What are your expectations for success in 13-14

Poll

What single metric of a successful '13-'14 season would you use

This poll has expired. Voting is no longer possible.
124 votes were received.

Win the ECAC Tournament	7		6%
Make the NC$$ Tournament	43		35%
Win the first Game of the NC$$ Tournament	35		28%
Top 4 in the ECAC Regular Season	13		10%
Frozen Four	20		16%
Other	6		5%

---

Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

I'm hoping to make a return visit to Lynah with my wife. If so, that will continue a once a year pilgrimage begun in 1996. Hopefully I will not be in section O.

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I think a top 4 finish in the conference, a trip to Lake Placid (at which point the nature of single elimination tournaments makes it something of a crapshoot), and a bid to the NCAA tournament seem like a reasonable target for 2013-14. Obviously I'd love to see the team accomplish more, but I'd call that my starting point (which I would consider adjusting if we saw lots of early departures).

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

And you didn't answer my question. This poll looks like a shady way to claim "popular support" is on your side when you ultimately start calling for Schafer's head next season if we don't advance to the Frozen Four (or whatever wins). Do you want us to vote on the criteria of a "successful" season or "acceptable" season? Also, I agree with Kyle. The coach doesn't owe you jack squat.

Kyle Rose

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

Towerroad

Kyle Rose

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

It is not inconceivable that Cornell could improve cash flow by de-funding all athletic programs.

Consider Rutgers, which dates back to the colonial period and is the flagship state university for New Jersey. According to a database compiled on an annual basis by USA Today, Rutgers' athletic department spent just over $60 million to field all its teams, pay its coaches, etc. in 2011. The school generated about $9 million in ticket sales, $7.6 million in alumni and corporate donations, $8.8 million in rights and licensing fees, and $6 million in other revenue. The school also sucked a whopping $9 million in student fees and another $19.4 million in school funds. When all is tallied up, USA Today calculates that Rutgers is subsidizing the operation of its athletic department to the tune of 47 percent of its expenses.

[reason.com]

Undoubtedly the numbers are different for Cornell, but I suspect the end result is similar.

Josh '99
I think a top 4 finish in the conference, a trip to Lake Placid (at which point the nature of single elimination tournaments makes it something of a crapshoot), and a bid to the NCAA tournament seem like a reasonable target for 2013-14. Obviously I'd love to see the team accomplish more, but I'd call that my starting point (which I would consider adjusting if we saw lots of early departures).

This.

The other target which is far more subjective is "a strong Freshman class." IMHO we just graduated a strong class of '13, and we return a weak class of '14, a VERY strong class of '15, and a weak class of '16. The class of '17 is pivotal because it replaces a strong class and because it's going to be very large (as many as 11 players).

I realize polls don't matter, blah blah blah, but I think my definition of success is to be in the top 10 at Tourney time. That could only happen through a combination of good ECAC and OOC performance, and would mean that the team is once again "good enough to dream".

For me, a good year is making the tournament. There are other ways to measure success, and other things to look for, but that's the baseline for good, for me.

Which is, honestly, a somewhat high bar. At least in my opinion.

Towerroad

Kyle Rose

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

There is a somewhat unrelated metric that I suspect the university does measure Fund Raising. If a coach is a champion fund raiser then his/her success on the field is far less important.

You still didn't answer RichH's question. I have much different answers for each of his scenarios.

Towerroad

Kyle Rose

Towerroad

RichH

Towerroad
Ok, the first poll suggested that there is overwhelming support for the status quo in coaching. So, the next step is to determine what is the definition of what the faithful expect of their coach. Feel free to comment on what you would consider a successful season next year. (I'll bet you can guess what the next poll will be)

The tone of the question differs from the title of the poll. Is this a poll of what would qualify as a "successful" season or an "acceptable" performance out of the coach? I think there's a difference.

I will grant that there is a difference. However, the coach recruits the team, trains the team, chooses the style of play, sets the lines and calls the shots, he is responsible. He is a well paid professional and as such is paid at least in some measure to produce results.

Inasmuch as Cornell is an Ivy League school, one could argue that by helping to mold well-adjusted, respectable young men who will go on to be leaders in whatever field they pursue (be it hockey or something else), he's done his job. Of course, I'd like a lot more than that, but that's because I follow the sport for the sake of the sport, and I'm a greedy bastard.

To put it another way: Coach Schafer doesn't owe me or you dick. If you don't like his performance but the University seems happy with it, you are free to follow another team (and, of course, to keep bitching about it in a Mets fan-like fashion).

While I might agree with your assessment I do not know how to measure it. I believe in the adage you cant manage what you cant measure.

Which belies the more important truth that you can neither manage nor measure anything that's important.

Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

Why not?

You could probably have gotten 100:1 odds against Yale winning a national title in your lifetime (hard to collect on that bet) as recently as 7 years ago.

