"Senior Forwards Lead the Pack" plus 3 stars fromthe weekend, burning questions, and predictions for the coming weekend.
http://www.elynah.com/?editorial&id=13
Email me your critiques, criticisms, and general feedback at alb69@cornell.edu
Hey Ari,
Ever thought of submitting these to the Cornell Daily Sun.
Nice job with article, although I was in Section D, first row and saw Gleed's hit. He didn't take a run at him. It was very embellished by Inhacak. I think it was the wrong call, shouldn't have even been a penalty.
To write hockey for the Cornell Daily Sun, one must have at least 3 semesters of experience writing for SUN Sports, meaning you have to write about Polo or Sprint Football or something else which I am not interested in doing. I would bite the bullet and do that though, but there is no editorialized coverage of the hockey team and they have made this clear to me.
So when the traditional media don't provide an outlet you turn to the new media. All hail the internet and Elynah.com! :-)
Regarding the Michigan State preview, the Spartans have two pre-season All-Americans: forward Jim Slater and defenseman A.J. Thelen.
[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Regarding the Michigan State preview, the Spartans have two pre-season All-Americans: forward Jim Slater and defenseman A.J. Thelen.[/q]
I like both players a lot and think both will make it to the NHL, although both are off to kind of slow starts.
NHL. What is that? ::nut::
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote: To write hockey for the Cornell Daily Sun, ... but there is no editorialized coverage of the hockey team and they have made this clear to me.[/q]Yes, that's the way journalism is supposed to be. News is news, and editorials are... well you get the point.
Now, I only wish other news outlets would do the same.::rolleyes::
Just to demonstrate that I've learned from the Brown post-game discussion, let me clarify that Varteressian did not play one of the Clarkson post-season games because of a game-disqualification, not a game-misconduct.
I was of the impression that he got a game misconduct. If you get a game misconduct in the third period of a game, you are automatically out the next game.
Whether or not that's true, he got a game DQ.
[q]If you get a game misconduct in the third period of a game, you are automatically out the next game.[/q]Not true, or at least I can't find any reference to it in the rulebook http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/2005_ice_hockey_rules.pdf
[q]SECTION 4.4 b. A game misconduct penalty involves the suspension of a player, coach or other non-playing persons for the balance of the game; however, a substitute is permitted to replace a player immediately. The offending player, coach or non-playing persons must leave the bench and playing surface immediately and may not communicate with or contact team personnel in any manner until the game is completed. Any contact with game officials is prohibited.
Medical personnel cannot be assessed a game misconduct penalty.
A player who is assessed a game misconduct penalty is suspended for the remainder of that game only. The player shall be allowed to play in the team's next scheduled game.[/q]Emphasis added.
[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:
[Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote: To write hockey for the Cornell Daily Sun, ... but there is no editorialized coverage of the hockey team and they have made this clear to me.[/Q]
Yes, that's the way journalism is supposed to be. News is news, and editorials are... well you get the point.
Now, I only wish other news outlets would do the same.[/q]
When media outlets talk about separating fact from opinion, they really mean separating less opinionated from more opinionated articles.
If the Harvard game story says in the Crimson that "surprisingly" Harvard drew more penalties than Cornell, is that fact, opinion, or analysis? If they call the Cornell crowd "hostile" vs. "vigorous", what's that -- fact or opinion? Using the words "undoubtedly" or "few would argue that..." or (a Time magazine favorite pre-Internet) "it was clear by week's end that ..." doesn't turn opinion into fact.
The New York Times says it's the paper of record and would be shocked to have anyone (such as its own ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, who did) say the paper has a bias. But merely choosing what's on Page One, even that slants the news in the direction of what the editors say is news. You run a P1 story saying the rail transportation safety board is cozy with the railroads, somebody reached a conclusion that that story was more important than, say, a story on the success of charter schools (or lack thereof), that's a judgment call. The Times (news pages) seems to find stories about charter schools doing poorly; the Journal (editorial pages) seems to find stories about charter schools turning out successful students.
Long ago, just starting out as a police/fire reporter, I made it a point to always ask the cops after a fatal accident, was the driver wearing a seat belt? That was a bias on my part, because at the time you were hearing lots of anecdotal stories about people surving only because they'd be thrown clear in crashes. Nobody else at the time asked the question as best I know. I think that was a "good" bias but it was still a subtle bias in how the story read.
Often unbiased means more people with agree with the way you laid out the information you chose to put in the article, and the order it went in. That's about as good as it gets.
The direction now in TV news is toward whether you can follow it with a helicopter or at least get to it live. If you can, then it's news.
By the way, the reporters for the WS Journal are far removed from the people who write the editorials. They are a quite normal bunch of people and I bet they split pretty evenly in their personal lives between Bush and Kerry. But we digress from the business at hand: Cornell hockey.
It would help if reports used the term "next-game disqualification."
Of course, it's not always just a "next-game" disqualification (if you have more than one this season...)
Ari,
Thanks for your hard work. Your pieces are clear, comprehensive, and well-informed. I wish there had been comparable resources when I was an undergraduate.
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
Whether or not that's true, he got a game DQ.[/q]Are you sure? The box scores I've been able to find both say game misconduct:
http://cornellbigred.collegesports.com/sports/m-hockey/stats/110604aab.html
http://www.collegehockeystats.com/0405/boxes/mbrncor1.n06
Sorry. My bad. I was talking about the Varteressian DQ from the Clarkson series last year. Got mixed up by KenP's comment. Yes, the Brown game was a game misconduct and Gleed will be available for the next game. Don't mind me...
Age is referring to Varteressian in the Clarkson playoff game last year, not Gleed on Saturday night.
Oops, my fault, I'm the one who got crossed up.
