NCAA tournament 2016

First games of the tournament, two of the four No. 1 seeds are gone:

Providence (the 4th 1-seed) goes down 2-1 to Minnesota-Duluth. As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week.

St Cloud State (2nd 1-seed) makes up a 4-2 deficit to Ferris State entering the third, ties at 4, loses 18 seconds into OT. See ya. That has to be brutal on the team and fans.

UMass-Lowell wins 3-2 over Yale a minute into OT off a good forecheck. So much for the Ivies in the NCAAs in 2015-16. UM-L plays Quinnipiac Sunday.

Good thing RIT got all the ink on being up-and-coming and in a nice new rink before the first faceoff. Lost 4-0 to overall 1-seed Quinnipiac. Q gets Yale or UMass-Lowell tomorrow.

billhoward
First games of the tournament, two of the four No. 1 seeds are gone:

Providence (the 4th 1-seed) goes down 2-1 to Minnesota-Duluth. As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week.

St Cloud State (2nd 1-seed) makes up a 4-2 deficit to Ferris State entering the third, ties at 4, loses 18 seconds into OT. See ya. That has to be brutal on the team and fans.

Good thing RIT got all the ink on being up-and-coming and in a nice new rink before the first faceoff. Lost 4-0 to overall 1-seed Quinnipiac. Q gets Yale or UMass-Lowell tomorrow.

Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end

css228
Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end

Did the same to what had been a red-hot Northeastern team.

Al DeFlorio

css228
Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end

Did the same to what had been a red-hot Northeastern team.

God I wish I could watch a system like this employed at Lynah. It looks like they just decided to keep most of the Hakstol system in place.

Took until the fourth round of NCAA basketball for a one-seed to fall (Oregon by 12 to Oklahoma).

Back in hockeyland, Denver is whomping BU - 5-0 with 2 minutes left in the second. Ouch. Jack Eichel era for sure is over.

Well, that's it for Michigan. Story of the game is NoDak outshooting the highly-touted Michigan offense by nearly 2-to-1.

Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal

Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

imafrshmn
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.

Here's the Q section now that they've left.

marty

imafrshmn
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.

Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.

Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.

scoop85
Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal

2-2 in the third

Al DeFlorio

scoop85
Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal

2-2 in the third

And now to overtime at 2-2.

billhoward

marty

imafrshmn
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.

Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.

Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.

IIRC Q had busses for fans to prior NC$$ games.

Trotsky

billhoward

marty

imafrshmn
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.

Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.

Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.

IIRC Q had busses for fans to prior NC$$ games.

I'm fairly certain that in 2010 when we were in Albany with RIT for the first round of the NCAAs, there was talk of how RIT had brought a bunch of students on (free?) busses.

Yale had four chances to clear the puck on Lowell's OT winner. Blech.

Good for Lowell. Pretty even game overall and a gritty OT game-winner.

imafrshmn
Good for Lowell. Pretty even game overall and a gritty OT game-winner.

Yeah I have a good friend who went there so he's probably pumped

RIT was only given 100 student tickets and they are on break.. i dont think many made it this time

andyw2100
I'm fairly certain that in 2010 when we were in Albany with RIT for the first round of the NCAAs, there was talk of how RIT had brought a bunch of students on (free?) busses.

Whereas Cornell fans have been trained to travel in large numbers at little or no cost to the university.

billhoward
... As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week...

*clears throat*

Versus Quinnipiac, a 5-4 win and a 5-4 loss, a pair of 3-goal losses, and a 2-2 tie. 1-3-1. There's a pony somewhere in there.

That was Yale's game to lose...and they did. I must say that the Lowell fans reminded me quite a bit of Lynah with their sieve chants and goalie targeting. RIT certainly had the most enthusiasm though.

marty

imafrshmn
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)

QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.

Here's the Q section now that they've left.

