Harvard @ Cornell, 12/2/2022

Somethings smelling fishy tonight :D

Let’s beat Harvard cuz they suck

Cornell:


Harvard:
Not posted yet


Also here’s a link to the cheers sheet me and laserwhisperer made that we are distributing tonight (thanks to Andyw2100 for providing an old cheer sheet for inspiration) -the printed version has a QR code to ELynah on it so we may see an increase in student users tonight haha

[docs.google.com]

Cornell continues to remove parking.. It was already an issue when big games were played and BBALL/Wrestling was in town.. Now with another lot being removed I wonder where they expect people to park? Good thing its only a few game a yr but still.

Anyone else experiencing a highly corrupted video?

Yes. It’s a mess.

pfibiger
Yes. It’s a mess.

Claude Monet is apparently producing tonight's broadcast.

I'm glad it's not just me.

Seems they went to a commercial break and fixed it.

In addition to all the other Harvard mishegoss, they have four sons of very good NHLers. Who knew they were such students!

arugula
In addition to all the other Harvard mishegoss, they have three sons of very good NHLers. Who knew they were such students!

Quite a number of NCAA guys the past few years have been the sons of former notable NHLers. Tkachuk, Boucher, Madden, Amonte, and then the three guys they mentioned on Harvard. Heck, Mario Lemieux's son played ASU and was in at least one of the games against Cornell a few years ago! And as we'll see next month, BU's new coach is Jay Pandolfdo, a player I liked when I watched the NHL more often than I do now

Big ups to the students in sparkling blue fish costumes in Section B!

3-on-3 overtime is unfathomably dumb.

That was an ugly minute or so of overtime but it's not like much good happened after the 2nd period

Scersk '97
3-on-3 overtime is unfathomably dumb.

Agreed. 3v3 is cool. I'd watch a 3v3 league. But for OT, it just feels dumb.

Dafatone

Scersk '97
3-on-3 overtime is unfathomably dumb.

Agreed. 3v3 is cool. I'd watch a 3v3 league. But for OT, it just feels dumb.

Shootouts are the only thing dumber.

That game was a tie. Or a real overtime winner. I don’t care! Can we just get rid of this stupid, anti-climactic bullshit???!!!

I’m glad everyone is on the same page about the dumbness and bullshit aspects of 3x3 OT

imafrshmn
I’m glad everyone is on the same page about the dumbness and bullshit aspects of 3x3 OT

Everyone except those who can change it.

imafrshmn
Big ups to the students in sparkling blue fish costumes in Section B!

Thanks! :D

Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

Dunc

Also here’s a link to the cheers sheet me and laserwhisperer made that we are distributing tonight (thanks to Andyw2100 for providing an old cheer sheet for inspiration) -the printed version has a QR code to ELynah on it so we may see an increase in student users tonight haha

[docs.google.com]

This is really excellent. It's great to see an attempt being made to keep the Lynah traditions alive. And I think your efforts were largely successful.

The one thing I would add somewhere, that you deleted from the old sheet, is something about standing for the Alma Mater. I'm assuming your seats are in A or B, and those sections most definitely do stand. You of course can't see much of C, D, E, etc. from there. Before tonight, very few students from the tunnel-break in C on down would stand. Tonight was better, and we actually saw some in C and in D encouraging others to stand. A few words on the next version of the sheet, and in the online version, could really help.

Thanks again for taking this on!

BearLover
Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

I think the game goes differently if they score again in the 2nd but for whatever reason Gibson always looks good against Cornell or at least has things go his way. Also, I think it's safe to say that Q is the best team overall in the conference. I'd be shocked if they don't finish in 1st at the end of the regular season

What’s with all the “F*ck You” cheers?

CU2007
What’s with all the “F*ck You” cheers?

They are not planned at all - one loud person usually just says it and then their friends join and then their whole section joins

It’s a bit unfortunate imo because FU chants are a bit too on the nose and not as “clever” as the rest of the cheers - but it’s hard to prevent

andyw2100

Dunc
Somethings smelling fishy tonight :D

Let’s beat Harvard cuz they suck

Cornell:

FjAVxujXoAUa9AW.jpg

Harvard:
Not posted yet


Also here’s a link to the cheers sheet me and laserwhisperer made that we are distributing tonight (thanks to Andyw2100 for providing an old cheer sheet for inspiration) -the printed version has a QR code to ELynah on it so we may see an increase in student users tonight haha

[docs.google.com]

This is really excellent. It's great to see an attempt being made to keep the Lynah traditions alive. And I think your efforts were largely successful.

The one thing I would add somewhere, that you deleted from the old sheet, is something about standing for the Alma Mater. I'm assuming your seats are in A or B, and those sections most definitely do stand. You of course can't see much of C, D, E, etc. from there. Before tonight, very few students from the tunnel-break in C on down would stand. Tonight was better, and we actually saw some in C and in D encouraging others to stand. A few words on the next version of the sheet, and in the online version, could really help.

Thabks again for taking this on!