Ari, any interest in explaining the Moulson slight? It's as if you are suggesting that he is an assistant captain only because he scores. Schafer sends out Knoepfli and Moulson to talk to the refs, not Iggy. Feel free to take this private...I just thought this was something others might be interested in.
[Q]atb9 Wrote:
Ari, any interest in explaining the Moulson slight? It's as if you are suggesting that he is an assistant captain only because he scores. Schafer sends out Knoepfli and Moulson to talk to the refs, not Iggy. Feel free to take this private...I just thought this was something others might be interested in.[/q]
I am surprised that you or anyone would have taken it as a slight on Moulson when I never mentioned his name. I wasn't suggested that Moulson shouldn't be or doesn't deserve to be an assistant captain, only that Varteressian deserves to be. I don't know what happens inside the dressing room or on the bench so I can't speculate as to why Moulson is an assistant captain, although I am sure he does deserve it. A guy like Varteressian is rare in that despite barely playing for two years, he stuck with it and finally made the lineup. A lot of guys in his position at Cornell and any other program quit or transferred. From Varteressian's position, I would have been somewhat disappointed at the prospect of not getting assistant captain after everything he has done to make the lineup, not to mention his leadership (or poor leadership depending on how you look at it) displayed against Clarkson in the playoffs when a Junior does receive the honor.
Count me in, too, as being a mite confused by the line "captain Mike Knoepfli, assistant captain Mike Iggulden, and should-be assistant captain Paul Varteressian." If one can only have a captain and one or two assistants, then it sounds as if -- simple math here -- you're saying one of the three captains/asst. captains shouldn't be captain, and one might infer one of the existing three shouldn't have the C or A on his sweater.
If there's a chance a player such as Varteressian won't dress for some games, no matter how good the player's work ethic, no matter how charismatic a leader, that might be seen as a disqualifier to his captaincy.
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Count me in, too, as being a mite confused by the line "captain Mike Knoepfli, assistant captain Mike Iggulden, and should-be assistant captain Paul Varteressian." If one can only have a captain and one or two assistants, then it sounds as if -- simple math here -- you're saying one of the three captains/asst. captains shouldn't be captain, and one might infer one of the existing three shouldn't have the C or A on his sweater.
If there's a chance a player such as Varteressian won't dress for some games, no matter how good the player's work ethic, no matter how charismatic a leader, that might be seen as a disqualifier to his captaincy.
[/q]
Again, I was only implying that Varteressian is deserving of a letter based on what I have seen on the ice, nothing about Moulson or his worthiness.
If you were picking captains from scratch, who would you like to see?
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I am surprised that you or anyone would have taken it as a slight on Moulson when I never mentioned his name.[/q]From your column:[q]Even though the Matt Moulson's, Shane Hynes's, Charlie Cook's, and David McKee's will get the lion's share of headlines, the Knoepfli's, Iggulden's, and Varteressians, the foot soldiers, are often the difference in hockey games.[/q]That does appear to be the only mention of Moulson in this week's column. In any case, unless you meant that Varteressian should be an assistant captain at Charlie Cook's expense, it seems hard to not interpret your words as meaning that you believe Varteressian is more deserving than Moulson. Which, of course, isn't necessarily a slight on Moulson, since it certainly could have been intended purely as a compliment to Varteressian, but you have to see that it could be read that way. [Q]billhoward Wrote:Count me in, too, as being a mite confused by the line "captain Mike Knoepfli, assistant captain Mike Iggulden, and should-be assistant captain Paul Varteressian." If one can only have a captain and one or two assistants, then it sounds as if -- simple math here -- you're saying one of the three captains/asst. captains shouldn't be captain, and one might infer one of the existing three shouldn't have the C or A on his sweater.[/q]You can have a captain plus three assistant captains, not two. Iggulden plus Moulson plus Cook equals three. Speaking of simple math.
[Q]jmh30 Wrote:
[Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
I am surprised that you or anyone would have taken it as a slight on Moulson when I never mentioned his name.[/Q]
From your column:[Q2]Even though the Matt Moulson's, Shane Hynes's, Charlie Cook's, and David McKee's will get the lion's share of headlines, the Knoepfli's, Iggulden's, and Varteressians, the foot soldiers, are often the difference in hockey games.[/Q]
That does appear to be the only mention of Moulson in this week's column. In any case, unless you meant that Varteressian should be an assistant captain at Charlie Cook's expense, it seems hard to not interpret your words as meaning that you believe Varteressian is more deserving than Moulson. Which, of course, isn't necessarily a slight on Moulson, since it certainly could have been intended purely as a compliment to Varteressian, but you have to see that it could be read that way. [Q2]billhoward Wrote:Count me in, too, as being a mite confused by the line "captain Mike Knoepfli, assistant captain Mike Iggulden, and should-be assistant captain Paul Varteressian." If one can only have a captain and one or two assistants, then it sounds as if -- simple math here -- you're saying one of the three captains/asst. captains shouldn't be captain, and one might infer one of the existing three shouldn't have the C or A on his sweater.[/Q]
You can have a captain plus three assistant captains, not two. Iggulden plus Moulson plus Cook equals three. Speaking of simple math.[/q]
Well I guess I can see how it could be taken as such, but really I just meant that Varteressian is worthy of a letter, not necessarily at anyone's expense or that anyone that has a letter is not worthy of it.
He can't make Varteressian a captain if he isn't sure that he's going to play every week, which was the case after last season (although the team votes, I believe the votes are steered a certain way).
Thanks for the responses to our prodding, Ari! ;-) I didn't qualify my question with a thank you because at that point I had only read the first paragraph before my question stopped me. But I have gotten through it and it was fun to read, especially about Iggy, Glover and Krantz! Where can I send questions? :-)
We've got some possibly-cursed players, huh? Does that count as anti-woofing?