Cornell 2 at Yale 4

1 11:56 Yal sh Backman (Arcobello)
2 08:01 Yal pp O'Neill (Arcobello, Trentowski)
2 18:39 Yal pp Arcobello (Kearney, Matczak)
3 03:28 Cor pp Greening 11 (Gallagher 18, R. Nash 18)
3 17:43 Cor pp, x Barlow 7 (
3 19:15 Yal O'Neill (Arcobello, Backman)

Yale in pink. Scrivens with a few huge saves and one big mistake.

greening got away with only getting 2 minutes on a hit from behind

Got away with nothing. He pulled up and just gave the guy a light shove. I'm not sure it even warranted a minor, but if you're listening to the Yale homers, you'd think he took his head off. Also, nice acting. Arcobello didn't even miss a shift.

First 10 minutes was all Yale, outshooting Cornell 9-1 and all over our end. Then they score on a brain fart by Ben on the Cornell powerplay -- coming out far to cut off the clearing pass, puck deflects, goal. Not a 10 on the Suicide Scale like the Dartmouth goal, but at least a 7.

The Red played much better the second half of the period, got a few good chances, and seemed to cut down on the speed gap a little (at the cost of several penalties, including a really bad one by Greening).

Happy to be down by just 1; hopefully Mike makes the adjustments at the break.

Livestats has Cornell 21-6 on faceoff in the first period. That seems like a helluva lot for one period.

CowbellGuy
Got away with nothing. He pulled up and just gave the guy a light shove. I'm not sure it even warranted a minor, but if you're listening to the Yale homers, you'd think he took his head off. Also, nice acting. Arcobello didn't even miss a shift.

I had the same thought. Looked more like he rode him off the puck with his shoulder than drove him headfirst into the boards.

can someone explain to me how you post-up on scrivens? maybe we can hit a three-pointer from beyond the blue-line while we're at it!

Yale goes 5 x 3

Does anyone have video right now?

Mine came back up for about a minute after a reload, and now it's down again.

lynah80
Yale goes 5 x 3

Does anyone have video right now?

no

lynah80
Yale goes 5 x 3

Does anyone have video right now?

Nope.

Thus I missed Yale's PPG.

LGR!

Dartmouth goes up on Princeton.

Trotsky
Dartmouth goes up on Princeton.

At least that's good.

Cornell PP coming up, big chance here.

If we don't see it, it's almost like it never happened.

oceanst41
Cornell PP coming up, big chance here.

not for me.

And yet another Cornell PP

pp #5 coming up. We gotsta score.

I have video back after a refresh

Cornell hasn't been moving the puck fast enough or down low enough on the PP. They need to pressure Richards more.

Another Cornell PP...Let's Go Red!!!

Edit: Nevermind

Two Yale penalties, but Red only 5 on 4.

How can two Yale players go into the box, but still have 5x4 on the ice?

If one of them is a misconduct.

Haven't heard any explanation. ???

There will be a major before this game is over. I'm just hoping it will be on Yale.

Their forecheck is really starting to stifle us.

And the inevitable Yale PP to even things. Had to this coming.

Come on shortie'...

Now down 2 men.

Big PK here. A successful kill could be a huge boost for the Big Red before they go to the locker room.

Goes without saying really this is a huge kill. Yale kills 3 straight shorthanded situations and then gets a 5 on 3 just before the end of the period. That's boatloads of momentum for Yale if they score or Cornell if they kill.

And that's how a 5-on-3 should look. Would that we were as efficient.

oceanst41
Goes without saying really this is a huge kill. Yale kills 3 straight shorthanded situations and then gets a 5 on 3 just before the end of the period. That's boatloads of momentum for Yale if they score or Cornell if they kill.

Lots of open ice and good passing by Yale

5 on 3 goal. Arcobello from Kearney and Matczak

so thru 5 periods yale has yet to score an even strength goal on CU. we went from being outshot 9-2 to outshooting them 17-10 and they score the 3 goals,

Shitty special teams will kill you. I honestly don't understand some of our penalties nor our PK. Our PP doesn't look terrible, but our shot selection doesn't look the best.

The Cap district teams are being outscored at home 6-0. It is possible last week's wins were not that impressive.

Cornell PP looks ineffective. Yale is just clogging things up down low and leaving Cornell with the puck on the outside. I think they should start crashing the net, with one D back to watch for Little.

Women shut out by Harvard 3-0 in the QF.

Good start for Cornell, high sticking.

GREENING!!!!!!

GREENING!

