Generic Off Season Thread

css228
But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

And adds 10+ minutes to the length of the game. Non-sudden death non-tv OT games would run 2:40 probably, which I don't think anyone is keen on seeing on a regular basis.

Chris '03

css228
But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

And adds 10+ minutes to the length of the game. Non-sudden death non-tv OT games would run 2:40 probably, which I don't think anyone is keen on seeing on a regular basis.

I was thinking of one sudden-death 20-minute OT period.

jtwcornell91

css228

Ben

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first. (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.) I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer. Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

"a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing" would make a lot of sense..

For me, if we can't make any other change, stop the 5-minute overtime nonsense. If a tie after 65 minutes is acceptable, Then grant them the tie after 60 minutes and sent everyone home earlier.

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

redice

jtwcornell91

css228

Ben

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first. (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.) I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer. Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

"a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing" would make a lot of sense..

For me, if we can't make any other change, stop the 5-minute overtime nonsense. If a tie after 65 minutes is acceptable, Then grant them the tie after 60 minutes and sent everyone home earlier.

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

Because then teams would just revert to playing those 5 minutes of not-to-lose-hockey during the last 5 minutes of regulation. At least with the 5 min OT, you get 60 minutes of good hockey first.

redice
Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up. I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties. Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie. (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.) Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Josh '99

redice
Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up. I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties. Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie. (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.) Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???

redice

Josh '99

redice
Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up. I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties. Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie. (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.) Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???

Frankly, I'm not sure it matters to anyone whether you favor ties or not. The question is: Why should it be a problem if two teams play 65 minutes of hockey and the game ends in a deserved tie? Why must one team have to win and the other lose?

Football worked that way for a hundred years and everyone seemed to survive. Now we have games decided through an arcane, contrived process (college) or a blatantly unfair process (NFL). What's the point, other than in elimination playoffs?

ugarte

Al DeFlorio

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

I'm with you, Rita. Even more so in lacrosse, where the ridiculous sudden-death resolution is simply dumb. In a sport where 20 scores is the norm and half the shots on goal go in, it's absurd to decide it on the first OT goal. Play eight or ten minutes, and most goals wins.

I love sudden death OT in lax. I see where you are coming from - and I'd think sudden death in basketball would be stupid for the same reason - but I can't get my mind to apply it to lacrosse.

In lacrosse, next-team-to-score-wins injects too much randomness into the outcome. In the NCAA title game in 1976, Cornell gave up the first goal in OT and scored the next four for a 16-13 win. Then there's the Syracuse game.

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Let's colorize "Knute Rockne: All American" and do a voiceover so Ronald Reagan-as-George-Gipp on his deathbed says, "Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and tie just one for the Gipper."

redice

Josh '99

redice
Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's. Both teams are playing to NOT lose. Which is boring hockey to watch. Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up. I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties. Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie. (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.) Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???

No, I'm just saying that maybe the problem seems worse to us because of it.

billhoward

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Let's colorize "Knute Rockne: All American" and do a voiceover so Ronald Reagan-as-George-Gipp on his deathbed says, "Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and tie just one for the Gipper."

css228

jtwcornell91

css228

Ben

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first. (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.) I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer. Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

Jim Hyla

css228

jtwcornell91

css228

Ben

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first. (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.) I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer. Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

I thought of that, too. More random things can happen to deflect the puck past the goalie. But on the way up ice to get in position to score, a smoother ice surface favors the attacking team getting the puck moved around so it can take a shot on goal.

KeithK
If shootouts and 4x4 OT are good ideas ask yourself why the NHL doesn't use them in the playoffs.

They're good enough for RS games in the NHL and they might be good for college hockey, too. 4x4 opens up the ice and might put a team of big lugs ("defense oriented"?) at a disadvantage.
Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout. I've I've been snoozing through an NHL game or watching it out of the corner of my eye, I settle in for the five-minute OT knowing 4x4 gives a bit more chance for a goal, and I'm riveted by the shootout.

billhoward
They're good enough for RS games in the NHL and they might be good for college hockey, too. 4x4 opens up the ice and might put a team of big lugs ("defense oriented"?) at a disadvantage.

The NHL overtime and shootout rules are gimmicks designed to get more highlights on SportsCenter. Play normal hockey for 60 minutes, if the scores are level, it's a tie.

billhoward
Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey. If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

Jim Hyla

css228

jtwcornell91

css228

Ben

Rita

billhoward

Jim Hyla
Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first. (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.) I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer. Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

I don't have stats to back it up, but my intuition says that while the effects in even strength play (more difficult to make crisp passes and pucks that won't sit flat) might equally effect the offense and the defense, on the power play, i think bad ice would disproportionately affect the offense, by making goal scoring chances more difficult. I've been looking for a study on this for quite a while and can't seem to find one.

Beeeej

billhoward
Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey. If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

Sometimes reducing the argument to the absurd proves a point but it doesn't work so well here. "[Pros] Hustle around the TV to see the shootout" means this is something that draws in the players themselves. Cornell might have to change its recruiting mix. We could still have a cadre of slow, lumbering ("defense-oriented" ) players so long as four or five of them can place the puck accurately. And if we're known for goaltending, then Cornell has an advantage in shootouts.