We will definitely add that to the Alma Mater section - thanks for the pointer and again for the help in making it (and yes we are both section B and it’s pretty much impossible to see any further than C haha)

Iceberg

BearLover
Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

I think the game goes differently if they score again in the 2nd but for whatever reason Gibson always looks good against Cornell or at least has things go his way. Also, I think it's safe to say that Q is the best team overall in the conference. I'd be shocked if they don't finish in 1st at the end of the regular season

I definitely do not think that is safe to say. I predict Harvard will be as good as Q by the end of the season. Harvard certainly has a higher talent ceiling.

Iceberg

arugula
In addition to all the other Harvard mishegoss, they have three sons of very good NHLers. Who knew they were such students!

Quite a number of NCAA guys the past few years have been the sons of former notable NHLers. Tkachuk, Boucher, Madden, Amonte, and then the three guys they mentioned on Harvard. Heck, Mario Lemieux's son played ASU and was in at least one of the games against Cornell a few years ago! And as we'll see next month, BU's new coach is Jay Pandolfdo, a player I liked when I watched the NHL more often than I do now

William Dineen of Yale is the son of Whaler legend Kevin.

Does Cornell get a losers point for getting to OT or is it a straight loss for both conference and PWR purposes.

BearLover

Iceberg

BearLover
Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

I think the game goes differently if they score again in the 2nd but for whatever reason Gibson always looks good against Cornell or at least has things go his way. Also, I think it's safe to say that Q is the best team overall in the conference. I'd be shocked if they don't finish in 1st at the end of the regular season

I definitely do not think that is safe to say. I predict Harvard will be as good as Q by the end of the season. Harvard certainly has a higher talent ceiling.

They always do and they generally underachieve. Time will tell but Donato can’t coach the talent he recruits.

arugula

BearLover

Iceberg

BearLover
Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

I think the game goes differently if they score again in the 2nd but for whatever reason Gibson always looks good against Cornell or at least has things go his way. Also, I think it's safe to say that Q is the best team overall in the conference. I'd be shocked if they don't finish in 1st at the end of the regular season

I definitely do not think that is safe to say. I predict Harvard will be as good as Q by the end of the season. Harvard certainly has a higher talent ceiling.

They always do and they generally underachieve. Time will tell but Donato can’t coach the talent he recruits.

That was true 10 years ago but it’s not really true anymore. In the last 7 seasons Harvard has made the NCAAs 5 times and won the ECAC 3 times. Also, the talent on Harvard today is greater than what it was even just a few years ago. Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program, which has never been true in its history.

BearLover

arugula

BearLover

Iceberg

BearLover
Cornell played pretty well against one of the most talented teams in the country. The first period was even. In the second, Cornell found an answer for Harvard’s offense and neutral zone trap. But Harvard’s late second period goal seemed to take some life out of Cornell and the crowd. After that, Harvard’s skill took over and Cornell was a step behind the entire third period. In OT, Cornell looked like a team who hadn’t gone to 3x3 OT—or practiced it either. Cornell students responded to the Harvard goal by pelting the ice with fish and random trash, included a drink that nearly hit one of the ice-cleaners as she was picking up a fish.

I think the game goes differently if they score again in the 2nd but for whatever reason Gibson always looks good against Cornell or at least has things go his way. Also, I think it's safe to say that Q is the best team overall in the conference. I'd be shocked if they don't finish in 1st at the end of the regular season

I definitely do not think that is safe to say. I predict Harvard will be as good as Q by the end of the season. Harvard certainly has a higher talent ceiling.

They always do and they generally underachieve. Time will tell but Donato can’t coach the talent he recruits.

That was true 10 years ago but it’s not really true anymore. In the last 7 seasons Harvard has made the NCAAs 5 times and won the ECAC 3 times. Also, the talent on Harvard today is greater than what it was even just a few years ago. Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program, which has never been true in its history.

That team is so loaded this year that it is amazing Cornell did so well until their score and subsequently in the third period.

The ability to keep them off the site board in the third was amazing in itself.

underskill
Does Cornell get a losers point for getting to OT or is it a straight loss for both conference and PWR purposes.

I think in ECAC standings, we get a loser point and Harvard only gets 2 points.

For pairwise, I believe RPI gives them .55 of a win and us .45. Not sure on that.

It looks like the OT win counts as a win for head to head purposes in the pairwise. Which sucks, but that rarely comes into play. RPI is the tiebreaker, so pairwise rankings usually wind up very closely aligned with RPI.

Correct on ECAC standings.

In pairwise, an OT win counts as 0.67 of a win and an OT loss is 0.33, changed from last year's 0.55 and 0.45 .

Give My Regards
Correct on ECAC standings.

In pairwise, an OT win counts as 0.67 of a win and an OT loss is 0.33, changed from last year's 0.55 and 0.45 .

So we went from OT barely mattering while playing functional hockey overtime to OT mattering some while playing sideshow hockey.

Sounds about right.

Dafatone

Give My Regards
Correct on ECAC standings.

