First games of the tournament, two of the four No. 1 seeds are gone:
Providence (the 4th 1-seed) goes down 2-1 to Minnesota-Duluth. As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week.
St Cloud State (2nd 1-seed) makes up a 4-2 deficit to Ferris State entering the third, ties at 4, loses 18 seconds into OT. See ya. That has to be brutal on the team and fans.
UMass-Lowell wins 3-2 over Yale a minute into OT off a good forecheck. So much for the Ivies in the NCAAs in 2015-16. UM-L plays Quinnipiac Sunday.
Good thing RIT got all the ink on being up-and-coming and in a nice new rink before the first faceoff. Lost 4-0 to overall 1-seed Quinnipiac. Q gets Yale or UMass-Lowell tomorrow.
Quote from: billhowardFirst games of the tournament, two of the four No. 1 seeds are gone:
Providence (the 4th 1-seed) goes down 2-1 to Minnesota-Duluth. As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week.
St Cloud State (2nd 1-seed) makes up a 4-2 deficit to Ferris State entering the third, ties at 4, loses 18 seconds into OT. See ya. That has to be brutal on the team and fans.
Good thing RIT got all the ink on being up-and-coming and in a nice new rink before the first faceoff. Lost 4-0 to overall 1-seed Quinnipiac. Q gets Yale or UMass-Lowell tomorrow.
Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end
Quote from: css228Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end
Did the same to what had been a red-hot Northeastern team.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: css228Watching North Dakota right now and they look pretty incredible. They're making Michigan look completely incompetent at getting the puck out of their own end
Did the same to what had been a red-hot Northeastern team.
God I wish I could watch a system like this employed at Lynah. It looks like they just decided to keep most of the Hakstol system in place.
Took until the fourth round of NCAA basketball for a one-seed to fall (Oregon by 12 to Oklahoma).
Back in hockeyland, Denver is whomping BU - 5-0 with 2 minutes left in the second. Ouch. Jack Eichel era for sure is over.
Well, that's it for Michigan. Story of the game is NoDak outshooting the highly-touted Michigan offense by nearly 2-to-1.
Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal
Really pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
Quote from: imafrshmnReally pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.
Here's the Q section now that they've left.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/martytoo/Mobile%20Uploads/20160326_212759_zpsunwp2gj8.jpg)
Quote from: martyQuote from: imafrshmnReally pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.
Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.
Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.
Quote from: scoop85Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal
2-2 in the third
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: scoop85Yale just took a 2-1 lead halfway through the 2nd on a beautiful goal
2-2 in the third
And now to overtime at 2-2.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: martyQuote from: imafrshmnReally pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.
Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.
Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.
IIRC Q had busses for fans to prior NC$$ games.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: billhowardQuote from: martyQuote from: imafrshmnReally pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.
Curious if either school subsidized buses to the game. Given what it costs to mount a serious hockey effort, five or ten buses is a cheap cost adder.
Six/seven years ago, Marist women made it into the basketball big dance and the school chartered a plane to the round one game. Student cost was something on the order of $50. Or so the tour guides related the following fall. That caused a murmur of approval among sports fan would-be matriculants. IIRC, it was offset by hearing the school has zero tolerance for alcohol in the dorms.
IIRC Q had busses for fans to prior NC$$ games.
I'm fairly certain that in 2010 when we were in Albany with RIT for the first round of the NCAAs, there was talk of how RIT had brought a bunch of students on (free?) busses.
Yale had four chances to clear the puck on Lowell's OT winner. Blech.
Good for Lowell. Pretty even game overall and a gritty OT game-winner.
Quote from: imafrshmnGood for Lowell. Pretty even game overall and a gritty OT game-winner.
Yeah I have a good friend who went there so he's probably pumped
RIT was only given 100 student tickets and they are on break.. i dont think many made it this time
Quote from: andyw2100I'm fairly certain that in 2010 when we were in Albany with RIT for the first round of the NCAAs, there was talk of how RIT had brought a bunch of students on (free?) busses.
Whereas Cornell fans have been trained to travel in large numbers at little or no cost to the university.
Quote from: billhoward... As long as Providence was in the tournament, Cornell could point to a victory over a really good team back at holiday week...