When I see Cornell go to a 5-minute OT now, I suspecting nothing much will happen in 5 minutes to change the score.

[enough quoting of quoted quotes]
There must be stats on goals scored per minute of the period. Each minute of a 20-minute period should have 5% of the goals scored. If the scoring falls off late in the period, it could be the choppy ice we believe hurts offense more than defense. It might also be tired players make mistakes later in the period but, by the same logic as the choppy ice, unless the tired offense has the precision to get into scoring position, the tired defender or choppy ice doesn't come into play affecting shots the sneak by the goalie. The first minute probably has fewer goals scored because the first 5-10 seconds starts at center ice and it takes 5-15 seconds to set up most scoring chances. The last has more goals if you count EAGs and ENGs.

[add] Actually, there is some research on scoring vs. time into the period from Journal of Qualitative Analysis in sports. It seems to say NHL goal scoring is random (wait, is "random" a word that has a really specific meaning to statistics freaks?) or evenly distributed except in the first and last minute. [hockeyanalytics.com] But I thought when I looked at the small charts about three pages in, showing goals by minute, there did seem to be a downward slope to the bars from minute 2 to minute 19. There also seemed to be more second-period goals. The author noted there are almost no power play goals in the first minute of the first period and hypothesized that you can't have a PPG until you have a penalty called. Slick deduction. The author is associated with Harvard. Is there an emoticon for invalid-on-its-face?

There's nothing wrong with ties. There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what? Short attention spans? Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution. If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

Trotsky
There's nothing wrong with ties. There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what? Short attention spans? Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution. If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

There's the opposite: Hockey gets too exciting, switch allegiances to curling.

Trotsky
There's nothing wrong with ties. There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what? Short attention spans? Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution. If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

Remember now, Al has already pointed out that he's "not sure it matters to anyone whether you favor ties or not." So, your first statement must be considered irrelevant.

But, I do like your workable compromise....Either of your suggestions would work for me. The 5 minute OT's, leading to the inevitable tie is just a ridiculous exercise. Just call it a tie after 60 minutes and send everyone home.

I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

Aaron M. Griffin
I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

Aaron M. Griffin

Aaron M. Griffin
I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

I thought half-shields were never being considered and they were thinking about 3/4 shields

billhoward
[enough quoting of quoted quotes]

I'm sorry, what?

[add] something something That entire paragraph about Qualitative Analysis blah blah blah

Ah. Yeah. That. [add] should be automatically appended to a lot of things.

I'm fine with ties. The end.

css228

Aaron M. Griffin

Aaron M. Griffin
I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

I thought half-shields were never being considered and they were thinking about 3/4 shields

That was my understanding too. I guess will we see tomorrow.

Also, Cornell Athletics responded to a comment of mine on Facebook that either news about the anticipated game against Michigan at MSG or Cornell's entire 2012-13 schedule will be announced "early next week at the latest."

Anything less than 13/16th shields is too dangerous.

billhoward

Beeeej

billhoward
Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey. If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

Sometimes reducing the argument to the absurd proves a point but it doesn't work so well here. "[Pros] Hustle around the TV to see the shootout" means this is something that draws in the players themselves.

I knew what it meant, Bill. Pros are just as prone to being drawn to watch spectacle as fans. The fact that they gather around to watch the shootout still doesn't mean they think it's a good way to resolve a hockey game. I think my post worked just fine here, but thanks for your concern.

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

Playing sound defense is also a skill. This is essentially deciding the outcome of a game by playing an entirely different game. Baseball doesn't decide tie games after 9 innings by pulling the players off the field and staging a HR derby. That's essentially what the shootout is.

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

It's "legitimate" because the governing body of the sport has installed it as the current method of deciding tie games in which overtime has not provided a resolution. Legitimacy does not preclude absurdity.

Hey, maybe when it comes time for medical students to take their board exams, they should be judged entirely on their skills in the differential diagnosis of syncope, and nothing else.

Aaron M. Griffin
So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism?

Because there is a choice (by the manager or the player) in whether to make the steal attempt. And the game doesn't entirely hinge on the outcome. Maybe they don't steal and the batter gets a hit. Maybe the runner is out but the batter hits a home run on the next pitch.

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

nyc94

Aaron M. Griffin
So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism?

Because there is a choice (by the manager or the player) in whether to make the steal attempt. And the game doesn't entirely hinge on the outcome. Maybe they don't steal and the batter gets a hit. Maybe the runner is out but the batter hits a home run on the next pitch.

In the bottom of the 9th, the runner got into position to steal home during the course of play, and with a runner on 3rd, stealing home is a legitimate option available to the team on offense.

