Cornell-BC post mortem

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Plus BC is an eastern team.

(One of the reasons the announcers seemed to be homers was maybe it was all those spots for Hockey East last night and none (that I saw) for the ECAC. [/q]
1.  Right.  Always root for an eastern team.

2.  CSTV frequently showed HE standings.  Did they ever show ECACHL standings?

[ben03]

Chris Collins GWG 0:59 double overtime

[KeithK]

[q]CSTV frequently showed HE standings. Did they ever show ECACHL standings? [/q]CSTV also frequently showed commercials for HE, but I never did see one for the ECAC.  Things are better in the league office, but obviously not perfect yet...

[Steve M]

To help Cornell's strength of schedule, record against common opponents etc. and thus our shot at an at-large NCAA bid we should root for:

1. Any ECAC team playing a non-conference game
2. Michigan State - since we played them twice, their games count 2x on our SOS
3. BC and Maine - TUCs that we have played once
4. Army, Sacred Heart and Canisius - non TUCs that we have played once

Beyond those teams in general root for eastern teams playing the WCHA and CCHA since the ECAC plays more NC games against HEA and AHA than the western conferences, helping our opponents' strength of schedule.  Also root for the CCHA vs. the WCHA  for the same general reason, and that we played 2 games against a CCHA team, with zero vs. the WCHA.  These have a realtively marginal effect compared to 1-4 listed above.

Alles klar?

When it comes to the NCAAs, I'll generally root against HEA even against the WCHA because:
1.  I get tired of HEA fans putting down the ECAC and forgetting where they came from.
2.  If HEA continues to have much more success in the NCAAs than the ECAC it makes it a tougher recruiting sell for players from the east who want to stay in the east to choose the ECAC over HEA.

[Will]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

CSTV also frequently showed commercials for HE, but I never did see one for the ECAC.  Things are better in the league office, but obviously not perfect yet...[/q]

Maybe they're waiting for the official name change to whatever the ECACHL will become.  Of course, what's to prevent them from using the same footage in a new ad next year, just changing the logo/voiceover in the commercial, I don't know.

[billhoward]

Al, I don't recall seeing any ECAC standings nor any promos for the ECAC as a league, whereas there were multiple (the same one) promos for Hockey East hyping the million fans a year, all the pros, all the excitement.

The standings for ECAC not being shown (at least during BC-Cornell and Cornell-Maine), I think that's the fault of the production team. The promo for Hockey East, I couldn't see them not running both (plus for St. Cloud and WCHA) unless the leagues didn't create and provide them. If that's the case, I think that's something the ECAC hockey PR staff should get rolling on. And isn't that Cornell's ex-SID, or does she have a management not PR management, position?

[billhoward]

[Q]Steve Marciniec Wrote:

1.  I get tired of HEA fans putting down the ECAC and forgetting where they came from.
2.  If HEA continues to have much more success in the NCAAs than the ECAC it makes it a tougher recruiting sell for players from the east who want to stay in the east to choose the ECAC over HEA.[/q]

Your last point is a good about the one time when you wouldn't want HE to be successful. Their players are probably more likely to be considering ECAC Hockey than CCHA and WCHA.

[billhoward]

[Q]Will Wrote:

 [Q2]KeithK Wrote: CSTV also frequently showed commercials for HE, but I never did see one for the ECAC.  Things are better in the league office, but obviously not perfect yet...[/Q]
Maybe they're waiting for the official name change to whatever the ECACHL will become.  Of course, what's to prevent them from using the same footage in a new ad next year, just changing the logo/voiceover in the commercial, I don't know.[/q]

Out of common decency, the ECAC ought to not use an acronym more than four characters long. Sure, they are sort of feuding with the ECAC mother ship and all, but still. I think I said before it's too bad we can't have a nested acronym, EHL, where E stands for ECAC and HL stands for HL, except there already is an EHL. Maybe we could use Hockey 1200 for the league monicker, as in the average SAT even an athlete needs to get in. OTOH, as safety schools go, BC, BU, etcetera aren't exactly academic wastelands.

[rstott]

Overall, a solid performance by Cornell in both games.  They easily could have beaten BC. They clearly are generating more offensive than last year.

The most impressive thing about the Maine game was Maine with 10 power plays and only 26 shots on goal.  Our shot blocking was really outstanding last night, I've never seen them block shots like that.  One of the reasons, unfortunately, that we had to block so many shots was that we kept losing draws.  There is definitely room for improvement in that category.

I thought McCuthceon looked solid in place of Bitz. Did they say on the radio what the story was with Bitz?  He was sitting in the stands and looked fine.  Is he just in the doghouse?

McKee was solid also, not great, but made, with the admittedly large exception of the last BC goal, made all the saves he should have made.  He had little chance on any of the Maine goals.

The officiating was really, really tight, but it was consistent. One big exception was the last Cook penalty against Maine.  Cook just ran into him and the Maine player considered his options and crumpled to the ice.  The Cornell fans â€" fewer than last year â€" howled in disgust.

[ben03]

Does anyone know why they decided to play 2 full overtime periods? and why they are counted as a win and a loss for BC and SCSU?
i was under the impression that past the 5 minute mark of OT in holiday tournaments both teams got credit for a tie. ::help::  ::screwy::
or is it only a tie when it goes to a shootout?

thoughts/comments?

[cbuckser]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 Does anyone know why they decided to play 2 full overtime periods? and why they are counted as a win and a loss for BC and SCSU?
i was under the impression that past the 5 minute mark of OT in holiday tournaments both teams got credit for a tie.    
or is it only a tie when it goes to a shootout?

thoughts/comments?[/q]
If a holiday tournament game ends in a shootout, it is recorded as a tie for both teams.  If the game is decided in overtime, it is recorded as a win and a loss for the winning and losing teams, respectively, regardless of how long it takes.

Holiday tournaments set their own rules for whether shootouts or serial overtimes decide which team advances in a game tied after 65 minutes.  Cornell had long overtime games in 1996 (win over Providence) and 2002 (loss to Northern Michigan) that were not recorded as ties.

I think it makes sense to use a shootout for the first round, but not a tournament final.  Fatigue from a long first-round game would impact the game played on the following day.  It doesn't matter if players are fatigued the day after the tournament final.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]ben03 Wrote:

 Does anyone know why they decided to play 2 full overtime periods? and why they are counted as a win and a loss for BC and SCSU?
i was under the impression that past the 5 minute mark of OT in holiday tournaments both teams got credit for a tie.    
or is it only a tie when it goes to a shootout?

thoughts/comments?[/q]

How about a FAQ?

http://www.elynah.com/?faq&id=16

[ninian '72]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

- McKee should have had the last goal.  Goalies seem to be more prone to give up bad goals on 5-on-3's because they are thinking so much more than usual.
[/q]

I caught the game on Comcast "On Demand."  Bad thing about that is that it didn't show up until Thursday.  The good thing is that you can ff and rewind to review play, which I did on that goal.  I wouldn't be too tough on McKee.  There was a Cornell player sliding across the ice unsuccessfully trying to block the shot as it was released, effectively screening McKee.