20160326_212759_zpsunwp2gj8.jpg

I forgot to mention that there was an old guy wearing a Cornell hat in the crowd. He seemed to be conflicted as he also wore Yale's colors via an old rugby shirt with his loving family similarly attired. Young man in the family was '06 or so. I heard the older couple making plans to visit the United center next year on Palm Sunday weekend. It is surely a blessing to have such a wonderful wife as he. (She seemed to be reading during long stretches of play.) Love at the rink can be a precious thing.

A tight Ferris-Denver game deteriorates in a hurry. Tied 3-3 with 5 to go, Denver scores, then immediately scores again, and then a Ferris meathead takes a 5 for what should have been a DQ targeting the head. Too bad; had been interesting.

Also, fans at that game said real attendance was about 1000.

Anyone but QU, Pleasseee.

Q up 3-1 midway through the 3rd. They dominated the second period and have been the better team all night.

I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

underskill
I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

Now 4-1, which won't help the butt hurt any.

Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

Meh. We said that about them and Yale a couple years ago too. Hasn't happened so far.

Trotsky
Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.

Trotsky

underskill
I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

andyw2100

Trotsky

underskill
I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

I've always supported other ECAC teams in the NCAAs, but a number of us don't think Q belongs in the ECAC. (And it's not an elitist thing, since I was happy to root for UVM in the 90s back when they represented the ECAC in the tournament.)

andyw2100
So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

We've been over this at length in previous years. Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly. Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them. Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).

I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.

andyw2100

Trotsky

underskill
I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program

Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.

OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.

So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

Same reason Duke fans weren't rooting for UNC today. Fans of a certain team tend to hate that team's rivals.

Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

Also also, the ECAC being better generally makes it harder for Cornell to do well. (People here will argue otherwise, but there's no evidence to support this claim.)

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.

Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.

You leave the Islanders out of this.

KeithK

andyw2100
So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.

We've been over this at length in previous years. Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly. Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them. Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).

I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.

This. It's actually cool that there seems to be a fairly even divide on this question. It's boring when we all agree with a premise.

I'm obviously in the "My conference, right or wrong" column, but I also understand the contrary viewpoint. I think for people of about my age the contempt with which the ECAC was held over the late 90s and 00s was so irksome that it made all the ECAC teams brothers in arms when the NC$$s came around. I've noticed this age split on other ECAC team threads in USCHO, too.

Perhaps if the ECAC continues to routinely produce F4 teams and national champions we'll start to feel more comfortable rooting against rivals in April.

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Exactly. Or as I like to say whenever I hear the "D" word when it comes to sports, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."

[youtu.be]

Some things I noticed at the games on Saturday as a spectator.

-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
-Quinnipiac had a pretty decent turnout. There were quite a number of folks around with their colors, although the few students that were there still aren't very creative with their jeers (Sucks! only goes so far).
-Lowell had a good turnout too, but many of their fans weren't there for the first game. I had the pleasure of sitting below the Lowell section and they had some very orchestrated stuff similar to what you would hear in Lynah. There were curses too but the staff didn't seem to care one bit.
-The Lowell band is very very good and I would pay to hear them perform. One of the people near me mentioned that they have a good music program--that was pretty evident.
-Attendance for the first game was definitely better than that of the second one. The arena seemed somewhere from 40-60% full to me, but I haven't seen the exact figures.
-I didn't see who it was, but I could hear one of the Yale players quite audibly shout "Fuck!" as he headed into the locker room after the 3rd period. We all know what happened about 20 minutes later.
-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is. For some reason, there was no display with scores for other regionals anywhere in the arena; and the announcer almost never mentioned the other scores. Of course, there was no public Wifi in the building.

Iceberg
-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is.

[www.google.com]

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Here's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

+1

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

As shown by the run of the Syracuse basketball team to the final four -- no one would have put them among the top 25 teams heading into the tournament.

ugarte
Here's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.