Using it in extra innings/tie-breaking situations would require you to artificially set up a scenario to put the "stealing home skills" to the test, like ok, top of the 10th, we are going to give each team a runner at 3rd and 3 outs to get him to score. Kind of like college football's ot system in getting the ball at the 25 yd line and having 4 downs to score or advance 10 yds. Bogus.

ugarte

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

Yes, but it's so damned funny and almost inspired me to inquire: "With respect to ties, how could you possibly be fine with them but find them dissatisfying?". I just LOL'ed and forgot about it......

Aaron M. Griffin
Also, the NCHC was supposed to make some "big announcement" yesterday. I have not been able to find any reports of their announcement.

NCHC tournament to be held at the Target Center.

[www.uscho.com]

redice

ugarte

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

Yes, but it's so damned funny and almost inspired me to inquire: "With respect to ties, how could you possibly be fine with them but find them dissatisfying?". I just LOL'ed and forgot about it......

I think federal litigation in close cases should be resolved by which firm writes more comprehensible timesheets.

ugarte

redice

ugarte

Aaron M. Griffin

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games. In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

Yes, but it's so damned funny and almost inspired me to inquire: "With respect to ties, how could you possibly be fine with them but find them dissatisfying?". I just LOL'ed and forgot about it......

I think federal litigation in close cases should be resolved by which firm writes more comprehensible timesheets.

As long as state court disputes can still use the time honored coin flip.

Daily Sun article.

How long did that ban last? A year? A few games?

ugarte
How long did that ban last? A year? A few games?

I think I'll let someone else from that era answer.

Elaborate hoax if I remember correctly!!!

Larry72
Elaborate hoax if I remember correctly!!!

Exactly. There were I think two issues per year with satirical hoax stories. This one coincided with IFC Fall Weekend - at least that is what I remember. Spring weekend spawned a similar Sun.

I was once fooled in the other direction. On a Friday that began a less important weekend there was an article about the campus police spying on the students during anti-war demonstrations. I incorrectly thought that was satire.

RichH

billhoward
[enough quoting of quoted quotes]

I'm sorry, what?

[add] something something That entire paragraph about Qualitative Analysis blah blah blah

Ah. Yeah. That. [add] should be automatically appended to a lot of things.

I'm fine with ties. The end.

In most instances I have no problem with ties.

There are exceptions:

Beeeej

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities? Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

The best way to end a ballgame.

Larry72
Elaborate hoax if I remember correctly!!!

Here's how good the hoax was: I was SURE it was a hoax. I quickly googled to find the answer and the Cornell-Harvard rivalry wikipedia page memorializes the hoax as if it happened. I shrugged my shoulders and asked the question here EVEN THOUGH it was clear from the page that Ellenbas kept playing, so it couldn't have been true.

That's some quality hoaxin'.

CHN's take on rules changes reviewed here. Cages remain.

College Hockey News
Full cages were implemented in 1978 as a way to protect eyes and other serious facial injuries. It was not originally meant to protect against concussions, which weren't as prevalent at the time.

Perhaps concussions were more prevalent (less-protective helmets) and they weren't as well recognized.

Ahh, so that's what we're supposed to do with a 5 minute PP in an important playoff game.

ugarte
the Cornell-Harvard rivalry wikipedia page memorializes the hoax as if it happened.

Someone should fix that.

French Rage
Ahh, so that's what we're supposed to do with a 5 minute PP in an important playoff game.

yes... yes it is...

nyc94

ugarte
the Cornell-Harvard rivalry wikipedia page memorializes the hoax as if it happened.

Someone should fix that.

You're kidding, right? This is perfect.

French Rage
Ahh, so that's what we're supposed to do with a 5 minute PP in an important playoff game.

Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

ugarte

French Rage
Ahh, so that's what we're supposed to do with a 5 minute PP in an important playoff game.

Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

Maybe more along the lines of "Shoot the f**king puck!". Only without the asterisks.

ugarte
Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

I suspect it will be.

Trotsky

ugarte
Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

I suspect it will be.

Utley's was better.

I was hoping for a Devils' Stanley Cup, Brodeur retires in glory, and Parise maybe gets re-signed. Instead, the sum of the season is that a team that almost didn't make the playoffs loses to a team that almost didn't make the playoffs ... and Devils fans now have their own Bill Buckner.

billhoward
I was hoping for a Devils' Stanley Cup, Brodeur retires in glory, and Parise maybe gets re-signed. Instead, the sum of the season is that a team that almost didn't make the playoffs loses to a team that almost didn't make the playoffs ... and Devils fans now have their own Bill Buckner.

I think that's a gross overstatement. I know that having the Kings score three goals on them in a four-minute span might have taken a certain amount of wind out of the Devils' sails, but the Kings still scored three other times last night, to the Devils' one goal total. I don't think the major was the only difference in last night's game, and I don't think Bernier is going to be nearly as reviled as Buckner has been. I guess time will tell.

(Granted, those who actually remember what happened in game 6 in 1986 also know that Bill Buckner making that play merely would've ended the inning with the score tied, not ended the game with a Red Sox win - and that before Kevin Mitchell tied the score on Bob Stanley's wild pitch, there were about a dozen separate pitches on which the Sox could have won the World Series outright - so Buckner's not the best guy to blame either, he was just the most visible and obvious scapegoat.)

