Sunday, December 17th, 2017
Who is this season's most improved player?
Matt Buckles
Jeff Kubiak
Alex Rauter
Trevor Yates
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

HARVARD SUCKS

Posted by Josh '99 
Current Page: 13 of 14
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (134.223.230.---)
Date: June 04, 2015 01:33PM

I propose we give naming rights.

"The Malcolm Gladwell Harvard Sucks Thread."
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: June 04, 2015 02:11PM

That is the only evidence I've ever seen that Gladwell has functioning synapses.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: June 26, 2015 10:01AM

There's talk on the Harvard USCHO thread that the Cheating Three may play for other D-1 schools this (in particular, Minny is looking at Michalek). The restriction was Ivy, not NC$$, so it's legit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2015 10:02AM by Trotsky.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: June 26, 2015 10:18AM

Trotsky
There's talk on the Harvard USCHO thread that the Cheating Three may play for other D-1 schools this (in particular, Minny is looking at Michalek). The restriction was Ivy, not NC$$, so it's legit.

How appropriate... Going from a Sucking Cheater to a Goofer....
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: LynahFaithful (---.cit.cornell.edu)
Date: June 26, 2015 10:34AM

Trotsky
There's talk on the Harvard USCHO thread that the Cheating Three may play for other D-1 schools this (in particular, Minny is looking at Michalek). The restriction was Ivy, not NC$$, so it's legit.

Wow... Someone please tell me that the NCAA is going to actually care about this rather than just blow it off.

Sounds like the faithful will have to come up with a new chant to commemorate the cheaters...
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: June 26, 2015 06:53PM

LynahFaithful
Trotsky
There's talk on the Harvard USCHO thread that the Cheating Three may play for other D-1 schools this (in particular, Minny is looking at Michalek). The restriction was Ivy, not NC$$, so it's legit.

Wow... Someone please tell me that the NCAA is going to actually care about this rather than just blow it off.

Sounds like the faithful will have to come up with a new chant to commemorate the cheaters...

Good goalie, bad goalie, (points west) cheating goalie!
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - A hilarious take on why.
Posted by: TimV (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: August 01, 2015 05:03PM

A Princeton guy, I think. Or maybe one of US?

Al, are you GBR on this board?

Edit: reading more attentively, he's an Eli.

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2015 09:52AM by TimV.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - A hilarious take on why.
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: August 01, 2015 08:30PM

TimV
A Princeton guy, I think. Or maybe one of US?

Al, are you GBR on this board?
On Voy? No.

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: elliotb (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: September 02, 2015 09:01AM

This is Robin. Harvard Sucks tickets are on sale right now.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: September 04, 2015 04:22AM

elliotb
This is Robin. Harvard Sucks tickets are on sale right now.

Thanks

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: January 19, 2016 02:21AM

Ben Scrivens:

[video.canadiens.nhl.com]

Watch until the end, and you'll see why this video is appropriate for this thread.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: January 23, 2016 05:51PM

I move this be the game thread.

We really need to beat those assholes tonight.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: January 23, 2016 06:08PM

Interesting lineup changes: Buckles and Starrett out, Rauter and Anderson in (Anderson is playing forward)
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: January 23, 2016 06:46PM

Starrett made a terribly lazy series of plays and just generally looked bad.

Buckles getting swapped out surprises me -- I thought he was pushing forward all night and one of our better offensive presences.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:06PM

According to the graphics, we've got a new goalie starting for us tonight - "Mith Gillam."

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:09PM

But hey, at least the video resolution is ridiculously crappy.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:30PM

It's night and day watching these teams on offense.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: BMac (50.141.29.---)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:40PM

1- That one goal was nice. Great camera angle for it.

2- Did anyone just see that Cornell promo video? ("I would found an institution...";) That was... embarassing. I expect better production value from middle schools.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:43PM

scoop85
Interesting lineup changes: Buckles and Starrett out, Rauter and Anderson in (Anderson is playing forward)

I've been wondering when Anderson would be back——he's turned into one of our better forwards, as far as I'm concerned.

PS What's been up with Hilbrich? He hasn't looked 100% all year.

PPS Gillam's rebound control was crappy last night, and it's crappy tonight.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2016 07:48PM by Scersk '97.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (50.153.145.---)
Date: January 23, 2016 07:47PM

BMac
1- That one goal was nice. Great camera angle for it.

My home internet is down this week, so I'm struggling through a spotty public wifi hotspot. I have to reconnect & refresh every few mins and the last time I did, this screenshot popped up, which made me happy:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2016 07:57PM by RichH.

 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Harvard 6-2 1/23/16
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 23, 2016 11:28PM

With Harvard up 5-2 and Cornell getting a power play with 10 minutes to play, it was time to go with six attackers.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Johnny 5 (---.sub-70-209-130.myvzw.com)
Date: January 24, 2016 08:03AM

When we fore-checked and back-checked aggressively we looked competitive. When we let let them work the puck they consistently out-maneuvered us. They were able to carry the puck into the offensive zone, we played dump and chase. Yes, their power play is potent. But, if you let a Harvard player camp out in front of your goalie, so that he needs to keep sliding side to side to see what's going on in front of him, you are asking to get scored on.
This is so depressing. If this team had begun the season like they were predicted to it would be easier to take this devolution. To see them collapse like they have is really disheartening.
Let's hope the north country trip provides a reversal of fortune.
However, given their performance against the bottom-feeders to date, I'm not optimistic.

C'mon gang....Let's Go Red!!!

bang
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 24, 2016 09:08AM

for the weekend we gave up 3 PP, 2 empty net, 2 goals on rebounds, 2 goals on multi deflections

we scored zero on the PP and zero on about 6 min of extra attacker even though we controlled the puck almost the entire time both nights

we got zero ugly goals, on tons of chances

harvard is just quicker and more talented.. cant say dartmouth is but you need to play 60 min of energy hockey and you need to get the puck in the net when the plays are there.. too many whiffs and missing the net.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: January 24, 2016 02:39PM

Quote from Coach Bennett following Union's loss to RPI in the Mayor's Cup yesterday:


“If we’re relying on freshmen, we’re going to have serious problems these last 10 games.”

It's the problem we have as well, just in a little different way. We have been relying on the freshmen to do a lot this year. As with most teams, in most sports, that doesn't usually lead to championships. They are still some of our best players, but unfortunately they still are freshmen.

The forwards are obvious, but as the season goes on, McCrea has become an excellent defenseman. However there are many times during a game where he has trouble with the breakout. Time, and seeing the situations over and over again, will allow a good player to develop. Unfortunately 19 games are not enough time. The same for the other freshmen. I'm very optimistic for the future and will be extremely happy if we get a first round bye this year.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 11:29AM

Jim Hyla
Quote from Coach Bennett following Union's loss to RPI in the Mayor's Cup yesterday:


“If we’re relying on freshmen, we’re going to have serious problems these last 10 games.”

