WTF???

in the East...

1. Cornell
2. BC
3. OSU
4. MSU-Mankato.


That's ridiculous...

Yeah, the #1 seed didn't get us anything special. All I can say is. . . . bring it on.

So, being the number one team we get to play the highest ranked 4th seed and (potentially) a team that has a neutral site victory over us or the highest ranked 2nd seed at a regional that is not the closest to us.

Hey selection commitee:

Well, i wanted providence... but not exactly like this.

Still, i'm purchasing tickets for the Sunday game tomorrow. They WILL beat Minn St, right?

Actually, we got the lower of the two WCHA 4-seeds, since SCSU wins the comparison with Mankato once the bonus points are figured in. I presume they put us in the bracket with BC instead of Maine or BU to make up for that.

Wow was Schafer ever holding back in that interview!!!!.....all I could think when I saw those brackets was "Kill Schafer Kill, Kill Schafer Kill"

on espn.com's frozen four predictions, two picked cornell to win it all.
but not adam wodon...

the page is here: [espn.go.com]

I was thinking the same thing: We got totally screwed. I would say we likely have the toughest draw in the entire tourny, and yet, we're the #1 seed? What the hell? Isn't the whole idea for the best team to get the easiest draw? In all honesty, I'd swap with Harvard in an instant...I think they have an easier draw, and truly, probably just as tough a first round.

Jordan

You guys are showing a lot of class.
I'm incredibly pissed.

Anybody know the email addresses for the committee?

Folks
Here you go.

Just picked the UMASS AD email off the UMASS web site. Chair of the commiitee.


ianmccaw@admin.umass.edu

[Q]Anybody know the email addresses for the committee? [/Q]
Yes , but it wouldn't do much good now. Honestly guys, they had no choice.

Minn & CC are #1s. MSU and SCSU are #4s. They *can't* play each other by the guidelines, unless absolutely necessary, so MSU and SCSu had to come East. They gave us MSU, who's the lower of the two, and they gave us the easiest #2, BC in the 2nd round to make up for it. That move, btw, pissed of Maine, who has to go west. So they pissed off Maine to piss us off a bit less, they tried, and did what they could within the rules.

I guarantee they'll be dialog this summer about what we want the rules to be... again .

In the meantime, if we can't beat a team of MSU's stature, then we weren't going too far anyways. Fine, give us a test, it'll be a great game.

This is the committees attempt at an "objective" selection process. . .the best team should not be getting rewarded with playing the lowest seed. Instead they decided to go with the "subjective" attitude. . .the seeds mean absolutely nothing and we're going to avoid match-ups in the first round.
WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE THOSE A$$HOLES ON??? I am SO pissed right now. . .I'm having trouble typing this.

I understand us getting Mankato. The rules never said that 1 gets 16, just that 1-4 gets 13-16 and no conference matchups. With 5 WCHA schools, the only way to avoid was to have a WCHA come to Cornell's bracket.

Why Cornell's bracket couldn't have been in Worcester and thus cheaper and also avoiding the second round BU-UNH, I don't know.

I agree with DeltaOne.

You win a championship by beating the good teams. If we are a national championshio team, then we sure as **** can beat a team like Mankato.

Instead of bitching, we should welcome the challenge of a tough #4 seed. At least it'll stop the UND assholes from whining about how easy we have it.

Did the mysterious bonus point values get stated anywhere? Or is that still a secret so we can be just as mystified next season?

The only complaint I have with the "by the numbers" excuse is that St. Cloud should have been a 3 seed, not a 4 seed. The only reason they're behind OSU in the PWR is that they lose the comparison to Dartmouth. Why should a comparison of SCSU with Dartmouth according to the selection criteria have anything to do with whether SCSU or Ohio State or Harvard is a 3 or 4 seed, when Dartmouth's not even in the tournament? At this point, I think the committee has to admit they've abandoned the idea of individual pairwise comparisons and are just using the PWR (which was not the case in the past). And if they're just trying to get a 1-29 ordering of all the TUCs, why not drop PWR altogether and go to some method that actually gives them a straight ordering?