In pairwise, an OT win counts as 0.67 of a win and an OT loss is 0.33, changed from last year's 0.55 and 0.45 .

So we went from OT barely mattering while playing functional hockey overtime to OT mattering some while playing sideshow hockey.

Sounds about right.

Is there the home/away multiplier this year for ties? I think I knew but have already forgotten.

marty

BearLover

arugula

They always do and they generally underachieve. Time will tell but Donato can’t coach the talent he recruits.

That was true 10 years ago but it’s not really true anymore. In the last 7 seasons Harvard has made the NCAAs 5 times and won the ECAC 3 times. Also, the talent on Harvard today is greater than what it was even just a few years ago. Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program, which has never been true in its history.

That team is so loaded this year that it is amazing Cornell did so well until their score and subsequently in the third period.

The ability to keep them off the site board in the third was amazing in itself.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. They're a 1 2/3 line team with 1 1/2 good senior D and a serviceable goaltender. That the current way games are played—meaning the copious timeouts and the overtime circus—reward them for their lack of depth is an indictment of what has happened to hockey. They lose one of those elements and they're toast.

That being said, I think Teddy is a better coach than he used to be—yes, I said it. He's doing well with what he's got and what he's been given structurally by the game. Harvard also blocks a good many more shots than they used to. But, as I said above, let's see what happens if Coronato (or, worse, Thrun) goes down before the playoffs.

I'm not ready to crown Harvard or Quinnipiac champions of anything yet. We've got a pretty good team too. There's nothing amazing about how we played: we play great defense because we have great players who are very well coached. Any one of our numerous chances—or, to be fair, theirs—goes in and that's a very different game.

It was a tie; it should've remained a tie.

Scersk '97

It was a tie; it should've remained a tie.

^^ This ^^

hurts when the combined length of the Harvard goals was about 2 ft.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Scersk '97

It was a tie; it should've remained a tie.

^^ This ^^

Right. Hard-fought, even game. Tie would have been the correct outcome.

we need to not lose pucks 15-20 ft out trying to make a good shot better.. and we need to get some of those shots in net.. The Harvard kid lost 5-6 saves that turned into chances because of not handling the puck clean . We needed more.

Iceberg

arugula
In addition to all the other Harvard mishegoss, they have three sons of very good NHLers. Who knew they were such students!

Quite a number of NCAA guys the past few years have been the sons of former notable NHLers. Tkachuk, Boucher, Madden, Amonte, and then the three guys they mentioned on Harvard. Heck, Mario Lemieux's son played ASU and was in at least one of the games against Cornell a few years ago! And as we'll see next month, BU's new coach is Jay Pandolfdo, a player I liked when I watched the NHL more often than I do now

Brown women have Jade Iginla, daughter of Jarome (1300 NHL points). She scored two today, one SHG and one PPG.

Al DeFlorio

Iceberg

arugula
In addition to all the other Harvard mishegoss, they have three sons of very good NHLers. Who knew they were such students!

Quite a number of NCAA guys the past few years have been the sons of former notable NHLers. Tkachuk, Boucher, Madden, Amonte, and then the three guys they mentioned on Harvard. Heck, Mario Lemieux's son played ASU and was in at least one of the games against Cornell a few years ago! And as we'll see next month, BU's new coach is Jay Pandolfdo, a player I liked when I watched the NHL more often than I do now

Brown women have Jade Iginla, daughter of Jarome (1300 NHL points). She scored two today, one SHG and one PPG.

That’s great. Loved her dad.

BearLover
Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program, which has never been true in its history.

I know you're a draft-hugger, but oh boy I laughed.

I don't have the resources to try to check this if you're referring to all of D1 hockey, but the implication that the Harvard roster has never been stacked with NHL draft picks is just wrong. My first 2 decades of being invested, I've always held Harvard as "loaded with draftees, never plays to that potential." The number of NHL draftees on their roster often hits double-digits and most years and dwarf the number on CU's roster. I blame the Harvard brand for that.

[www.collegehockeystats.net]

Harvard had more than Minnesota that year and far more than us.

Colgate 6 - Harvard 4, so Cornell has a 4 point weekend and Harvard only a 2 pointer.

RichH

BearLover
Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program, which has never been true in its history.

I know you're a draft-hugger, but oh boy I laughed.

I don't have the resources to try to check this if you're referring to all of D1 hockey, but the implication that the Harvard roster has never been stacked with NHL draft picks is just wrong. My first 2 decades of being invested, I've always held Harvard as "loaded with draftees, never plays to that potential." The number of NHL draftees on their roster often hits double-digits and most years and dwarf the number on CU's roster. I blame the Harvard brand for that.

That wasn’t the implication at all? The point is that Harvard has always gotten a lot of talent, but never to the degree they do today. For example, their frozen four team from 2017 had 8 draft picks. Now they have 15. That is more than every other team in college hockey. Which is insane. Draft picks aren’t everything—I’m not a “draft hugger”—but number of draft picks is highly correlated with winning and generally a good proxy for a team’s overall talent. The notion that Donato hasn’t done anything with his talent hasn’t been true for seven years now. You’ve lost the plot if you think these are the same Harvard teams that we were watching in the early 2010s and if you don’t think Harvard’s talent has dwarfed the rest of the ECAC’s to a degree not seen before.

Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

Scersk '97
Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it’s been in recent history.

BearLover

Scersk '97
Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it’s been in recent history.

Look, you’re not going to get this, but it just doesn’t matter as much as you think.

I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

Dafatone
No sense arguing about facts.

What kind of nonsense is this?

Scersk '97

BearLover

Scersk '97
Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it’s been in recent history.

Look, you’re not going to get this, but it just doesn’t matter as much as you think.

I’m not trying to relitigate how much draft picks matter. My point is merely that the disparity between Harvard’s raw talent and that of the rest of the ECAC is in uncharted territory, and also the notion that Harvard underachieves relative to its talent hasn’t really been true for awhile now.

Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game. If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

JohnF81
Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game. If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

Bingo. Their bottom two lines and most of their D are nothing to write home about. They've given up 15 goals in their past four games, after all. Cornell did play well in the 2nd and that wasn't a coincidence. I expect it to be competitive in Cambridge next month.

And I'd easily take Harvard's FF team a few years ago over the current one. They had a few guys who are having pretty good if not great NHL careers right now. And that team had fewer draft picks

Dafatone
I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry. (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

RichH
Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13.

Harvard has 15: [collegehockeyinc.com]

So they indeed do have the most draft picks in the league.

However I do agree this does not equate to raw talent. For many of the later picks in drafts you never truly know how their talent is. Now what I would say is the most draft picks is more correlated to highest potential, but I do not think Harvard is even close to top talent in the league at their current state despite the "high potential".

On the other hand, I know everyone hates 3v3, but it was the perfect showcase of Harvards talent because when you give their top guys room to work you're just done (and by top guys I'm referring to perhaps 6ish players - alot of the draft picks did not impress me watching them).

Dunc
On the other hand, I know everyone hates 3v3, but it was the perfect showcase of Harvards talent because when you give their top guys room to work you're just done (and by top guys I'm referring to perhaps 6ish players - alot of the draft picks did not impress me watching them).

It showcases a particular kind of talent, which, in my opinion, diminishes in importance as the season goes on for a number of different reasons, e.g., overtimes stop being stupid and, given how whistles disappear, skill guys have a lot less room in which to work.

Dunc

RichH
Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13.

Harvard has 15: [collegehockeyinc.com]

PS Don't know what's up with Farinacci. He's a captain but hasn't played yet this season. So 14, effectively.

Farinacci left Harvard to return to the USHL, then left the USHL to return to Harvard. IIRC he will return in the Spring. So, (1) he's good and (2) fuck him.

RichH

Dafatone
I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

[www.bostonglobe.com]

JohnF81
Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game. If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

Harvard’s first two lines:
Farrel (4th round pick, Olympian); Coronato (1st round pick, Olympian); Miller (6th round pick)

Gaffney; Karpa (6th round pick); Lafferiere (3rd round pick)

Harvard’s defense (6 of 7 players drafted) and goalie (drafted), were presumably also on the ice.

So, assuming Harvard only played its top two lines and played their D and goalie, of those 13 players, 11 were draft picks. 2 were Olympians.

Basically the only guys not playing were the ones who weren’t drafted.

Farinacci (3rd round pick) has been injured, otherwise he would have slotted into one of the top two lines.

All that is to say, this is not a good argument against Harvard’s talent.

RichH

Dafatone
I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry. (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

Rhetorical fail here when you say "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent."

If you had said that most picks <> team with best record on the year, or similar, I'd concur.

I actually agree with bearlover on this one. # of draft picks is a decent proxy for "raw talent". Absent a metric that factors the actual draft positions this has got to be the best we've got. It has to be - there's a reason pro teams spend so much money on scouting and drafting, right?

A better indicator would probably be something like adding up the actual draft positions in some fashion and doing some data massage or normalization, but I've not figured out a simple algorithm at the moment.

For example, With so many first rounders, and a bunch of them top 5 or 10 picks, Michigan probably has more total raw talent than anyone; and 3 top 10 picks or whatever ought to constitute more aggregate raw talent than having 6 3rd rounders.

Let's not confuse raw talent, which is a measure of potential, with measures of actual success.

abmarks

RichH

Dafatone
I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry. (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

Rhetorical fail here when you say "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent."

If you had said that most picks <> team with best record on the year, or similar, I'd concur.

I actually agree with bearlover on this one. # of draft picks is a decent proxy for "raw talent". Absent a metric that factors the actual draft positions this has got to be the best we've got. It has to be - there's a reason pro teams spend so much money on scouting and drafting, right?

A better indicator would probably be something like adding up the actual draft positions in some fashion and doing some data massage or normalization, but I've not figured out a simple algorithm at the moment.