*clears throat* (http://www.cornellbigred.com/boxscore.aspx?path=mhockey&id=21012)
Versus Quinnipiac, a 5-4 win and a 5-4 loss, a pair of 3-goal losses, and a 2-2 tie. 1-3-1. There's a pony somewhere in there.
That was Yale's game to lose...and they did. I must say that the Lowell fans reminded me quite a bit of Lynah with their sieve chants and goalie targeting. RIT certainly had the most enthusiasm though.
Quote from: martyQuote from: imafrshmnReally pathetic crowd at the Times-Union (granted, this is intermission. but still not much during play.)
QPAC and RIT traveled well. Attendance was much better for their game. Not many RIP or Onion fans evident. An old story.
Here's the Q section now that they've left.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/martytoo/Mobile%20Uploads/20160326_212759_zpsunwp2gj8.jpg)
I forgot to mention that there was an old guy wearing a Cornell hat in the crowd. He seemed to be conflicted as he also wore Yale's colors via an old rugby shirt with his loving family similarly attired. Young man in the family was '06 or so. I heard the older couple making plans to visit the United center next year on Palm Sunday weekend. It is surely a blessing to have such a wonderful wife as he. (She seemed to be reading during long stretches of play.) Love at the rink can be a precious thing.
A tight Ferris-Denver game deteriorates in a hurry. Tied 3-3 with 5 to go, Denver scores, then immediately scores again, and then a Ferris meathead takes a 5 for what should have been a DQ targeting the head. Too bad; had been interesting.
Also, fans at that game said real attendance was about 1000.
Anyone but QU, Pleasseee.
Q up 3-1 midway through the 3rd. They dominated the second period and have been the better team all night.
I still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program
Quote from: underskillI still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program
Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.
Now 4-1, which won't help the butt hurt any.
Some consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.
Meh. We said that about them and Yale a couple years ago too. Hasn't happened so far.
Quote from: TrotskySome consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.
Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: underskillI still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program
Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.
OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.
So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: underskillI still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program
Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.
OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.
So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.
I've always supported other ECAC teams in the NCAAs, but a number of us don't think Q belongs in the ECAC. (And it's not an elitist thing, since I was happy to root for UVM in the 90s back when they represented the ECAC in the tournament.)
Quote from: andyw2100So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.
We've been over this at length in previous years. Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly. Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them. Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).
I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: underskillI still don't get he Q hate on this forum. They remind me of the early-mid 2000 Cornell program
Equal parts dumb jock outlier in the conference, Pecknold being an asshole, and sour grapes.
OK, so I understand the Q hate. And of course the Harvard hate. But as a Cornell fan I manage to set aside that hate for a few (well, in Harvard's case one) game in late March and perhaps early April and root for any and all ECAC teams. Sure, I would have rooted for Yale over Q tonight if Yale could have taken care of business yesterday. But if it comes down to rooting for an ECAC team or some other team, as much as I may hate the ECAC team when they're facing off against us, at this time of year I've got to root for them. When an ECAC team does well in the tournament it says something about the ECAC.
So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.
Same reason Duke fans weren't rooting for UNC today. Fans of a certain team tend to hate that team's rivals.
Also, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
Also also, the ECAC being better generally makes it harder for Cornell to do well. (People here will argue otherwise, but there's no evidence to support this claim.)
Quote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: TrotskySome consolation for the Q haters (and all of us, really). 2 of Q's 3 best juniors, Anas and Tim Clifton, have been outstanding through the tourney so far and may well jump. This along with St. Denis, Garteig, Jonzzon and Tiefenwerth all graduating and Q could be decimated.
Not sure that relying on other teams to get worse is a good plan for the future.
You leave the Islanders out of this.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: andyw2100So I'm confused about those of you who love Cornell hockey as much as I do, but root against ECAC teams in the NCAA tournament.
We've been over this at length in previous years. Some people would like to see our rivals do poorly. Bad feeling for a rival is stronger than any conference loyalty for them. Some also feel that other teams in the ECAC doing well is bad for Cornell from a long term perspective (e.g. recruiting).
I don't agree with them but I understand the argument.
This. It's actually cool that there seems to be a fairly even divide on this question. It's boring when we all agree with a premise.
