Which loss was more painful?

[scoop85]

The Frozen Four loss in 2003 or today?

Even though today is fresh, I don't think it's a close call.  Two years ago we were going in with a senior dominated team which had high expectations, playing on NHL size ice in a friendly environment against a team we all thought we should beat.  We dominated good portions of that game, and if not for the loss of concentration after the disallowed goal, we likely would have moved on.

This year our team arrived "ahead of schedule" with lesser pre-season expectations. We had the hostile home environment against a team used to playing on the big ice which was more suited to their style of play.  We were outplayed for much of the game. While it's always heartbreaking to lose in OT, as time moves on I will more easily look back on the amazing season and not feel too deflated.  2003 still gives me heartburn.

Perhaps the only thing that will truly stick in my craw is a system which allows for these postseason games to be played on the host school's campus.  

[Steve M]

No question 2003 was more painful.  We had the better team that year and lost one of the best graduating classes ever, not to take anything away from this year's seniors who were also outstanding.  I don't see how even the most biased Cornell fan could say that we were the better team on the ice today.  

Great season by the Red that exceeded my expectations.  I think Cornell will be back and even better next year.  If we want to win a National Championship, however, our team needs to improve its puck control and passing IMHO.  

[redice]

Yep, 2003 was a tougher loss.    I still have that ticket stub on my desk labeled as "unfinished business!"    

[billhoward]

Losing in the final four with a senior-heavy team in 2003, that really hurt. This was bad. So was the early ejection by Clarkson last year. But we know a lot of the team returns in fall 2005. It could be worse if you're playing hockey for the other perennial Ivy League contender. Compare Cornell's seniors with Harvard's seniors:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), three ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), three [not two] NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 4-3 NCAA record (and at least one victory each year).

Harvard: four trips to the ECAC title game, two ECAC championships (one over a real hockey team, one over a happy to be there Clarkson), four straight NCAA appearances, four straight first-round losses. Where it says VE RI TAS on the patch on the side of their jerseys, maybe it should be replaced with the Latin for ONE AND DONE. Their goalie did well and yet he managed to be overshadowed each year by another Ivy Leaguer. Okay, so Harvard can point to a more recent NCAA title, only 16 years ago.

Then there's the fans. We can mark that one in Cornell's favor. At Lynah, the players tap their sticks and raise them in salute. At Harvard, the players also form a circle, then raise their hands to their visors like it's a salute, but really they're trying to peer through the glare to determine if anyone's actually in Bright Center.

[edit: correcting for 2002 season]

[andyw2100]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), two ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), two NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 3-2 NCAA record.  [/q]


Actually it's three ECAC RS titles for us. (Not that we care much about those, but...). We were the RS title winners in 2003 and 2005, when we won the real championship as well. But we were also the RS title winners in 2002.
                                             Andy W.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Compare Cornell's seniors with Harvard's seniors:

Cornell: four Ivy titles (like that means a lot in hockey), two ECAC RS titles (ditto unless you're Clarkson), two ECAC championships (both over Harvard), two NCAA appearances, one Frozen Four, 3-2 NCAA record.
 [/q]
Am I nuts, Bill, or didn't our seniors have three NCAA appearances (2002, 2003, 2005) and a 4-3 NCAA record--with at least one win each year?  

[redredux]

This one hurts a lot right now.  Losing in OT is tough.  Especially when you're one goal from the frozen four and you've come so close to beating the huge odds on Minnesota's home ice.  In the frozen four after Palahicky's goal was called back, the wheels kind of fell off so losing was sort of expected.  Today at about the 10 minute mark of the third period when we finally started playing Red hockey, I really thought we might do it and shut up the annoying Goofer fans.

It takes a lot of things breaking the right way to make it back to this position next year, but at least we've got a strong junior class coming back.  

I'll miss this senior class.  They were overachievers who will be missed more than we originally expected.

The NCAA needs to change the rule that hosts must play in their region in the tournament.  It's a bogus rule.  That being said, Cornell should do whatever it can to host in the future as long as the rule stays the same.

