MSG: Red Hot Hockey

I haven't gone to this game in years. From those who've gone, what's the chance I can bring in newspapers +/or Snickers?

Jim Hyla
I haven't gone to this game in years. From those who've gone, what's the chance I can bring in newspapers +/or Snickers?

I haven't seen anybody have an issue with newspapers. I'd be less confident about candy.

Jim Hyla
I haven't gone to this game in years. From those who've gone, what's the chance I can bring in newspapers +/or Snickers?

I don’t think newspapers would be a problem, but you should check the MSG website to see what restrictions they may have about bringing in outside food.

scoop85

Jim Hyla
I haven't gone to this game in years. From those who've gone, what's the chance I can bring in newspapers +/or Snickers?

I don’t think newspapers would be a problem, but you should check the MSG website to see what restrictions they may have about bringing in outside food.

I'm almost certain that outside food is officially prohibited. That being said I know that there have been times when my wife and I had done things in New York before the game that resulted in our having some outside food / leftovers / baked goods, and with them not in obvious spots in whatever purse or handbag my wife was carrying, these items were not confiscated. I think they are much more concerned with weapons when bag-checking, and are pretty relaxed with respect to a little food. All that being said, several bags of Snickers may be harder to conceal.

andyw2100

scoop85

Jim Hyla
I haven't gone to this game in years. From those who've gone, what's the chance I can bring in newspapers +/or Snickers?

I don’t think newspapers would be a problem, but you should check the MSG website to see what restrictions they may have about bringing in outside food.

I'm almost certain that outside food is officially prohibited. That being said I know that there have been times when my wife and I had done things in New York before the game that resulted in our having some outside food / leftovers / baked goods, and with them not in obvious spots in whatever purse or handbag my wife was carrying, these items were not confiscated. I think they are much more concerned with weapons when bag-checking, and are pretty relaxed with respect to a little food. All that being said, several bags of Snickers may be harder to conceal.

I've never had trouble with the newspapers I have brought to Red Hot Hockey. My wife has had an 8-ounce clear plastic bottle of water confiscated from her fanny pack there. We've never tried to bring in Snickers or anything comparable.

I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

CU allows penalty box officials to throw candy from the ice, but not me. So what does that mean? I have no idea.

Jim Hyla

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

CU allows penalty box officials to throw candy from the ice, but not me. So what does that mean? I have no idea.

Think like a lawyer. Their insurance can indemnify their own employees if something happens. If you injure someone, Cornell could be on the hook for letting you do it and uninsured for it.

Beeeej
Think like a lawyer. Their insurance can indemnify their own employees if something happens. If you injure someone, Cornell could be on the hook for letting you do it and uninsured for it.

As the expression goes...

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

So ping-pong balls would be OK; golf balls, not so much. And what if he just passed the Snickers bag around? Oh wait, diabetes and obesity, of course.

Swampy

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

So ping-pong balls would be OK; golf balls, not so much. And what if he just passed the Snickers bag around? Oh wait, diabetes and obesity, of course.

Don’t forget about the potential for someone with a peanut allergy.

Beeeej

Jim Hyla

Beeeej

Swampy

Jim Hyla

KenP

profudge
I'm going with son and friend and brother and my wife - we could each put a ziplock of Snickers in pockets and meet up with you inside ?

Apparently this is a tradition that started after I left. What's the deal with the snickers?

1: I always give them to the band, home or away.

2: For 20 years, or so, in the second intermission I've thrown them to fans at the away games I attend. I used to throw them at Sec B fans at home games, but then CU made me stop.

Last year Harvard made me stop at their rink. So we'll see what happens this year.

Is the rationale for this that by giving candy away you lower for-profit sales at the licensed stands?

After all, I assume you're throwing out wrapped Snicker bars that almost certainly have not been tampered with. What other reason could they have?

Yes, what possible reason could they have for not wanting someone to throw small, solid projectiles into the stands?

Not saying I agree with their stance, but it's not at all crazy.

CU allows penalty box officials to throw candy from the ice, but not me. So what does that mean? I have no idea.

Think like a lawyer. Their insurance can indemnify their own employees if something happens. If you injure someone, Cornell could be on the hook for letting you do it and uninsured for it.