Also, they didn't go by the numbers when it came to putting the top four teams in order in the closest regional. (Although I think that was done to make up for putting too strong a 4-seed in our bracket.)

At least we don't have to worry about the team overlooking the first round. They should be fired up to prove their talent on big stage.

[q]At least it'll stop the UND assholes from whining about how easy we have it.[/q]

And that's all that matters...

at the end of the day, why wasn't the rpi "bonus" system mentioned (better yet, explained) at all during the selection show? it seems to me that the brackets as drawn could very well be predicted by the "unmodified rpi."

let's go red.

I'm disappointed, but I am not surprised or angry. We knew going in that avoiding conference matchups in the first round was mandatory. We got the right draw under the rules as they drew them up.

But they have to get rid of the conference matchup rule. There are not enough conferences or bids to allow the committee to reconcile so many conflicting rules and preferences. The dramatic difference between #14 and #15 gives deep conferences an unfair advantage in the first round of the tournament. This would be just as much a ripoff if BU finished #4 and the #13 and 14 teams were Providence and UMass.

I've got my tickets to Providence, so I will just enjoy the games.



Post Edited (03-23-03 19:07)

Guys:

We all knew this would be a possibility. Get over it. Move on. Bring 'em on.

Now to talk about Mankato. They got hot late in the year but they are inconsistent. Sure they can beat the elite of the WCHA, but they've tied Bemidji, Omaha, and lost to Providence twice. One encouraging thing is they give up a lot of goals. One more thing in our favor. They play on a big rink. The Dunk is an NHL rink. That's one for us.

LGR!!!!

Jordan Steele '01 wrote:
In all honesty, I'd swap with Harvard in an instant...I think they have an easier draw, and truly, probably just as tough a first round.

More relevantly, I'd swap with UNH just as quickly.

I was down at the Boatyard for all of this, and the mood among the team was more of confusion than anger. I saw many of the guys sitting next to Schafer asking him about this team. The look on his face during the commerical said it all, though. He was looking straight ahead shaking his head. The ridiculous answers from the committee on ESPN basically prove that the objectivity of the process is flawed. My problem is that host teams get both the $$ benefits of national exposure AND a possible home game. A good percentage of teams can never be a host - would a Cornell hosted regional be in Syracuse? If anything-the host team should be EXCLUDED like in basketball.

[q]"Why Cornell's bracket couldn't have been in Worcester and thus cheaper and also avoiding the second round BU-UNH, I don't know."[/q]

Good point, but second round matchups were "not considered" is what I thought I heard.

Regardless, the scouting process will be the same. MSU will also have travel and a time change to worry about for the afternoon game. Does anyone know what size rink they play on-and how big Dunkin Donuts' surface is? I can't wait to see Doug and Charlie clogging up the blue line again.

The Providence rink is 200x85.

The Midwest Wireless Civic Center is 200x100(!).

All else aside, the bracket isn't as terrible as it looks. Yeah Mankato is going to be rough. Other than the tournament, the last time they lost to someone other than CC was November. Then again, they've tied some pretty poor teams as well, so they're a wildcard. I think the one thing that they haven't faced, is a very physical, very talented defensive team. Yeah, they beat CC, in a shootout. Look at their scores, they are almost all offense. If our defense can hold them down, they won't be able to do a damned thing. One thing peopel, especially the arrogant asses over on USCHO's boards forget is that the ECAC has some of the most stifling defense and goaltending around. There's no way in hell Mankato's going to be able to post it's usual numbers against any of them, especially us.

As for BC and Ohio. I might be wrong here, but at a cursory glance, Ohio has won -one- game against a team in the tournament. ONE. And that was us, in Florida, with Marr in the net. Marr did an excellent job, only letting in one goal, but there's no way in hell anybody can say that team was the same one that'll be playing in Providence.