It's the problem we have as well, just in a little different way. We have been relying on the freshmen to do a lot this year. As with most teams, in most sports, that doesn't usually lead to championships. They are still some of our best players, but unfortunately they still are freshmen.

The forwards are obvious, but as the season goes on, McCrea has become an excellent defenseman. However there are many times during a game where he has trouble with the breakout. Time, and seeing the situations over and over again, will allow a good player to develop. Unfortunately 19 games are not enough time. The same for the other freshmen. I'm very optimistic for the future and will be extremely happy if we get a first round bye this year.

Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen. The issue is the talent on this team is not good, and the system is conservative as hell, exposing the weakness of the talent. You have to take calculated risks if you want to win a hockey game without getting incredibly lucky. When is the last time you saw a great aggressive pinch from one of the d-men to keep a cycle alive. Or the last time an aggressive stick in the neutral zone broke up the opponents breakout. As I've pointed out before, our possession metrics against good teams were bad. Now, our overall possession metrics are bad with our even strength CF% at 49%, which seems to corroborate my theory that our good early metrics were a product of small sample size and bad competition. Admittedly our all of our Fenwick statistics and our CF% Close are better but at 19 games in Corsi at even strength is just going to be the best metric because it has the largest sample of data (there have been more than 500 fewer events at CF% close than just CF% at even strength, Fenwick events are even lower due to the removal of blocked shots, which is why it usually takes 30-35 games of data for FF% to stabilize). A team at 49% is just a mediocre team. As shooting percentages begin to fall back to normal levels (You have to ask yourself are Angello and Kubiak really 20%+ good? The only correct answer to this is no, not even Ovi is that good and he's arguably the greatest goalscorer ever), then the team needs to generate more shots. Shot attempts are just more sustainable over time than shooting percentage. What we're seeing over the last month is a team that's overplaying its talent crash back to a performance more in line with what the underlying metrics would dictate. Not good, not bad. Just mediocre. Mediocre talent can be covered up for with intelligent deployment of assets. A great example of this is Dave Hakstol. With both the Flyers and NoDak, Hak has for the most part utilized his talent as efficiently as possible. He has preached an aggressive pinching system with his d-men and strove to dominate the neutral zone. This is why, despite the fact that the Flyers defense could be best described as a traffic cone in a garbage fire in the defensive zone, they've improved from a negative possession team under Berube, to a positive possession team under Hakstol. And yes they could be better if he didnt do stupid things like start Umberger over Gagner and scratch Medvedev instead of Schultz, but you have to ask yourself, when is the last time Schafer's style has actually positively contributed to his team's peformance. It seem's to me as if all the success has been either small sample size luck or special teams fueled. There is not one time I would call Schafer's teams an even strength monster like the LA Kings. This is why we aren't good.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: KeithK (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 12:15PM

css228
Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen.
Not to discount the rest of your argument, but when you start with "the issue is not relying on freshmen" and you cite Kariya nad Eichel you're setting yourself up to be ignored.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 01:14PM

css228
Jim Hyla
Quote from Coach Bennett following Union's loss to RPI in the Mayor's Cup yesterday:


“If we’re relying on freshmen, we’re going to have serious problems these last 10 games.”

It's the problem we have as well, just in a little different way. We have been relying on the freshmen to do a lot this year. As with most teams, in most sports, that doesn't usually lead to championships. They are still some of our best players, but unfortunately they still are freshmen.

The forwards are obvious, but as the season goes on, McCrea has become an excellent defenseman. However there are many times during a game where he has trouble with the breakout. Time, and seeing the situations over and over again, will allow a good player to develop. Unfortunately 19 games are not enough time. The same for the other freshmen. I'm very optimistic for the future and will be extremely happy if we get a first round bye this year.

Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen. The issue is the talent on this team is not good, and the system is conservative as hell, exposing the weakness of the talent. You have to take calculated risks if you want to win a hockey game without getting incredibly lucky. When is the last time you saw a great aggressive pinch from one of the d-men to keep a cycle alive. Or the last time an aggressive stick in the neutral zone broke up the opponents breakout. As I've pointed out before, our possession metrics against good teams were bad. Now, our overall possession metrics are bad with our even strength CF% at 49%, which seems to corroborate my theory that our good early metrics were a product of small sample size and bad competition. Admittedly our all of our Fenwick statistics and our CF% Close are better but at 19 games in Corsi at even strength is just going to be the best metric because it has the largest sample of data (there have been more than 500 fewer events at CF% close than just CF% at even strength, Fenwick events are even lower due to the removal of blocked shots, which is why it usually takes 30-35 games of data for FF% to stabilize). A team at 49% is just a mediocre team. As shooting percentages begin to fall back to normal levels (You have to ask yourself are Angello and Kubiak really 20%+ good? The only correct answer to this is no, not even Ovi is that good and he's arguably the greatest goalscorer ever), then the team needs to generate more shots. Shot attempts are just more sustainable over time than shooting percentage. What we're seeing over the last month is a team that's overplaying its talent crash back to a performance more in line with what the underlying metrics would dictate. Not good, not bad. Just mediocre. Mediocre talent can be covered up for with intelligent deployment of assets. A great example of this is Dave Hakstol. With both the Flyers and NoDak, Hak has for the most part utilized his talent as efficiently as possible. He has preached an aggressive pinching system with his d-men and strove to dominate the neutral zone. This is why, despite the fact that the Flyers defense could be best described as a traffic cone in a garbage fire in the defensive zone, they've improved from a negative possession team under Berube, to a positive possession team under Hakstol. And yes they could be better if he didnt do stupid things like start Umberger over Gagner and scratch Medvedev instead of Schultz, but you have to ask yourself, when is the last time Schafer's style has actually positively contributed to his team's peformance. It seem's to me as if all the success has been either small sample size luck or special teams fueled. There is not one time I would call Schafer's teams an even strength monster like the LA Kings. This is why we aren't good.

As I posted on the D'mouth thread, did you see the RPI game? Conservative it wasn't.

And yes, I've seen dmen pinch on multiple occasions every game, sometimes both pinch and then I get worried. So your stats may be correct, but I disagree with your statements. And to use the 2 best ever freshmen as saying that the issue isn't relying on freshmen, well your outliers only go to prove the point. Freshmen just don't normally take your team to the championship.

And as an aside, it would be a lot easier to read your post if you would break up the paragraph.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 02:24PM

KeithK
css228
Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen.
Not to discount the rest of your argument, but when you start with "the issue is not relying on freshmen" and you cite Kariya nad Eichel you're setting yourself up to be ignored.
Well, it is a consistent argument: youth is not an automatic excuse because if the youth is good enough the team still wins. So, our problem isn't youth, it's the absence of that level of talent.

But... Eichel and Kariya are literally once per generation talents, and among mortals experience does count for something.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 02:45PM

Jim Hyla
css228
Jim Hyla
Quote from Coach Bennett following Union's loss to RPI in the Mayor's Cup yesterday:


“If we’re relying on freshmen, we’re going to have serious problems these last 10 games.”

