Share This Page

PSU nets Classic statement win

| Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012, 8:40 p.m.

Penn State alumni made a statement with a strong show of support for their hockey team at the Three Rivers Classic.

The Nittany Lions, in turn, left Consol Energy Center with a statement victory.

Three first-period goals sparked Penn State to a 5-4 victory Saturday over Ohio State in the consolation game of Pittsburgh's first-year college hockey tournament. Forwards Taylor Holstrom, a junior, and Casey Bailey, a freshman, each scored two goals — and Bailey finished with four points.

Penn State (8-9-0) will join the future Big Ten hockey conference next season. Ohio State (7-8-5) is the first Big Ten school the Nittany Lions had played.

Penn State players gathered at center ice to salute the partisan crowd.

“If you look in the stands and heard the Penn State alumni and fans — how much fun was that to play in front of them?” Penn State coach Guy Gadowsky said.

Sophomore forward Ryan Dzingel turned a hat trick for Ohio State, which neatly transformed a 5-2 deficit into a competitive finish with two third-period markers.

Associate head coach Steve Rohlik lauded the Classic tournament and Gadowsky's budding Penn State program.

“That team's going to be reckoned with from Day 1,” Rohlik said.

Rob Rossi is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at rrossi@tribweb.com or 412-380-5635.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.