Go Colorado College, win it for the small schools.

 

[jy3]

plus i had tix to the finals in 2003....i still went :`(

[billhoward]

If nothing else, at least one regional final had a full house. There appeared to be a lot of empty seats in Amherst and Worcester. I suspect the announced attendance figures may be "tickets sold for the game" not actually people in seats.

The "good of the game" that lets Minnesota play in its own regional as incentive to host it might also benefit Cornell one of these years if the NCAA has the option to place a team such as Cornell where its fans will show up (Albany and Rochester the next two years). Wisconsin faithful ought to be rewarded. If that shafts a Mercyhurst, well, so be it.

[cth95]

     Definitely 2003 and even 2002.  Both times outplayed NH and had high expectations yet lost.  Even worse, NH tanked in its next game both years so we definitely would have put up a better fight than they did (or did we take that much out of them?).  I was at the 2003 FF, and it was a complete show of dominance by the Red before the disallowed goal.  We would have been better off to never have put that shot in, because the momentum took a complete 180 after the ridiculously long review.  Despite this, we finished the game with a fury and if not for Ayers getting lucky with the shot off his face would have tied it.  We all knew that that amazing class of seniors was graduating so I figured it would be sometime until we got there again.  I am thrilled that we are knocking on the door with a fairly young team only two years later.

[Mike Nevin]

I don't know which is more painful, but I know know that I hope we get the opportunity to play Minnesota in a regional next year, around the corner from our campus, without their big sheet, and that we grind them to a pulp while we get seven power play chances to their three, and we actually score on ours.  Maybe the selection commitee could even see to it that they get screwed in the seeding process, and end up as a number 4 seed, so they have to play us in the first round.

And maybe we could crush UNH to get to the 2006 frozen four...

[Trotsky]

For we who are long in the tooth, this feels eerily like the 1986 QF loss at Denver.  In both seasons Cornell came off an ECAC championship only to find itself exiled far away.  In both, they played beautifully, splitting a pair of games, leading in the decisive game, only to let the lead slip and lose by a single goal.  As much as it would have been wonderful to advance to the Frozen Four, in each case they were a solid underdog and yet played wonderfully, and while very disappointing it was not "painful."

The big difference is that in 1986 the heart of the team was the senior class (one was a certain Mr. Schafer), while this season, although the losses turn out to be far greater than it might have seemed at the beginning of the year, there is a 2002ish "wait till next year" feel.

[redGrinch]

2003 was painful.  Today was not far behind.  Minnesota was the weakest of the 1 seeds, struggling on offense, and prime for the picking.  I didn't think we were out of today's game at all - and we were wearing them down.  Lucia's quoted as saying they talked in the locker room that they needed to score quick because they were getting tired.

The more I think about Schafer and the teams he builds, they're built for the long run - the team is well-conditioned, they never seem to lose that energy throughout the game or season.  If they had best-of-3 (or longer) series in the NCAAs, Cornell really could match up with anybody in the country.   The one-and-done format doesn't credit us for the punishment the team doles out - eventually wearing them down and pouncing on their mistakes.  Also, I'm convinced that Schafer could devise a system/scheme to beat any team .  Whenever the Red play a new team, it seems there's always a tentative feeling-out adjustment period, and then there's some adjustments and there we go.  And the attitude that Schafer has brought in - he's not happy to just be in games, the us against the world, we're good and we're going to prove it -  is exactly what was needed.  He's got the team believing that it can win (and perhaps expecting to win) an NCAA championship.  In years past, the team would've been thrilled just to win the ECAC's.  Notice this year's subdued celebration......

With that said, my expectations for next year are sky high......

[cth95]

Hear, Hear!

[billhoward]

[Q]redGrinch Wrote:With that said, my expectations for next year are sky high......[/q]Just think: If LeNeveu hadn't departed early for the pros, McKee would this year be finishing his *freshman* year and we'd have his services through spring 2008. That would be one heck of a goalie rotation.