For example, With so many first rounders, and a bunch of them top 5 or 10 picks, Michigan probably has more total raw talent than anyone; and 3 top 10 picks or whatever ought to constitute more aggregate raw talent than having 6 3rd rounders.

Let's not confuse raw talent, which is a measure of potential, with measures of actual success.

I think this draft pick argument is mostly silly because pro potential tomorrow is not collegiate success today. I also think that if Cornell was the team with 15 draft picks, there'd be a lot of chest thumping around here about how talented the team is because "look at the draft picks!"

That said, I've always viewed the NHL draft as drafting players with *potential* to play at a high level. A vanishingly few of those picks are pro ready on draft day (and those that are almost never set foot on campus) and for the rest, teams are betting on future development. They aren't right 100% of the time. They also aren't drafting kids who are likely to have projected ceilings lower than what would give the club value. College hockey games are won and lost by players on the ice now, not by their potential to be pros. Duluth and Q come to mind as teams that have built success through older players rather than having success signing blue chippahs. How many national titles has Michigan and its annual draft bounty won since the turn of the century? The same number as Harvard and Cornell. 19 Michigan alums are in the NHL this year. None have ncaa rings. Does potential talent have a role to play in building a quality team? Of course. Is it a proxy for success on the ice *today*? In the absence of anything else, sure. But I don't think it's so simple because the draft is about ceilings and potential. If it were a great proxy for talent today, you'd expect the Hobey to go to a high draft pick every year. Of all Hobey winners since 2010, I think 6 are in the NHL today and 2-3 were first rounders. Since I keep using Michigan as an example, its last Hobey winner was drafted 114th.

So I get why it's an attractive debate, I just don't put a ton of stock in it.

Chris '03

abmarks

RichH

Dafatone
I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don’t think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry. (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

Rhetorical fail here when you say "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent."

If you had said that most picks <> team with best record on the year, or similar, I'd concur.

I actually agree with bearlover on this one. # of draft picks is a decent proxy for "raw talent". Absent a metric that factors the actual draft positions this has got to be the best we've got. It has to be - there's a reason pro teams spend so much money on scouting and drafting, right?

A better indicator would probably be something like adding up the actual draft positions in some fashion and doing some data massage or normalization, but I've not figured out a simple algorithm at the moment.

For example, With so many first rounders, and a bunch of them top 5 or 10 picks, Michigan probably has more total raw talent than anyone; and 3 top 10 picks or whatever ought to constitute more aggregate raw talent than having 6 3rd rounders.

Let's not confuse raw talent, which is a measure of potential, with measures of actual success.

I think this draft pick argument is mostly silly because pro potential tomorrow is not collegiate success today. I also think that if Cornell was the team with 15 draft picks, there'd be a lot of chest thumping around here about how talented the team is because "look at the draft picks!"

That said, I've always viewed the NHL draft as drafting players with *potential* to play at a high level. A vanishingly few of those picks are pro ready on draft day (and those that are almost never set foot on campus) and for the rest, teams are betting on future development. They aren't right 100% of the time. They also aren't drafting kids who are likely to have projected ceilings lower than what would give the club value. College hockey games are won and lost by players on the ice now, not by their potential to be pros. Duluth and Q come to mind as teams that have built success through older players rather than having success signing blue chippahs. How many national titles has Michigan and its annual draft bounty won since the turn of the century? The same number as Harvard and Cornell. 19 Michigan alums are in the NHL this year. None have ncaa rings. Does potential talent have a role to play in building a quality team? Of course. Is it a proxy for success on the ice *today*? In the absence of anything else, sure. But I don't think it's so simple because the draft is about ceilings and potential. If it were a great proxy for talent today, you'd expect the Hobey to go to a high draft pick every year. Of all Hobey winners since 2010, I think 6 are in the NHL today and 2-3 were first rounders. Since I keep using Michigan as an example, its last Hobey winner was drafted 114th.

So I get why it's an attractive debate, I just don't put a ton of stock in it.

All of this. Plus, as has been noted before, picks can come with opportunity cost. Building your squad around guys who leave early forces you to constantly reload.

So of course it's good to have high draft picks on your team, but there are some downsides too.

I'd disagree that Harvard hasn't underachieved. The narrative still holds. The fact that the large amount of draft picks is being touted - with a bigger discrepancy vis-a-vis Cornell than past years - only proves the point. Just because Harvard has more consistently made the NCAAs recently, doesn't mean anything. With all that "talent," it should be making Frozen Fours. Harvard made the NCAAs 5 straight years, and won two ECAC titles, in the Mazzoleni era and never won an NCAA game. Harvard always underachieves, and it's no different now than it has been. They shouldn't just be making the NCAAs.

RichH
But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

It's 15 - I just updated it. Sometimes when a player is drafted, they are not yet committed to a school so our automation doesn't match them up at that time. I just added Langenbrunner and Ian Moore's draft info.

adamw

RichH
But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

It's 15 - I just updated it. Sometimes when a player is drafted, they are not yet committed to a school so our automation doesn't match them up at that time. I just added Langenbrunner and Ian Moore's draft info.