BC is still missing Eaves, and make no mistake about it, they could give us a fight, but in the last month and a half, the only teams they've beaten are Merrimack, and our favorite nose-diver, Maine. They give BU a fight the same way Dartmouth's been giving us a fight. I think the bracket sucks, and I'd definitely be happier if we were to be swapped with UNH, but I hardly believe this isn't anything we could concievably roll right if we stay focused and concentrate on shutting down other team's (Mankato especially) offense.

[Q] Yeah, the #1 seed didn't get us anything special. All I can say is. . . . bring it on. [/Q]
This is the best post in response to the teams we drew. I'm with you Tom!

Regarding Ohio State:

On the positive side, we beat them on their home ice early in the season.

On the negative side, although the score was close in Florida, they really outplayed us. It looked like we were on our heels almost the entire game. We couldn't get any offense going. Perhaps it was just a let down from our well-played game against Maine the previous day, but it didn't look good.

Still, that was a while ago. The games should be good. I can't wait!

LOOK, THEY WERE LAST IN PK AND 8TH IN TEAM D.
THEY HAVE 2 PLAYERS THAT CAN SCORE BUT THEY HAVE NOT PLAYED A D ANYTHING LIKE OURS.
WE WILL BE ABLE TO SCORE ON THEM!

LGR

I agree with those who have said that while our first game is more of a challenge than we deserve, I believe the potential second round game would be more favorable for us than the projected matchups in the other regions.

One other thing about Mankato is that they rotate their two goalies, Volp and Jensen. I have no idea who will start next Saturday, but either one looks like a big sieve (GAA: 2.89 and 3.54; SV%: .914 and 0.888, respectively) when compared to LeNeveu...

Well, the WCHA is like the QMJHL, making a Canadian Junior Hockey comparison

Basically, it is a high scoring league where goalies are plastered every night (See Mankato's 9-6 victory over CC) and scorer's stats are inflated. Let's see how Mankato handles smaller ice, a stifling d, and the best goalie in the country.

My point here was not the second round matchup as the Committee never put that in writing and it's next to impossible to achieve. I meant that the Committee could have avoided a repeat of the HE conference championship game until the Frozen Four as was done with the other three major conferences.

It's nice to see as this thread moves along that once most of us got the frustration out, we look at what needs to be done against MSU-Mankato to WIN. MSU_Mankato seems to be dominated by a run and gun offense, defenseman who don't know what to do in the defensive zone, and only OK goalies that are left hung out to dry a lot of the time. Some other facts:

- Their top scorer is 5-9 170lbs - Interesting fodder for Murray and McRae.
- After their top two scorers, the next guy has about 1/2 the points and scoring drops off from there.
- Their best goalie has a GAA that would place #8 in the ECAC at 2.89.
- Their goalie who has played the most games has a GAA that is BELOW the ECAC goalie Stat Chart on USCHO, a mere 3.54.
- Yes, the beat CC 9-6. But they got blown out 8-1 the night before.
- They have one shutout all season.

It wouldn't surprise me that people out there are looking at CU's stats, especially our out of conference stats and thinking...does Cornell ever give up more than 2 goals? Not this year. And what about those 9 shutouts. And 4 lines who can score.

We'll see you all in Providence! LGR!!!

ok. since the bracketing is done, it is time to have some fun with fan polls. found the following and admittedly stuffed it a bit. Cornell was the overwhelming pick to be the first #1 to lose and the East the overwhelming "easiest" bracket. had to improve the %'s somewhat.

[proxy.espn.go.com]

The East now has received the most votes for being both the easiest and toughest region.

An interesting statistic- Goal Differential by period.

The Mavs are -12 in the 1st, +11 in the 2nd, and +14 in the 3rd.
By contrast Cornell is +30, +33, and +17.

At this moment, the front page of ESPN's college page has a picture of Lenny and a bunch of links to articles about the NCAA tourney, including one highlighting how Cornell did not get rewarded for its no. 1 overall rating:
[sports.espn.go.com]

ianmccaw@admin.umass.edu

I've seen some comments on the USCHO page that Mankato lacks depth, they run long shifts, and don't go more than 2 lines deep, really. Since we're physical, this should be a big problem for the Mavericks. Also, their number one goalie got pulled in the consy yesterday. Could mean some trouble (or just a lack of focus in the consy).

