Harvard at Cornell post-game thread

[daredevilcu]

Touchè.

[Bio '04]

Quote:
[q]daredevilcu
But the burning question that I didn't find answered in the game thread... did you all throw the fishies?
[/q]

Fish were thrown (as las224 mentioned).  Enough so that Pelle compained about it during his interview shown on CSTV.  He mentioned that the Harvard team was told that there would be no fish and that the Cornell administration lied.  (I don't remember the exact quote, so feel free to correct me.)

I thought it was hilarious that the students kept chanting "ugly" throughout his entire interview.  Classic.

Quote:
[q]las224
Having 6x3, there's no way they could have made it to our net, and having DOUBLE the number of men on the ice would surely have led to a goal in that critical powerplay.
[/q]

I would have loved to see this too, but I kept thinking back to the Maine/Denver championship game in 2004 where Maine had about a minute of 6x3 at the end of the game and couldn't score. ::uhoh::

[billhoward]

[quote daredevilcu]That's below the belt, bill, try to keep the gloves up next time.  Oh, wait... you go to Cornell.  Sorry, I'm sure the refs didn't notice the hit.  :-P[/quote]

My grandmother, bless her D.A.R., Women's National Republican Committee, Nelson Rockefeller/Kenneth Keating/Jacob-Javits-loving heart, said a gentleman never picks on those unfortunates who, because of their circumstances, were unable to speak out or defend themselves. For that, I should apologize.

You sit a Cornell man and a Clarkson man at similar QWERTY keyboards, and already it's like the Big Red having a five-on-three.

But seriously. You guys have been great sports. Including both times in the 1970 playoffs. Did Clarkson really give up three goals in the third period of the title game to a single Cornell defenseman?

[DeltaOne81]

Bill, what the hell is wrong with you?

Why are you being an ass in your usual obscure way?

[daredevilcu]

Well, I'll disagree with the part about the Big Red having a five-on-three automatically simply by sitting down next to me, but I don't want to get into THAT discussion again, so I'll just leave it at that.  By me posting on eLynah though, you've got home ice, so I'm forced to spot you a goal, at least.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Bio '04]Quote:
Quote:
[q]las224
Having 6x3, there's no way they could have made it to our net, and having DOUBLE the number of men on the ice would surely have led to a goal in that critical powerplay.
[/q]

I would have loved to see this too, but I kept thinking back to the Maine/Denver championship game in 2004 where Maine had about a minute of 6x3 at the end of the game and couldn't score. ::uhoh::[/quote]

Or the disastrous loss to Providence at Lynah in 2000 where we blew an early lead and managed not to score on a long 6-on-3 in the 3rd.

[jimmy]

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game.  When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard.  Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play.  Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us.  If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.  

Also, I agree that Schafer should have at least considered pulling McKee for a 6x3 advantage.  That extra attacker would have been hard to stop.  Hell, they could barely stop our 6x5.  If Harvard had miraculously been able to score an empty netter there, the game's over.  But we needed a goal to keep it a game anyway at that point.

[DL]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote las224]But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won.  Disappointing.[/quote]

Of course, there's a good question as to whether we actually scored that third one at all. Not that it matters in the end.[/quote]

It's moot, too be sure, but it looked to me like what the goal judge saw wasn't the is-the-puck-over-the-line goal, but after the Sucks D-man swept it out, it apparently bounced off someone and back into the goal.  You can clearly see the netting bulge, though this is not what the replays focused on, which surprises me.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote jimmy]One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game.  When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard.  Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play.  Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us.  If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.[/quote]

Really?  Generally a 5x4 gives you better scoring chances than a 6x5 because there's more open ice and the penalty killers each have more work to do.

[Dafatone]

I was thinking maybe we should pull McKee for a 6x3, but honestly, Harvard is much faster than we are.  Someone gets even the slightest hint of a break, and they score.  In my opinion, the risk of this outweighs the advantage of a sixth man against three, as we were able to dominate the 5x3 well, and just failed to put the puck in the net.

Now, when the first penalty let up, leaving us with about 50 seconds of 5x4, I would've pulled McKee, no question.

[Trotsky]

Anne and I were talking about the merits of a 6x3.  We seemed to be tripping all over ourselves badly enough on 5x3, but I could see subbing another D in and stationing him between the circles.  On a Harvard clear, he could skate the play back up with another D dropping back to his place.

But I wouldn't want another Cornell forward in the scoring mix.  It's crowded enough, and they never practice it.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Darren Leung][quote DeltaOne81][quote las224]But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won.  Disappointing.[/quote]

Of course, there's a good question as to whether we actually scored that third one at all. Not that it matters in the end.[/quote]

It's moot, too be sure, but it looked to me like what the goal judge saw wasn't the is-the-puck-over-the-line goal, but after the Sucks D-man swept it out, it apparently bounced off someone and back into the goal.  You can clearly see the netting bulge, though this is not what the replays focused on, which surprises me.[/quote]

Hmmm, wish I'd remember to record it.

[calgARI '07]

[quote jimmy]One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game.  When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard.  Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play.  Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us.  If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.  

Also, I agree that Schafer should have at least considered pulling McKee for a 6x3 advantage.  That extra attacker would have been hard to stop.  Hell, they could barely stop our 6x5.  If Harvard had miraculously been able to score an empty netter there, the game's over.  But we needed a goal to keep it a game anyway at that point.[/quote]

Like JTW said, a 5x4 is a bigger advantage than a 6x5 because there is more open ice.  A team would much rather have a 4x3 than a 5x4 and I tend to think they are almost as deadly as 5x3's particularly in the NHL where there is so much talent.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote DeltaOne81]Hmmm, wish I'd remember to record it.[/quote]
Am I nuts or did they show a brief snippet of Dan Lodboa scoring against Clarkson in the 1970 national championship game? That would have been reason enough to have wanted to record it.  I'd pay good bucks for a tape/DVD of that game.

[Cactus12]

I agree. There are only so many forwards you can have crashing the net. Additionally, I think if there was another pile up around their goal at the end, the ref. may have called something on us, or at the very least, taken the puck out of the zone.