It's the problem we have as well, just in a little different way. We have been relying on the freshmen to do a lot this year. As with most teams, in most sports, that doesn't usually lead to championships. They are still some of our best players, but unfortunately they still are freshmen.

The forwards are obvious, but as the season goes on, McCrea has become an excellent defenseman. However there are many times during a game where he has trouble with the breakout. Time, and seeing the situations over and over again, will allow a good player to develop. Unfortunately 19 games are not enough time. The same for the other freshmen. I'm very optimistic for the future and will be extremely happy if we get a first round bye this year.

Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen. The issue is the talent on this team is not good, and the system is conservative as hell, exposing the weakness of the talent. You have to take calculated risks if you want to win a hockey game without getting incredibly lucky. When is the last time you saw a great aggressive pinch from one of the d-men to keep a cycle alive. Or the last time an aggressive stick in the neutral zone broke up the opponents breakout. As I've pointed out before, our possession metrics against good teams were bad. Now, our overall possession metrics are bad with our even strength CF% at 49%, which seems to corroborate my theory that our good early metrics were a product of small sample size and bad competition. Admittedly our all of our Fenwick statistics and our CF% Close are better but at 19 games in Corsi at even strength is just going to be the best metric because it has the largest sample of data (there have been more than 500 fewer events at CF% close than just CF% at even strength, Fenwick events are even lower due to the removal of blocked shots, which is why it usually takes 30-35 games of data for FF% to stabilize). A team at 49% is just a mediocre team. As shooting percentages begin to fall back to normal levels (You have to ask yourself are Angello and Kubiak really 20%+ good? The only correct answer to this is no, not even Ovi is that good and he's arguably the greatest goalscorer ever), then the team needs to generate more shots. Shot attempts are just more sustainable over time than shooting percentage. What we're seeing over the last month is a team that's overplaying its talent crash back to a performance more in line with what the underlying metrics would dictate. Not good, not bad. Just mediocre. Mediocre talent can be covered up for with intelligent deployment of assets. A great example of this is Dave Hakstol. With both the Flyers and NoDak, Hak has for the most part utilized his talent as efficiently as possible. He has preached an aggressive pinching system with his d-men and strove to dominate the neutral zone. This is why, despite the fact that the Flyers defense could be best described as a traffic cone in a garbage fire in the defensive zone, they've improved from a negative possession team under Berube, to a positive possession team under Hakstol. And yes they could be better if he didnt do stupid things like start Umberger over Gagner and scratch Medvedev instead of Schultz, but you have to ask yourself, when is the last time Schafer's style has actually positively contributed to his team's peformance. It seem's to me as if all the success has been either small sample size luck or special teams fueled. There is not one time I would call Schafer's teams an even strength monster like the LA Kings. This is why we aren't good.

As I posted on the D'mouth thread, did you see the RPI game? Conservative it wasn't.

And yes, I've seen dmen pinch on multiple occasions every game, sometimes both pinch and then I get worried. So your stats may be correct, but I disagree with your statements. And to use the 2 best ever freshmen as saying that the issue isn't relying on freshmen, well your outliers only go to prove the point. Freshmen just don't normally take your team to the championship.

And as an aside, it would be a lot easier to read your post if you would break up the paragraph.
One game does not a system exonerate. Especially one against a team that is worse than Cornell.

And talented freshmen leading teams to great heights isn't an outlier. It happens pretty much every year. And if you want to win, then you need that type of talent. NoDak made the Frozen Four in 2006 depending on Johnathan Toews and T.J. Oshie as a freshman. In fact that team only had 2 seniors. They'd make the Frozen Four again in 2006 with a whopping 5 seniors. The 2011-2012 BC team got major contributions from Johnny Gaudreau. Shayne Gostisbehere was a major driving force in Union being good from the day he stepped on campus. The team that won the conference in 2011-2012 sure wasn't because of age. They had 4 seniors, and their best player was a freshman d-man. Maine made a Frozen Four in 2000 with a roster featuring more freshmen than juniors and seniors combined. The type of talent that wins NCAA championships and brings deep playoff runs is the type that is ready to play from day 1 and then go on to make a difference in the NHL. You look at every recent championship team and they've had those. Cornell doesn't. We have guys that will be lucky to play 100 games as 4th line, 5/6/7 D types.

I could go on all day, but the point is that yes some teams grow into talent over time (see Union) but if the real NHL caliber talent isn't there in the first place then the ceiling is pretty low and it becomes a matter of putting your players in a position to succeed. Schafer doesn't do that. Maybe we don't have the talent to dominate the neutral zone, but an aggressive forecheck that slows down a breakout would help. So would not pulling an Andrew MacDonald. Winning the neutral zone and the blue lines is the key to winning hockey games. We do not break up the opponents plays at either blue line. We do not breakout and exit our zone with control. And we do not enter the offensive zone with control of the puck. We do not do any of these things with regularity or consistency, and we never have in the time I've been watching us under Schafer. An aggressive system would not help with all of these, but it could at least mask the deficiencies in our breakout. If you rarely have to play in your d-zone then you don't need to break out of it as often. That is what good coaching is. Adjusting to the strengths and weaknesses of your team. No matter what the talent, no matter what they do, Schafer does the same old dump and chase 1-2-2 trap. That's why the lack of success the past half decade is on him. The players are what they are. But he has the power to do something about it and doesn't.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 03:39PM

css228
Jim Hyla
css228
Jim Hyla
Quote from Coach Bennett following Union's loss to RPI in the Mayor's Cup yesterday:


“If we’re relying on freshmen, we’re going to have serious problems these last 10 games.”

It's the problem we have as well, just in a little different way. We have been relying on the freshmen to do a lot this year. As with most teams, in most sports, that doesn't usually lead to championships. They are still some of our best players, but unfortunately they still are freshmen.

The forwards are obvious, but as the season goes on, McCrea has become an excellent defenseman. However there are many times during a game where he has trouble with the breakout. Time, and seeing the situations over and over again, will allow a good player to develop. Unfortunately 19 games are not enough time. The same for the other freshmen. I'm very optimistic for the future and will be extremely happy if we get a first round bye this year.

