Cornell-Bemidji NCAA regionals postgame

lynah80

upperdeck
remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.

Based on what has been written in the press about Greening's academic record, I think he will stay. Riley Nash is probably the biggest risk for early graduation at Cornell. When he started, he was quoted as saying that he doubted he would stay at Cornell for all 4 years. Another concern is that he was on the ice a lot in defensive roles this year, which took some of the jump out of his offensive game. In 2008, he was with the Oilers in their pre-season camp, so he has some idea for what to expect. If we are lucky, he will want to play with Brendon for another year. If we are really lucky, he has developed an appreciation for higher learning and will want to complete his degree. Maybe Mike will put an A on Riley's sweater to encourage him to stay. He could use the extra to time to build some more muscle.

Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?

Jacob '06

lynah80

upperdeck
remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.

Based on what has been written in the press about Greening's academic record, I think he will stay. Riley Nash is probably the biggest risk for early graduation at Cornell. When he started, he was quoted as saying that he doubted he would stay at Cornell for all 4 years. Another concern is that he was on the ice a lot in defensive roles this year, which took some of the jump out of his offensive game. In 2008, he was with the Oilers in their pre-season camp, so he has some idea for what to expect. If we are lucky, he will want to play with Brendon for another year. If we are really lucky, he has developed an appreciation for higher learning and will want to complete his degree. Maybe Mike will put an A on Riley's sweater to encourage him to stay. He could use the extra to time to build some more muscle.

Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?

Sorry, I don't know. This is interesting:

[www.hockeysfuture.com]

[cliche] Not much more I can say on this thread. [/cliche] Everything I had wanted to say has already been said somewhere here.

The pain is more as a result of the inability to capitalize on a remarkable external situation instead of the greatness of the team. And for that reason, I'm much less hurt than '03 or '05/'06. I never expected the FF this year. To toot my own horn:

Re: Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: December 07, 2008 05:50PM

A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team. And they're fun to watch. I'm very happy right now.

And I'm still happy, and proud. The post I said that on was about a lack of "finishing" by this team, and they gave us some very memorable finishes in the past couple of weeks. Thanks, team.


The best therapies in order:

1) Going directly to the BOB after the game. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
2) Watching everything Marty has put up on YouTube. Multiple times. Thank you so much, Marty.
3) Reading this thread.
4) Repeat step #2

Jacob '06
Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?

That would show a level of awareness and maturity that it often takes guys years to reach (c.f., Manderville, Kent) but if he does understand that then this is an ideal environment for him. His TOI is higher, under more varied circumstances, than he'll get in the minors. Also: BMOC vs the bus leagues is no contest.

A check would change that, though. We'll see -- it will come down to what Edmonton wants him to do.

Trotsky

Jacob '06
Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?

That would show a level of awareness and maturity that it often takes guys years to reach (c.f., Manderville, Kent) but if he does understand that then this is an ideal environment for him. His TOI is higher, under more varied circumstances, than he'll get in the minors. Also: BMOC vs the bus leagues is no contest.

A check would change that, though. We'll see -- it will come down to what Edmonton wants him to do.

I agree 100%--well, except that it may not come down *solely* to what Edmonton wants him to do. I think another year at CU would do a lot for his game, and have the added bonus (presumably) of allowing him to play with his brother one more year. He's not strong enough on the puck currently, which is why I would rate Greening a better NHL prospect at present.

HockeyMan
He's not strong enough on the puck currently, which is why I would rate Greening a better NHL prospect at present.

It was shocking how effectively both NU and Bemidji contained Riley.

Greening, OTOH... man, if he had just had a little luck at finding the net in the first period, that's a 2-0 lead and a trip to DC. But I'm not bitter.

I still think Greening and both Nash brothers have the chops to be All-Americans. A team with all of them returning, a healthy Gallagher, some competition in net, and two major league blue chip D prospects coming in would really be special.

RichH
[cliche] Not much more I can say on this thread. [/cliche] Everything I had wanted to say has already been said somewhere here.