Thanks Adam, and thanks to Dunc & BearLover for posting the source document. I withdraw my dispute of that fact, and want to commend everyone for this interesting and civil discussion of different viewpoints. ELynah remains the weirdest place to love.

adamw
Harvard made the NCAAs 5 straight years, and won two ECAC titles, in the Mazzoleni era and never won an NCAA game.

|
|
|
|
V

Currently 5 or 6 other D-1 hockey teams from universities with a fraction of the wealth of Harvard are more highly ranked than Harvard. This is no surprise, it's the norm. Suggesting the success of a college hockey program (see above) results from the wealth of a university is just silly.

osorojo
Currently 5 or 6 other D-1 hockey teams from universities with a fraction of the wealth of Harvard are more highly ranked than Harvard. This is no surprise, it's the norm. Suggesting the success of a college hockey program (see above) results from the wealth of a university is just silly.

When/where did anyone suggest the success of a college hockey program results from the wealth of a university?

BearLover

osorojo
Currently 5 or 6 other D-1 hockey teams from universities with a fraction of the wealth of Harvard are more highly ranked than Harvard. This is no surprise, it's the norm. Suggesting the success of a college hockey program (see above) results from the wealth of a university is just silly.

When/where did anyone suggest the success of a college hockey program results from the wealth of a university?

See, this is why I think this "guy" is a bot. He's like a college hockey discussion etch-a-sketch. Shake him up and then draw up a completely new, irrelevant troll-ish comment.

Scersk '97
See, this is why I think this "guy" is a bot. He's like a college hockey discussion etch-a-sketch. Shake him up and then draw up a completely new, irrelevant troll-ish comment.

This is the perfect operational definition of a pundit.

Scersk '97

BearLover

osorojo
Currently 5 or 6 other D-1 hockey teams from universities with a fraction of the wealth of Harvard are more highly ranked than Harvard. This is no surprise, it's the norm. Suggesting the success of a college hockey program (see above) results from the wealth of a university is just silly.

When/where did anyone suggest the success of a college hockey program results from the wealth of a university?

See, this is why I think this "guy" is a bot. He's like a college hockey discussion etch-a-sketch. Shake him up and then draw up a completely new, irrelevant troll-ish comment.

Very funny, but he does often come back with attempts to defend his claims, including quotes from previous posts. I think he is just a mean old alum mad at the world because they are pureeing his filet mignon.

I'm a cranky old alum who was fortunate to be around when Lynah was built, when Cornell dominated the Ivy league for years on end, when the Cornell hockey team was the best college hockey team in the nation, when attendance at Lynah was SRO for years on end. This experience makes me cringe when I come across justifications for the status quo of C.U. men's varsity ice hockey. I prefer to harbor unrealistic expectations for success rather than logical explanations for failure. All us Bots feel this way.

osorojo
I'm a cranky old alum who was fortunate to be around when Lynah was built, when Cornell dominated the Ivy league for years on end, when the Cornell hockey team was the best college hockey team in the nation, when attendance at Lynah was SRO for years on end. This experience makes me cringe when I come across justifications for the status quo of C.U. men's varsity ice hockey. I prefer to harbor unrealistic expectations for success rather than logical explanations for failure. All us Bots feel this way.

Fine, fine, fine. I shake your hand after looking through your post history. Yet you were so satisfied back in 2019–20. What happened? That didn't come out of nowhere, you know.

Thing is, I'm a cranky oldish alum, too. And I was a townie before I came: saw Schafer play a game, although I don't remember him or it much. (5–4 win over Western Ontario.) My thought for you is this: You can shake your fist at clouds as much as you want, but we humans have very little control over the weather. The winds of change have blown through college hockey (and higher education as a whole) many, many times since the 1960s, and what was possible then from a coach's standpoint is almost definitely not possible today.

Would I like to see us in the Frozen Four every year? You betcha. Not going to happen. As long as we're constantly competitive in league and often competitive nationally, I'm quite content. I think we've had that ever since Schafer brought the team back from a long downward slide. Everything that comes after that high level of competitiveness is just the result of a number of weighted coin flips. I can be patient. Once I can't be patient anymore, college hockey will not be the first thing on my mind.

nshapiro
I think he is just a mean old alum mad at the world because they are pureeing his filet mignon.

Perhaps eLynah will be cited as one of the proofs of the Turing Test. The footnote will say that when the maybe-machine injects occasional malapropisms, odd statements and circular logic, the man-thing becomes more believable as human not computer.

Instead of marching and chanting, "Thanks a lot, Dean Malott," could you have marched in favor of a Lynah roofline say 10 feet higher? We need better video sightlines.

osorojo is not literally a bot. oso's also not an old alum pining for the old days. oso is a very particular type of troll and it is really driving me up a wall that you are all too content to argue with nonsense provocations as if they are sincere because you love argument Just That Much.

i fully admit that my frustration - and my public response - is a second-order effect of the troll. the only way for my nerves to be calmed is not for the troll to shut up but for all of you to stop responding as if the posts are anything but Jon Cleese's in the argument sketch. oso is Tinkerbell in the sense that the existence of trolls is entirely dependent on you believing they are "real."