Also - Record at home (Olympic Ice): 15-2-3
Record on the Road: 5-6-6

This ain't a home game for them...

not to get away from the analysis, but here is an article on the selections and seedings:
[espn.go.com]

On the above mentioned front page, they state that Colorado College is the nation's top team. I guess they don't check the pairwise rankings as often as we do....



Post Edited (03-23-03 23:50)

unless they are referring to poll rankings ...

Moy's rather lucid explaination of how the brackets worked out, and the first post-announcement mention of the "bonus points" on USCHO:

[www.uscho.com]

I agree completely! Let's show those other arrogant programs just how good we are! When we get to the frozen four through 2 "real" teams, then people will know why we're number one!

Tho I think we were all a bit upset initiallly about the brackets I am glad that we all are now calmer, simply looking forward to the games and expecting the best outcome. This quote from the Sun says a lot and I only hope that the extra confidence pays off!

Three Cornell seniors -- Bâby, Murray, and defenseman Travis Bell -- and Harvard's Moore, Brendan Bernakevich, and Grumet-Morris joined Brown's Yann Danis on the ECAC All-Tournament Team, with LeNeveu taking top honors. Although grateful to be named the most valuable player, LeNeveu was more focused on the team's success.

"It's a great feeling," he said of his award, "but the number one reason why we came here was to win this championship ...

"It's rewarding knowing that all our hard work is finally paying off, but we're still not done. We're still going on to the NCAA championship, and we're going to the Frozen Four."



Copyright © 2003 by The Cornell Daily Sun

is anyone else having problems getting to any link from, this page (ie. Wodon's commitee controversy article) and ESPN in general or is my browser just being a fussy overreacting brat?

ianmccaw@admin.umass.edu
wayne.dean@yale.edu
dillont@canisius.edu
rgrahame@du.edu
rhmason@msu.edu
frank.serratore@usafa.af.mil



Post Edited (03-24-03 08:26)

People,

Please don't barrage the committee with incoherent rantings (or subscribe them to pornographic mailing lists). The last thing we should want is to look like a bunch of raving [insert least favorite Hockey East school here] fans.

We got a bad draw thanks to the procedure the committee was following, which said:

* Teams ranked 13-16 in the PWR have to be 4 seeds
and
* Teams from the same conference can't play in the first round

They seeded teams by overall ranking as much as possible within that, but they didn't feel they could depart from either of those. The stupid part of that was that the "banding", which was supposed to ensure "competitive equity", actually forced them to pair the #1 team with the #14 team and not with the much weaker #28 or #29 teams.

The way in which they screwed up was not noticing that there was a way out of the whole thing, since if they'd looked only at pairwise comparisons between tournament teams and not the total PWR (which has certainly been the case in the past), St. Cloud would have been #12 and there would only have been one WCHA team as a 4 seed. So it would perhaps have been a lot more useful to send them an email Saturday night pointing this out.

For what it's worth, we got an easier draw than we deserved last year. We were the last at-large bid, #10 overall, and we got to play the #23 team. Going by seedings, the #5 or #6 team should have earned that.

John T. Whelan '91 wrote:
The way in which they screwed up was not noticing that there was a way out of the whole thing, since if they'd looked only at pairwise comparisons between tournament teams and not the total PWR (which has certainly been the case in the past), St. Cloud would have been #12 and there would only have been one WCHA team as a 4 seed.

John, I want to be sure what it is you're saying has "been the case in the past," because it's somewhat ambiguous in your posting. Have they used "total PWR" in the past, or only "comparisons between tournament teams?"

And do their published guidelines specify clearly which approach is supposed to be used, or is that left ambiguous--in which case, they've given themselves considerable room for "subjectivity?"

And, in any case, with 16 teams now in the tournament, the first-round-intraconference-matchup-avoidance rule should be canned. As they now ignore regular season conference finish and conference tournament placement (other than the champs) in choosing the field--much to Keith's and my displeasure--they should ignore conference affiliation in seeding it.