Paul Kariya led Maine to a national championship as a freshmen with one of the greatest seasons in college hockey history. Jack Eichel last year lead BU to the title game. The issue isn't relying on freshmen. The issue is the talent on this team is not good, and the system is conservative as hell, exposing the weakness of the talent. You have to take calculated risks if you want to win a hockey game without getting incredibly lucky. When is the last time you saw a great aggressive pinch from one of the d-men to keep a cycle alive. Or the last time an aggressive stick in the neutral zone broke up the opponents breakout. As I've pointed out before, our possession metrics against good teams were bad. Now, our overall possession metrics are bad with our even strength CF% at 49%, which seems to corroborate my theory that our good early metrics were a product of small sample size and bad competition. Admittedly our all of our Fenwick statistics and our CF% Close are better but at 19 games in Corsi at even strength is just going to be the best metric because it has the largest sample of data (there have been more than 500 fewer events at CF% close than just CF% at even strength, Fenwick events are even lower due to the removal of blocked shots, which is why it usually takes 30-35 games of data for FF% to stabilize). A team at 49% is just a mediocre team. As shooting percentages begin to fall back to normal levels (You have to ask yourself are Angello and Kubiak really 20%+ good? The only correct answer to this is no, not even Ovi is that good and he's arguably the greatest goalscorer ever), then the team needs to generate more shots. Shot attempts are just more sustainable over time than shooting percentage. What we're seeing over the last month is a team that's overplaying its talent crash back to a performance more in line with what the underlying metrics would dictate. Not good, not bad. Just mediocre. Mediocre talent can be covered up for with intelligent deployment of assets. A great example of this is Dave Hakstol. With both the Flyers and NoDak, Hak has for the most part utilized his talent as efficiently as possible. He has preached an aggressive pinching system with his d-men and strove to dominate the neutral zone. This is why, despite the fact that the Flyers defense could be best described as a traffic cone in a garbage fire in the defensive zone, they've improved from a negative possession team under Berube, to a positive possession team under Hakstol. And yes they could be better if he didnt do stupid things like start Umberger over Gagner and scratch Medvedev instead of Schultz, but you have to ask yourself, when is the last time Schafer's style has actually positively contributed to his team's peformance. It seem's to me as if all the success has been either small sample size luck or special teams fueled. There is not one time I would call Schafer's teams an even strength monster like the LA Kings. This is why we aren't good.

As I posted on the D'mouth thread, did you see the RPI game? Conservative it wasn't.

And yes, I've seen dmen pinch on multiple occasions every game, sometimes both pinch and then I get worried. So your stats may be correct, but I disagree with your statements. And to use the 2 best ever freshmen as saying that the issue isn't relying on freshmen, well your outliers only go to prove the point. Freshmen just don't normally take your team to the championship.

And as an aside, it would be a lot easier to read your post if you would break up the paragraph.
One game does not a system exonerate. Especially one against a team that is worse than Cornell.

And talented freshmen leading teams to great heights isn't an outlier. It happens pretty much every year. And if you want to win, then you need that type of talent. NoDak made the Frozen Four in 2006 depending on Johnathan Toews and T.J. Oshie as a freshman. In fact that team only had 2 seniors. They'd make the Frozen Four again in 2006 with a whopping 5 seniors. The 2011-2012 BC team got major contributions from Johnny Gaudreau. Shayne Gostisbehere was a major driving force in Union being good from the day he stepped on campus. The team that won the conference in 2011-2012 sure wasn't because of age. They had 4 seniors, and their best player was a freshman d-man. Maine made a Frozen Four in 2000 with a roster featuring more freshmen than juniors and seniors combined. The type of talent that wins NCAA championships and brings deep playoff runs is the type that is ready to play from day 1 and then go on to make a difference in the NHL. You look at every recent championship team and they've had those. Cornell doesn't. We have guys that will be lucky to play 100 games as 4th line, 5/6/7 D types.

I could go on all day, but the point is that yes some teams grow into talent over time (see Union) but if the real NHL caliber talent isn't there in the first place then the ceiling is pretty low and it becomes a matter of putting your players in a position to succeed. Schafer doesn't do that. Maybe we don't have the talent to dominate the neutral zone, but an aggressive forecheck that slows down a breakout would help. So would not pulling an Andrew MacDonald. Winning the neutral zone and the blue lines is the key to winning hockey games. We do not break up the opponents plays at either blue line. We do not breakout and exit our zone with control. And we do not enter the offensive zone with control of the puck. We do not do any of these things with regularity or consistency, and we never have in the time I've been watching us under Schafer. An aggressive system would not help with all of these, but it could at least mask the deficiencies in our breakout. If you rarely have to play in your d-zone then you don't need to break out of it as often. That is what good coaching is. Adjusting to the strengths and weaknesses of your team. No matter what the talent, no matter what they do, Schafer does the same old dump and chase 1-2-2 trap. That's why the lack of success the past half decade is on him. The players are what they are. But he has the power to do something about it and doesn't.

Well we have done this, so I have to disagree. The RPI game was the ultimate. Yes, they probably aren't as good as their record, and neither were we. When we faced Union and Dartmouth, they clogged up the neutral zone and we had to dump it in. In fact I think the problem with those games was that we couldn't do the dump and chase well enough. The problem with Harvard was that their talent level is better than us.

As I've said before, we're never going to get the guaranteed NHL players. It's just too hard to compete with the big time scholarship schools, and to a certain extent even with Harvard and their scholarship policy. We need to make do with players who will hopefully develop over a couple of years.

But I'll also stand by my statement that it's not correct to say Schafer hasn't changed. As long as we are in a losing phase, this will continue to come up. Hopefully the team can end it soon.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (134.223.230.---)
Date: January 26, 2016 04:58PM

This is why using joke threads as the de facto game thread is usually not a good idea.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 05:01PM

I'm not so sure a whole lot has changed between the beginning of the season and now, besides our luck. We were getting outshot then, and we're getting outshot now. The advanced stats suggested we were a mediocre team all along, and our recent results have borne that out. The only real identifiable change I have noticed is that Gillam's play has been worse. He stole some games early (BU, Prov especially), but has been struggling with rebound control and playing the puck behind the net as of late. I was hopeful that, despite all signs pointing to the fact that we'd fall back down to earth, our injured players returning would counteract that regression to the mean. That hasn't happened, unfortunately. Starrett and Buckles (the two highest draft picks on the team) being healthy scratches against Harvard doesn't bode too well as far as developing NHL talent is concerned.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: January 26, 2016 07:46PM

RichH
This is why using joke threads as the de facto game thread is usually not a good idea.

Wait, what?

Harvard sucks.

There. All fixed. As you were.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 07:28AM

BearLover
I'm not so sure a whole lot has changed between the beginning of the season and now, besides our luck. We were getting outshot then, and we're getting outshot now. The advanced stats suggested we were a mediocre team all along, and our recent results have borne that out. The only real identifiable change I have noticed is that Gillam's play has been worse. He stole some games early (BU, Prov especially), but has been struggling with rebound control and playing the puck behind the net as of late. I was hopeful that, despite all signs pointing to the fact that we'd fall back down to earth, our injured players returning would counteract that regression to the mean. That hasn't happened, unfortunately. Starrett and Buckles (the two highest draft picks on the team) being healthy scratches against Harvard doesn't bode too well as far as developing NHL talent is concerned.