Q didn't play all that well against RIT for the first 40 minutes...and then they showed up in the 3rd. RIT's problem was that they weren't very good at getting quality shots.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

Then again, if we want to talk about "deserving" a right to be national champion I could go off on my rant about post-season tournaments and at-large bids. But that's so last decade.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

Kyle Rose

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states

But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states

But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.

And there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary. I find it hard to believe that anyone posting here doesn't understand "the rules" for winning a championship. And I'd guess that 90+ % of the readers understood that BearLover was expressing emotion and not facts.

Oh well, it's the off season.

Kyle Rose

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

KeithK

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.

To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?

I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.

Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.

It happens frequently that a lot of people seriously think that the winner of the tournament doesn't deserve to go home with the hardware. They get really riled up. Well, maybe they should just be content with their righteous indignation: that's a trophy of sorts.

ugarte
Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like.

BTW, thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Dr. Star. All bills will be returned to sender.

Jim Hyla
And there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary.

Probably. But it's just Kyle being Kyle.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose

BearLover
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.

I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.

According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.

Thanks for this completely useless post.

Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?

I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

I suspect all time spent on ELynah is unproductive. Thankfully, that's not the only reason to do something.

Kyle Rose

ugarte
Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like.

BTW, thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Dr. Star. All bills will be returned to sender.

But my rates are so reasonable.

Iceberg
-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.

No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.

Iceberg
-For some reason, there was no display with scores for other regionals anywhere in the arena; and the announcer almost never mentioned the other scores.

There's an app for that

CowbellGuy

Iceberg
-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.

No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.

No electric instruments, no music stands, no elaborate floor-based drumsets, and no goddamn hockey cheerleaders. And it wouldn't hurt to have a student conductor instead of a junior faculty member.

RichH

CowbellGuy

Iceberg
-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.

No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.

No electric instruments, no music stands, no elaborate floor-based drumsets, and no goddamn hockey cheerleaders. And it wouldn't hurt to have a student conductor instead of a junior faculty member.

And most importantly, no piped in music. This is college, not minor league pros. If your school can't put together a band, so be it.

A nice story out of Quinnipiac.

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Nowhere in my post did I suggest he was never productive in the entire history of the internet.

KeithK

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.

I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.

This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.

Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.

Kyle Rose

KeithK

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.

I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.

This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.

Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.

All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.

Swampy

Kyle Rose

KeithK

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.

I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.

This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.

Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.

All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.

Jerk.

Kyle Rose
I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.

That's pretty much what I meant by "Kyle being Kyle". But then I know you from way back when and have been posting with you for years and years, so it's really easy for me to take your semi-trolling with a smile.

Kyle Rose
This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.

Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.

I totally get that. I've actualy pulled back on all kinds of sports fandom to some degree because the stress was getting to me too much at times. I'm happier having done so but can still enjoy those same sports so I think I'm in a good place.

Strangely I remember being very calm and relaxed (relatively speaking anyway) throughout that same Wisconsin game. I don't know why.

KeithK

Swampy

Kyle Rose

KeithK

jtwcornell91

BearLover

Kyle Rose

I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?

Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)

Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.

I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.

This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.

Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.

All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.

Jerk.

Typical.

(Man, haven't had one of those in a long while!)

You can't cheat an honest man.

Note to DVR folks, or just casual viewers. Saturday's championship will no longer be on ESPN. Moved to "The Ocho." No, wait, just ESPN2. The four-letter is a basketball personality network, after all.

ESPN has moved Saturday’s championship game to ESPN2 because it has secured rights to run Golden State Warriors game instead.

— College Hockey News (@chnews) April 6, 2016

I wish I could say incredible, but so, so credible.

IN a game I completely forgot was tonight, Q advances with a 3-2 win over BC.