Greening scores on the PP, 3-1

PP Goal

Greening from R. Nash and Gallagher

Shot from the low left slot.

Well, I quit watching and just listened, so I'll take credit.

Jim Hyla
Well, I quit watching and just listened, so I'll take credit.

Same here.

I guess it was a misconduct.

"(yale player) is back on the ice after serving his 10 minute-game misconduct." hilarious.

Kennedy 19-4 on draws.

Yale player jumps off the bench too early, resulting in too many men. Cornell PP.

Some great chances on the PP, but nothing to show for it

"A legal takedown of a Cornell player..."

Cornell having a good PP. Crashing the net, Richards under pressure.

7 mins to go.

Here comes another Cornell PP, unless you ask the opinion of the Yale announcers.

Because Arcobello didn't take his regular shift after the boarding call earlier in the game.

New line: P. Kennedy, M. Kennedy, S. Collins

Cornell PP

Lots of shots. R. Nash shooting well.

Another penalty on Yale, and Yale color guy agrees!

Hooking on Yale. Cornell now goes 5 on 3. 23 secs.

Geez, what do we need to do to put one in the net?

BARLOW!

BARLOW!

GOAL Barlow!!!

Great puck control ... Barlow goal!

Barlow

PP + Extra Attacker goal

I'm still listening.

That 5 v 3 looked awful. It seemed like the Cornell players were assigned a 3 ft bubble and did not move out of their bubble. They seemed content to pass the puck around the perimeter, making it easy for Yale to defend. A red carpet was not being laid out to escort the puck into the net.

And it didn't seem like we were creating much traffic in front of the Yale goal.

I would have like to seen someone get the puck skate towards the net, get Yale moving , and then dish the puck to an open teammate. UGH.

As I was typing this... Goal Barlow!!

Icing on Yale. Empty net for the Red wit 1:52

not a stellar play by M. Devin to cause an icing.

DAMN

O'Neill from Backman and Arcobello

Scrivens was in net.

scoop85
Icing on Yale. Empty net for the Red wit 1:52

Leads to a Yale goal. Not a good play by M. Devin.

scoop85
not a stellar play by M. Devin to cause an icing.

... and leads to a scramble in front of the net and a Yale goal.

Riley Nash has the puck. O'Neill and Riley Nash go into the corner to Scrivens' right. O'Neill comes out with it and scores. Just saying...

Cornell took too many penalties and gave Yale some 5 on 3 opportunities. They picked things up later in the game, but it just wasn't enough.

It looks like they will be facing either Harvard or Clarkson in the quarterfinals.

lynah80

It looks like they will be facing either Harvard or Clarkson in the quarterfinals.

There's a lot of hockey left to make that determination.

If the scores hold (*):

32 Yal
28 Prn*
27 Cor
24 Drt*
24 SLU
22 Hvd*
20 Clk
19 Qpc*
18 Uni
15 Col
13 RPI
10 Brn

The Cornell PP has become somewhat dependent on accurate outside shooting. They don't seem to pass to big guys like Greening or M. Kennedy inside the slot very often. I'm sure that having Greening in the slot is a big plus for the first unit, even if he doesn't touch the puck. Opponents have to content with his screens, potential deflections and rebound shots. But it seems there are some opponents where a more creative and sophisticated PP is needed. The second Harvard game is a good example of that.

lynah80
The Cornell PP has become somewhat dependent on accurate outside shooting. They don't seem to pass to big guys like Greening or M. Kennedy inside the slot very often. I'm sure that having Greening in the slot is a big plus for the first unit, even if he doesn't touch the puck. Opponents have to content with his screens, potential deflections and rebound shots. But it seems there are some opponents where a more creative and sophisticated PP is needed. The second Harvard game is a good example of that.

Since when weren't we dependent on outside shooting?
We need a more creative/sophosticated PP against EVERY opponent.

I for one am getting sick of watching other teams play a rapid-passing high skill power-play that creeps closer and closer to the net until someone is wide open no deeper than the circle to jam it home. By contrast, our PP is the good old plant a couple trees in front and look for a slapshot from the blue-line)

2d Harvard game was a perfect example--I mean the HARVARD PP was. Great puck movement, find the open guy (who is open because noone is standing around) and ram it home.


I've come to the conclusion over the years (and it feels reinforced this year after watching several teasm outskate us) that We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size - unless you play a *perfect * defensive game that night and luksak an offensive oportunity. It's really sitting on a razor's edge of advantage to play that way, especially as the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively.