I'm obviously in the "My conference, right or wrong" column, but I also understand the contrary viewpoint. I think for people of about my age the contempt with which the ECAC was held over the late 90s and 00s was so irksome that it made all the ECAC teams brothers in arms when the NC$$s came around. I've noticed this age split on other ECAC team threads in USCHO, too.
Perhaps if the ECAC continues to routinely produce F4 teams and national champions we'll start to feel more comfortable rooting against rivals in April.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Exactly. Or as I like to say whenever I hear the "D" word when it comes to sports, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."
https://youtu.be/dpDkYZWeeVg
Some things I noticed at the games on Saturday as a spectator.
-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
-Quinnipiac had a pretty decent turnout. There were quite a number of folks around with their colors, although the few students that were there still aren't very creative with their jeers (Sucks! only goes so far).
-Lowell had a good turnout too, but many of their fans weren't there for the first game. I had the pleasure of sitting below the Lowell section and they had some very orchestrated stuff similar to what you would hear in Lynah. There were curses too but the staff didn't seem to care one bit.
-The Lowell band is very very good and I would pay to hear them perform. One of the people near me mentioned that they have a good music program--that was pretty evident.
-Attendance for the first game was definitely better than that of the second one. The arena seemed somewhere from 40-60% full to me, but I haven't seen the exact figures.
-I didn't see who it was, but I could hear one of the Yale players quite audibly shout "Fuck!" as he headed into the locker room after the 3rd period. We all know what happened about 20 minutes later.
-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is. For some reason, there was no display with scores for other regionals anywhere in the arena; and the announcer almost never mentioned the other scores. Of course, there was no public Wifi in the building.
Quote from: Iceberg-Times Union Center is an OK arena considering where it is.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wolff's+Biergarten,+Broadway,+Albany,+NY/Times+Union+Center,+51+S+Pearl+St,+Albany,+NY+12207/@42.654696,-73.7543147,16z/am=t/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89de0981b20bd87b:0xf6a253b0f68f54cb!2m2!1d-73.7446372!2d42.660903!1m5!1m1!1s0x89de0a23955e9771:0x6c5c715665f19384!2m2!1d-73.755216!2d42.6486671!3e2
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Here's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
+1
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
As shown by the run of the Syracuse basketball team to the final four -- no one would have put them among the top 25 teams heading into the tournament.
Quote from: ugarteHere's an important point. I turned the game on at 1-0 at some point in the second period. From that point on, at least, Q made Lowell look like they had never previously played hockey.
Q didn't play all that well against RIT for the first 40 minutes...and then they showed up in the 3rd. RIT's problem was that they weren't very good at getting quality shots.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
Then again, if we want to talk about "deserving" a right to be national champion I could go off on my rant about post-season tournaments and at-large bids. But that's so last decade.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?
I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?
I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.
I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states :-)
But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?
I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.
I don't think it's possible for someone to use the term "begging the question" correctly in this day and age. I think it's actually illegal in some states :-)
But you're right. If I define "deserve" as a subjective, emotional thing it means something entirely different than if we define it based on the rules.
And there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary. I find it hard to believe that anyone posting here doesn't understand "the rules" for winning a championship. And I'd guess that 90+ % of the readers understood that BearLover was expressing emotion and not facts.
Oh well, it's the off season.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?
I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.
Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
Kyle, I think your facts are wrong. Winning four straight gaes in the tournament has nothing to do with being "deserving". It just means that you played better at the right time. I think most of us know that "deserve" in a sports context is a purely emotional statement. Emotion is a totally justifiable reason to explain why someone roots for one particular team over another. After all there really is no rational reason to let your happiness be dictated by a bunch of kids wearing red who have knives strapped to their feet.
To some extent, I think we are both begging the question. (In the original sense, not the modern sense.) I am saying that the rules of the tournament define who is deserving of the NC: the winner of the tournament. You are saying that "deserving" means something entirely subjective, which means it isn't well-defined. To use scoop's example, some people might think Syracuse is deserving of the Final Four because they played hard at the right time; others think they barely qualified and that it would be a travesty were they to win the NC. So which group is right?