Anybody can win. Why not us?

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Trotsky

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

Why not?

You could probably have gotten 100:1 odds against Yale winning a national title in your lifetime (hard to collect on that bet) as recently as 7 years ago.

Anybody can win. Why not us?

Obviously we can win. But even the best team wins it all a small percentage of the time, and we're getting farther and farther from being the best, not just in the country but in our conference.

BearLover

marty
This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable?

Citation needed. Why do you think the majority of Cornell hockey fans are anywhere near miserable with our performance under Coach Schafer? Disappointed at times, yes; but miserable?

Yich.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

marty
This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable?

Citation needed. Why do you think the majority of Cornell hockey fans are anywhere near miserable with our performance under Coach Schafer? Disappointed at times, yes; but miserable?

Yich.

Oh, I just meant miserable about how we're second the Yale now and the future isn't looking any brighter.

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

Why not?

You could probably have gotten 100:1 odds against Yale winning a national title in your lifetime (hard to collect on that bet) as recently as 7 years ago.

Anybody can win. Why not us?

Obviously we can win. But even the best team wins it all a small percentage of the time, and we're getting farther and farther from being the best, not just in the country but in our conference.

Well we've beaten this to death but I think one outlier data point doesn't make a trend. With all Q is losing in the off-season we will likely finish ahead of them next year. In fact, the ECAC may see a lot of turnover in the top four next year -- other than Union and perhaps RPI I don't see any of the incumbents repeating.

Trotsky
other than Union and perhaps RPI I don't see any of the incumbents repeating.

I'll take that bet: assuming Allain doesn't bolt, Yale finishes in the top 4 next season.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
other than Union and perhaps RPI I don't see any of the incumbents repeating.

I'll take that bet: assuming Allain doesn't bolt, Yale finishes in the top 4 next season.

They have to collapse eventually. (Right?)

Without a good goalie they were .500 in 2012. They were mediocre when he was hurt this season. Even if they have a good goalie in the pipeline it will most likely take some time to adapt.

They may have become a semi-permanent force, but they should still dip, especially if Agostino goes.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
other than Union and perhaps RPI I don't see any of the incumbents repeating.

I'll take that bet: assuming Allain doesn't bolt, Yale finishes in the top 4 next season.

They have to collapse eventually. (Right?)

Without a good goalie they were .500 in 2012. They were mediocre when he was hurt this season. Even if they have a good goalie in the pipeline it will most likely take some time to adapt.

They may have become a semi-permanent force, but they should still dip, especially if Agostino goes.

I don't know anything about either of Yale's incoming goalies, but I do know that Connor Wilson, their one returning goalie (most of the minutes when Malcolm was out were played by fellow senior Nick Maricic), was 0-3-0 with a .849 SV% and a 4.82 GAA. It seems reasonable to guess that there will be at least *some* growing pains in New Haven. OTOH, one factor to suggest that they will remain a strong team overall is that Yale blocks a *ton* of shots.

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
other than Union and perhaps RPI I don't see any of the incumbents repeating.

I'll take that bet: assuming Allain doesn't bolt, Yale finishes in the top 4 next season.

They have to collapse eventually. (Right?)

Without a good goalie they were .500 in 2012. They were mediocre when he was hurt this season. Even if they have a good goalie in the pipeline it will most likely take some time to adapt.

They may have become a semi-permanent force, but they should still dip, especially if Agostino goes.

Agostino said he's returning.

Kenny Agostino returning to Yale for Sr. yr. ... '@siddthesloth18: Very excited to be a Yale Bulldog for one more year! #boys' Boys!!!

— College Hockey News (@chnews) April 16, 2013

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

Which should bring you some measure of joy.

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Rename this thread, What are your expectations for keeping a college ice hockey forum alive through Slope Day?

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

This whole thread/discussion has become ridiculous. For example, and I'm only highlighting yours because it's the most recent, you haven't met nearly all CU fans, as you should be able to see from the posts, so to say this is silly. I think everyone should just agree to quit and .

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Yale isn't really one of Cornell's biggest rivals. A thorn in our side of late, sure, but Dartmouth weren't really one of our biggest rivals when they beat us what seemed like a zillion times in a row in the early aughts, and Yale aren't now either. Harvard and Clarkson are still our biggest rivals, and there are others I'd put above them based on strength on a consistent and extended basis.

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

I repeat it because I think it's as close to fact as you are going to find in sports fandom. You're telling me you think the majority of sports fans root for their team's rivals once their team is eliminated? Seriously?? I mean, it's ludicrous to think so. I don't care what the 20 people replying on this forum think; the far majority of sports fans hate their team's rivals. Do Boston fans root for the Yankees when the Red Sox are out? Do UNC fans show up to the final four when Duke is there wearing ACC shirts and cheering on the Blue Devils?