The pain is more as a result of the inability to capitalize on a remarkable external situation instead of the greatness of the team. And for that reason, I'm much less hurt than '03 or '05/'06. I never expected the FF this year. To toot my own horn:

Re: Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: December 07, 2008 05:50PM

A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team. And they're fun to watch. I'm very happy right now.

And I'm still happy, and proud. The post I said that on was about a lack of "finishing" by this team, and they gave us some very memorable finishes in the past couple of weeks. Thanks, team.


The best therapies in order:

1) Going directly to the BOB after the game. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
2) Watching everything Marty has put up on YouTube. Multiple times. Thank you so much, Marty.
3) Reading this thread.
4) Repeat step #2

Yes, those $2 pints at the BOB did help drown some sorrows.

I thought the Wisconsin loss was more painful because of how long that game went knowing just one weird bounce was all we needed.

After a few days, I too am happy with how the season went. Yes, the BSU loss hurt, because we know that if we had gotten by them, we would have had a decent shot in DC.

Unfortunately, our chances of landing a recruit who can find the back of the net > 75 % of the time is slim (I think we would have a better chance at a rule change allowing a team to decline a PP); thus I realize and accept that we will be a team that needs to win games 1-0, 2-1. However, to get that 2nd goal, as many others have mentioned, we need a much better PP. Is it that Schafer has an unchangeable PP scheme, our players are not creative enough moving without the puck, or lack of trust on the part of the players and/or coaching staff that in allowing too much off the puck movement?

There was a glimmer of hope on some PPs this weekend, when the point man would see an open lane and take the puck to the net. That should create some confusion with the D allowing us to either take the shot or find an open man down low.

Overall a very good season and here's hoping that the BSU loss fuels the returning players during their off-season workouts.

Dpperk29

upperdeck
next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.

That can't be determined yet. Recruits might look good on paper, but no one knows how they'll react to the pace of the college game.

Really tough to judge how good a recruiting class is until they have a year or more under their belt.

I know we wont really know for awhile.. but for the coach to come out and be this excited is something good. as for nash/greening i think it just comes out to how much money they get offered. I think both have issues projecting into the pro game with the lack of speed.

Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.

[db.elynah.com]

srg1
Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.

[db.elynah.com]

I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.


And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.

Jim Hyla

srg1
Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.

[db.elynah.com]

I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.


And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.

So can we clone RPI's Burgdoerfer and give each team we play one of the clones? Even if the Burgdoerfer clone spends only half the game in the box, we would have a chance, by your math, to get 2 PP/game.

It just seems that our PP at times kills any momentum that he had going at the time of the call.

To reinforce what others have said, look at these stats:

Score by Period	1	2	3	ot	Tot.
        Cornell	26	31	32	2	91
       Opponent	15      26      32      1       74

We get worse as the game goes on. I didn't look up prior years, but I'd bet like others, that we used to get better as the game went on.

Rita

Jim Hyla

srg1
Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.

[db.elynah.com]

I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.


And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.

So can we clone RPI's Burgdoerfer and give each team we play one of the clones? Even if the Burgdoerfer clone spends only half the game in the box, we would have a chance, by your math, to get 2 PP/game.

It just seems that our PP at times kills any momentum that he had going at the time of the call.

I don't disagree with your last statement, and jeez you are fast.

Jim Hyla
To reinforce what others have said, look at these stats:

Score by Period	1	2	3	ot	Tot.
        Cornell	26	31	32	2	91
       Opponent	15      26      32      1       74

We get worse as the game goes on. I didn't look up prior years, but I'd bet like others, that we used to get better as the game went on.

Sorry about the page width:

2008-09

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  26  31  32  3   92 | 335  330  331  26 1022 |  19  15  20  2   56 | 190  192  193  12  587
Opponents                           |  15  26  32  1   74 | 304  312  322  28  966 |   9  15  16  1   41 | 191  186  215  13  605
Difference                          | +11  +5  +0 +2  +18 | +31  +18   +9  -2  +56 | +10  +0  +4 +1  +15 |  -1   +6  -22  -1  -18


2007-08

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  24  41  35  2  102 | 280  326  342   9  957 |  16  23  19  2   60 | 164  192  191   4  551
Opponents                           |  23  24  31  0   78 | 340  361  311  14 1026 |  12  17  14  0   43 | 191  206  187   8  592
Difference                          |  +1 +17  +4 +2  +24 | -60  -35  +31  -5  -69 |  +4  +6  +5 +2  +17 | -27  -14   +4  -4  -41