Beeeej

billhoward
I was hoping for a Devils' Stanley Cup, Brodeur retires in glory, and Parise maybe gets re-signed. Instead, the sum of the season is that a team that almost didn't make the playoffs loses to a team that almost didn't make the playoffs ... and Devils fans now have their own Bill Buckner.

I think that's a gross overstatement. I know that having the Kings score three goals on them in a four-minute span might have taken a certain amount of wind out of the Devils' sails, but the Kings still scored three other times last night, to the Devils' one goal total. I don't think the major was the only difference in last night's game, and I don't think Bernier is going to be nearly as reviled as Buckner has been. I guess time will tell.

But at least one of those 3 additional goals can probably be partially blamed on Bernier too. The 5th goal was an empty netter with 3:45 to go. If the Devils weren't down 3 goals at that point in the game, Brodeur probably still would have been in the net. And then on the 6th goal, to me it looked like the Devils had just given up. If we assume other than the 3 goals on the power play and the empty netter, everything would have happened the same way (yes I know that's a bit of a ridiculous assumption, but let's go with it for a minute), it would have been 1-1 with just a few minutes left in the game. Whether or not the Devils gave up on that last goal or not, it's still a close game (and if they did give up, they certainly wouldn't have with the game tied). So really Bernier takes more blame than it would initially appear. He very well could wind up as a Buckner figure.

I'm sure you'll see Buckner allusions from Devils fans who want a scapegoat and something to make the series memorable. Meanwhile in attempt at making the Devils the victims of uncalled LA infractions, the Newark Star-Ledger site is asking fans to vote on Which was the worst officiating moment of Game Six?. See, if the refs had called LA for maybe-boarding five seconds before Bernier's Andy Warhol moment, then the Devils wouldn't have gone into a funk, given up three goals, hit the crossbar when the penalty was over, and so really it wasn't their fault they lost. We're all victims here.

And we're almost at the point where the entire population that knows the name Bill Buckner believes he booted the ball in the bottom of the ninth of Game 7 that let the winning run score.

What a treat to have Mike Emrich calling the game. I think he said he'll be doing the Olympics, too. Water polo, I believe. Well, the kid has to start somewhere.

billhoward
And we're almost at the point where the entire population that knows the name Bill Buckner believes he booted the ball in the bottom of the ninth of Game 7 that let the winning run score.

I wonder, do more people believe that Bill Buckner let the winning run score in the bottom of the ninth in game seven, or that the U.S. victory over the U.S.S.R. in hockey in the 1980 Olympics won them the gold medal?

Beeeej

billhoward
And we're almost at the point where the entire population that knows the name Bill Buckner believes he booted the ball in the bottom of the ninth of Game 7 that let the winning run score.

I wonder, do more people believe that Bill Buckner let the winning run score in the bottom of the ninth in game seven, or that the U.S. victory over the U.S.S.R. in hockey in the 1980 Olympics won them the gold medal?

What about Ken Dryden leading the Cornell Big Red to its undefeated season?

billhoward
I'm sure you'll see Buckner allusions from Devils fans who want a scapegoat and something to make the series memorable. Meanwhile in attempt at making the Devils the victims of uncalled LA infractions, the Newark Star-Ledger site is asking fans to vote on Which was the worst officiating moment of Game Six?. See, if the refs had called LA for maybe-boarding five seconds before Bernier's Andy Warhol moment, then the Devils wouldn't have gone into a funk, given up three goals, hit the crossbar when the penalty was over, and so really it wasn't their fault they lost. We're all victims here.

The other thought I have on this issue - and then I'll leave it alone, as I have too much else to do - is that the Devils have won three Stanley Cups in the last twenty years. There's no "curse" that they were trying to overcome, no 78-year old drought in progress. I doubt the Devils' fans will give it nearly as much weight as the Red Sox's fans did.

Rita

Beeeej

billhoward
And we're almost at the point where the entire population that knows the name Bill Buckner believes he booted the ball in the bottom of the ninth of Game 7 that let the winning run score.

I wonder, do more people believe that Bill Buckner let the winning run score in the bottom of the ninth in game seven, or that the U.S. victory over the U.S.S.R. in hockey in the 1980 Olympics won them the gold medal?

What about Ken Dryden leading the Cornell Big Red to its undefeated season?

I was going to mention that, too, but there aren't nearly enough people who know about Cornell's undefeated season at all to make it a contender with the other two.

Beeeej
The other thought I have on this issue - and then I'll leave it alone, as I have too much else to do - is that the Devils have won three Stanley Cups in the last twenty years. There's no "curse" that they were trying to overcome, no 78-year old drought in progress. I doubt the Devils' fans will give it nearly as much weight as the Red Sox's fans did.

When someone posts something stupid, and they will, there's always time for a reply.