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

I repeat it because I think it's as close to fact as you are going to find in sports fandom. You're telling me you think the majority of sports fans root for their team's rivals once their team is eliminated? Seriously?? I mean, it's ludicrous to think so. I don't care what the 20 people replying on this forum think; the far majority of sports fans hate their team's rivals. Do Boston fans root for the Yankees when the Red Sox are out? Do UNC fans show up to the final four when Duke is there wearing ACC shirts and cheering on the Blue Devils?

UNC fans probably would root for some other ACC team over, say, a Big 12 team, if that ACC team isn't Duke. Harvard wasn't in the championship. Yale is not our Duke.

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

I repeat it because I think it's as close to fact as you are going to find in sports fandom. You're telling me you think the majority of sports fans root for their team's rivals once their team is eliminated? Seriously?? I mean, it's ludicrous to think so. I don't care what the 20 people replying on this forum think; the far majority of sports fans hate their team's rivals. Do Boston fans root for the Yankees when the Red Sox are out? Do UNC fans show up to the final four when Duke is there wearing ACC shirts and cheering on the Blue Devils?

Let's try a new angle. What are your favorite pro sports teams?

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

I repeat it because I think it's as close to fact as you are going to find in sports fandom. You're telling me you think the majority of sports fans root for their team's rivals once their team is eliminated? Seriously?? I mean, it's ludicrous to think so. I don't care what the 20 people replying on this forum think; the far majority of sports fans hate their team's rivals. Do Boston fans root for the Yankees when the Red Sox are out? Do UNC fans show up to the final four when Duke is there wearing ACC shirts and cheering on the Blue Devils?

UNC fans probably would root for some other ACC team over, say, a Big 12 team, if that ACC team isn't Duke. Harvard wasn't in the championship. Yale is not our Duke.

Every Ivy is inherently rivals with every other Ivy. At least, that is how every Cornell Hockey fan I have ever spoken to has looked at it. Granted, basically all of these people are students, but still. Given what Yale has done to us over the past six years, I see them as the biggest rival we have right now besides Harvard. This all is only amplified by the fact that none of us had won a championship in forever, and they got to do it before us. I highly doubt UNC fans are going to root for a team that has absolutely killed them in the biggest situations for so much of recent memory. Maybe most likely they won't care at all, but they certainly (for the most part) aren't actively rooting for them. Once again, I clearly don't speak for everyone, but I know a lot of sports fans and nearly all of them think the way I do. My argument here was that I was being singled out unfairly when the majority of people share my sentiments. And most importantly, I do not see this helping Cornell, but, as has been stated, this argument has been beaten to death.

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover

marty

BearLover

marty

BearLover
Before this season, the metric I used to determine whether a season was successful was whether Cornell made the tournament. Not anymore. After mother******* Yale won the national championship, I am not going to be happy unless Cornell wins it itself. So basically I am never going to be happy.

This makes me smile.

Oh? And why is that? You're happy with the majority of Cornell fans being miserable? Or is Yale your favorite hockey team?


EDIT: does this guy ever contribute anything valuable to any discussion?

Not because the majority of fans is miserable - I am only smiling at one miserable fan. Your post(s) remind me of discussions from the era of '72. (I graduated in '74.)

When Yale won it was mixed. I was happy for them and sick for us. Not as sick as in '73 and '03 but still truly sad.

So you aren't in favor of rooting against one of your team's biggest rivals, but you're perfectly fine rooting for a fellow Cornell fan's misery.

Depends on the fan.

Considering I speak for just about every sports fan I have ever met, I don't think it really depends on the fan.

billhoward
Which should bring you some measure of joy.

No? How badly can you possibly miss the point? Am I one of my favorite sports team's biggest rivals?

Well, this is definitely the repetition of a simple point that has finally convinced me! 19th time's the charm, I guess.

I repeat it because I think it's as close to fact as you are going to find in sports fandom. You're telling me you think the majority of sports fans root for their team's rivals once their team is eliminated? Seriously?? I mean, it's ludicrous to think so. I don't care what the 20 people replying on this forum think; the far majority of sports fans hate their team's rivals. Do Boston fans root for the Yankees when the Red Sox are out? Do UNC fans show up to the final four when Duke is there wearing ACC shirts and cheering on the Blue Devils?

UNC fans probably would root for some other ACC team over, say, a Big 12 team, if that ACC team isn't Duke. Harvard wasn't in the championship. Yale is not our Duke.