2006-07

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  34  31  25  0   90 | 303  316  293   7  919 |  25  20  19  0   64 | 222  219  203   7  651
Opponents                           |  25  20  32  1   78 | 239  273  240  11  763 |  17  13  25  0   55 | 173  203  178   9  563
Difference                          |  +9 +11  -7 -1  +12 | +64  +43  +53  -4 +156 |  +8  +7  -6 +0   +9 | +49  +16  +25  -2  +88


2005-06

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  30  32  33  4   99 | 324  360  355  60 1099 |  20  18  21  2   61 | 211  219  218   7  655
Opponents                           |  29  25  22  1   77 | 267  284  258  46  855 |  19  15  14  0   48 | 166  175  161   8  510
Difference                          |  +1  +7 +11 +3  +22 | +57  +76  +97 +14 +244 |  +1  +3  +7 +2  +13 | +45  +44  +57  -1 +145


2004-05

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  34  49  26  3  112 | 344  378  284  19 1025 |  22  31  15  2   70 | 221  234  181   6  642
Opponents                           |  15  11  17  2   45 | 276  276  250  28  830 |   6   6  13  1   26 | 150  181  163   9  503
Difference                          | +19 +38  +9 +1  +67 | +68 +102  +34  -9 +195 | +16 +25  +2 +1  +44 | +71  +53  +18  -3 +139


2003-04

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  29  26  29  1   85 | 292  291  283  22  888 |  19  15  19  0   53 | 194  201  189  11  595
Opponents                           |  23  19  19  1   62 | 228  254  255   9  746 |  13   9   9  1   32 | 147  183  170   4  504
Difference                          |  +6  +7 +10 +0  +23 | +64  +37  +28 +13 +142 |  +6  +6 +10 -1  +21 | +47  +18  +19  +7  +91


2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249


2001-02

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  29  51  38  0  118 | 369  357  304  30 1060 |  17  33  24  0   74 | 242  237  188   6  673
Opponents                           |  20  19  20  4   63 | 265  260  277  41  843 |  10   9  13  2   34 | 166  161  167  10  504
Difference                          |  +9 +32 +18 -4  +55 |+104  +97  +27 -11 +217 |  +7 +24 +11 -2  +40 | +76  +76  +21  -4 +16

Trotsky

2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249

That goal shouldn't have counted.

That '02-'03 team was pretty good, eh?

Josh '99

Trotsky

2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249

That goal shouldn't have counted.

That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

DeltaOne81

Josh '99

Trotsky

2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249

That goal shouldn't have counted.

That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Josh '99

DeltaOne81

Josh '99

Trotsky

2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249

That goal shouldn't have counted.

That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament. You want to get mad at a call, get mad at the high stick call in Buffalo.

Dammit, why'd you make me drag that up? Now I have to think about it.

RichH

Josh '99

DeltaOne81
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.

But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating.

jtwcornell91

RichH

Josh '99

DeltaOne81
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.

But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating.

Meaning the "Do you believe in miracles??" rip-off? (and then barking like wild dogs?) yeah, I'm pretty sure they lost all credibility for their lives as human beings at that point.

RichH

Josh '99

DeltaOne81

Josh '99

Trotsky

2002-03

Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference)  | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT  TOT | 1st  2nd  3rd  OT  SOG
Cornell                             |  46  47  37  3  133 | 350  374  323  21 1068 |  30  37  22  0   89 | 230  247  209   8  694
Opponents                           |  15  16  17  1   49 | 246  248  243  16  753 |   8  10  10  1   29 | 144  156  142   3  445
Difference                          | +31 +31 +20 +2  +84 |+104 +126  +80  +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1  +60 | +86  +91  +67  +5 +249

That goal shouldn't have counted.

That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament. You want to get mad at a call, get mad at the high stick call in Buffalo.

Dammit, why'd you make me drag that up? Now I have to think about it.

