An Epic

USCHO will have a recap of Wisconsin’s epic quadruple overtime win over Harvard sometime today. Here are some other links in the meantime:

Recapand Quotes from Wisconsin Athletics

Recap from Harvard Athletics

Wisconsin State Journal

Wisconsin Journal Sentinel

A few other thoughts: There seems to be plenty of confusion about save records out there, due to the NCAA record book somehow forgetting Desi Clark’s 78-save performance in Mercyhurst’s 5-4 triple overtime loss to Harvard in the 2005 NCAA quarterfinals. Brittany Martin, I would imagine, set a record for highest save percentage among anyone who faced over 60 shots. And of course, Molly Schaus had 73 saves for BC against Harvard in the Beanpot semifinal in February.

As many of the above articles have pointed out, 5125 was the second-largest crowd in NCAA tournament history, falling short only of the UMD-Harvard final in 2003. Like this game, both teams rose to the occasion, and the game went multiple overtimes.

Amazingly enough, the Harvard junior and seniors have played in the only three triple overtime games in the last 10 years in women’s D-I hockey, winning the 2005 quarterfinal against Mercyhurst while losing this year’s Beanpot semifinal and NCAA quarterfinal. As Sean Pickett points out on the message board, Harvard has played in 10 of the 21 longest games in women’s college hockey history.

14 COMMENTS

  1. Will all 6 BTHC teams actually participate in 3 conference series on the same weekend at some point this season? Getting conference play going is like my truck started on one of these minus 30 degree “global warming” mornings! And Paula, I’m in your corner, shootouts are an insult to my favorite sport.

  2. Will all 6 BTHC teams actually participate in 3 conference series on the same weekend at some point this season? Getting conference play going is like my truck started on one of these minus 30 degree “global warming” mornings! And Paula, I’m in your corner, shootouts are an insult to my favorite sport.

  3. Shootouts are dumb period. I understand the need in professional hockey to generate interest in the sport to generate more money for owners and players, but at the colege level it is a travesty!!!!!! Additionally, since the game still officially ended in a tie, what is the point??? Not to mention that the loser still earns points, what for losing????? Shootouts need to be eliminated from college hockey immediately. Total agreement with Paula on this topic.

  4. Shootouts are dumb period. I understand the need in professional hockey to generate interest in the sport to generate more money for owners and players, but at the colege level it is a travesty!!!!!! Additionally, since the game still officially ended in a tie, what is the point??? Not to mention that the loser still earns points, what for losing????? Shootouts need to be eliminated from college hockey immediately. Total agreement with Paula on this topic.

  5. Couldn’t agree more about shootouts. Imagine if baseball games were settled by a home run derby. Maybe they should use punt pass and kick to decide football games? Or a free throw contest for basketball? No more ridiculous than shootouts deciding hockey games.
    In addition, the three points per game system is flawed and potentially disastrous. This example is obviously an extreme one and won’t ever happen, but any system that allows such a POSSIBILITY should be scrapped… Imagine TeamA ties all 20 league games but has a great shootout goalie and wins all the shootouts. In the old 2 pts/game system they had a .500 record and half the available points. In the current system they have a .500 record and 2/3 the available points(40/60). Let’s say TeamB had a record of 11-5-4, the 4 being the Shoot Out Losses against A, of course. They would have only 37 points. So the standings would have a TeamB with a .650 record behind a .500 TeamA that had not won a single regulation game.
    As I said, that example is extreme, but there are many other combinations that could have administrators, coaches, players, and fans going insane by the end of the current or some future season. As long as the Badgers aren’t involved, I hope the league championship is decided by a point won in a shootout so we can possibly? have ADs calling for a return to a system that makes sense. Or maybe they don’t care about what is right or fair, in which case we will continue on with more of the same…

    • I would say that IF you’re going to use the shootout to award an extra point to a team after a tie (which is a concept I hate), the three point game system is more fair than the 2+1 system utilized in the NHL.

      In the NHL system, that third point arizes mysteriously out of the ether once a game finishes regulation time as a tie, which artificially (in my opinion) clogs up the middle of the standings (which is the intent: to make the playoff race more interesting by creating more bubble teams, thereby keeping up attendance and viewership).

      In the current B1G system, three points are being awarded after each game, no matter what. This rewards a teams for winning in regulation by awarding them that third point. This system makes winning in regulation more important than simply surviving regulation time.
      Still, as I stated above, I hate the three point game concept. I prefer the 2 point win, 1 point tie, and 0 points loss, be it in regulation or OT. Maybe I’m old fashioned.

  6. Couldn’t agree more about shootouts. Imagine if baseball games were settled by a home run derby. Maybe they should use punt pass and kick to decide football games? Or a free throw contest for basketball? No more ridiculous than shootouts deciding hockey games.
    In addition, the three points per game system is flawed and potentially disastrous. This example is obviously an extreme one and won’t ever happen, but any system that allows such a POSSIBILITY should be scrapped… Imagine TeamA ties all 20 league games but has a great shootout goalie and wins all the shootouts. In the old 2 pts/game system they had a .500 record and half the available points. In the current system they have a .500 record and 2/3 the available points(40/60). Let’s say TeamB had a record of 11-5-4, the 4 being the Shoot Out Losses against A, of course. They would have only 37 points. So the standings would have a TeamB with a .650 record behind a .500 TeamA that had not won a single regulation game.
    As I said, that example is extreme, but there are many other combinations that could have administrators, coaches, players, and fans going insane by the end of the current or some future season. As long as the Badgers aren’t involved, I hope the league championship is decided by a point won in a shootout so we can possibly? have ADs calling for a return to a system that makes sense. Or maybe they don’t care about what is right or fair, in which case we will continue on with more of the same…

    • I would say that IF you’re going to use the shootout to award an extra point to a team after a tie (which is a concept I hate), the three point game system is more fair than the 2+1 system utilized in the NHL.

      In the NHL system, that third point arizes mysteriously out of the ether once a game finishes regulation time as a tie, which artificially (in my opinion) clogs up the middle of the standings (which is the intent: to make the playoff race more interesting by creating more bubble teams, thereby keeping up attendance and viewership).

      In the current B1G system, three points are being awarded after each game, no matter what. This rewards a teams for winning in regulation by awarding them that third point. This system makes winning in regulation more important than simply surviving regulation time.
      Still, as I stated above, I hate the three point game concept. I prefer the 2 point win, 1 point tie, and 0 points loss, be it in regulation or OT. Maybe I’m old fashioned.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here