Post Edited (03-24-03 09:54)

Al DeFlorio wrote:
And, in any case, with 16 teams now in the tournament, the first-round-intraconference-matchup-avoidance rule should be canned. As they now ignore regular season conference finish and conference tournament placement (other than the champs) in choosing the field--much to Keith's and my displeasure--they should ignore conference affiliation in seeding it.

I am not terribly concerned about whether conference finish and conference tournament affect either bids or seeding. I am comfortable with a system in which conference results are used for conference tournament seeding, but all games are equally relevant for the NCAAs.

On the other hand, I agree with you that having the committee avoid interconference matchups as a rule, rather than a preference, is a terrible mistake. When there are only 4 decent conferences, and only two are deep enough to have this problem, avoiding interconference matchups presents an unfair bias in favor of WCHA and Hockey East. It is exacerbated dramatically when the falloff between the last at-large bid and the MAAC/CHA champs is as large as it is this year.

It is also insane that they were committed more to "bands" than a sense of seeding fairness. If they "broke" the bands just a little - recognizing the similarity of #12 and #13, Minnesota would have played #12 Harvard, BU would have gotten #13 Mankato and we would have played WSU. To keep the bands, Cornell is stuck playing #13 Mankato instead of #29 Wayne State (and only #29 because the non-TUCs that would be rated higher than WSU don't count). An interconference matchup could have been avoided giving Minnesota a team "1 rank" better than they earned, but instead using bands gave Cornell a team "16 ranks" better. (If Mankato is actually #14, not #13, adjust your math accordingly, and let BU play SCSU. There are other flaws in here that I don't feel like cleaning up, but I think you get my point.)



Post Edited (03-24-03 13:02)

Wodon speaks - and he says it was completely by the numbers and the rules the committee had.

[www.uscho.com]

On the other hand, if MSU lives by a wide open offensive strategy and has a weak defense, particularly on the power play, as Mav fans on USCHO are saying, this game may have the virtue of not being so difficult after all while being somewhat entertaining.

And for $84 we deserve every possible minute of entertainment we can get.

wrote:
And for $84 we deserve every possible minute of entertainment we can get.

And all the crullers we can eat.

OK, looking past the obvious injustices created by seeding strictures, I'm not--I repeat not--completely unhappy about how our brackets turned out. Of course, I also look at hockey as a game about hate, so my seemingly optimistic glasses actually view the world in a silver and black-lined sheen.

Regional

I'm somewhat worried at the lack of hate potential, but I like how we match up with these teams.

MSU-Mankato: What are they, exactly? Are they *the* Minnesota State University, or are they lowly Mankato State? My solution: think of them as RPI. RPI : Mankato State :: Rensselaer : Minnesota State University (:: CCT : Clarkson University). Play defense against them, and they should crumble. Is defense a strength of ours? Yes. Look at "MSU"s numbers away from that 200x100 ice sheet of theirs... not too impressive.

BC: Hmmm... well, our first loss to BC was 24-1 back in the dark ages, and they've had our number of late (very late, i.e., last meeting 1994). My solution: think of them as Clarkson. If any team in Hockey Least aspires to the Clarkson mantle of tournament futility (except for the recent NCAA championship, of course) it would be BC. Expect them to choke, and treat them like a fragile china set to be dashed against the wall. Break them early and often. So, I'll be seeing Green and Gold if we play BC.

Ohio State: Finally, we hit some hate. OSU strikes me as a CCHA school trying to become the program that Cornell is--bruising defense and great goaltending, i.e., an old-style CCHA team from the 90s. Hate sometimes comes from similarities, and our consecutive losses to them in Florida should provide enough motivation.

Semifinal

Geez, do I really have to spell out the potential fun of a semifinal against BU, Hahvahd, or UHN? This is another reason I don't mind our matchups: if there is any justice whatsoever in the manipulations of the Hockey Gods, they will not let us miss these potential semifinal opponents. Imagine any of these teams in a national semifinal: I'm shaking with bile and vitriol already. In the tradition of spreading around the hate, I would hope for UHN--Hahvahd and BU have had enough this season, I think.