I'd rather not, but I figured someone would come up with this. Next they'll probably say that I can't hand out newspapers. There must be some potential problem with that.

the crew throwing candy on the ice to kids has been scaled back because of lawyers too

Lawyers do not think. They scheme. "Think like a lawyer" is an oxymoron - sorta like "Harvard hockey star".

I know it's easy to bash lawyers, but that's a sorry take

A society where disputes are mediated by lawyers is better than a society where disputes are mediated by gunmen, even if in the end the result is the same and the richest person wins.

A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

Trotsky
A society where disputes are mediated by lawyers is better than a society where disputes are mediated by gunmen, even if in the end the result is the same and the richest person wins.

Well, the right answer then is to reduce the cost of serious weaponry, right? Am I right?

"We're armed, and they're armed! Yayyy!"

Or we could just all become lawyers, right? Is that the answer?

Scersk '97

Trotsky
A society where disputes are mediated by lawyers is better than a society where disputes are mediated by gunmen, even if in the end the result is the same and the richest person wins.

Well, the right answer then is to reduce the cost of serious weaponry, right? Am I right?

"We're armed, and they're armed! Yayyy!"

Or we could just all become lawyers, right? Is that the answer?

That's my family's motto.

Damn lawyers. Always have to ruin everyone's fun.

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

The original point was about Harvard being "rated" higher than Cornell. You correctly pointed out that they had played one more conference game than Cornell, which is why they show as being ahead of Cornell in the conference standings. The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

The original point was about Harvard being "rated" higher than Cornell. You correctly pointed out that they had played one more conference game than Cornell, which is why they show as being ahead of Cornell in the conference standings. The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

And I didn't say they would. The schedule will normalize at that time, that's all.

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

The original point was about Harvard being "rated" higher than Cornell. You correctly pointed out that they had played one more conference game than Cornell, which is why they show as being ahead of Cornell in the conference standings. The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

And I didn't say they would. The schedule will normalize at that time, that's all.

Yes, we're saying the same thing. My response was to what I thought was a joke you were making about Harvard's perennial failure in the Beanpot, which of course we both know will not affect ECAC standings. I now realize you weren't making that joke.

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

The original point was about Harvard being "rated" higher than Cornell. You correctly pointed out that they had played one more conference game than Cornell, which is why they show as being ahead of Cornell in the conference standings. The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

And I didn't say they would. The schedule will normalize at that time, that's all.

Yes, we're saying the same thing. My response was to what I thought was a joke you were making about Harvard's perennial failure in the Beanpot, which of course we both know will not affect ECAC standings. I now realize you weren't making that joke.

Can't we just all agree that Harvard sucks.

cu155

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

andyw2100

Beeeej

osorojo
A society mediated by juries of peers and by judges is infinitely preferable to a society mediated by lawyers. Harvard is currently rated #1 in the ECAC; Cornell is tied for second place. Betcha this ranking was done by lawyers, not juries of the people.

They're not "rated" #1. They've accumulated the most points in conference play so far, which they've done while playing in more conference games than Cornell has yet played. I think standings ought to be done by winning percentage instead of points because it accounts for those "game in hand" situations, but it's not up to me - and things even out once the Beanpot is done anyway.

Ummm...not for ECAC standings.

Yes, for ECAC standings. One of the main reasons Hahvahd plays a different, more front-loaded in-conference schedule is to make room for the Beanpot. Been that way for years.

The original point was about Harvard being "rated" higher than Cornell. You correctly pointed out that they had played one more conference game than Cornell, which is why they show as being ahead of Cornell in the conference standings. The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

And I didn't say they would. The schedule will normalize at that time, that's all.

Yes, we're saying the same thing. My response was to what I thought was a joke you were making about Harvard's perennial failure in the Beanpot, which of course we both know will not affect ECAC standings. I now realize you weren't making that joke.

Can't we just all agree that Harvard sucks.

That goes without saying.

andyw2100
The games Harvard loses in the Beanpot won't affect the conference standings.

I see what you did there.

The BU coach was suspended for one game this weekend for his behavior after his team's loss to UMass last weekend. It was apparently due to the way he acted toward a UMass employee.

