Penn State hockey upsets No. 16 Wisconsin in OT
MADISON, Wis. — Penn State's Taylor Holstrom scored two goals, including the game-winner in overtime as the Nittany Lions came from two goals down to beat No. 16 Wisconsin, 3-2, on Monday.
Holstrom led Penn State (13-14-0) from two goals down in the third period in the final game of the Nittany Lions' inaugural Division I season.
He slipped in a rebound with 34 seconds remaining in overtime and started the comeback at 6:48 of the third. Casey Bailey, Penn State's leading scorer, tied the game at 12:16.
Mark Zengerle and Joseph LaBate staked the Badgers (14-11-7) to a 2-0 lead at 6:41 of the third period.
Landon Peterson made 33 saves for Wisconsin, including two before Holstrom's goal in OT.
McKees Rocks native Matthew Skoff had 42 saves for Penn State, including two in overtime.
The loss marked the first time this season Wisconsin was defeated by a team that wasn't ranked or listed in the “others receiving votes” list of the U.S. College Hockey Online national poll.
The win was the first against a ranked opponent for Penn State, which went 3-2 this season against opponents that will be part of the inaugural season for the Big Ten hockey conference in 2013-14. The Nittany Lions split two games each with Wisconsin and Michigan State and defeated Ohio State, 5- 4, in the consolation game of the Three Rivers Classic on Dec. 29 at Consol Energy Center.
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 â 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.