Final

Finals, to contradict completely everything I've just said, are about love. This ECAC final was about the two best teams in the league playing the best hockey game I've ever seen--flying, careening, hitting, shooting. Finals are a crapshoot, and should be. Finals are about shaking hands and giving your respected opponent the game-winning puck. If we make it, I don't care who we play in the final, but a matchup with Minnesota would be pretty sweet. Just think of the love... er... oh, and we've only played Minnesota once ever, in the first game of the Mariucci Classic in 1993-94. Yep, they scheduled us as the patsies of the tournament. I hate Minnesota too, I guess.

There is one opponent I would rather see in the final, but it is not up to me to determine whether or not the Hockey Gods think me worthy of the greatest of exorcisms. You see, I live in Ann Arbor, and sometimes love and hate are closely intertwined...

Right, don't barrage them with drivel, but do barrage them. They deserve it, and that's how broken things get fixed. It probably doesn't take more than holding up the mirror to them:

1 v 13
2 v 29
3 v 28

says it all.

A good friend of mine freshman year was a transfer from Purdue, so in response to your last post:

"Hail to those mother f***ers!
Hail to those big c**ks***ers!
Hail! Hail! To Michigan
The cesspool of the west!

JH

Sorry, it was hard to be succinct and unambiguous at the same time. In the past, they have seeded by individual comparisons and not by the overall PWR. Joe Marsh even explicitly pointed that out in an interview with Adam Wodon in 1997. (It's still on USCHO, but I don't have the link at the moment.)

big red apple wrote:
It is also insane that they were committed more to "bands" than a sense of seeding fairness. If they "broke" the bands just a little - recognizing the similarity of #12 and #13, Minnesota would have played #12 Harvard, BU would have gotten #13 Mankato and we would have played WSU. To keep the bands, Cornell is stuck playing #13 Mankato instead of #29 Wayne State (and only #29 because the non-TUCs that would be rated higher than WSU don't count). An interconference matchup could have been avoided giving Minnesota a team "1 rank" better than they earned, but instead using bands gave Cornell a team "16 ranks" better. (If Mankato is actually #14, not #13, adjust your math accordingly, and let BU play SCSU.

This is the particular nail we need to hit on the head. The idea behind keeping teams in bands is to maintain the "competitive equity" of the brackets, i.e., make sure 1-seeds play 4-seeds and 2-seeds play 3-seeds. Sounds great in principle, but if they're going to tie their hands as much as they do about placing host teams in regionals and keeping conference opponents apart, they need to allow for the possibility of seeding teams outside their bands, especially switching 3 and 4 seeds. As Adam puts it, if you're willing to unbalance things by switching #14 with #16, especially when the gap between #14 and #15 is so large, you should also be willing to entertain switching #13 with #11 if that's less disruptive to the brackets.

Also, since the committee has abandoned any semblance of using the individual comparisons (or else OSU would have been a 4 seed anyway and everything would have worked nicely), they should switch to a system that actually gives them a straight 1-29 ordering.

If they had used KRACH instead of PWR to set the seeds, the committee would have been forced to flip a seed or two to avoid interconference matchups given the host school locations!!! Three Hockey East teams would have been #2 seeds along with Michigan. Providence would have been a #2 seed. If they keep this system they will be forced to flip some seeds in the future, and it's ridiculous that they didn't do it this year given the result of not doing so.

I meant to say that Providence would have been a #3 seed.

They are never going to please everybody. Before you didn't want them to be too subjective, and now that they went exactly by the numbers and the rules, people are saying that they should have used common sense and decided what would have been the best way to "reward" the #1 seed. It kinda just makes everybody look like a bunch of babies. Granted, maybe they didn't use the best system available to them, in your biased eyes, but they did the best with what they have. They will continue to tweak it, but some teams will continue to think that they have been screwed. And they certainly aren't going to listen to any of us. The fact is, the team has to win four games, and they will prepare for those four teams. If we're the #1 team in the country, we should theoretically be better than all the teams we face, so what's the big deal?