ESPN+ does not have the game on the calendar, but am I remembering correctly that it was picked up for streaming last year? Anyone know what is planned this year?

still no plans for tv at this time

Given Cornell's improved offensive output, coupled with BU's overall youth and somewhat shaky defense early in the season, looks like it adds up to a 4-1 Cornell win from here.

I was wondering who was tempting the Hockey Gods....then I realized who it was. Nice to see you, Mark!

What a lot of people are missing with this year's Cornell team is the defensive strength - it's masked by our gaudy offensive numbers and our lousy PK percentage (77%). Even strength, we've only given up 5 goals in 8 games. If we had a top 20 kill (85%), our GAA would be 1.25. Top 10 (90%) and we'd be at a ridiculous 1.0 GAA. If we can get the PK coached up....look out.

I thought the kill looked good last weekend. You know Mike will get them there.

They appear to have struck a balance between playing in a disciplined system but also having room to play an up tempo, fun style that showcases their talents. That's the kind of a program that future good players will want to join.

We will always have a leg up on tradition and on understanding players' culture. What is Ithaca but Southern Ontario? What we need is a prolonged period of success to breed additional success, and it sure looks like Mike and his assistants have gotten that virtuous cycle going.

Trotsky
I thought the kill looked good last weekend. You know Mike will get them there.

They appear to have struck a balance between playing in a disciplined system but also having room to play an up tempo, fun style that showcases their talents. That's the kind of a program that future good players will want to join.

We will always have a leg up on tradition and on understanding players' culture. What is Ithaca but Southern Ontario? What we need is a prolonged period of success to breed additional success, and it sure looks like Mike and his assistants have gotten that virtuous cycle going.

ECAC fans have always said of Schafer's teams, "yeah they win, but they're boring." Since this year's junior class arrived on the scene (and maybe a year earlier with Kaldis and Malott), that criticism is out the window. We are now playing a high-paced game that is a joy to watch, without compromising much on the defensive side of things. And having a goalie like Galajda makes it a bit easier for his mates to take chances.

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

jeff '84

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

Good catch-it's on their schedule page

jeff '84

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

Thanks. There’s an app, but apparently it can’t stream the service’s premium content (at least on iOS) which I assume the MSG game will be, so you need to use its web browser interface.

JasonN95

jeff '84

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

Thanks. There’s an app, but apparently it can’t stream the service’s premium content (at least on iOS) which I assume the MSG game will be, so you need to use its web browser interface.

Roku, maybe?

Al DeFlorio

JasonN95

jeff '84

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

Thanks. There’s an app, but apparently it can’t stream the service’s premium content (at least on iOS) which I assume the MSG game will be, so you need to use its web browser interface.

Roku, maybe?

I think Colgate(?) used stadium pre-espn+ and the roku app worked to stream it. I know I've watched cornell at least once that way.

Chris '03

Al DeFlorio

JasonN95

jeff '84

upprdeck
still no plans for tv at this time

Noticed this when I was accessing the CU/Navy basketball game. So possibly here?

[watchstadium.com]

Thanks. There’s an app, but apparently it can’t stream the service’s premium content (at least on iOS) which I assume the MSG game will be, so you need to use its web browser interface.

Roku, maybe?

I think Colgate(?) used stadium pre-espn+ and the roku app worked to stream it. I know I've watched cornell at least once that way.

I've watched Stadium on Roku but was puzzled by the comment above about "premium content" on Stadium.

Well, after last night's morale-boosting 4-0 setback against Sacred Heart in front of family and friends on home ice, BU heads to MSG with zero momentum and on the virtual Road to Perdition.

After all, this is a team that has scored the same number of goals (43) as their opponents, but has only managed to win 4 of 14 games. But when the defense gives up as many scoring chances as it does every game, it makes more sense.

I'd feel a whole lot better if BU could sneak Clayton Keller (would-be senior), Brady Tkachuk (would-be junior), Joel Farrabee (would-be sophomore), Dante Fabbro (would-be senior) and Jake Oettinger (would-be senior) into the lineup against Schafer's Marauders, but that won't be happening.

I just hope the Terriers decide to show up, because I know the Big Red certainly will. I also hope this doesn't turn into another similar disaster from many moons ago (31st anniversary approaching on 12/10!) when Cornell, powered by the likes of Rob Levasseur, Trent Andison and Casey Jones, put eight up on the board in an 8-2 thrashing of the Terriers at Boston Gahden. The Gahden, of all places! Never mind that BU came back to beat the Big Red 19 days later in the Syracuse Invitational, the damage had already been done. And I'd never get back those two wasted tanks of gas.