Unless you know why they were scratched I don't think your conclusion is valid. I can think of reasons why being a healthy scratch for a game, or more, would be useful in development. If we had the number of players to do it, some healthy scratches in the past 3 years might have been helpful.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 10:40AM

Jim Hyla
Unless you know why they were scratched I don't think your conclusion is valid.

In the pre-game interview Schafer strongly implied that Starrett and Buckles were benched due to lack of hustle and/or discipline against Dartmouth. I remember it because from what I saw of Buckles on Friday I found it very surprising.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 12:11PM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Unless you know why they were scratched I don't think your conclusion is valid.

In the pre-game interview Schafer strongly implied that Starrett and Buckles were benched due to lack of hustle and/or discipline against Dartmouth. I remember it because from what I saw of Buckles on Friday I found it very surprising.

Thanks, that could be helpful in their development. Work ethic is obviously very important, especially when you need everyone to contribute. When you bench some of your "better" players, it also sends a signal to the rest of the team. As I said before, I wish he could have done that the last few years. Oh well, water over the dam.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 01:29PM

Jim Hyla
Thanks, that could be helpful in their development. Work ethic is obviously very important, especially when you need everyone to contribute. When you bench some of your "better" players, it also sends a signal to the rest of the team. As I said before, I wish he could have done that the last few years. Oh well, water over the dam.

Schafer also said (IIRC in the same pre-game) that now that the team is healthy again all the players have to learn that they will be accountable since there's a "next man up" for each position.

I'm not sure whether this means Lalor and Otterman are healthy and just on the bottom of the ladder right now, or whether they are unhealthy but Schafer's thinks the team now has a critical mass of players to start enforcing accountability.

BTW, I loved Freschi being back in the lineup and hope he sticks. He is such a great pest and I think he helps keep the team from going into coma when bad things happen.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2016 01:31PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 02:15PM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Thanks, that could be helpful in their development. Work ethic is obviously very important, especially when you need everyone to contribute. When you bench some of your "better" players, it also sends a signal to the rest of the team. As I said before, I wish he could have done that the last few years. Oh well, water over the dam.

Schafer also said (IIRC in the same pre-game) that now that the team is healthy again all the players have to learn that they will be accountable since there's a "next man up" for each position.

I'm not sure whether this means Lalor and Otterman are healthy and just on the bottom of the ladder right now, or whether they are unhealthy but Schafer's thinks the team now has a critical mass of players to start enforcing accountability.

BTW, I loved Freschi being back in the lineup and hope he sticks. He is such a great pest and I think he helps keep the team from going into coma when bad things happen.

Agree, again. He just needs to stop taking stupid penalties.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: January 27, 2016 03:50PM

Jim Hyla
Agree, again. He just needs to stop taking stupid penalties.
Well, yes. There is that.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: TimV (---.amc.edu)
Date: January 28, 2016 08:49AM

Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Agree, again. He just needs to stop taking stupid penalties.
Well, yes. There is that.

I also agree- but if he does, will he still be a pest?:-D

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: David Harding (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: January 28, 2016 11:35PM

TimV
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Agree, again. He just needs to stop taking stupid penalties.
Well, yes. There is that.

I also agree- but if he does, will he still be a pest?:-D
He's still our pest.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: January 29, 2016 09:58AM

David Harding
TimV
Trotsky
Jim Hyla
Agree, again. He just needs to stop taking stupid penalties.
Well, yes. There is that.

I also agree- but if he does, will he still be a pest?:-D
He's still our pest.
Indeed.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Cornell95 (159.127.66.---)
Date: February 10, 2016 11:14AM

Can it be that no one bumped this thread for the annual wasted opportunity for Harvard to help he ECAC's out-of-conference record in the BeanPot?

Less than 10 days till the LynahEast tilt (Friday, February 19, 2016)
Not sure whether Cornell Athletics has any tickets left, but I just noticed that Harvard has about 2 dozen tickets in section 15 in groups of 3/5/7/8

Looking like I wont be able to make it this year, and I have listed my 6 tickets (section 14) in the Ticket forum as well if anyone is looking and wants to help me out.

GO BIG RED!
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 16, 2016 02:08PM

Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2016 02:43PM by billhoward.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Swampy (131.128.163.---)
Date: March 16, 2016 02:56PM

billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

This has probably already been done, but someone working on a sociology PhD should do a similar analysis of lower-level federal courts. These are said to be the spawning grounds for the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see to what degree this Ivy League (actually HY) inner circle is enforced at the lower levels.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 16, 2016 03:03PM

Swampy
billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

smashfreak

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2016 03:03PM by Beeeej.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: LGR14 (137.54.1.---)
Date: March 16, 2016 03:49PM

Swampy
billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

This has probably already been done, but someone working on a sociology PhD should do a similar analysis of lower-level federal courts. These are said to be the spawning grounds for the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see to what degree this Ivy League (actually HY) inner circle is enforced at the lower levels.

The name of the game for law schools is the T14. So you're most likely to see Yale, Harvard, Chicago, UVA, Penn Stanford, etc. than you are Cornell.
But there's much greater disparity at the lower levels.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 16, 2016 05:08PM

LGR14
Swampy
billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

This has probably already been done, but someone working on a sociology PhD should do a similar analysis of lower-level federal courts. These are said to be the spawning grounds for the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see to what degree this Ivy League (actually HY) inner circle is enforced at the lower levels.

The name of the game for law schools is the T14. So you're most likely to see Yale, Harvard, Chicago, UVA, Penn Stanford, etc. than you are Cornell.
But there's much greater disparity at the lower levels.

538 has already looked into this. "Just over a quarter of circuit court judges attended either Harvard or Yale Law School."

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: LGR14 (137.54.1.---)
Date: March 16, 2016 05:38PM

Jim Hyla
LGR14
Swampy
billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

This has probably already been done, but someone working on a sociology PhD should do a similar analysis of lower-level federal courts. These are said to be the spawning grounds for the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see to what degree this Ivy League (actually HY) inner circle is enforced at the lower levels.

The name of the game for law schools is the T14. So you're most likely to see Yale, Harvard, Chicago, UVA, Penn Stanford, etc. than you are Cornell.
But there's much greater disparity at the lower levels.

538 has already looked into this. "Just over a quarter of circuit court judges attended either Harvard or Yale Law School."

Also a much older list, but this gives some more of the breakdown: [leiterreports.typepad.com]
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 16, 2016 08:38PM

Another statistical oddity:

5 Catholics on the court, had been 6 (vs. 22% of US population)
3 might be 4 Jews on the court (vs 2.2% of the population)
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 17, 2016 05:48PM

LGR14
Jim Hyla
LGR14
Swampy
billhoward
Merrick Garland Harvard '74 / Harvard Law '77 would replace Antonin Scalia Harvard Law '60. He would join six others who attended Harvard Law:
1 John Roberts (also Harvard undergrad)
2 Stephen Breyer
3 Anthony Kennedy
4 Stephen Breyer
5 Elena Kagan
6 Ruth Bader Ginsburg '54 (attended Harvard Law, degree from Columbia)

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor are Yale Law.