I didn't MAKE you drag it up, I was only talking about the stupid Colgate game.

abmarks

1) You do realize they adjusted the officiating to call more obstruction and all that good stuff right? I'm not sure what would happen if you planted the 03 team into this year's season. THey'd be better than this year's team, true, but I wonder how much better.

2) Many have commented in many places that the rest of the ECAC at the least has adjusted over the years to our style of play. It's not just us... the other teams evolve too. Yale went from a bunch of hacks to a high-skill team.

3) It is a speed-skill game now. look at your final 4: 3 are speed skill teams (maybe 4 depending on what bucket Miami falls into)

1 and 3 are the same comment, and the answer I'm going to give you is the same one I gave people in 2003 who claimed Cornell only won because they played clutch and grab hockey: Cornell did not win with obstruction in 2002-2003. The change in rules would not have hurt that team. At all.

The 2002-2003 team (and, to a lesser extent, the 04-05 and 05-06 teams) won with superb positioning in all three zones. They did not obstruct, or clutch and grab, any more than the average team (and when they were really good they did that crap a lot less than the average team). Most, if not all, of the players on those teams moved their feet exceptionally well, anticipated the play, and put themselves in the right place to disrupt the other team's system. In the offensive zone they cycled the puck relentlessly until the opposition had a breakdown, and then they would try to exploit that advantage. The 2002-2003 team was better than most at exploiting those opportunities, and I'd certainly like to see Cornell open things up in terms of forcing the issue off the cycle a bit more.

The other thing those teams had, which this team seemed to be lacking in the NCAAs, was a top-notch open-ice hitter. Murray was not fast, but he laid out speedy puck-carrying forwards in the neutral zone with astonishing regularity. The guy just had a knack for it. Still does, which is why he's been so successful in the NHL. Hornby was another one.

This team is not as successful because it isn't as good. It has nothing to do with the system. Someone pointed out the lack of production from the 4th line - well, the 2002-2003 team could beat you with all four lines. That makes a difference.

Cornell's system is, and was, built on footwork, positioning, and physical play. This year's team did not have the footwork and positioning of the great (and, yes, those were great teams - they just weren't the best in the nation) teams from earlier in the decade. It also lacked the depth - although I'm sure the injuries had a lot to do with it.

I'd love to see Cornell recruit a couple of guys who could put the puck in the net at will, but those guys have to be able and willing to play within the system, otherwise the team will score more but win less.

If there's one thing I would change about the system, I'd adjust the power play and breakout strategies to match the talent on the team, rather than stuffing the talent on the team into the umbrella (or that breakout play they've been running since 2001) and hoping for the best.



As for Yale, it's too early to say anything for sure but I think their recent success is a testament to their coach. Yale was generally a reasonably classy team under Tim Taylor, but apart from one year in the late 90s they were also pretty bad. I know Taylor is highly regarded, and I know he coached an Olympic team, and I'm sure he's a nice man and a good mentor, but let's face it - the guy was a below-average college hockey coach, and he coached below-average Yale teams for *decades*.

Tom Lento
As for Yale, it's too early to say anything for sure but I think their recent success is a testament to their coach. Yale was generally a reasonably classy team under Tim Taylor, but apart from one year in the late 90s they were also pretty bad. I know Taylor is highly regarded, and I know he coached an Olympic team, and I'm sure he's a nice man and a good mentor, but let's face it - the guy was a below-average college hockey coach, and he coached below-average Yale teams for *decades*.

Which is why I get pissed every time I think about him winning Coach of the Year 3 times.And then they have the nerve to name the trophy after him!

jtwcornell91

RichH

Josh '99

DeltaOne81
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.

It was in because Lenny was interfered with.

Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.

But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating.

In retrospect, I kind of like the Gilbert Gottfried quality that the one guy had. If it had been a satire it would have been worthy of the old SNL.

Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into one delicious taco.

[sports.yahoo.com]

amerks127
Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into once delicious taco.

[sports.yahoo.com]

I was going to ask why Cinderella got left out, then I saw the title of the article.

Did they forget to mention any other underdog persona?

amerks127
Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into once delicious taco.

[sports.yahoo.com]

Mmmm... delicious taco...