I've been to the first six RHH games but will be sitting this one out.

Enjoy the game -- I'm quite sure you folks will. Either 4-1 or 6-2 for the Ithaca squad.

Mark
Well, after last night's morale-boosting 4-0 setback against Sacred Heart in front of family and friends on home ice, BU heads to MSG with zero momentum and on the virtual Road to Perdition.

After all, this is a team that has scored the same number of goals (43) as their opponents, but has only managed to win 4 of 14 games. But when the defense gives up as many scoring chances as it does every game, it makes more sense.

I'd feel a whole lot better if BU could sneak Clayton Keller (would-be senior), Brady Tkachuk (would-be junior), Joel Farrabee (would-be sophomore), Dante Fabbro (would-be senior) and Jake Oettinger (would-be senior) into the lineup against Schafer's Marauders, but that won't be happening.

I just hope the Terriers decide to show up, because I know the Big Red certainly will. I also hope this doesn't turn into another similar disaster from many moons ago (31st anniversary approaching on 12/10!) when Cornell, powered by the likes of Rob Levasseur, Trent Andison and Casey Jones, put eight up on the board in an 8-2 thrashing of the Terriers at Boston Gahden. The Gahden, of all places! Never mind that BU came back to beat the Big Red 19 days later in the Syracuse Invitational, the damage had already been done. And I'd never get back those two wasted tanks of gas.

I've been to the first six RHH games but will be sitting this one out.

Enjoy the game -- I'm quite sure you folks will. Either 4-1 or 6-2 for the Ithaca squad.

Some great reverse psychology right there. Now, let's try some double reverse psychology. .... BU can't play any worse than Tuesday, they will be pumped by MSG. ... Cornell was last 8-0 in '71-72, when they lost to .... BU .... in the finals. And as for knowing Cornell will show up -- welp, there was last year....

The Hockey Gods punish reverse woofing even more strongly than vanilla woofing.

Hockey Gods aint nuthin to fuck with.

Swing and a miss, Ad.

I was merely expressing my thoughts about the outcome of the game and it had zero to do with using "reverse psychology" in any way.

Of course I'd like to see BU put it all together, play a solid 60 minutes, and knock off a talented and unbeaten team. But at this point of the season for both schools, that doesn't seem likely. That's it.

Trotsky
The Hockey Gods punish reverse woofing even more strongly than vanilla woofing.

Hockey Gods aint nuthin to fuck with.

The Hockey gods may be nuthin to F with, but like Adam, you completely misread the intention of my post.

Perhaps if I had typed "enjoy your ninth straight win on Saturday night en route to a 37-0 record and a third National title for the Big Red" you would have a beef.

IMHO it just adds up to a likely Cornell W on Saturday night, in what I hope will be a close, well-played game. I just don't think BU is ready to knock off the No. 2 team in the nation at this point. Guess we'll find out.

I reckon I should've saved myself the time and postage it took to send you the Ned Harkness article from a late 1970s issue of Hockey Magazine all those years ago...

Mark
like Adam, you completely misread the intention of my post.

One possibility is both Adam and I missed the towering insight of your post.

Another is you are being teased.*

I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

* And quite gently for around here. I for one am amazed you didn't attract a Typical / autoreply. Yet. (oh crap, there's a third one I've forgotten. Anybody?)

Mark

The Hockey gods may be nuthin to F with, but like Adam, you completely misread the intention of my post.
...

Not to speak for others but as someone whose been on this board for pretty much its entire life I’ll just say that the Hockey Gods, jinx, reverse-jinx etc are bandied about here with tongue firmly in cheek and I think the replies you saw were meant as goodnatured ribbing/jokes premised on that. There’s no reason for you to know that. I (and I think a lot of others) appreciate fans who come here into “enemy territory” and take part in civil conversations.

Trotsky

* Typical / autoreply. Yet. (oh crap, there's a third one I've forgotten. Anybody?)

Figures.

Thanks.

Indeed, 'twas just ribbing - and my reply was meant to mitigate the wrath from the hockey gods