You are right that in theory we should be better than every other team we face, but it's a single elimination tournament and lesser teams can and do knock out better teams in a one and done situation. This happens, of course, more often when the lesser teams are high quality teams like Mankato. Yes I am biased and I want to see the Red at least make it to Buffalo, and our chances are diminished by having to play MSU in the first round. I can't think of a worst possible draw than a team that went 17-1-6 down the stretch. I would rather be playing BU or BC in the first round. Having said that, if Cornell does manage to make the Frozen Four, I think we have a better chance of winning it all riding the experience of two difficult wins on back to back days.

"Hail to those mother f***ers!
Hail to those big c**ks***ers!
Hail! Hail! To Michigan
The cesspool of the west!

Don't forget the second verse:

"To hell, with those masturbators!
To hell, with those fornicators!
To hell, to hell, with Michigan
The team we love to HATE!"

Lowell Frank '99, '03 wrote:

"To hell, with those masturbators!
To hell, with those fornicators!

Make up your mind!!!



Post Edited (03-26-03 19:40)

Hail, hail to Michigan the team who steals our cheers!

Hey Marty '74- we stole some of MIchigan's cheers too...where do you think the aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh C ya! cheer came from?

....we lifted it from the '91 NCAA series at Michigan...

[Q]
Hey Marty '74- we stole some of MIchigan's cheers too...where do you think the aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh C ya! cheer came from?

....we lifted it from the '91 NCAA series at Michigan...
[/Q]

OK, by me.

Marty, CU '74
aka
Marty, Michigan '75



Post Edited (03-26-03 22:39)

True but it's been "widely" reported that UM learned alot from those Faithful who were at that game, and that their cheering was changed forever.

Jim, UM '77



Post Edited (03-27-03 14:12)

Amazing how that stuff works.

Mike Wapner '82 lifted "Which team is the winning team!?" from North Dakota at the 1980 NCAAs.

And reading the newspapers over the introductions I stole from the University of Scranton basketball team.

True originality is rare indeed.

JH

I actually have newspaper clippings from our game at Michigan in 1997 specifically disucssing Michigan's lifting of our cheers from the '91 NCAA series.

[Q]I actually have newspaper clippings from our game at Michigan in 1997 specifically disucssing Michigan's lifting of our cheers from the '91 NCAA series.[/Q]Are those from Ithaca or A2 (Ann Arbor)? If they are A2 I'd like a copy, please.

Barraging the committee takes whining to a whole new level, even worse than Schafer did on TV. Is it going to change their decisions? Doesn't the team still have to play the games?

Your team is top ranked and would be a large favorite over any of the lowest 4 teams...act like "top ranked" fans.

Rich Stamboulian wrote:
Your team is top ranked and would be a large favorite over any of the lowest 4 teams...

There's a big difference between being a 2:1 favorite against Mankato and being a 19:1 favorite against Wayne State. It's not whining to express displeasure that the top-rated team got a much harder first-round draw than the third-rated team. It is whining to barrage the committee with complaining emails, especially when those who stop to think about it will realize why it was done. (Although clearly it points to a failing of the procedure when switching the #12 and #13 teams is considered an unacceptible loss of competitive equity, but switching the #29+ and #14 teams is perfectly fine. Something the NCAA should work on in the off-season, since the "banding" method is likely to run into similar pitfalls for the forseeable future.)

On the other hand, Section B did add "a55hole" to the Seeya cheer... shortly after which, I added "you goon." Those are somewhat original.

Beeeej



Post Edited (03-28-03 10:27)

Beej - I love you, but I started the "you goon" cheer (hence my name). I have very few claims to fame...this one is mine and I had to set it straight.

Unless your real name is David, yougoon, I now count 3 people who take credit for adding "you goon".

[www.rso.cornell.edu]

About the 6th article from the bottom is probably what Larry is referring to.