I guess I'm mostly saying that talking about which team is more "deserving" is pointless. In the subjective sense, it doesn't signify anything about whether or not a team *should* win, and frankly says more about the fan than the team. In my locker room, after every loss I hear statements like "We should have won that game"... but I *never* hear "We deserved to win that game." Never. There is a huge difference between the two statements in the implied level of entitlement.
Kyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like. BearLover used the word "deserve" in a clearly non-literal sense to refer to the proverbial long-suffering fan and you are responding as if there is a real debate over whether the winner of the tournament deserves to go home with hardware.
It happens frequently that a lot of people
seriously think that the winner of the tournament doesn't deserve to go home with the hardware. They get really riled up. Well, maybe they should just be content with their righteous indignation: that's a trophy of sorts.
Quote from: ugarteKyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like.
BTW, thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Dr. Star. All bills will be returned to sender. ::crazy::
Quote from: Jim HylaAnd there's nothing wrong with either usage. Which is why I think that Kyle coming down so hard wasn't necessary.
Probably. But it's just Kyle being Kyle.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: BearLoverAlso, Cornell, with all its heartbreaking losses in the NCAA's over the past 20 years, deserves to win a national title before these teams that have only been good the past few years.
I'm not sure if you meant this rhetorically or not, but this is obviously not how the game actually works.
According to the rules, the team that does well enough to get an NCAA bid and then manages to win four games in a row deserves to win the national title. There is currently no handicapping based on performance in past seasons, a school's hockey tradition, or how much fans have suffered. The only thing that matters is winning the right games at the right time, something that Yale and Union have done, and that Q is now possibly doing.
Thanks for this completely useless post.
Wait, so you're saying that the post outlining the facts is completely useless, but the post whining about how it isn't fair or right or just that Cornell wasn't handed a NC is more useful?
I'll admit that I care very little anymore: life is too short for shitty entertainment. I've been a bad fan for a long time, but I'm a full-on apostate now. Sometimes, you need the reality check that only people like myself can give you.
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
I suspect all time spent on ELynah is unproductive. Thankfully, that's not the only reason to do something.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: ugarteKyle, this is what someone who never interacts with people talks like.
BTW, thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Dr. Star. All bills will be returned to sender. ::crazy::
But my rates are so reasonable. (http://artofthepie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lucy.jpg)
Quote from: Iceberg-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.
Quote from: Iceberg-For some reason, there was no display with scores for other regionals anywhere in the arena; and the announcer almost never mentioned the other scores.
There's an app for that ;)
Quote from: CowbellGuyQuote from: Iceberg-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.
No electric instruments, no music stands, no elaborate floor-based drumsets, and no goddamn hockey cheerleaders. And it wouldn't hurt to have a student conductor instead of a junior faculty member.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: CowbellGuyQuote from: Iceberg-The RIT student area was really enthusiastic. The rock guitar that their band had was an interesting touch.
No! No, no, no, no. No, no, no. Pep bands shouldn't have to be plugged in. Back in the 90s Clarkson (and others over the years) had an electric bass. It's just wrong. Don't encourage them.
No electric instruments, no music stands, no elaborate floor-based drumsets, and no goddamn hockey cheerleaders. And it wouldn't hurt to have a student conductor instead of a junior faculty member.
And most importantly,
no piped in music. This is college, not minor league pros. If your school can't put together a band, so be it.
A nice story out of Quinnipiac. (http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/college/transfer-quinnipiac-saved-tiefenwerth-life-article-1.2578630)
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Nowhere in my post did I suggest he was never productive in the entire history of the internet.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.
I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.
This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.
Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game
I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.
I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.
This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.
Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.
All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.
I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.
This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.
Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.
All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.
Jerk.
Quote from: Kyle RoseI freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.
That's pretty much what I meant by "Kyle being Kyle". But then I know you from way back when and have been posting with you for years and years, so it's really easy for me to take your semi-trolling with a smile.
Quote from: Kyle RoseThis comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.
Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.
I totally get that. I've actualy pulled back on all kinds of sports fandom to some degree because the stress was getting to me too much at times. I'm happier having done so but can still enjoy those same sports so I think I'm in a good place.