I don't feel bad about a team winning its first cup, or first title in a long-long time. It's part of

The Rule of Rooting When Your Team's Out

Root for the better team academically (the Ivy Rule).
Root for the team from your league, your region, your state.
Root for the team hasn't won in a long time.
Root for the team whose presence annoys the NCAA (e.g. Union being too small to be a proper D1 hockey power)
Root for teams with smoking hot cheerleaders (the Rule of SEC football schools)
Root for teams playing the team you can't stand
What else?
There is an exception to the Ivy Rule.

billhoward

Beeeej
The other thought I have on this issue - and then I'll leave it alone, as I have too much else to do - is that the Devils have won three Stanley Cups in the last twenty years. There's no "curse" that they were trying to overcome, no 78-year old drought in progress. I doubt the Devils' fans will give it nearly as much weight as the Red Sox's fans did.

When someone posts something stupid, and they will, there's always time for a reply.

I don't feel bad about a team winning its first cup, or first title in a long-long time. It's part of

The Rule of Rooting When Your Team's Out

Root for the better team academically (the Ivy Rule).
Root for the team from your league, your region, your state.
Root for the team hasn't won in a long time.
Root for the team whose presence annoys the NCAA (e.g. Union being too small to be a proper D1 hockey power)
Root for teams with smoking hot cheerleaders (the Rule of SEC football schools)
Root for teams playing the team you can't stand
What else?
There is an exception to the Ivy Rule.

These two contradict each other.

Beeeej

billhoward
And we're almost at the point where the entire population that knows the name Bill Buckner believes he booted the ball in the bottom of the ninth of Game 7 that let the winning run score.

I wonder, do more people believe that Bill Buckner let the winning run score in the bottom of the ninth in game seven, or that the U.S. victory over the U.S.S.R. in hockey in the 1980 Olympics won them the gold medal?

I like it on sites or shows where they correct people thinking that USSR was the gold medal game by saying that Finland was the gold medal game.

billhoward
Root for teams playing the team you can't stand

With the exception of rooting for the Kings because I wanted Gagne and Hexy to get a cup, this pretty much dictates my rooting once my team is out.

css228

Trotsky

ugarte
Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

I suspect it will be.

Utley's was better.

Meh. I prefer the spontaneous to the premeditated. But I'm biased, too.

billhoward
I'm sure you'll see Buckner allusions from Devils fans who want a scapegoat and something to make the series memorable.

I know a lot of Devils fans, and you're the only one who's making Bill Buckner comparisons. Maybe that's because neither the game situations (extra innings vs. first period) nor the historic scenarios (70-year drought vs. 3 titles in the last 20 years) were in any way comparable.

Josh '99

css228

Trotsky

ugarte
Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

I suspect it will be.

Utley's was better.

Meh. I prefer the spontaneous to the premeditated. But I'm biased, too.

If Dustin Brown had the equivalent of a Jayson Werth (as much as I dislike him, probably Jeff Carter) sitting behind him and jumping up fists in the air when he said it I'd agree. Either way I love it when athletes curse on live TV out of pure exuberance.

So will Dustin be bringing the Cup to Ithaca this summer?

Jordan 04
So will Dustin be bringing the Cup to Ithaca this summer?

He said he would on Leno last night.

css228

Josh '99

css228

Trotsky

ugarte
Dustin should come talk to the team when he's visiting family. Hopefully the advice will be better than "Shooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!"

I suspect it will be.

Utley's was better.

Meh. I prefer the spontaneous to the premeditated. But I'm biased, too.

If Dustin Brown had the equivalent of a Jayson Werth (as much as I dislike him, probably Jeff Carter) sitting behind him and jumping up fists in the air when he said it I'd agree. Either way I love it when athletes curse on live TV out of pure exuberance.

I agree, but then I'm also a firm believer in the George Carlin line of thinking that "bad words" are a silly concept.

Josh '99

billhoward
I'm sure you'll see Buckner allusions from Devils fans who want a scapegoat and something to make the series memorable.

I know a lot of Devils fans, and you're the only one who's making Bill Buckner comparisons. Maybe that's because neither the game situations (extra innings vs. first period) nor the historic scenarios (70-year drought vs. 3 titles in the last 20 years) were in any way comparable.

It was also a different sport, it happened on the road, etcetera. The common thread was that it was a monumental error and it was a turning point of the game and the outcome of the championship. Google, the lazy person's way to prove a point, shows 23,000 hits on "steve bernier bill buckner," so maybe it's not an isolated thought. Here's one Devils fan [www.nj.com]:

Steve Politi, Newark Star-Ledger
Wherever he goes, the replay will follow him [Bernier] the way Bill Buckner has forever watched that baseball bounce under his glove. He was charging down the ice 10 minutes into the game, sizing up Kings defenseman Rob Scuderi for a hit along the boards.

