearLover]

... We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals ...

flukey? we scored 7 goals in two games plus a pair of empty netters. they had injuries but as you know, so do we. we started the season beating a good team and have gotten more injured since, not less. i think the depletion of our offense goes a long farther to explaining why the special teams look weak - that's going to be our best players after all - than coaching does. breathe, man. breathe. you may be right but time will tell. you've put down your marker but you don't get extra points by relentlessly eeyoring it up in mid-november.

Yes, they were flukey IMO. Check the highlights, the Cornell goals almost all came off of soft goaltending, blown assignments, or weird bounces. Cornell did some good things in the NoDak games too, particularly on defense, but they were fortunate to sweep.

Not sure what you mean by depletion of the offense but the top PP unit hasn't had any injuries all year.

Lastly, I think/hope Cornell will turn this around. They just aren't playing well right now. I'm not claiming they're a bad team or predicting they'll miss the NCAAs. I don't know what will happen, I just know they haven't looked good so far.