Strangely I remember being very calm and relaxed (relatively speaking anyway) throughout that same Wisconsin game. I don't know why.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: SwampyQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: KeithKQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: Kyle Rose
I'm done addressing your deliberately obtuse strawmans. When's the last time you said something productive on here?
Bzzt! Kyle set up the original Cornell Hockey Discussion Forum before there even was an eLynah. (Not to mention a chat server with separate color-coded threads for Cornell and Clarkson games, just because.) The only person here with standing to call him "unproductive" is Age. (And maybe the founder of the original Clarkson Hockey Roundtable, ridiculous as it was.)
Be that as it may, there is no reason to engage someone on a n internet forum if you don't see any value in his contributions or arguments. That's like rule number one of internet forums. So don't get frustrated, just ignore him if you think he's being deliberately obtuse.
I freely admit I am trolling to some extent at this point. Not completely, because I think my point has some legit value, but I am trying to provoke as well as make a point.
This comes from a heartfelt place. With ten years of reflection, my peak of Cornell fandom was probably the 2006 Wisconsin game (which I didn't even finish watching because I had to go to my own hockey playoff game). I was physically ill by the middle of the second overtime. It was not a good time, especially since I didn't even have real beer to help me through. And this followed by a week the awful loss in Albany to Harvard in the ECAC final, a game I still can't put out of my mind.
Following that loss to Wisconsin, I think I subconsciously decided that a game I wasn't even playing was simply not important enough to put myself through that. So now I care less. It's easier on the nerves.
All good points, Kyle. But your post about the rules for winning the NC seems to misconstrue fandom deliberately. It's all about emotion.
Jerk.
Typical. :-|
(Man, haven't had one of those in a long while!)
You can't cheat an honest man. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSXRy0_F18Y)
Note to DVR folks, or just casual viewers. Saturday's championship will no longer be on ESPN. Moved to "The Ocho." No, wait, just ESPN2. The four-letter is a basketball personality network, after all.
https://twitter.com/chnews/status/717801294182744064
I wish I could say incredible, but so, so credible.
IN a game I completely forgot was tonight, Q advances with a 3-2 win over BC.
As much as I dislike Q, this was a great game to watch. Q took some stupid penalties late in the third period (just as they had in the 2-2 regular season tie against Cornell), and BC had a lot of pressure on them down the stretch, but Garteig made some huge saves down the stretch. Another key play late in the game came when Garteig was out of position and a BC player had an open net to shoot at only to have a Q defenseman deflect the puck away at the last second. Earlier in the third period, Q failed to convert on a 4-on-1 break, something you don't see too often.
Quote from: dbilmesAs much as I dislike Q, this was a great game to watch. Q took some stupid penalties late in the third period (just as they had in the 2-2 regular season tie against Cornell), and BC had a lot of pressure on them down the stretch, but Garteig made some huge saves down the stretch. Another key play late in the game came when Garteig was out of position and a BC player had an open net to shoot at only to have a Q defenseman deflect the puck away at the last second. Earlier in the third period, Q failed to convert on a 4-on-1 break, something you don't see too often.
And ND just had a 4 on 1 without scoring. This is a fun game to watch!
Watching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
Quote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.
"Brought to you without the benefit of announcers"
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
Like the 1980 Jets - Dolphins (I think) game. That was a pleasure to watch.
"Brought to you without with the benefit of no announcers"
FYP
Quote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
especially if it is buccigross. he's even worse at hockey play-by-play than the kids on the Yale feed. Can't believe he gets paid to do that.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
especially if it is buccigross. he's even worse at hockey play-by-play than the kids on the Yale feed. Can't believe he gets paid to do that.
Well, you know. He's the goddamned pope of #collegehockey. He has a clothing line. People on Twitter think he's great.
Beats Melrose but that's a low bar.
Quote from: TrotskyBeats Melrose but that's a low bar.
Barry Melrose competes with Don Cherry. Different grouping.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: TrotskyBeats Melrose but that's a low bar.
Barry Melrose competes with Don Cherry. Different grouping.
I'd say Mike Francesa.
4-1 NoDak late. Q fell apart in the third; too bad.
North Dakota played a good game. Quinnipiac fell apart. Too bad for the ECAC.