Beeeej
(Granted, those who actually remember what happened in game 6 in 1986 also know that Bill Buckner making that play merely would've ended the inning with the score tied, not ended the game with a Red Sox win - and that before Kevin Mitchell tied the score on Bob Stanley's wild pitch, there were about a dozen separate pitches on which the Sox could have won the World Series outright - so Buckner's not the best guy to blame either, he was just the most visible and obvious scapegoat.)

billhoward
Google, the lazy person's way to prove a point, shows 23,000 hits on "steve bernier bill buckner," so maybe it's not an isolated thought.

Accounting for your authoring 22,000 of them, it's still pretty negligible.

This came across my twitter-feed earlier. Minnesota, like most B1G schools, invests a lot of time in media surrounding its programs. So, they've been counting down the top-ten goals of the last season. This led me to two ideas.

Why does not Cornell do something similar? It does not involve much time. The video edits and collection would take no more than half an hour. That is assuming the worst case scenario. I think it would be interesting to produce a series of these with Arthur Mintz. He narrated the Cornell-Providence Hockey 1979 Quarterfinal video, so it seems not outside the realm of possibilities.

The second idea was which goals would we include on such a list for the 2011-12 season for Cornell hockey. My rough idea of which goals I would put in the top ten are:

10. Gotovets's goal against Yale at Ingalls
9. D'Agostino's goals against Sucks at Bright
8. Miller's goal against Union at Lynah
7. McCarron's goal against Colgate in the ECAC Consolation Game
6. Jillson's goal against BU at Red Hot Hockey
5. Mowrey's goal against Ferris State in NCAA Regional Final
4. Craig's goal against Union at Lynah
3. Whitney's OT-winning goal against Dartmouth in ECAC Quarterfinal Game 1
2. McCarron's goal against Michigan in NCAA Regional Semifinal
1. Craig's OT-winning goal against Michigan in NCAA Regional Semifinal

Aaron M. Griffin
Why does not Cornell do something similar? It does not involve much time. The video edits and collection would take no more than half an hour. That is assuming the worst case scenario. I think it would be interesting to produce a series of these with Arthur Mintz. He narrated the Cornell-Providence Hockey 1979 Quarterfinal video, so it seems not outside the realm of possibilities.

It doesn't involve much of your time. I suspect Minnesota has a slightly larger Sports Information staff than Cornell does.

Tom Lento

Beeeej
(Granted, those who actually remember what happened in game 6 in 1986 also know that Bill Buckner making that play merely would've ended the inning with the score tied, not ended the game with a Red Sox win - and that before Kevin Mitchell tied the score on Bob Stanley's wild pitch, there were about a dozen separate pitches on which the Sox could have won the World Series outright - so Buckner's not the best guy to blame either, he was just the most visible and obvious scapegoat.)

Age, can you bring back the +1?

Beeeej

Aaron M. Griffin
Why does not Cornell do something similar? It does not involve much time. The video edits and collection would take no more than half an hour. That is assuming the worst case scenario. I think it would be interesting to produce a series of these with Arthur Mintz. He narrated the Cornell-Providence Hockey 1979 Quarterfinal video, so it seems not outside the realm of possibilities.

It doesn't involve much of your time. I suspect Minnesota has a slightly larger Sports Information staff than Cornell does.

Cornell U probably has better video editing skills than us duffers here. But if someone here did it, the intro would not be the Big Red Bear-head rotating, bobbing and weaving for 30 seconds.

We could do an April 1 video showing 10 Cornell breakaways as the player crosses the blue line, the view from the camera obscured by heads, the sound of the crowd erupting, and the Big Red Bear returning with "Goal!" overlaid.

Tom Lento

Beeeej
(Granted, those who actually remember what happened in game 6 in 1986 also know that Bill Buckner making that play merely would've ended the inning with the score tied, not ended the game with a Red Sox win - and that before Kevin Mitchell tied the score on Bob Stanley's wild pitch, there were about a dozen separate pitches on which the Sox could have won the World Series outright - so Buckner's not the best guy to blame either, he was just the most visible and obvious scapegoat.)

Broad cultural ramifications:


video: [www.youtube.com]

[www.hockeyjournal.com]

Hockey Journal
After 12 seasons behind the bench, Don “Toot” Cahoon (Lynn, Mass.) is stepping down from his position as head coach of the UMass men’s hockey team. ... "Through the course of our recent conversations, coach Cahoon and I mutually agreed that it would be in the program's best interest for him to take this action at this time," [athletic director JOhn] McCutcheon said. During his dozen seasons in Amherst, Cahoon compiled a 166-225-42 record. His 166 wins are the most in program history. Cahoon’s best season came back in 2006-07, when the Minutemen were led by this year’s Conn Smythe winner and Stanley Cup champion with the L.A. Kings, Jonathan Quick (Hamden, Conn.), and finished with a 21-13-5 record. The sophomore netminder helped UMass reach the second round in their first-ever trip to the NCAA tournament.

