Cornell vs Yale 03/08

[marty]

So on the goal review.  Did tv show any better review?  At the rink, the only one showed very little. Couldn't even see the puck to know where it was.

It wasn't clear that the goalie interference was before the puck went in or for pushing the puck in or what.

Under his pads not in goal until it was pushed in.

[upprdeck]

I assumed it was under the pads but could you see the puck to know it wasnt in anyway was my question.

[marty]

An unreleasable major penalty in the final minutes of a game we have firmly in control with a seemingly insurmountable lead? Where have I seen that before?

Glad Cornell could send off Schafer at Lynah with a win. This team still doesn't seem to have "it"—we are still lacking offensive vision—but we can certainly beat Dartmouth, who is not an impressive team. Obviously we can also lose to Dartmouth, as we have shown twice this year.

Would be really interested to know what the hell happened to Yale. High octane offense from 2008 to 2013 culminating in a national championship, then morphed into a defensive focused team that was still very strong through 2016, then a few okay years during which they were still recruiting well, then COVID, and since that time they've been absolutely terrible and also managed to play the most boring brand of hockey I've ever seen. Every time Cornell plays them it seems Yale is playing for a 0-0 tie the entire game, just gumming up everything, creating almost zero chances.

But I appreciate them being so bad that we actually looked pretty good. Overall Cornell played well, but I think a lot of that was Yale being extremely bad. Shane looked fine, though he wasn't challenged much.

We won 5-1 on Coach's last home game, in the playoffs, and you are somehow upset. DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT.

Who said I was upset?

Last night upset could be replaced with another word or MANY.  

Pessimistic, all-knowing, tiresome, less than elated on the team's win, unaware of the randomness of the game that makes it so fascinating and frustrating at the same time and therefore worth watching and still searching for the inside scoop on what it's like to be on the team and in the locker room this year.  

Unless a Jim Bouton on the team writes THE BOOK on THE GAME of the 24-25 season none of us will know that answers that you seem to think should be easy to decern. Please just enjoy the game.

Where was YOUR post celebrating the women's league championship yesterday?

My comments were limited to my son's and grandson's ears.  Want a link to the web cam?  Oh wait we don't have one.

Thankfully my Eli son had returned to his home before we beat his team.

Privacy - pass it on.

[andyw2100]

This is a question for ACM.

For the first two Yale challenges of goals, I believe you made an announcement that used the word "challenge." For the third Yale review I believe you used the term "Official Review." Listening from the stands, we thought that perhaps that meant that the Yale bench had convinced the refs to review the play on their own, without it being a challenge. Since Yale had already lost their timeout when they lost the second challenge, if the third review was not a challenge but rather something the refs were reviewing on their own, then had the review not resulted in the major penalty, Yale would not have been hit with a minor penalty. If, in fact, the third review was also a challenge, then Yale was risking a minor penalty. So my question is did we hear something wrong or miss something in your announcements, and/or was the difference in use of words not actually significant? Or were we correct that the difference in what you announced was significant, and that the third review, was, in fact, a review that the refs were doing on their own, with no potential negative ramifications for Yale?

[Tom Lento]

Would be really interested to know what the hell happened to Yale. High octane offense from 2008 to 2013 culminating in a national championship, then morphed into a defensive focused team that was still very strong through 2016, then a few okay years during which they were still recruiting well, then COVID, and since that time they've been absolutely terrible and also managed to play the most boring brand of hockey I've ever seen. Every time Cornell plays them it seems Yale is playing for a 0-0 tie the entire game, just gumming up everything, creating almost zero chances.

But I appreciate them being so bad that we actually looked pretty good. Overall Cornell played well, but I think a lot of that was Yale being extremely bad. Shane looked fine, though he wasn't challenged much.

Probably admissions, an athletic department that doesn't care about hockey, a bad AD, or all three combined.

When they decided to be a nepotism dumping ground for NHL All-Star's mediocre kids.

Ha! Hat tip to you, Rich.

In all seriousness I think it might be the covid effect. It seems like they were mediocre for a few seasons, which is pretty normal even for great coaches, then covid happened and their recruiting hasn't recovered. Now they're ~7 years removed from relevance and they've been terrible for 3 years, which just makes things harder. It's also possible Allain got lucky with some of those early recruiting classes and never really established a solid pipeline, but it seemed like he was finding good players for a solid 7-8 years so I don't think that's too likely.

My guess is the boring hockey part is a coach trying to salvage whatever he can with a team that isn't quite good enough to compete. He has to know Cornell is going to dominate possession but struggle to finish against a packed-in D, so they play boring for 55 minutes and try to get lucky a couple of times.

Happily, last night they needed more than one or two, and it sounds like Cornell controlled the game and then broke it open, which is what you want against a weaker team. Would be nice to break it open early instead of late, but eh, this season I'll take whatever win they give us.

[Trotsky]

In any case, I just want to say: thank you for following along with my posts this year! If it weren't for so many people reading and responding to my thoughts, I would never post this much. And thanks to your posts like this one, there's so much more to come.

Everyone please take note of this.  Feeding a troll only fattens it.

Starve the troll.  1 in 3 posts by Bear are reasonable.  1 in 10 are excellent.  Reward those.  Ignore the rest.  Assume he is an algorithm and train him.

Remember, algorithms crave engagement, not agreement.  That is why irritation is the coin of the realm in social media.  To discourage that and raise the level of discourse we have to control our selves.

[upprdeck]

the strange part of the game was Yale down 2 and on a major and never pulled the goalie

[scoop85]

stereax is not just ROTY.  She's MVP.

Flattery, flattery!!!