Every Ivy is inherently rivals with every other Ivy. At least, that is how every Cornell Hockey fan I have ever spoken to has looked at it. Granted, basically all of these people are students, but still. Given what Yale has done to us over the past six years, I see them as the biggest rival we have right now besides Harvard. This all is only amplified by the fact that none of us had won a championship in forever, and they got to do it before us. I highly doubt UNC fans are going to root for a team that has absolutely killed them in the biggest situations for so much of recent memory. Maybe most likely they won't care at all, but they certainly (for the most part) aren't actively rooting for them. Once again, I clearly don't speak for everyone, but I know a lot of sports fans and nearly all of them think the way I do. My argument here was that I was being singled out unfairly when the majority of people share my sentiments. And most importantly, I do not see this helping Cornell, but, as has been stated, this argument has been beaten to death.

There are rivalries and then there is how we feel about SUCKS. We should be clear about that, there is a difference. Yale has pretty much had their way with us over the last 5 or 6 years so, it is definitely a rivalry.

BearLover
Every Ivy is inherently rivals with every other Ivy. At least, that is how every Cornell Hockey fan I have ever spoken to has looked at it. Granted, basically all of these people are students, but still.

This is completely foreign to my experiences as a Cornell hockey fan. No one I have ever gone to a game with has every considered Brown, for instance, as a rival. When Princeton or Dartmouth were good for a while and were challenging us in the ECAC they never rose to the level of rival. Any more than I consider Union a rival now. They're a good team in the conference that we compete against. It's not the same. Will Yale grow into a big rival? Come back to me in ten years. If they've maintained the current level of success then maybe they will have.

Some of this is related to one's personal experience. If Yale has been at the top of the league throughout your entire experience as a Cornell hockey fan then they feel like a big rival to you in a way that a fan who mostly remembers Yale as middling to weak team through the years will not.

I think there is a lot of league loyalty in college sports. As someone else said, I can easily see a UNC fan rooting for another ACC team over a school from another conference. I see it all the time from Pac-12 fans where I live. USCHO provided ample evidence for it in college hockey.

Especially for an Ivy League fan, with our pretensions about being better than the jock schools because we don't give sholarships and have academic standards, it's easy to see why one might be happy seeing fellow conference members do well nationally. I'm not syaing you have to though.

As for pro sports, I've already told you that I rooted for the Red Sox in the '86 series though a lifelong Yankee fan. League loyalty in baseball has largely been eliminated though espeicaly since the leagues don't have much of a unique identity anymore.

KeithK
As for pro sports, I've already told you that I rooted for the Red Sox in the '86 series though a lifelong Yankee fan. League loyalty in baseball has largely been eliminated though espeicaly since the leagues don't have much of a unique identity anymore.

The American League still has the designated hitter.

(Glad I could remind you of that. )

Kyle Rose

KeithK
As for pro sports, I've already told you that I rooted for the Red Sox in the '86 series though a lifelong Yankee fan. League loyalty in baseball has largely been eliminated though espeicaly since the leagues don't have much of a unique identity anymore.

The American League still has the designated hitter.

(Glad I could remind you of that. )

Jerk!

KeithK

Kyle Rose

KeithK
As for pro sports, I've already told you that I rooted for the Red Sox in the '86 series though a lifelong Yankee fan. League loyalty in baseball has largely been eliminated though espeicaly since the leagues don't have much of a unique identity anymore.

The American League still has the designated hitter.

(Glad I could remind you of that. )

Jerk!

Characteristic

- I saw a bumper sticker being sold at Fenway Park many years back. It said "I love New York, too. It's the Yankees I hate."
- The week before the Eagles play the Cowboys, they sell t-shirts outside of Flyers and Sixers games that say "Dallas Sucks" or even "Fuck Dallas."
- I have a friend who's a Duke fan. She could never root for UNC under any circumstances. She has a t-shirt that says "My two favorite teams are Duke and whoever is playing North Carolina."
- Personally, as a Philadelphia sports fan, I could never root for the Rangers in hockey and any NFC East team in football (especially Dallas). Never gonna happen. Not if you paid me a million bucks.

THOSE are rivalries. What we have with Yale is irrelevant.

Jeff Hopkins '82
- The week before the Eagles play the Cowboys, they sell t-shirts outside of Flyers and Sixers games that say "Dallas Sucks" or even "Fuck Dallas."

The irony here is that the same shirts and bumper stickers are ubiquitous in Washington and probably East Rutherford.

Dallas and the Yankees are special cases. They are reviled nationally, not just locally. It's not just success, or the Lakers and Celtics would be too.

The best example of a purely local rivalry I can think of in pro sports is the Cardinas and Cubs. They generate as great animosity as any other pairing, it's mutual, and nobody else cares. There are dozens of college examples, usually some permutation of U of X vs X State.

We don't have anything like that in hockey. Our arch rival is Harvard but Harvard only cares about Yale. Even were it to become Yale, same issue. Let's not even mention BU. On the other side Colgate lives to destroy us while we don't even notice their existence.