We don't have the team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...and I can't remember the last time we did as a team. And with the NHL going to so much more of an open game these days, I've got to think that our system is even *less* desirable to play in for anyone that wants to go pro and recruiting will get even tougher.

NOthing against the guys we got, but if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

End rant....

abmarks
...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

MSE09
Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast, offense-minded, non-headcase players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

FYP

Trotsky

MSE09
Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast, offense-minded, non-headcase players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

FYP

FYP?

MSE09

abmarks
...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.

.......

To answer the FYP comment someone else made about *non-headcase* offensive players..1)FYP= fixed your post. 2) I'm assuming poster was referring to Romano, who is one of the very very few I could remember that had the kind of speed or skills that I'm talkning about. UNfortunately, either he was a head case, should not have come to CU in the first place knowing what he knew about the sytstem, or 3... maybe he would have stuck around if there was anyone to pair up with him that was his playmaking equal.

abmarks

MSE09

abmarks
...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.

If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...


ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.

Jim Hyla

abmarks

MSE09

abmarks
...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.

If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...


ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.

The best Cornell teams I have seen over the last 20ish years have always started in net and built out. For the reasons Jim mentioned, we are unlikely to build a top offensive team but most teams play one goalie at a time, so we have a much better chance of attracting an elite goaltender. Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman, not to mention some excellent play from less heralded goalies (Crozier, Elliott, Underhill, McKee, Scrivens).

ugarte
Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman

And maybe Isles. We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward. The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

Trotsky

ugarte
Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman

And maybe Isles. We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward. The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards? cmon....

abmarks
We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward. The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards? cmon....[/quote]
Admission requirements are an obstacle for all players. The system only for offensive minded forwards.

ugarte

Jim Hyla
]If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...

ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.

The best Cornell teams I have seen over the last 20ish years have always started in net and built out. For the reasons Jim mentioned, we are unlikely to build a top offensive team but most teams play one goalie at a time, so we have a much better chance of attracting an elite goaltender. Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman, not to mention some excellent play from less heralded goalies (Crozier, Elliott, Underhill, McKee, Scrivens).

Jim- I agree we are not likely ever going to bring in class after class that could compete with the MIchigans, BC's BU's etc. And I agree that we're likely to have a mix of role players with a sprinkle of talented guys etc.

However, there are below the radar guys or guys who want the better education that would still fit the bill I am calling for. These guys are sprinkled around the ECAC both at the scholarship and non-scholarship schools. Watching the @harvard game, I thought we were so completely out-classed in power-play skill it was ridiculous- and this is due to speed and talent etc. (Not to mention they had one guy who's name I cannot remember who was so speedy he made us look like we were in slow motion a couple times)

I think we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Guys that want to play an up-tempo game are going to go to those places. THere's no reason we can't get the odd under the radar talented offensive player as you mentioned. Except we either don't go looking for them or it's not a system they'd want to play under.

Ugarte- I'm not suggesting we turn into a "top offensive team" as you put it... just that w find a way to get a mix of offensive and defensive talent. Goalie wise I agree with you, that's sort of the easy part.

System today screams to recruits..."want to learn to be a pro role-player on a checking line? Come to Cornell."

I'm just asking for one guy that can creatively finish each year. (And one midget with skills like Topher). Just because it's been a certain way for X number of years doesn't mean we still have to be that way.

abmarks

Trotsky

ugarte
Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman

And maybe Isles. We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward. The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards? cmon....

You'd think someone dumb enough to stand between the pipes and let someone shoot 5 ounces of vulcanized rubber at speeds approaching 100 MPH would have more trouble getting into college than a forward.

abmarks

Trotsky

ugarte
Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman

And maybe Isles. We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward. The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards? cmon....

I think the "them" he was referring to were "ny elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward". We aren't getting the flashy scorers regardless of their grades; the challenge for getting the type of player we do have a chance of recruiting is the Ivy Index. It wasn't a slam on forwards.

Even if we do realize that goal scorers are traditionally idiots. Like, say, Joe Juneau.

Jim Hyla

abmarks

MSE09

abmarks
...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting. At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players? Such a team would have unquestionable success!

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.

If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...


ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.

There are three ECAC schools that no longer have to deal with the lack of scholarships. Harvard, Yale and Princeton. And perhaps we are already seeing some of the fruits of the Yale and Princeton endowments.

marty
There are three ECAC schools that no longer have to deal with the lack of scholarships. Harvard, Yale and Princeton. And perhaps we are already seeing some of the fruits of the Yale and Princeton endowments.

