UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by DeltaOne81
UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 11, 2005 10:17AM
Two topics this morning for ya.
One, UML lost to NU last night. Their first loss in, well, a very long time. They're now 13th, one spot above Colgate (14th) and Dartmouth (15th).
Second of all, I knew I didn't like Martinez and his USCHO column, so I hadn't read it in a long time. I decided to today, and boy, what a mistake. I can't say its horrible but there are just these things that... well... really throw me.
[Q]It was a troubling sign for the club, especially when the Huskies responded with a series of good shifts after the goal. Harvard fans knew then that their team was in for a fight.[/Q]
Anyone referring to 'Harvard fans' is clearly off their rocker.
[Q]"We have played a lot of top-10 teams throughout the season and they are a top 10 team."[/Q]
That's Schafer. So yes, I can blame him for the quote. But, a lot of top 10 teams? So, Harvard, B.C., and um, yeah. Two doesn't count as "a lot". Oh, and FYI, Colgate isn't a top 10 team. I don't blame Mike for the fact that we haven't played many, the western schools are clearly afraid to schedule us
, but I do blame Martinez for including it - or at least not seeking to clarify the facts in the article - it throws you when you read something just blatantly untrue.
[Q]If anyone would have told you that the Bulldogs were going to score as many goals in a span of 11:20 as they had in their previous two games combined, well, they would have to have been lying.[/Q]
Um, what? Excuse me? No, the wouldn't have been lying. They would have been exactly, 100%, completely correct - a seer even. That makes no sense! You might have called them a liar or thought they were lying, it may have been hard to believe... but how do you write that kind of thing, proofread it (maybe?), and not realize that it makes no sense.
Makes you appreciate the Sun
One, UML lost to NU last night. Their first loss in, well, a very long time. They're now 13th, one spot above Colgate (14th) and Dartmouth (15th).
Second of all, I knew I didn't like Martinez and his USCHO column, so I hadn't read it in a long time. I decided to today, and boy, what a mistake. I can't say its horrible but there are just these things that... well... really throw me.
[Q]It was a troubling sign for the club, especially when the Huskies responded with a series of good shifts after the goal. Harvard fans knew then that their team was in for a fight.[/Q]
Anyone referring to 'Harvard fans' is clearly off their rocker.
[Q]"We have played a lot of top-10 teams throughout the season and they are a top 10 team."[/Q]
That's Schafer. So yes, I can blame him for the quote. But, a lot of top 10 teams? So, Harvard, B.C., and um, yeah. Two doesn't count as "a lot". Oh, and FYI, Colgate isn't a top 10 team. I don't blame Mike for the fact that we haven't played many, the western schools are clearly afraid to schedule us
, but I do blame Martinez for including it - or at least not seeking to clarify the facts in the article - it throws you when you read something just blatantly untrue.
[Q]If anyone would have told you that the Bulldogs were going to score as many goals in a span of 11:20 as they had in their previous two games combined, well, they would have to have been lying.[/Q]
Um, what? Excuse me? No, the wouldn't have been lying. They would have been exactly, 100%, completely correct - a seer even. That makes no sense! You might have called them a liar or thought they were lying, it may have been hard to believe... but how do you write that kind of thing, proofread it (maybe?), and not realize that it makes no sense.
Makes you appreciate the Sun
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 11, 2005 10:34AM
[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
One, UML lost to NU last night. Their first loss in, well, a very long time.[/q]
Need some coffee, Fred? They lost 3 games ago and are 1-2-1 in their last four. I think UML's bubble is well on their way to bursting.
One, UML lost to NU last night. Their first loss in, well, a very long time.[/q]
Need some coffee, Fred? They lost 3 games ago and are 1-2-1 in their last four. I think UML's bubble is well on their way to bursting.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 11, 2005 11:09AM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
DeltaOne81 Wrote:
One, UML lost to NU last night. Their first loss in, well, a very long time.[/Q]
Need some coffee, Fred? They lost 3 games ago and are 1-2-1 in their last four. I think UML's bubble is well on their way to bursting.[/q]
Oh yeah, forgot about the UNH thing. They split the weekend though so that was probably in my head as a tie. Coffee, no, sleep maybe
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.airproducts.com)
Date: February 11, 2005 12:12PM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
I think UML's bubble is well on their way to bursting.[/q]
Actually, Age, I'm not sure it ever inflated. How many of Lowell's wins came against teams with winning records? Exactly 3: Colgate, Dartmouth, and UNH. Everybody else is 0.500 or worse. As a contrast, Cornell has 7 wins (still not stellar, but certainly better than Lowell).
Lowell will take 3 or 4 more losses before the end of the RS, and there ain't no way they're winning the HEA tourney.
I think UML's bubble is well on their way to bursting.[/q]
Actually, Age, I'm not sure it ever inflated. How many of Lowell's wins came against teams with winning records? Exactly 3: Colgate, Dartmouth, and UNH. Everybody else is 0.500 or worse. As a contrast, Cornell has 7 wins (still not stellar, but certainly better than Lowell).
Lowell will take 3 or 4 more losses before the end of the RS, and there ain't no way they're winning the HEA tourney.
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: February 11, 2005 12:21PM
I was never convinced Lowell was all that, but the media was certainly running with it. So, not my bubble, but the general public mindlessness one.
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: February 11, 2005 02:34PM
[q][q]If anyone would have told you that the Bulldogs were going to score as many goals in a span of 11:20 as they had in their previous two games combined, well, they would have to have been lying.[/q]
Um, what? Excuse me? No, the wouldn't have been lying. [/q]I thin you missed the point of the statement. He was essentially saying that no one would have expected this offensive outburst and if someone had told you this (in advance, or afterwards if you hadn't seen the game results) you wouldn't believe them. It's awful writing, but the sentiment isn't necessarily wrong.
Um, what? Excuse me? No, the wouldn't have been lying. [/q]I thin you missed the point of the statement. He was essentially saying that no one would have expected this offensive outburst and if someone had told you this (in advance, or afterwards if you hadn't seen the game results) you wouldn't believe them. It's awful writing, but the sentiment isn't necessarily wrong.
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: Pete Godenschwager (---.chem.cornell.edu)
Date: February 11, 2005 02:45PM
[Q]It's awful writing, but the sentiment isn't necessarily wrong.[/Q]
I think that was the point of the post, that the writing is awful.
I think that was the point of the post, that the writing is awful.
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: February 11, 2005 02:52PM
[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:
It's awful writing, but the sentiment isn't necessarily wrong.[/Q]
I think that was the point of the post, that the writing is awful. [/q]
Right. I know what he meant, but its not what he said. And one someone says something so bizarre and inaccurate, well, that's not the quality that published material should have (except maybe INCH).
Meanwhile, I really should have included the next sentence, which makes it even more bizarre.
[Q]If anyone would have told you that the Bulldogs were going to score as many goals in a span of 11:20 as they had in their previous two games combined, well, they would have to have been lying.
Anyone, that is, who wasn't sitting on the Yale bench.[/Q]
So, if he was saying that you wouldn't believe a fan who predicted it, well, why would you believe a player then? Its really awful writing. So jumbled up in its attempt to be clever (or something), that it lost all hope at making sense.
Re: UML loses / USCHO column
Posted by: KeithK (---.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net)
Date: February 11, 2005 03:14PM
OK, my bad. I apparently missed the point of your post.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.