#5/6 this week.
USA Today:
1 University of Michigan 505 (29) 2 9-1-1
2 University of Wisconsin 477 (5) 5 7-1-2
3 Colorado College 451 1 9-2-1
4 University of Maine 378 4 9-3-0
5 Boston College 331 9 4-2-1
6 Cornell University 325 3 4-2-0
7 University of New Hampshire 259 12 6-3-1
8 University of North Dakota 258 11 7-4-1
9 University of Vermont 255 8 8-2-0
10 University of Minnesota 223 13 5-3-2
11 Miami (Ohio) University 172 10 6-2-0
12 University of Denver 147 7 5-4-1
13 Michigan State University 110 6 5-3-1
14 University of Alaska Fairbanks 58 15 4-2-2
15 St. Lawrence University 49 NR 7-3-0
Others receiving votes: Bemidji State University 43, Colgate University 21, Mercyhurst College 9, Boston University 4, Ferris State University 2, Northern Michigan University 2, Clarkson University 1.
USCHO
Team (First Place Votes) Record Points Last Poll
1 Michigan (29) 9-1-1 783 2
2 Wisconsin ( 7) 7-1-2 751 5
3 Colorado College ( 3) 9-2-1 721 1
4 Maine ( 1) 9-3-0 653 4
5 Cornell 4-2-0 596 3
6 Boston College 4-2-1 583 8
7 North Dakota 7-4-1 530 10
8 Vermont 8-2-0 494 9
9 New Hampshire 6-3-1 483 13
10 Minnesota 5-3-2 430 12
11 Denver 5-4-1 405 7
12 Miami 6-2-0 369 11
13 Michigan State 5-3-2 366 6
14 Alaska-Fairbanks 4-2-2 232 15
15 St. Lawrence 7-3-0 199 16
16 Bemidji State 7-1-0 192 18
17 Colgate 6-2-1 181 17
18 Boston University 3-4-0 103 14
19 Harvard 3-2-0 98 NR
20 Northern Michigan 5-5-0 69 19
Others Receiving Votes: Ferris State 28, Rensselaer 23, Clarkson 20, Providence 19, Nebraska-Omaha 13, Ohio State 12, Minnesota-Duluth 11, Mercyhurst 9, Quinnipiac 8, Minnesota State 7, Dartmouth 4, Brown 3, Lake Superior 3, Holy Cross 1, Sacred Heart 1
at least we finally shook loose that first place voter....
Oh boy, I can't wait to see all the pissed up Western fans on USCHO react to us still being as high as 5/6.
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
Oh boy, I can't wait to see all the pissed up Western fans on USCHO react to us still being as high as 5/6.[/q]
I certainly wouldn't say I'm pissed, but I think it's a bit ridiculous that we're even considered top 10 at this point. But then, I think polls are generally bullshit anyway.
Kyle
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
Oh boy, I can't wait to see all the pissed up Western fans on USCHO react to us still being as high as 5/6.[/q]
On that note, how is it that Cornell is still as high at they are?
Oh, and who thought Dartmouth is a top 20 team because of 1 win???
On one hand, it's fair to say Cornell is benefitting from familiarity -- they've been up in the polls for four years now, and casual voters will keep them from freefalling as long as their record stays respectable.
On the other hand, are there teams below them which inarguably should be higher? It isn't like there are undefeated WCHA teams down there.
Sounds about right. We are benefiting from reputation here a bit (good!) But we split games this weekend against two teams that were expected to be quite good. It's early enough that pre-season expectations haven't been overwritten by Dartmouth's slow start. Even considering how bad the game seemed Saturday, one game is still not enough for a team ranked 2/3 to drop out of the top 10. If we keep it up for another week or two then it's a different story (see Ohio State).
Remember: we lost both of this past weekend's games last year--albeit not on the same weekend.
This has probably already been debated in some poll thread, but here goes. Twenty teams is way too many. It's hard to believe that some of those teams actually get votes. I much prefer the USA Today poll.
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/5Polls/0506/polls_0409.htm
[Q]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.
Go read the Dartmouth post-game thread. People aren't saying bench McKee, but they're definitely aware that Chabot played better against DC which might merit some ice time.
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/q]
I am.
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/Q]
I am.[/q]
hey todd, jacob called..
[Q]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/q]
Yeah, but that's their "power ratings" which aren't worth the roll of paper they're printed on.
They're still unranked, so our "Ranked" (point at CU) "Unranked" (point at DC) still holds true.
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/Q]
I am.[/q]
Oh cmon, McKee had a bad game, but this is Chabot we're talking about here. I'll support him the one time McKee goes out, but otherwise he's one spot above the janitor.
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9[/Q]
Yeah, but that's their "power ratings" which aren't worth the roll of paper they're printed on.[/q]
As opposed to the polls, where the voting is done by dozens of coches and media people who will never see half of the teams they're voting for?
Beeeej
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
[Q2]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9[/Q]
Yeah, but that's their "power ratings" which aren't worth the roll of paper they're printed on.[/Q]
As opposed to the polls, where the voting is done by dozens of coches and media people who will never see half of the teams they're voting for?
[/q]
Would you rather have a ceramic dalmatian or plastic vomit?
Yes.