As much as I dislike Q, this was a great game to watch. Q took some stupid penalties late in the third period (just as they had in the 2-2 regular season tie against Cornell), and BC had a lot of pressure on them down the stretch, but Garteig made some huge saves down the stretch. Another key play late in the game came when Garteig was out of position and a BC player had an open net to shoot at only to have a Q defenseman deflect the puck away at the last second. Earlier in the third period, Q failed to convert on a 4-on-1 break, something you don't see too often.

dbilmes
As much as I dislike Q, this was a great game to watch. Q took some stupid penalties late in the third period (just as they had in the 2-2 regular season tie against Cornell), and BC had a lot of pressure on them down the stretch, but Garteig made some huge saves down the stretch. Another key play late in the game came when Garteig was out of position and a BC player had an open net to shoot at only to have a Q defenseman deflect the puck away at the last second. Earlier in the third period, Q failed to convert on a 4-on-1 break, something you don't see too often.

And ND just had a 4 on 1 without scoring. This is a fun game to watch!

Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

Trotsky
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.

"Brought to you without the benefit of announcers"

jtwcornell91

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.

"Brought to you without with the benefit of no announcers"

FYP

Trotsky
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

especially if it is buccigross. he's even worse at hockey play-by-play than the kids on the Yale feed. Can't believe he gets paid to do that.

abmarks

Trotsky
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.

especially if it is buccigross. he's even worse at hockey play-by-play than the kids on the Yale feed. Can't believe he gets paid to do that.

Well, you know. He's the goddamned pope of #collegehockey. He has a clothing line. People on Twitter think he's great.

Beats Melrose but that's a low bar.

Trotsky
Beats Melrose but that's a low bar.

Barry Melrose competes with Don Cherry. Different grouping.

billhoward

Trotsky
Beats Melrose but that's a low bar.

Barry Melrose competes with Don Cherry. Different grouping.

I'd say Mike Francesa.

4-1 NoDak late. Q fell apart in the third; too bad.

North Dakota played a good game. Quinnipiac fell apart. Too bad for the ECAC.

As I've said before, I'm not in the camp that roots against the ECAC in the NCAAs, but I've made an exception for Quinnipiac Marketing Solutions, Inc., so thank goodness they didn't win it. First champion from the NCHC and first Western Champion since the B1g T6n blew up all the conferences out there. I did get pretty tired of hearing about the end of NoDak's intolerably long 16-year title drought, though. Geez, I can remember the last time they won it.

I'm not exactly in love with Q, but screw NoDak, which is to say, bah.

I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.

Congrats, Sioux.

And a trivia question for you stats types: Is this the first national championship in any sport between two teams who changed their names to be more PC (whether voluntarily or not)?

Jeff Hopkins '82
I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.

Congrats, Sioux.

I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!

Congratulations Flickertails!

That top line for UND was filthy. Talk about offensive skill and flair!

I'd forgotten how awful Buccigross is doing PBP (although he gets an A for enthusiasm). Melrose is just plain awful.

Jeff Hopkins '82
I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.

Agreed. I've heard "Minnesota Nice" is a sham, but "North Dakota Nice" is for real.

And, like BearLover, I'll give QU losing a:

I've made my peace with Yale winning; I was happy to see Union (a small school) paste Minnesota. But a Hamden U. national championship would've stuck in my craw.

redice

Jeff Hopkins '82
I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.

Congrats, Sioux.

I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!

I liked the way the team started the Sioux cheer after getting the trophy. Take that NCAA! Also it's hard not to enjoy Pecknold in the grip of a better foe.

marty

redice

Jeff Hopkins '82
I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.

Congrats, Sioux.

I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!

I liked the way the team started the Sioux cheer after getting the trophy. Take that NCAA! Also it's hard not to enjoy Pecknold in the grip of a better foe.

I think it's really unfortunate that defying the NCAA seems to be a motivator for continuing to say Sioux. It's almost as if nobody from the UND hockey community took the time to reflect on why the name is problematic. Fighting Hawks is an awful team name for a different reason (it's completely generic), but the fact that it sucks only encourages people to continue saying Sioux. "Tradition" is not a valid reason for perpetuating anything, especially racist cultural appropriations.

That said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.