As I've said before, I'm not in the camp that roots against the ECAC in the NCAAs, but I've made an exception for Quinnipiac Marketing Solutions, Inc., so thank goodness they didn't win it. First champion from the NCHC and first Western Champion since the B1g T6n blew up all the conferences out there. I did get pretty tired of hearing about the end of NoDak's intolerably long 16-year title drought, though. Geez, I can remember the last time they won it.
I'm not exactly in love with Q, but screw NoDak, which is to say, bah.
::banana::
I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.
Congrats, Sioux.
And a trivia question for you stats types: Is this the first national championship in any sport between two teams who changed their names to be more PC (whether voluntarily or not)?
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.
Congrats, Sioux.
I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!
Congratulations Flickertails! :-}
That top line for UND was filthy. Talk about offensive skill and flair!
I'd forgotten how awful Buccigross is doing PBP (although he gets an A for enthusiasm). Melrose is just plain awful.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.
Agreed. I've heard "Minnesota Nice" is a sham, but "North Dakota Nice" is for real.
And, like BearLover, I'll give QU losing a: ::banana::
I've made my peace with Yale winning; I was happy to see Union (a small school) paste Minnesota. But a Hamden U. national championship would've stuck in my craw.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.
Congrats, Sioux.
I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!
I liked the way the team started the Sioux cheer after getting the trophy. Take that NCAA! Also it's hard not to enjoy Pecknold in the grip of a better foe.
Quote from: martyQuote from: rediceQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82I've always liked N. Dakota, going back to the Frozen Four in '80. Nice fans, good program. And it was always their job to keep the goofer fans in place.
Congrats, Sioux.
I'm with you on this one, Jeff... There were my pick when the four teams were filtered down. Go Sioux!!
I liked the way the team started the Sioux cheer after getting the trophy. Take that NCAA! Also it's hard not to enjoy Pecknold in the grip of a better foe.
I think it's really unfortunate that defying the NCAA seems to be a motivator for continuing to say Sioux. It's almost as if nobody from the UND hockey community took the time to reflect on why the name is problematic. Fighting Hawks is an awful team name for a different reason (it's completely generic), but the fact that it sucks only encourages people to continue saying Sioux. "Tradition" is not a valid reason for perpetuating anything, especially racist cultural appropriations.
That said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: abmarksQuote from: TrotskyWatching the game streamed with all the ambient noise and no commentary is the most pleasant broadcast I've ever experienced. PLEASE make this an option for all sports telecasts. Nobody needs the natterers. Silence them for good.
especially if it is buccigross. he's even worse at hockey play-by-play than the kids on the Yale feed. Can't believe he gets paid to do that.
Well, you know. He's the goddamned pope of #collegehockey. He has a clothing line. People on Twitter think he's great.
I read somewhere that when he negotiated is latest contract with ESPN, that was the only stipulation he had in there: doing the TV for the Frozen Four. Not sure how much longer the contract has on it.
Quote from: imafrshmnThat said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
I guess we'll have to rename the river, many other geological features, and much of everything in upstate New York.
Is it better to erase history or to come to grips with it in all its complexity?
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: imafrshmnThat said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
I guess we'll have to rename the river, many other geological features, and much of everything in upstate New York. Is it better to erase history or to come to grips with it in all its complexity?
Or dig deeper to understand the context and perhaps find that one use of an Indian name honors the heritage and another is a stereotype? Reading only a little about Ralph Englestadt makes him (and his causes) a figure you don't sympathize with.
There is a perfectly good American solution to this problem. Just pay the tribe off.
Quote from: TrotskyThere is a perfectly good American solution to this problem. Just pay the tribe off.
Wall Street Journal story from the 1980s/1990s talked about how more people were self-identifying as Native American. The story lead was ~ "More people are identifying themselves as Indian now because it's a better deal being Indian."
Quote from: TrotskyThere is a perfectly good American solution to this problem. Just pay the tribe off.
One thing to keep in mind is that "Sioux" is, from what I understand, an iffy term that not many Native Americans seem to like. It throws a handful of different groups under one umbrella. While some of those groups have Sioux in their name, others do not.
For some groups, "pay the tribe off" or "get the tribe's approval" seems to work (I think the Florida State Seminoles falls under this). It's trickier for Sioux.
