What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Colgate 2010-11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Colgate 2010-11

GRussinko said:
This was a NCAA-wide rule change this season. Teams switch ends for overtime just like between any other periods. I believe the main reasoning was for playoff games, where you could play 2, 3, 4 overtimes in a row with the teams in the same ends under the old rules. But it applies to regular season games all the same.
Click to expand...

For the postseason, this "rule change" would make sense, considering there are intermissions before each OT period, complete with a zamboni resurfacing the ice. But in the regular season when there is a 2-minute breather (and no ice resurfacing), it makes more sense to continue shooting in the same direction. I believe home teams have the choice in which direction they want to shoot; why would they have to go against this in a 5-minute sudden death period?

Like I said in my previous post, if this happens again at Starr Rink, it is to OUR disadvantage, especially if we have to play OT hockey against Cornell, Clarkson, or St. Lawrence. Their fans (and for Cornell, Clarkson, and RPI, their pep bands) would be behind OUR goaltender in "sudden-death" mode.

I just hope the team can put this behind them and *hopefully* get their act together by January 7, when we resume league play. This "mediocrity/underachieving" has been ongoing since 2006-07, with the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons notwithstanding.
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

I totally agree with Greencoat that our PK, as well as the rest of our game is too passive. It is time to turn up the dial and move forward instead of retreating all the time. Take some chances for goodness sake and attack. We will never score a short handed goal because the PK unit stands still at center ice waiting for the other team to bring the puck up after we ice it. It is a terrible way to kill a pp and sets the whole team in passive mode. Attack the puck! Never mind that, but we also play our even strength game like that as well. Setting up at center ice and waiting for the team to set up their break out gives them a free pass. Coach it's time for a change. Let's go on the attack for one game and see what happens. Fore-check with speed and intensity. Lets try to force mistakes. Holding and hooking calls (which we get regularly) are a result of not moving your feet, an up tempo game will help to get rid of those calls (may turn into boarding and charges but at least the boys would be skating).

This could be the most frustrating team I've seen in years and I hate to say this, but the coach is to blame for a lot of it. Time for a change of philosophies.

I had to put this up for my own eyes to see. Look at the scores of these losses. They are not getting blown out, they're in every game. I also believe they had the lead in the 3rd period in 4 games that we ultimately lost. 2 years ago when they went to OT 19 times they would have found a way to get to OT in the 1 goal games below. Now there is no way they come back in the 3rd once the lead evaporates.

L 1- 2 at Lake Superior
L 4- 5 at Lake Superior
L 1- 4 at St. Lawrence EN GOAL
L 3- 4 Princeton
L 1- 3 Quinnipiac
L 2- 5 Brown EN GOAL
L 4- 6 Yale #1 TEAM IN THE COUNTRY
L 2- 4 at Niagara EN GOAL
L 3- 4 vs Cornell
L 3- 4 OT Niagara
 
Last edited:
Re: Colgate 2010-11

Gaterooter, well stated...when you're afraid of making mistakes you inevitably will make them...if we're going to make mistakes the least we can do is commit them at center ice or on the offensive end. We are too passive, obviously on the PK, but our entire philosophy seems predicated on ceding center ice...skate all four lines - don't overuse the first and second lines - and apply some pressure. The extra ice time for our "high skill" players should result from the PP only...Sat night we looked "gassed" in the third period...
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

The PK is now 19/21 (90.5%) in the last four games and it's just below 80% for the season which considering where it was is pretty good. Colgate is actually tied with Yale nationally in PK percentage.

And just to comment quickly from the perspective of seeing all 14 games this year. The team has had a decent number of short-handed chances, mostly coming in a 2-on-1 or 2-on-2 rush with attacking forwards. It's just been a matter of not being able to finish those rushes off - either the goalie makes the save, a shot is blocked, the pass is too far behind/someone overskates, etc etc. I want to say that Colgate has had at least 1 or 2 great short-handed chances in each of the last few games.
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

I've heard the primary reason for the switch was as a way to generate more offense and have less games end in ties. The idea being that the defense would have to make a long change in overtime and that increases the chance of a goal to be scored. I assume somewhere there must be data to show that second periods are higher scoring than firsts or thirds in order for them to make the change for those reasons, but that is what I was told by a league coach.
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

