> Does anyone but me think that the reason that Princeton beat Clarkson is
that
> Princeton has a team that is more suited for the larger ice surface in
Lake
> Placid than Clarkson is?
 
 
Princeton isn't necessarily the kind of team that's better on big ice than
Clarkson.  The game Princeton played all weekend was a very effective
languid, gum up the neutral zone defense punctuated by occasional bursts of
speed from Masters and Halpern.
 
The way they got to the big game was by outworking Cornell and Yale pure
and simple -- they wanted it more.
 
The way they stayed with Clarkson was by not allowing the Golden Knights
("Golden Eagles", by the Lake Placid paper ;-) to use their superior first
and second line tactical players, the guys who see the ice frankly better
than anyone else in the ECAC, to set up plays.  When Clarkson had a
compound advantage as on the power play, they set up great chances and
scored in a snap.  I would think that the Placid sheet actually made the
Tigers' job even tougher, unless one thinks that Clarkson was so spooked by
the Tigers' speed that they had to artificially cramp their offense by
hanging back more.
 
The way they *beat* Clarkson was: more hard work, a few lucky saves by
Erasmo, a few *great* saves by Eerasmo, and a couple missed nets.  In other
words, the way every team has won a double overtime contest in hockey
history: a combination of desire, skill, and luck.
 
Good job for Princeton.  Ten different members of the ECAC (all except for
Union and Dartmouth) have gone to the NCAA's in the 90's.  And in fact, two
of the last three ECAC teams to make the championship game, SLU and Colgate
have gone the *longest* among that group without appearing.  This is a
great conference!
 
Last appearance:
 
Yale, Princeton, Clarkson: current field
Cornell, Vermont: 1997
RPI: 1995
Harvard: 1994
Brown: 1993
SLU: 1992
Colgate: 1991
 
-- Greg
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.