The current North Dakota state highway symbol is a silhouette of a native guy in a headdress: http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/v/vspfiles/photos/m1-5_ND_s-2.gif. The headdress is a big deal, being a very important/sacred kind of thing. Throwing it on highway signs is, for lack of a better word, lame.
Add in the whole Ralph Engelstad threw birthday parties for Hitler, and I'm pretty happy to oppose anything he wanted.
Also, North Dakota sucks.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: imafrshmnThat said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
I guess we'll have to rename the river, many other geological features, and much of everything in upstate New York. Is it better to erase history or to come to grips with it in all its complexity?
Or dig deeper to understand the context and perhaps find that one use of an Indian name honors the heritage and another is a stereotype? Reading only a little about Ralph Englestadt makes him (and his causes) a figure you don't sympathize with.
+1
The Native Americans around me have never been bothered by having us name the Finger Lakes after their tribes. They consider Onondaga Lake sacred and have worked hard to get it's pollution under control. No, they do want respect and not to be made into characters.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: billhowardQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: imafrshmnThat said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
I guess we'll have to rename the river, many other geological features, and much of everything in upstate New York. Is it better to erase history or to come to grips with it in all its complexity?
Or dig deeper to understand the context and perhaps find that one use of an Indian name honors the heritage and another is a stereotype? Reading only a little about Ralph Englestadt makes him (and his causes) a figure you don't sympathize with.
+1
The Native Americans around me have never been bothered by having us name the Finger Lakes after their tribes. They consider Onondaga Lake sacred and have worked hard to get it's pollution under control. No, they do want respect and not to be made into characters.
Meanwhile, in South Dakota, the local sacred lands have presidents' faces carved into them.
Quote from: DafatoneAlso, North Dakota sucks.
How does one work up feelings about a flyover state?
Anyway, better them than the Finger Lakes (sacred lake names and all) as the source of fracked oil products.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: DafatoneAlso, North Dakota sucks.
How does one work up feelings about a flyover state?
Anyway, better them than the Finger Lakes (sacred lake names and all) as the source of fracked oil products.
Live in a neighboring flyover state (in my case, South Dakota).
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: billhowardQuote from: DafatoneAlso, North Dakota sucks.
How does one work up feelings about a flyover state?
Anyway, better them than the Finger Lakes (sacred lake names and all) as the source of fracked oil products.
Live in a neighboring flyover state (in my case, South Dakota).
That's different. South Dakota
hashad Gateway Computer.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: billhowardQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: imafrshmnThat said, "Quinnipiac University" is also a problematic indian appropriation in my eyes. Anyway, I enjoyed the hockey game and liked watching UND's talent shine.
I guess we'll have to rename the river, many other geological features, and much of everything in upstate New York. Is it better to erase history or to come to grips with it in all its complexity?
Or dig deeper to understand the context and perhaps find that one use of an Indian name honors the heritage and another is a stereotype? Reading only a little about Ralph Englestadt makes him (and his causes) a figure you don't sympathize with.
+1
The Native Americans around me have never been bothered by having us name the Finger Lakes after their tribes. They consider Onondaga Lake sacred and have worked hard to get it's pollution under control. No, they do want respect and not to be made into characters.
Oh, I wasn't defending the Sioux; rather paradoxically, if you know me well, I was defending Quinnipiac.
After jettisoning "the Braves," there's really nothing about Quinnipiac's tribal name appropriation—other than the act of appropriation in the first place—that strikes me as disrespectful. Going back to the "University's" founding, it was located briefly in New Haven. Given that there was already a "New Haven YMCA Junior College," now the University of New Haven, which became "New Haven College" in 1926, the "Connecticut College of Commerce" (1929) needed to associate itself with a different geological feature / local name association when its administration sought to change its "target market" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_management) in 1951.
Quote from: DafatoneOne thing to keep in mind is that "Sioux" is, from what I understand, an iffy term that not many Native Americans seem to like. It throws a handful of different groups under one umbrella. While some of those groups have Sioux in their name, others do not.
Like Iroquois? For the record, I have no idea if that is similar or if Native Americans "like" that name, or if it has similar connotations to the "Sioux" umbrella you describe. I'm just trying to spell out that it sounds similar to the "Six Nations" of the Iroquois confederacy that I learned growing up in the Finger Lakes region.