Scersk '97
I'm a cranky oldish alum, too.

Cranky, perhaps, but class of ‘97, oldish? Just wait! That said, I agree that college hockey has significantly changed since the ‘60s, largely because Cornell elevated the game, particularly in the east. Far more equity today, as other schools have upped their game. I consider myself fortunate to have been in grad school, too, and seen teams go 29-0-0, 27-1-1 and 27-2-0 (twice).

ugarte
osorojo is not literally a bot. oso's also not an old alum pining for the old days. oso is a very particular type of troll and it is really driving me up a wall that you are all too content to argue with nonsense provocations as if they are sincere because you love argument Just That Much.

i fully admit that my frustration - and my public response - is a second-order effect of the troll. the only way for my nerves to be calmed is not for the troll to shut up but for all of you to stop responding as if the posts are anything but Jon Cleese's in the argument sketch. oso is Tinkerbell in the sense that the existence of trolls is entirely dependent on you believing they are "real."

I want to live in the universe where he's a bot. But you're otherwise right.

osorojo
I'm a cranky old alum who was fortunate to be around when Lynah was built, when Cornell dominated the Ivy league for years on end, when the Cornell hockey team was the best college hockey team in the nation, when attendance at Lynah was SRO for years on end. This experience makes me cringe when I come across justifications for the status quo of C.U. men's varsity ice hockey. I prefer to harbor unrealistic expectations for success rather than logical explanations for failure. All us Bots feel this way.

I've been amused with the bot argument. After reading this post I conclude that, yes, eLynah, there is an osorojo.

I see on the horizon a vocation writing the bromides that have found their way into modern day fortune cookies.

osorojo
I'm a cranky old alum ...

Redundancy alert? But I feel that way too.

PS One thing that makes a COA feel old has been seeing the Ed Marinaro '72 jersey on display. It has turned closer to pink than the original red. It also says, "That's the high water mark of football the last 50 years."

Princeton wisely displays a bronze bust of Hobey Baker '14 that does not fade.

George64

Scersk '97
I'm a cranky oldish alum, too.

Cranky, perhaps, but class of ‘97, oldish? Just wait!

I am middle-cranked. I can tell the kids to get off my lawn and, just barely, have a chance of enforcing it.

Scersk '97

George64

Scersk '97
I'm a cranky oldish alum, too.

Cranky, perhaps, but class of ‘97, oldish? Just wait!

I am middle-cranked. I can tell the kids to get off my lawn and, just barely, have a chance of enforcing it.

You've been telling people to get off your lawn for the 20+ years I've known you.

Dafatone

Give My Regards
Correct on ECAC standings.

In pairwise, an OT win counts as 0.67 of a win and an OT loss is 0.33, changed from last year's 0.55 and 0.45 .

So we went from OT barely mattering while playing functional hockey overtime to OT mattering some while playing sideshow hockey.

Sounds about right.

But the OT was already 3x3 last year, right? I don't like the 3-2-2-1-1-0 point system (although it's better than 2-2-2-1-1-0 or whatever the NHL does), but I fear it's here to stay, since it's now the standard in the IIHF and the European leagues. If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie, but if we're going to have gimmicks and shootouts, I'd at least rather see 4x4 OT and something like 5-4-3-2-1-0 (i.e., 5 points for winning in regulation, 4 in OT, and 3 in a shootout).

jtwcornell91
But the OT was already 3x3 last year, right? I don't like the 3-2-2-1-1-0 point system (although it's better than 2-2-2-1-1-0 or whatever the NHL does), but I fear it's here to stay, since it's now the standard in the IIHF and the European leagues. If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie, but if we're going to have gimmicks and shootouts, I'd at least rather see 4x4 OT and something like 5-4-3-2-1-0 (i.e., 5 points for winning in regulation, 4 in OT, and 3 in a shootout).

The preferred points format in the rec leagues of Cape Canaveral.

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

+1

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

Definitely!
.

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

i think it's true too but i confess that i've emotionally moved on. i'll watch whatever format they settle on.

George64

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

Definitely!
.

++1

Larry72

George64

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

Definitely!
.

++1

From Schafer's email this week:

Mike Schafer
The ECAC plays a three-on-three format in overtime, which I really hate. It’s not how to decide a game! We don’t practice 3-on-3 a whole lot and we had a couple of guys stay on the ice longer than they should have during overtime. Just a minute in, we turned it over in our offensive zone, which led to a Harvard breakaway by their Montreal top-draft-choice and USA Olympian. Sophomore goaltender Ian Shane made a great save on the initial shot with the puck going up in the rafters. It landed right behind Shane in the crease. A Harvard player found the puck before Shane and scored. It was a disappointing way to lose and anticlimactic for the fans. I would have preferred to see these teams play 5-on-5 for five minutes. It was a tough way to end a great night.