13-18-5 last year

billhoward
[www.hockeyjournal.com]

Hockey Journal
After 12 seasons behind the bench, Don “Toot” Cahoon (Lynn, Mass.) is stepping down from his position as head coach of the UMass men’s hockey team. ... "Through the course of our recent conversations, coach Cahoon and I mutually agreed that it would be in the program's best interest for him to take this action at this time," [athletic director JOhn] McCutcheon said. During his dozen seasons in Amherst, Cahoon compiled a 166-225-42 record. His 166 wins are the most in program history. Cahoon’s best season came back in 2006-07, when the Minutemen were led by this year’s Conn Smythe winner and Stanley Cup champion with the L.A. Kings, Jonathan Quick (Hamden, Conn.), and finished with a 21-13-5 record. The sophomore netminder helped UMass reach the second round in their first-ever trip to the NCAA tournament.

13-18-5 last year

And 6-23-6 the year before. 12 years, 3 winning seasons. 1 NCAA appearance, courtesy of one Mr. J. Quick. With the the face of HEA altering slightly after this season, it was probably a good time for a break.

Entere=RichH]

billhoward
[www.hockeyjournal.com]

Hockey Journal
After 12 seasons behind the bench, Don “Toot” Cahoon (Lynn, Mass.) is stepping down from his position as head coach of the UMass men’s hockey team. ... "Through the course of our recent conversations, coach Cahoon and I mutually agreed that it would be in the program's best interest for him to take this action at this time," [athletic director JOhn] McCutcheon said. During his dozen seasons in Amherst, Cahoon compiled a 166-225-42 record. His 166 wins are the most in program history. Cahoon’s best season came back in 2006-07, when the Minutemen were led by this year’s Conn Smythe winner and Stanley Cup champion with the L.A. Kings, Jonathan Quick (Hamden, Conn.), and finished with a 21-13-5 record. The sophomore netminder helped UMass reach the second round in their first-ever trip to the NCAA tournament.

13-18-5 last year

And 6-23-6 the year before. 12 years, 3 winning seasons. 1 NCAA appearance, courtesy of one Mr. J. Quick. With the the face of HEA altering slightly after this season, it was probably a good time for a break.[/quote]

Toot needs a hug.

Has there been any news on this front?

John Foote ’74, who wrote Touchdown: The Story of the Cornell Bear, wants to build a monument on campus to honor the original four Touchdowns — black bear cubs that were brought to Cornell beginning in 1915.

From Cornellians Push for Bear’s Place on Campus

A group of Cornell alumni have proposed building a statue to commemorate Touchdown the Bear -- Cornell's unofficial mascot -- by 2015

From Burning Question: Touchdown the Bear

RichH

billhoward
[www.hockeyjournal.com]

Hockey Journal
After 12 seasons behind the bench, Don “Toot” Cahoon (Lynn, Mass.) is stepping down from his position as head coach of the UMass men’s hockey team. ... "Through the course of our recent conversations, coach Cahoon and I mutually agreed that it would be in the program's best interest for him to take this action at this time," [athletic director JOhn] McCutcheon said. During his dozen seasons in Amherst, Cahoon compiled a 166-225-42 record. His 166 wins are the most in program history. Cahoon’s best season came back in 2006-07, when the Minutemen were led by this year’s Conn Smythe winner and Stanley Cup champion with the L.A. Kings, Jonathan Quick (Hamden, Conn.), and finished with a 21-13-5 record. The sophomore netminder helped UMass reach the second round in their first-ever trip to the NCAA tournament.

13-18-5 last year

And 6-23-6 the year before. 12 years, 3 winning seasons. 1 NCAA appearance, courtesy of one Mr. J. Quick. With the the face of HEA altering slightly after this season, it was probably a good time for a break.

"Despite reports that he was leaving to take the head coach position at Massachusetts, Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold is staying put, a source close to the situation said Monday."

[www.uscho.com]

nyc94

RichH

billhoward
[www.hockeyjournal.com]

Hockey Journal
After 12 seasons behind the bench, Don “Toot” Cahoon (Lynn, Mass.) is stepping down from his position as head coach of the UMass men’s hockey team. ... "Through the course of our recent conversations, coach Cahoon and I mutually agreed that it would be in the program's best interest for him to take this action at this time," [athletic director JOhn] McCutcheon said. During his dozen seasons in Amherst, Cahoon compiled a 166-225-42 record. His 166 wins are the most in program history. Cahoon’s best season came back in 2006-07, when the Minutemen were led by this year’s Conn Smythe winner and Stanley Cup champion with the L.A. Kings, Jonathan Quick (Hamden, Conn.), and finished with a 21-13-5 record. The sophomore netminder helped UMass reach the second round in their first-ever trip to the NCAA tournament.

13-18-5 last year

And 6-23-6 the year before. 12 years, 3 winning seasons. 1 NCAA appearance, courtesy of one Mr. J. Quick. With the the face of HEA altering slightly after this season, it was probably a good time for a break.

"Despite reports that he was leaving to take the head coach position at Massachusetts, Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold is staying put, a source close to the situation said Monday."

[www.uscho.com]

Seems UMass offered and Quinnipiac countered to keep him.