KRACH ratings are out...we come in at #56 out of 58 teams...in hoops we are #344 out of #345...KRACH isn't perfect (I'm quite sure we could beat American International), but it's not bad at evaluating teams on their body of work so far...not much more to be said...'Gate Radio makes a good point on the numerous short-handed opportunities we have had this year...this problem, here again, has been finishing and that's where the sometimes amorphous word "skill" comes in...
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

Awesome to see a Glengarry reference here, though it should be noted that Baldwin's famous speech didn't actually motivate anyone to sell better -- instead, Arkin, Harris and Lemmon all began trying to rob the company while Pacino, who was out working and so not present for the speech, won the Cadillac
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

Does anyone have any insight on how the fallout of the Patriot League Presidents' non-decison on fb schollies will effect Raider Hockey? I don't see any direct connection, unless it's on the part of the students, who become more and more apathetic about sports at 'Gate..:(
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

ColSkate65 said:
Does anyone have any insight on how the fallout of the Patriot League Presidents' non-decison on fb schollies will effect Raider Hockey? I don't see any direct connection, unless it's on the part of the students, who become more and more apathetic about sports at 'Gate..:(
Click to expand...

It only affects football scholarships. It's unfortunate that the Patriot League is choosing to not be competitive in football (especially with the continued success of the Colgate football program -- I'm starting to think Dick Biddle is the only competent and consistent head coach at 'Gate), but it won't affect our hockey scholarships. IIRC, Colgate started issuing scholarships in ice hockey in 2004, with a limit of 4 per recruiting class. That gives us 16 scholarships a year, two shy of the NCAA limit of 18 scholarships per team.

Whoever posted the Glengarry clip, I agree 100% in the sense that I wish either our ice hockey head coach and/or our AD would have that same mindset/motivation.
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

Good article by Sullivan on the various "dynamic Duos" in the ECAC with excellent quotes and insight from a few of the successful coaches on how they determine the right personnel line-Ups. Lists the Bourdon - McPherson combo as our tandem. Hope our coaches read the article and learn something from their peers!
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

HockeyEh said:
Good article by Sullivan on the various "dynamic Duos" in the ECAC with excellent quotes and insight from a few of the successful coaches on how they determine the right personnel line-Ups. Lists the Bourdon - McPherson combo as our tandem. Hope our coaches read the article and learn something from their peers!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly call Bourdon and McPherson a tandem in terms of a 1-2 punch like the article is suggesting. Sure they have eight goals between them (Bourdon - 5, McPherson - 3) though one is an offensive-minded forward with a quick release snap shot/wrist shot from the wing and the other is a defenseman starting to offensively elevate his game.

Myself, I'd be more inclined to choose Day and Smith as Colgate's top tandem though the goal-scoring numbers don't quite equal that since Austin's in the midst of a dry spell right now. Really, it's hard to pick two just because everyone has been inconsistant - some nights one line plays extremely well, another night that line is quiet as a mouse. And no one's finishing on a consistant basis either whereas on those others teams, it's pretty straightforward.
 
Re: Colgate 2010-11

This quote comes from the games notes for this weekend's games at gocolgateraiders.com:

So far this season, the recipe for the Raiders winning has been netting three or more goals and not allowing more than one. Colgate is 0-5-0 when scoring two or less and when the opponent scores two or more, the Raiders are 0-9-1. Another note is that Colgate has scored first in eight of its 14 games played and has a 3-5-0 mark in those contests.
Click to expand...

That means when we DO score at least 3 goals, we're 3-5-1. We're also 3-5-0 when scoring first, which means we're 0-5-1 when our opponent scores first. And we're actually 0-10-1 when our opponent scores at least two goals, yes TWO! This all equates to a dysfunctional team! And don't forget the fact that Austin Smith has been in a long funk.

If there IS something working in our favor, it's the fact that we're 4-0-1 lifetime against RMU. Though based on the way we've been playing, I can't see us taking at least 3 points this weekend. Prove us wrong, Raiders, prove us wrong...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top