Enough. If only Douglas Ginsburg '70 didn't have such a checkered background. Imagine that: Cornellian in the 1960s, smoked weed. Probably wore bell-bottom jeans and had a red or UV mood light that also cleared up his complexion. Who'd have imagined him lighting up.

Scalia also went to sucks law.

This has probably already been done, but someone working on a sociology PhD should do a similar analysis of lower-level federal courts. These are said to be the spawning grounds for the SCOTUS. It would be interesting to see to what degree this Ivy League (actually HY) inner circle is enforced at the lower levels.

The name of the game for law schools is the T14. So you're most likely to see Yale, Harvard, Chicago, UVA, Penn Stanford, etc. than you are Cornell.
But there's much greater disparity at the lower levels.

538 has already looked into this. "Just over a quarter of circuit court judges attended either Harvard or Yale Law School."

Also a much older list, but this gives some more of the breakdown: [leiterreports.typepad.com]

Interesting. Geography seems to play a role too. Not all that surprising, if it does.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Roy 82 (128.18.14.---)
Date: March 17, 2016 09:44PM

billhoward
Another statistical oddity:

5 Catholics on the court, had been 6 (vs. 22% of US population)
3 might be 4 Jews on the court (vs 2.2% of the population)

It's 87% likely that we are in the off-season and so time for some good old-fashioned thread drift:
I just want to point out that these religious labels are in some cases more accurately ethnic or social group designations rather than actual beliefs. We still don't live in a world where politicians can be openly free thinkers, but I suspect that many of the justices don't actually base their morality and decisions on modified translations of some of the mythology of ancient middle eastern tribes.
 
HARVARD SUCKS - Yale edition
Posted by: Greenberg '97 (161.185.161.---)
Date: March 18, 2016 09:39AM

From last night's Yale-Baylor game:

 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 18, 2016 12:09PM

Roy 82
billhoward
Another statistical oddity:

5 Catholics on the court, had been 6 (vs. 22% of US population)
3 might be 4 Jews on the court (vs 2.2% of the population)

It's 87% likely that we are in the off-season and so time for some good old-fashioned thread drift:
I just want to point out that these religious labels are in some cases more accurately ethnic or social group designations rather than actual beliefs. We still don't live in a world where politicians can be openly free thinkers, but I suspect that many of the justices don't actually base their morality and decisions on modified translations of some of the mythology of ancient middle eastern tribes.

May be true for many on the SCOTUS, perhaps because of some law of large numbers (8-9 people on the court, depending on how you count). But there is only one POTUS, and one of the remaining candidates for this office does indeed appear to base morality and decisions on the mythology of ancient middle-eastern tribes, as well as that of wandering tribes of the twenty-first century. This candidate's candidacy does seem to be based, at least in part, on the belief that this is the time to "take dominion" over the government, as according to scripture. scared
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - Supreme Court-packing edition
Posted by: KeithK (12.239.106.---)
Date: March 18, 2016 04:04PM

Swampy
Roy 82
billhoward
Another statistical oddity:

5 Catholics on the court, had been 6 (vs. 22% of US population)
3 might be 4 Jews on the court (vs 2.2% of the population)

It's 87% likely that we are in the off-season and so time for some good old-fashioned thread drift:
I just want to point out that these religious labels are in some cases more accurately ethnic or social group designations rather than actual beliefs. We still don't live in a world where politicians can be openly free thinkers, but I suspect that many of the justices don't actually base their morality and decisions on modified translations of some of the mythology of ancient middle eastern tribes.

May be true for many on the SCOTUS, perhaps because of some law of large numbers (8-9 people on the court, depending on how you count). But there is only one POTUS, and one of the remaining candidates for this office does indeed appear to base morality and decisions on the mythology of ancient middle-eastern tribes, as well as that of wandering tribes of the twenty-first century. This candidate's candidacy does seem to be based, at least in part, on the belief that this is the time to "take dominion" over the government, as according to scripture. scared
Guys, there's a perfectly good forum just a few clicks away for political stuff.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 18, 2016 04:34PM

At the risk of being hall monitor, I agree with Keith. Please post politics elsewhere -- might I recommend any of dozens (hundreds) of USCHO threads.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2016 04:35PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: KeithK (12.239.106.---)
Date: March 18, 2016 05:06PM

Trotsky
At the risk of being hall monitor, I agree with Keith. Please post politics elsewhere -- might I recommend any of dozens (hundreds) of USCHO threads.
Feel free to keep it among friends. Just do it in JSID. Lets keep this thread pure in it's (perhaps silly and tired) denigration of a horrible institution in Cambridge and their hockey team.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Swampy (---.ri.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 18, 2016 11:44PM

KeithK
Trotsky
At the risk of being hall monitor, I agree with Keith. Please post politics elsewhere -- might I recommend any of dozens (hundreds) of USCHO threads.
Feel free to keep it among friends. Just do it in JSID. Lets keep this thread pure in it's (perhaps silly and tired) denigration of a horrible institution in Cambridge and their hockey team.

Fair enough.

But before moving over, let's just recap the drift. On 3/16, Bill Howard pointed out that Merrick Garland, Sucks '74, was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, Sucks '60. Currently there are 3 Yalies and 5 Suckies on the court, and Garland would bring it to 3 + 6. I then wondered out loud how widespread this was in the federal judiciary. LGR14 answered this with references, which boiled the answer down to "very, very widespread." Then Jim Hyla noticed a similar disproportionality in religious composition, but Roy 82 quickly pointed out this is probably more indicative of identity than belief. And I just observed that a certain Princeton '92 grad running for president seems very rooted in belief.

You know, this isn't hockey. But stepping back, it sure does look like a team sport, doesn't it?

OK. I'm out of here. bolt
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 18, 2016 11:58PM

Swampy
KeithK
Trotsky
At the risk of being hall monitor, I agree with Keith. Please post politics elsewhere -- might I recommend any of dozens (hundreds) of USCHO threads.
Feel free to keep it among friends. Just do it in JSID. Lets keep this thread pure in it's (perhaps silly and tired) denigration of a horrible institution in Cambridge and their hockey team.

Fair enough.

But before moving over, let's just recap the drift. On 3/16, Bill Howard pointed out that Merrick Garland, Sucks '74, was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, Sucks '60. Currently there are 3 Yalies and 5 Suckies on the court, and Garland would bring it to 3 + 6. I then wondered out loud how widespread this was in the federal judiciary. LGR14 answered this with references, which boiled the answer down to "very, very widespread." Then Jim Hyla noticed a similar disproportionality in religious composition, but Roy 82 quickly pointed out this is probably more indicative of identity than belief. And I just observed that a certain Princeton '92 grad running for president seems very rooted in belief.

You know, this isn't hockey. But stepping back, it sure does look like a team sport, doesn't it?