Nope, I'm not David, for sure (not even a guy, heavens!) I know I started it. Here's the story:
I can't remember who we were playing, but it was about 10 years ago, and Cornell was getting literally beaten up by another team. When a particularly nasty player was thrown in the box, everyone did the "Ah, C ya, a**hole". Because I cannot bring myself to say the a**hole part and I had a lot of pent up anger, I stood up alone in Section C (where everyone was, and always is firmly seated) and yelled out "You're A GOON!" A group of students in "B" started laughing at me (crazy woman) and the next penalty that was called, they started screaming "You goon!" And it just sort of stuck. That's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. I swear. If anyone else lays claim, let's hear your story.

We got the "It's all your fault" cheer from St. Lawrence. I wanted to implement it the same way the Saints did, that is, near the end of the game when the Red are clearly going to win. (It's ALL your fault). My friend, who was the leader of the "winning team, losing team" cheer thought it would be better to do it after every goal. He started it that way @ Lynah in 1985 and it's been that way ever since and probably will never change. I don't like it as much after every goal because it makes you rush through calling the goalie a sieve.

it's beeeej. . .not beej

What I find personally amazing is that the "Sieve Sieve sieve..." after goals has evolved since I've been here from just random amount of yelling Sieve into exactly 2 four bar phrases, in time with Davy, followed by exactly 4 bars of "It's all your fault." Believe me, myself and others (with very healthy lungs) have attempted to only yell Sieve 7 times before moving on, or once, 9 times, and people looked at us like we had an extra head.

Or maybe I'm just a band nerd. :-p

Wait.. You mean there's 8 Sieve cheers exactly?

I've been watching Cornell for over 7 years, and I never knew that! I guess it made sense to stop around there, but it never occured to me that we were all always stopping at the same time every goal.

From what I can tell, the four count isn't a formalized rule, it is mob rule. The first IIYF! always steps on a lot of fifth (and sixth) Sieve!s. The WWM also seems much more hurried now than it used to. Do they set up the faceoff faster than they did 10 years ago?

Post Edited (03-28-03 14:57)

Well I have it on good authority that Uri Geller claims he put the thought in your head that night.

You got it, thanks.

The U-M faithful listened to Cornell fans count up the goals after each score, antagonize the goaltender from the start and even anger the crowd by playing the Michigan State fight song.

That is inspired. Does Mankato even have a rival?

Once upon a time, "*******" was only used for opponents who really deserved it, and people who felt like saying "you goon" said it right away without waiting for a phantom *******.

Age, your f---ing forum now censors the **** out of our g-d d--- posts!

[Edit: not very well, apparently]



Post Edited (03-28-03 18:07)

****
p-ss
****
c-nt
t-ts
************
c-cks-cker



Post Edited (03-28-03 18:10)

I bet it won't censor...nope it didn't so i changed it



Post Edited (03-28-03 18:24)

Apparently the default words censored by phorum are "****", "****", "************", "*******", and "**************".

I'm sure this pleases John Ashcroft no end.

Sorry. My bad. Didn't realize the censoring was on. Any new posts should be fine.

If anything, I'd say the "sieve" chant has "devolved", IMO. I think it's too fast, almost like the fans are rushing (why rush?, I thought the first time I heard it that way).

And I agree with whoever said "mob mentality". Because of the time it takes for sound to travel, and the "insertion" of those seated in Section C (which once upon a time was also for students), the number of "sieve"s chanted always seemed to vary all over the rink. In any case, as a fan, I always thought it was cool the way the "sieves" sort of faded out slowly, followed by the gradual build up of the "IAYF"s.

Fuck, shit, cock, ass, titties, boner, bitch, muff, pussy, cunt, butthole, Barbra Streisand!

Edit: yep, it works.



Post Edited (03-31-03 10:05)

When I started following Cornell Hockey ('96-'97 season), there was no consensus on when to stop the "sieve" and begin the "it's all your fault." It's evident if you listen to track 64 on the "Live at Lynah" CD, where the transition is somewhat awkward.

More recently, I've noticed that the crowd transitions more seemlessly.

I kinda disagree. I think it sounds more imposing when it's in time like it's been lately.

But Chips is still a band nerd.

Thanks, Cartman.