As an attorney, I'm most impressed that as a first year law student stereax finds the time to not only attend all the men's and women's hockey games but so frequently post to this forum. That being said, I know from experience what a grind the 1L year is, and attending games and posting here is a great way to blow off steam!

[chimpfood]

the strange part of the game was Yale down 2 and on a major and never pulled the goalie

When they pulled him at the end it took about 15 seconds of the bench yelling and banging on the boards for stark to realize they wanted him out.

[upprdeck]

they should have pulled him at the start.  They barely had any shots in the period why wait.

[Iceberg]

they should have pulled him at the start.  They barely had any shots in the period why wait.

I don't think they should've pulled him immediately but they definitely should've done so sooner. I was surprised Stark was still in the net when he was leaving.

[ACM]

This is a question for ACM.

For the firs two Yale challenges of goals, I believe you made an announcement that used the word "challenge." For the third Yale review I believe you used the term "Official Review." Listening from the stands, we thought that perhaps that meant that the Yale bench had convinced the refs to review the play on their own, without it being a challenge. Since Yale had already lost their timeout when they lost the second challenge, if the third review was not a challenge but rather something the refs were reviewing on their own, then had the review not resulted in the major penalty, Yale would not have been hit with a minor penalty. If, in fact, the third review was also a challenge, then Yale was risking a minor penalty. So my question is did we hear something wrong or miss something in your announcements, and/or was the difference in use of words not actually significant? Or were we correct that the difference in what you announced was significant, and that the third review, was, in fact, a review that the refs were doing on their own, with no potential negative ramifications for Yale?

In mid-January, the league sent out a directive trying to standardize the announcements to be made in challenge and video review situations. Unfortunately, the directive did not include the situation that occurred in last night's game, namely a coach's challenge for a major penalty. I used the closest scenario they provided, knowing that the wording was inaccurate and would probably cause confusion. It was, in fact, a Yale challenge, and would have resulted in a minor penalty against them if the challenge had been unsuccessful.

[andyw2100]

This is a question for ACM.

For the firs two Yale challenges of goals, I believe you made an announcement that used the word "challenge." For the third Yale review I believe you used the term "Official Review." Listening from the stands, we thought that perhaps that meant that the Yale bench had convinced the refs to review the play on their own, without it being a challenge. Since Yale had already lost their timeout when they lost the second challenge, if the third review was not a challenge but rather something the refs were reviewing on their own, then had the review not resulted in the major penalty, Yale would not have been hit with a minor penalty. If, in fact, the third review was also a challenge, then Yale was risking a minor penalty. So my question is did we hear something wrong or miss something in your announcements, and/or was the difference in use of words not actually significant? Or were we correct that the difference in what you announced was significant, and that the third review, was, in fact, a review that the refs were doing on their own, with no potential negative ramifications for Yale?

In mid-January, the league sent out a directive trying to standardize the announcements to be made in challenge and video review situations. Unfortunately, the directive did not include the situation that occurred in last night's game, namely a coach's challenge for a major penalty. I used the closest scenario they provided, knowing that the wording was inaccurate and would probably cause confusion. It was, in fact, a Yale challenge, and would have resulted in a minor penalty against them if the challenge had been unsuccessful.

Thanks very much for that explanation, Arthur. Knowing how precise you are was the reason we thought that perhaps the different language meant different situations. I'm glad to know now that the third review was also a challenge. Thank you!

[adamw]

Would be really interested to know what the hell happened to Yale. High octane offense from 2008 to 2013 culminating in a national championship, then morphed into a defensive focused team that was still very strong through 2016, then a few okay years during which they were still recruiting well, then COVID, and since that time they've been absolutely terrible and also managed to play the most boring brand of hockey I've ever seen. Every time Cornell plays them it seems Yale is playing for a 0-0 tie the entire game, just gumming up everything, creating almost zero chances.

But I appreciate them being so bad that we actually looked pretty good. Overall Cornell played well, but I think a lot of that was Yale being extremely bad. Shane looked fine, though he wasn't challenged much.

Probably admissions, an athletic department that doesn't care about hockey, a bad AD, or all three combined.

Those are likely problems Yale has to deal with, but I think they were also problems when it had a dominant program, so...what changed?

As with Cornell's iconsistency this year, there are probably many reasons, which can be debated all day as to which is most important. It's purely subjective, especially from the outside. So I'll just list some as I see it:

- there was a period of time -- 8 years or so? -- Harvard/Yale/Princeton had an admissions advantage over Cornell/Brown/Dartmouth because those schools started having to use more of their massive endowments. So they used them by basically making tuition free to any family making below a certain income, and a sliding scale from there. This period of time coincides with a bit of a dip in Cornell's performance - until the Ivy League decided to say that, from an athletic standpoint, the other schools were allowed to match whatever the big 3 were offering. Assuredly others are more well-versed in the specifics here, and I'm probably forgetting details - but that's the gist. This was well-covered territory at the time.

- unfortunately, Yale's biggest hockey champion, Wayne Dean, the assistant athletic director, whose son worked with Cornell hockey not too long ago, passed away a few years ago.

- COVID ... probably the biggest reason for the nosedive, though Yale had certainly come back to earth off the early 2010s highs already by that point.

I'd expect Yale to come back to respectability, however I also don't know how long Keith Allain has left to coach. His son Niklas graduated last year, and he'll be 67 next season, making him the second-oldest active head coach - assuming Frank Serratore decides not to retire, which is still a question.

[abmarks]

Re: Yale being awful this* year.

I'm not sure if it was Tim or Grady that said this, but iirc they said that 3 of the top 6 points players were out with injuries last night.