QuoteThe current North Dakota state highway symbol is a silhouette of a native guy in a headdress: http://www.usa-traffic-signs.com/v/vspfiles/photos/m1-5_ND_s-2.gif. The headdress is a big deal, being a very important/sacred kind of thing. Throwing it on highway signs is, for lack of a better word, lame.
(http://www.fisherassoc.com/files/cache/e001caea290b373b0554d408aa2ce7ca_f618.jpg)
Again, just a bell rung from something from my home. There's less of an obvious "headdress," but it is putting a Native American on a highway sign.
To wrap up my trip, having the Frozen Four in Tampa twice in a 5-year period was a little much. The 2012 Frozen Four was a well-managed machine and a great success considering the location, and this time around, some spots started to show, if you ask me.
First, there was a clear drop-off of the usual school diversity, as I feel a lot of the "regulars" just didn't want to travel all that way again for a non-traditional destination location so soon. The tournament and organizers were lucky that North Dakota grabbed the ring this year. From my perch in the Club Level, I counted around 14 sections in the lower bowl where the primary color was Green. North Dakota fans also snapped up an awful lot of the luxury boxes. I'd say this was the biggest North Dakota turn out I have ever seen, and that is saying something. At the semifinals, they were still advertising that tickets were still available for Saturday night via the public address system.
They tried separate tickets for each of the Semifinals. This meant that at the end of the 1st semifinal, EVERYBODY had to exit the arena. While annoying, it worked out better than I thought, considering there's a large plaza at the main exit where they staged the FanFest with bands and there were vendors selling tall-boy cans of beer. They also moved the metal-detectors out to the perimeter of the plaza, so you wouldn't have to get frisked/wanded again unless you left the plaza/parking garage area. I decided to wander over to the group of tourist bars a few blocks away, which not a whole lot of other people did, except for the people who are enthusiastic fans of "Hooters." Very disappointing compared to the options they had in 2012.
One thing they could do because of the separate admission was only designate two of the four corners of the lower bowl as participant school seating and sell more of those premium seats. So the tickets that Denver got for their semi were the same seats that Quinnipiac received. The main corner for NoDak was were BC had been sitting. And the bands were at the top of those sections in the lower bowl instead of thrown up in nose-bleed land. This meant the bands didn't even need to be mic'ed, which was nice. And the noticable empty sections were way at the top of the upper deck, instead of center ice. Fans were able to buy good seats, instead of reserving them for sponsors "Corporate Champions" who wouldn't show up.
Otherwise, the fan experience wasn't great. Long lines at the few souvenir tables, and the food was as expensive as I had seen. They didn't get their shipment of souvenir pucks on Thursday, and by the time I got into the arena on Saturday (15 minutes before anthems), all the tables had sold out of pucks. Oh, and I got harassed by some young jerk usher who condescendingly smiled as he threatened to throw me out for trying to go to the bathroom in a different section of my level. I still don't know what I did wrong.
I ran into Mr. & Mrs. Hilbrich, still wearing their half/half CU/QU jerseys. And I met an old-timer wearing a Keith Peach jersey out on the plaza. Barry Melrose was on my Southwest flight back to Connecticut, but I didn't punch him in the mullet for any of you. He was quieter than the over-confident QU homers who were woofing on my flight there.
If I didn't have snowbirding family to visit, I would have been fine skipping it. Hopefully it will be another 20 years before Tampa gets it again. I'm excited about Chicago.
Quote from: RichHIf I didn't have snowbirding family to visit, I would have been fine skipping it. Hopefully it will be another 20 years before Tampa gets it again. I'm excited about Chicago.
I
was disappointed to have to miss it, not just because I didn't make it to Tampa for 2012, but also because I/we haven't attended a Frozen Four since the ridiculously tortured Vegas/Pittsburgh/West Palm Beach/Orlando route we took in order to be there amidst other commitments in 2013. I'm excited about Chicago in 2017 and St. Paul in 2018; the food, beer, and friends situations should all be great.
Isn't it about the time they should be picking sites for 2019-21, by the way?
Nice report!