Agree!

Jim Hyla

marty
There are three ECAC schools that no longer have to deal with the lack of scholarships. Harvard, Yale and Princeton. And perhaps we are already seeing some of the fruits of the Yale and Princeton endowments.

Agree!

I was thinking about that issue, but I haven't kept up wit hwhat COrnell is doing in general in regard to financial aid. Some of those schools are saying that for anty family with family income under $xx it's a free ride right? What's Cornell's policy?

And if we are giving certain income levels full need-rides, then I say let's find the talented poor kid who we can give a full need-based ride too. If we aren't working the edges of any aid we can give kids we are certainly at a disadvantage against the league now given what those named ivies are doing.

Effectively speaking, who's left that either doesn't have sholarships or does not have the education for any kid's basically a free-ride policy?

abmarks
Effectively speaking, who's left that either doesn't have sholarships or does not have the education for any kid's basically a free-ride policy?

If I read this question correctly, the recruits we can't compete for have middle class (and even upper middle class) parents who are not offered as good financial aid packages from Cornell as from Princeton or Yale and/or who are offered a full ride scholarship from a Michigan or a BC. Although Cornell offers (arguably) a higher education ceiling than either of the latter schools, the vast majority of athletes (and non-athletes) avail themselves of something short of the optimal education being offered. The only way parents would choose Cornell in that situation is if there are wildcard emotional factors.

We are caught between schools that pay-for-play and schools that have such enormous endowments that they can afford to subsidize tuition for anyone worth less than the Olins. Looked at that way, it's impressive we get the talent we do.

Trotsky

abmarks
Effectively speaking, who's left that either doesn't have sholarships or does not have the education for any kid's basically a free-ride policy?

If I read this question correctly, the recruits we can't compete for have middle class (and even upper middle class) parents who are not offered as good financial aid packages from Cornell as from Princeton or Yale and/or who are offered a full ride scholarship from a Michigan or a BC. Although Cornell offers (arguably) a higher education ceiling than either of the latter schools, the vast majority of athletes (and non-athletes) avail themselves of something short of the optimal education being offered. The only way parents would choose Cornell in that situation is if there are wildcard emotional factors.

We are caught between schools that pay-for-play and schools that have such enormous endowments that they can afford to subsidize tuition for anyone worth less than the Olins. Looked at that way, it's impressive we get the talent we do.

There is one further complication. Cornell tends to recruit more from Canada than some of these other schools. And everyone in Canada knows Cornell gives athletic scholarships, eh. International exchange rates can shift a Canadian family's income. For example, today a family making CN$100K is making only US$77,229.

Swampy
Cornell tends to recruit more from Canada than some of these other schools. And everyone in Canada knows Cornell gives athletic scholarships, eh. International exchange rates can shift a Canadian family's income. For example, today a family making CN$100K is making only US$77,229.

I'm missing something. I would think the dollar being in the toilet would be good for recruiting from Canada. Since Cornell tuition is paid in $US, and Canadians can get more $US at the exchange now than they used to, Cornell tuition has actually dropped for Canadians because of the weakening dollar. Right?

Or are you saying that even though it's better now, it's still a consideration that other schools don't have?

Trotsky

Swampy
Cornell tends to recruit more from Canada than some of these other schools. And everyone in Canada knows Cornell gives athletic scholarships, eh. International exchange rates can shift a Canadian family's income. For example, today a family making CN$100K is making only US$77,229.

I'm missing something. I would think the dollar being in the toilet would be good for recruiting from Canada. Since Cornell tuition is paid in $US, and Canadians can get more $US at the exchange now than they used to, Cornell tuition has actually dropped for Canadians because of the weakening dollar. Right?

No, the Canadian dollar is worth less than 78 cents on the American dollar (down from 90 cents in August 2008). The American dollar has weakened, yes, but the Canadian has gone even worse. I make out nice because I pay my Canadian rent and tuition from money stored in a US bank. Those going the other way, not so much. The only advantage to a weakening Canadian dollar is that they might qualify for more aid.

Lauren '06
No, the Canadian dollar is worth less than 78 cents on the American dollar (down from 90 cents in August 2008). The American dollar has weakened, yes, but the Canadian has gone even worse. I make out nice because I pay my Canadian rent and tuition from money stored in a US bank. Those going the other way, not so much. The only advantage to a weakening Canadian dollar is that they might qualify for more aid.

Gotcha, it's a matter of time frame. I was still back in 2004.