OK. I'm out of here. bolt

So we can blame billhoward since he initiated the impossible angle of that place actually excelling in something. Clearly lies.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 26, 2016 12:26AM

A bid, a 1st-round exit. Like death and taxes.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 26, 2016 01:21AM

Time for me to update my signature?

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.129.41.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 26, 2016 01:52PM

Scersk '97
A bid, a 1st-round exit. Like death and taxes.

Beanpot II
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 26, 2016 02:24PM

Well, at least they didn't disappoint the crowd here..... And, who says there's no consolation game in the NCAA's....;-)

 
___________________________
"If a player won't go in the corners, he might as well take up checkers."

-Ned Harkness
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Iceberg (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2016 08:35PM

Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 29, 2016 11:27PM

Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 30, 2016 12:06AM

css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: KeithK (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 30, 2016 02:29AM

BearLover
css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
That's the key point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the kid using his leverage. But if he made verbal commitments it's unethical.

But he's from SUCKS so what do you expect?
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 30, 2016 07:26PM

BearLover
css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
A verbal commitment is not a signed contract. Technically you can have an oral contract, but those can't be for longer than a year. Point being until he signed on the dotted line, it was his right to change his mind. We don't call teams awful when they tell a guy he's going to be a big part of their future and then trade him. I don't really see the difference.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: March 30, 2016 08:09PM

css228
BearLover
css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
A verbal commitment is not a signed contract. Technically you can have an oral contract, but those can't be for longer than a year. Point being until he signed on the dotted line, it was his right to change his mind. We don't call teams awful when they tell a guy he's going to be a big part of their future and then trade him. I don't really see the difference.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate for doing this. but I do think it's fair to criticize this kind of action.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 31, 2016 10:55PM

KeithK
css228
BearLover
css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
A verbal commitment is not a signed contract. Technically you can have an oral contract, but those can't be for longer than a year. Point being until he signed on the dotted line, it was his right to change his mind. We don't call teams awful when they tell a guy he's going to be a big part of their future and then trade him. I don't really see the difference.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate for doing this. but I do think it's fair to criticize this kind of action.
I mean we've only heard Poile's side of the story. Maybe he didn't explicitly promise the Perds the way Polie said. Maybe he wants to play hockey with his brother in Toronto. Perhaps he wants to play for the Bruins, for whom he rooted as a child, or maybe he has some other completely legit reason to want to sign elsewhere. Way I see it, he's not in the wrong either. He owes the Predators nothing.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 31, 2016 11:29PM

css228
KeithK
css228
BearLover
css228
Iceberg
Vesey testing out free agency, much to the irritation of Nashville GM David Poile.
That's really on Poile for counting on Vesey joining the team for the playoffs and not doing anything at the deadline.. Its in the CBA and he should. I have no problem with a player who has done 4 years in college since his draft year deciding to use the leverage the CBA gives him to find a better opportunity elsewhere. Especially because he's turning down an opportunity to burn a year of his ELC to do so.
That article says Vesey made numerous verbal commitments to join the Predators.
A verbal commitment is not a signed contract. Technically you can have an oral contract, but those can't be for longer than a year. Point being until he signed on the dotted line, it was his right to change his mind. We don't call teams awful when they tell a guy he's going to be a big part of their future and then trade him. I don't really see the difference.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate for doing this. but I do think it's fair to criticize this kind of action.
I mean we've only heard Poile's side of the story. Maybe he didn't explicitly promise the Perds the way Polie said. Maybe he wants to play hockey with his brother in Toronto. Perhaps he wants to play for the Bruins, for whom he rooted as a child, or maybe he has some other completely legit reason to want to sign elsewhere. Way I see it, he's not in the wrong either. He owes the Predators nothing.
Maybe he thought their opening contract offer was such shit he decided he'd rather unwind after an intense senior year of college hockey, take his finals, graduate and exercise his rights under the CBA rather than sign a bad deal and join the Preds.

Never demand punctilious honor of one person in a system where the other side can never be counted on to act honorably.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: KeithK (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: April 01, 2016 01:45AM

ugarte
Never demand punctilious honor of one person in a system where the other side can never be counted on to act honorably.
Why not? I have every right to hold people that I will never meet and really have no great interest in to whatever standards I want, however unreasonable they may or may not be.

Besides he's from Harvard.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: sah67 (---.cit.cornell.edu)
Date: April 01, 2016 09:03AM

Somewhat Sucks-related:
Delay-of-game penalties due to objects being thrown on the ice are now becoming a big concern for Jaromir Jagr and the Panthers:
[sports.yahoo.com]
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (134.223.116.---)
Date: April 01, 2016 09:33AM

I have every right to say that he's a Jerkface for absolutely no reason.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: css228 (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: April 02, 2016 09:21AM

RichH
I have every right to say that he's a Jerkface for absolutely no reason.
I mean he went to Harvard so I'd say that's reason enough right there :-P
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: April 03, 2016 05:42PM

Writers are under pressure to crank out a lot of copy for not much money. Nowhere did the story say the writer reached out to Vesey for his side of the story or to confirm or deny he had an agreement.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2016 07:24AM

billhoward
Writers are under pressure to crank out a lot of copy for not much money. Nowhere did the story say the writer reached out to Vesey for his side of the story or to confirm or deny he had an agreement.
Sports journalism: the LA Clippers of journalism, since Grantland Rice.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: RichH (134.223.116.---)
Date: April 04, 2016 09:51AM

Trotsky
billhoward
Writers are under pressure to crank out a lot of copy for not much money. Nowhere did the story say the writer reached out to Vesey for his side of the story or to confirm or deny he had an agreement.
Sports journalism: the LA Clippers of journalism, since Grantland Rice.

Aren't the Clippers somewhat good these days? Unlike Harvard, who sucks.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: April 04, 2016 02:00PM

RichH
Trotsky
billhoward
Writers are under pressure to crank out a lot of copy for not much money. Nowhere did the story say the writer reached out to Vesey for his side of the story or to confirm or deny he had an agreement.
Sports journalism: the LA Clippers of journalism, since Grantland Rice.

Aren't the Clippers somewhat good these days? Unlike Harvard, who sucks.
I thought they changed their address. Maybe I should have said "San Diego Clippers."
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: TimV (---.amc.edu)
Date: November 01, 2016 12:21PM

The answer to this question is contained, in part, to the book Odd Man Rush by Bill Keenan. He played for Harvard around 2005-7 then knocked around the European minor leagues. Book is hilarious, with a fair amount relating his time with (and antipathy toward) Coach Donato - whom the Harvard team apparently refers to as "Doughnuts," Well worth the $9.99 on Amazon.bananabananabanana

 
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 01, 2016 02:44PM

And so begins the fourteenth season of this timeless thread.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: RichH (134.223.116.---)
Date: November 01, 2016 04:38PM

KeithK
And so begins the fourteenth season of this timeless thread.