Weder

Larry72

George64

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

Definitely!
.

++1

From Schafer's email this week:

Mike Schafer
The ECAC plays a three-on-three format in overtime, which I really hate. It’s not how to decide a game! We don’t practice 3-on-3 a whole lot and we had a couple of guys stay on the ice longer than they should have during overtime. Just a minute in, we turned it over in our offensive zone, which led to a Harvard breakaway by their Montreal top-draft-choice and USA Olympian. Sophomore goaltender Ian Shane made a great save on the initial shot with the puck going up in the rafters. It landed right behind Shane in the crease. A Harvard player found the puck before Shane and scored. It was a disappointing way to lose and anticlimactic for the fans. I would have preferred to see these teams play 5-on-5 for five minutes. It was a tough way to end a great night.

Couldn't have said it better.

Weder
From Schafer's email this week:

Mike Schafer
The ECAC plays a three-on-three format in overtime, which I really hate. It’s not how to decide a game! We don’t practice 3-on-3 a whole lot and we had a couple of guys stay on the ice longer than they should have during overtime. Just a minute in, we turned it over in our offensive zone, which led to a Harvard breakaway by their Montreal top-draft-choice and USA Olympian. Sophomore goaltender Ian Shane made a great save on the initial shot with the puck going up in the rafters. It landed right behind Shane in the crease. A Harvard player found the puck before Shane and scored. It was a disappointing way to lose and anticlimactic for the fans. I would have preferred to see these teams play 5-on-5 for five minutes. It was a tough way to end a great night.

I am somehow completely unsurprised that this is how Schafer feels.

Weder

Larry72

George64

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

Definitely!
.

++1

From Schafer's email this week:

Mike Schafer
The ECAC plays a three-on-three format in overtime, which I really hate. It’s not how to decide a game! We don’t practice 3-on-3 a whole lot and we had a couple of guys stay on the ice longer than they should have during overtime. Just a minute in, we turned it over in our offensive zone, which led to a Harvard breakaway by their Montreal top-draft-choice and USA Olympian. Sophomore goaltender Ian Shane made a great save on the initial shot with the puck going up in the rafters. It landed right behind Shane in the crease. A Harvard player found the puck before Shane and scored. It was a disappointing way to lose and anticlimactic for the fans. I would have preferred to see these teams play 5-on-5 for five minutes. It was a tough way to end a great night.

+1 for JTW

+1 for MS

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

I do sort of fondly remember ten-minute 5x5 OT followed by a tie (back before cell phones and the web, kids!) but I'll gladly take the five-minute version over what we've got now.

Give My Regards

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

I do sort of fondly remember ten-minute 5x5 OT followed by a tie (back before cell phones and the web, kids!) but I'll gladly take the five-minute version over what we've got now.

I recall the ten minute overtimes as one minute of intensity, 8 minutes of torpor, 1 minute of intensity. I really did not notice anything lost when they went to 5 minutes, and the coaches and players said they preferred it for lessening the chance of a tired player messing up and injuring himself or others.

3x3 is a level of garbage rivalled only by shootouts. It is the perfect monument to the 2020s.

By 2040 they'll have a dance off.

Trotsky

Give My Regards

andyw2100

jtwcornell91
If you ask me, nothing was wrong with 5 minutes of 5x5 OT followed by a tie

This!

I would guess almost everyone here would agree.

I do sort of fondly remember ten-minute 5x5 OT followed by a tie (back before cell phones and the web, kids!) but I'll gladly take the five-minute version over what we've got now.

I recall the ten minute overtimes as one minute of intensity, 8 minutes of torpor, 1 minute of intensity. I really did not notice anything lost when they went to 5 minutes, and the coaches and players said they preferred it for lessening the chance of a tired player messing up and injuring himself or others.

3x3 is a level of garbage rivalled only by shootouts. It is the perfect monument to the 2020s.

By 2040 they'll have a dance off.

I’m all in with going back to 5 x 5 for 5 minutes, no shootout

My preference:

1. 5x5 5 minutes
2. No overtime at all.
3. I would like to see Max in the dance off.

Trotsky
My preference:

1. 5x5 5 minutes
2. No overtime at all.
3. I would like to see Max in the dance off.

If they wanna do a shootout for bragging rights at the end of that, sure, why not.

Hell, I won't even complain too much if it counts in the standings. But I don't want it near the pairwise.

Dafatone
If they wanna do a shootout for bragging rights at the end of that, sure, why not.

Because it sucks is why not. Don't decide a team sport event with an individual skill contest. It's not just inelegant. It makes as much sense as deciding an MLB game with a homerun hitting contest.

Trotsky

Dafatone
If they wanna do a shootout for bragging rights at the end of that, sure, why not.

Because it sucks is why not. Don't decide a team sport event with an individual skill contest. It's not just inelegant. It makes as much sense as deciding an MLB game with a homerun hitting contest.

Is it weird that I like shootouts more than 3x3?