Cornell's press release on incoming class.

Jim Hyla
Cornell's press release on incoming class.

Wow, we got a few trees in there!

Jim Hyla
Cornell's press release on incoming class.

Is it just me or do Finns have the coolest names?

Roy 82

Jim Hyla
Cornell's press release on incoming class.

Is it just me or do Finns have the coolest names?

Dibs on the Tiitinen jersey.

There's going to be at least one update to that list of incoming freshmen. It looks like Vince Marozzi has signed with Asiago HC of the Italian League.

[eurohockey.com]

3 weeks ago I put pen to paper. Very excited to join Asiago HC next season! Looks like I'll have to brush up on my Italian. #buongiorno

— Vincenzo Marozzi (@VinnyPaolo01) July 3, 2012

[asiagohockeynews.blogspot.com]

I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Also, Ferlin standing out at the Bruins development camp:
[www.csnne.com]

pfibiger
I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Very interesting. Gillam is the second-oldest of the non-Fall prospects (after Woody). He turns 20 in September and is almost 2 years younger than Willcox and Stoick.

This in turn sets up the recruiting for the next goaltending "blue chippah" for Fall 2014 rather than 2015. And on the wheels turn.

Trotsky

pfibiger
I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Very interesting. Gillam is the second-oldest of the non-Fall prospects (after Woody). He turns 20 in September and is almost 2 years younger than Willcox and Stoick.

This in turn sets up the recruiting for the next goaltending "blue chippah" for Fall 2014 rather than 2015. And on the wheels turn.

Marty Brodeur's son, Anthony, a senior goalie, wants to play in college. Which schools interest him? "All of them," his HS coach told me.

— Matt Slovin (@MattSlovin) July 9, 2012

What better school is there for a goalie to attend than Cornell? Anthony Brodeur will be a senior at Shattuck-St. Mary's during the 2012-13 season.

Aaron M. Griffin

Trotsky

pfibiger
I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Very interesting. Gillam is the second-oldest of the non-Fall prospects (after Woody). He turns 20 in September and is almost 2 years younger than Willcox and Stoick.

This in turn sets up the recruiting for the next goaltending "blue chippah" for Fall 2014 rather than 2015. And on the wheels turn.

Marty Brodeur's son, Anthony, a senior goalie, wants to play in college. Which schools interest him? "All of them," his HS coach told me.

— Matt Slovin (@MattSlovin) July 9, 2012

What better school is there for a goalie to attend than Cornell? Anthony Brodeur will be a senior at Shattuck-St. Mary's during the 2012-13 season.

Is that Uncle Daddy's son with his first wife, or from after he cheated on her with her sister-in-law and then married her?

(From the "realism instead of vitriol" department, a blue chip recruit attending Shattuck isn't all that likely to wind up at Cornell.)

Josh '99

Aaron M. Griffin

Trotsky

pfibiger
I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Very interesting. Gillam is the second-oldest of the non-Fall prospects (after Woody). He turns 20 in September and is almost 2 years younger than Willcox and Stoick.

This in turn sets up the recruiting for the next goaltending "blue chippah" for Fall 2014 rather than 2015. And on the wheels turn.

Marty Brodeur's son, Anthony, a senior goalie, wants to play in college. Which schools interest him? "All of them," his HS coach told me.

— Matt Slovin (@MattSlovin) July 9, 2012

What better school is there for a goalie to attend than Cornell? Anthony Brodeur will be a senior at Shattuck-St. Mary's during the 2012-13 season.

Is that Uncle Daddy's son with his first wife, or from after he cheated on her with her sister-in-law and then married her?

(From the "realism instead of vitriol" department, a blue chip recruit attending Shattuck isn't all that likely to wind up at Cornell.)

Yeah... I couldn't root for a Broduer.

css228

Josh '99

Aaron M. Griffin

Trotsky

pfibiger
I imagine this means Mitch Gillam will accelerate and come in this year instead of next (assuming he's already been admitted and deferred).

Very interesting. Gillam is the second-oldest of the non-Fall prospects (after Woody). He turns 20 in September and is almost 2 years younger than Willcox and Stoick.

This in turn sets up the recruiting for the next goaltending "blue chippah" for Fall 2014 rather than 2015. And on the wheels turn.

Marty Brodeur's son, Anthony, a senior goalie, wants to play in college. Which schools interest him? "All of them," his HS coach told me.

— Matt Slovin (@MattSlovin) July 9, 2012

What better school is there for a goalie to attend than Cornell? Anthony Brodeur will be a senior at Shattuck-St. Mary's during the 2012-13 season.

Is that Uncle Daddy's son with his first wife, or from after he cheated on her with her sister-in-law and then married her?

(From the "realism instead of vitriol" department, a blue chip recruit attending Shattuck isn't all that likely to wind up at Cornell.)

Yeah... I couldn't root for a Broduer.

Really. You couldn't? You would root for Cornell to lose then, because of some relation? What if he's a great kid? And a talented player?