I like to think it started in 1962, but the technology needed time to catch up.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: November 01, 2016 07:23PM

Dartmouth is coming off a 3-2 win over Michigan, while Harvard blew out Arizona State twice. We've got a tough challenge this weekend for sure.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.scansafe.net)
Date: November 02, 2016 02:56AM

TimV
The answer to this question is contained, in part, to the book Odd Man Rush by Bill Keenan. He played for Harvard around 2005-7 then knocked around the European minor leagues. Book is hilarious, with a fair amount relating his time with (and antipathy toward) Coach Donato - whom the Harvard team apparently refers to as "Doughnuts," Well worth the $9.99 on Amazon.bananabananabanana

Is that a Koharski reference? popcorn
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: November 02, 2016 07:34AM

KeithK
And so begins the fourteenth season of this timeless thread.

...without which I might not be married. So there's that.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: nshapiro (192.148.195.---)
Date: November 02, 2016 11:39AM

Beeeej
KeithK
And so begins the fourteenth season of this timeless thread.

...without which I might not be married. So there's that.

Is that comment meant as an expression of joy or sorrow?
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: November 02, 2016 08:25PM

nshapiro
Beeeej
KeithK
And so begins the fourteenth season of this timeless thread.

...without which I might not be married. So there's that.

Is that comment meant as an expression of joy or sorrow?

Joy. It was too early in the morning for a truly emotive post. banana

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: profudge (---.dsl2-fairport.ny.frontiernet.net)
Date: November 03, 2016 10:29PM

Another milestone of poor and wretched example set at Harvard; see: Harvard suspends Men's soccer team for lewd 'scouting report'

 
___________________________
- Lou (Swarthmore MotherPucker 69-74, Stowe Slugs78-82, Hanover Storm Kings 83-85...) Big Red Fan since the 70's
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 04, 2016 11:17AM

A cousin of mine has died and I won't be going to the games this weekend. That means I won't be bringing Snickers for the band (I'm assuming there will be some members at the games, but with the home football game, I'm not sure.), or to throw. Also no newspapers. I'm wondering if anyone could bring Snickers for the band and to throw, if they like. Also I know that many of you will bring your own newspapers, but it would be nice for someone(s?) to bring extra to the Harvard game. I've got standing room tickets for the Harvard game and my first choice is to give them to anyone that'll help. I can email them.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 04, 2016 12:17PM

profudge
Another milestone of poor and wretched example set at Harvard; see: Harvard suspends Men's soccer team for lewd 'scouting report'
At least they suspended them. c.f. Baylor.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2016 12:18PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: November 04, 2016 01:15PM

profudge
Another milestone of poor and wretched example set at Harvard; see: Harvard suspends Men's soccer team for lewd 'scouting report'
CNN quotes Harvard President Drew Faust and refers to her as a him.

Harvard women's team op-ed in [www.thecrimson.com]
KELSEY CLAYMAN, BROOKE DICKENS, ALIKA KEENE, EMILY MOSBACHER, LAUREN VARELA, and HALEY WASHBURN
[T]o the men of Harvard Soccer and any future men who may lay claim to our bodies and choose to objectify us as sexual objects, in the words of one of us, we say together: “I can offer you my forgiveness, which is—and forever will be—the only part of me that you can ever claim as yours.”

Read how Dean of Harvard College Rakesh Khurana ducks multiple interview requests by the paper and responds only through a spokesperson: [www.thecrimson.com]
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS - but how much, exactly?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 04, 2016 01:58PM

billhoward
Harvard women's team op-ed

Those words are beautiful.

A 200,000 year-long nightmare for women is drawing to a close. No wonder the Trumpettes are fighting so hard. The sagging hierarchy they are trying to prop up is literally older than even their gods.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2016 02:00PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: dbilmes (32.218.123.---)
Date: November 04, 2016 04:27PM

Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: mha (107.77.76.---)
Date: November 05, 2016 01:44PM

I see Jim's not going, though at this point I probably won't have a chance to buy Snickers. Sorry, Band!

Who IS going? Any good pre-game plans that Age and I could join? As a member of the Traveling Faithful who regularly went to John Harvard's before and/or after the game for many years, I'm not a fan of the CCOB taking over the whole venue and charging $25 for admission.

 
___________________________
Mark H. Anbinder '89 [mha.14850.com]
"Up the ice!" -- Lynah scoreboard
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Roy 82 (128.18.14.---)
Date: November 23, 2016 04:44PM

I just got an e-mail with a Harvard Athletics Weekly report. First time ever. Did anyone else get this? How did I get on such a mailing list?

Here is their subject line:
This Week: We're Thankful for a NCAA Tournament Game at Harvard! Plus, Hockey and Basketball at Home!
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrk.east.verizon.net)
Date: November 24, 2016 09:09PM

Did you ever buy tickets online and the Crimson computers harvested your e-mail address?
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Lauren '06 (66.195.185.---)
Date: November 25, 2016 01:40PM

I got one too. I think it has something to do with ILDN, because I also received an earlier email from Harvard Athletics on 11/21 asking me to complete an ILDN survey. Maybe we accessed a game from the wrong side.

 
___________________________
Nothing to see here.
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: January 27, 2017 05:35PM

Just posting to correct the travesty of this thread not being bumped by now.

Let's Go Red!
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.syrcny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 06, 2017 01:21PM

From ECAC site:

"Game Notes: Harvard Ready for Beanpot Clash Versus Northeastern"

"Monday's meeting between Harvard and Northeastern is the 44th at the Beanpot Tournament. Harvard has a 23-20 edge in the all-time Beanpot series with the Huskies, but Northeastern has won four of the last five meetings at TD Garden. Overall, Harvard has a 65-36-0 lead in the all-time series against Northeastern."

So they are 65-36 overall and only 23-20 in Beanpot against them. That makes 42-16 non-Beanpot vs. 23-20 Beanpot.

Who says they under-perform in the Beanpot.:-}

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: HARVARD SUCKS
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: February 06, 2017 05:36PM

Jim Hyla
From ECAC site:

"Game Notes: Harvard Ready for Beanpot Clash Versus Northeastern"

"Monday's meeting between Harvard and Northeastern is the 44th at the Beanpot Tournament. Harvard has a 23-20 edge in the all-time Beanpot series with the Huskies, but Northeastern has won four of the last five meetings at TD Garden. Overall, Harvard has a 65-36-0 lead in the all-time series against Northeastern."

So they are 65-36 overall and only 23-20 in Beanpot against them. That makes 42-16 non-Beanpot vs. 23-20 Beanpot.

Who says they under-perform in the Beanpot.:-}
This is even more amazing considering Northeastern failed to win the first 27 Beanpots which, in a four-team tourney -- woof! They went to 2 finals during that period, so they were 2-25 in the first round.

Harvard will no doubt fuck up the Beanpot again, but it would be better for us if they didn't.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2017 05:39PM by Trotsky.
 
Current Page: 13 of 14

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login