Beeeej
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/Q]
I am.[/Q]
Oh cmon, McKee had a bad game, but this is Chabot we're talking about here. I'll support him the one time McKee goes out, but otherwise he's one spot above the janitor.[/q]
But why? As far as I can tell, Chabot has been nothing but the good soldier and has performed when called upon. I certainly feel that McKee should have every opportunity to play like we know he can, but why the hostility?
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/Q]
I am.[/Q]
Oh cmon, McKee had a bad game, but this is Chabot we're talking about here. I'll support him the one time McKee goes out, but otherwise he's one spot above the janitor.[/q]
I think Chabot should get to play more more for the message this will send to McKee than b/c I think Chabot is better. McKee has not played to his potential, in what little saw of Chabot he played to his potential or above it.
There's really not much reason to think Chabot is a good goalie. In three plus years he's played exactly twice (counting real games only). The reports here say he's not all that good (admittedly I take these "reports" with the requisite grains of salt). Even if McKee is playing below the high standard he set for himself last year I think there's probably a big dropoff going to Chabot. Not that it wasn't appropriate to pull David - sometimes that's necessary. And if he were to continue to play poorly then the other guys should get some time. But I'm not eager to go down that road, based on what little I know.
Fine, but in the two times we've seen him this year, he's played great, and played better than McKee. Clearly better. Is he as talented? Doubtful. Might he be playing better right now? Quite possibly. No reason to get him some more play time against two weak opponents this weekend. It'll keep McKee honest and reward Chabot for his good effort on Saturday, when there clearly wasn't enough of that going around.
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
Fine, but in the two times we've seen him this year, he's played great, and played better than McKee. Clearly better. Is he as talented? Doubtful. Might he be playing better right now? Quite possibly. No reason to get him some more play time against two weak opponents this weekend. It'll keep McKee honest and reward Chabot for his good effort on Saturday, when there clearly wasn't enough of that going around.[/q]
Uh-oh. "Weak opponents." ::uhoh:: ::uhoh:: ::uhoh::
Fair enough. Just like anyone on the team, the coaching staff should use the threat of lost playing to prevent guys from getting complacent and keep them working hard. It's a dangerous tactic with the goalie though when the backup is a senior with negligble college game experience.
I've never seen Chabot play so maybe he looks better than he sounds. The Dartmouth announcers pointed out several times where they thought Chabot showed an obvious lack of concentration on Saturday, but 1) those guys aren't exactly hockey experts and 2) they were probably looking for this because of his lack of experience.
I've seen it mentioned by a few people on these boards that Chabot is just awful. He did look really good in the Red-White game, and against Dartmouth. Maybe not so much against USA under 18.
I think Chabot gets confused pretty easily when there's a mess in front of him, which is where McKee often makes great saves. On the other hand, in clear breakaway situations, Chabot's been very good (he looked fantastic in the Red-White shootout, though he was facing mostly weaker players) while McKee really needs to work on breakaways.
[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]Jacob '06 Wrote:
[Q2]French Rage Wrote:
[Q2]dbilmes Wrote:
FWIW, INCH puts us at #9
[/Q]
"The Red's fickle fans are already calling for Mike Schafer to consider giving backup goalie Louis Chabot more playing time. "
I highly doubt there is a single Cornell fan even close to calling for that.[/Q]
I am.[/Q]
Oh cmon, McKee had a bad game, but this is Chabot we're talking about here. I'll support him the one time McKee goes out, but otherwise he's one spot above the janitor.[/Q]
I think Chabot should get to play more more for the message this will send to McKee than b/c I think Chabot is better. McKee has not played to his potential, in what little saw of Chabot he played to his potential or above it.[/q]
McKee is not an "even" player. He's the kinda player that can either really get it going or be in a rut. When he's "on" he's pretty much a wall. Right now, however, he's definitely in a rut. Chabot may very well be a lot more "even", it's hard to say after seeing so little of him. However, Chabot does not have anywhere near the potential that McKee does. If our team is to have a fighting chance this year then we need our star goalie. Pulling Dave against Dartmouth was the right thing to do. Coach had hoped he would get it together in the intermission, but he was still completely shit in the 2nd. However, the most important thing right now is to do everything possible to help McKee's confidence and his recovery. So starting McKee is the only right option. While rewarding Chabot would be nice, it's not crucial. He's already ecstatic that he got to play and he knows he did a good job. Louis is a good soldier, he'll be fine.
Anybody? Oh, c'mon, nobody?! :-D
Beeeej
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Anybody? Oh, c'mon, nobody?!
Beeeej[/q]
Sorry, just too easy. I couldn't respect myself in the morning.
I hate the banana flavored ones
I'm really confused by the last 3 posts...
I think it is bad form to pick on someone because they don't dot their Ts and cross their eyes correctly.
As for McKee, I think we need to wait and see how the cookie bounces.
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
I think it is bad form to pick on someone because they don't dot their Ts and cross their eyes correctly.
[/q]
I agree...I just couldn't resist my impulse to complain about my least favorite of a certain candy
Hey, man, some errors are just too unintentionally funny to ignore. :-}
Beeeej
Sorry, Pace. I just think you meant "in a rut." And while I wouldn't normally pick on someone for a single error like that, the idea of a goalie being "in a runt" evoked too many funny images in my head for me to pass it up completely. ;-)
Beeeej
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
I think it is bad form to pick on someone because they don't dot their Ts and cross their eyes correctly.
redhair34 Wrote:
I agree...I just couldn't resist my impulse to complain about my least favorite of a certain candy [/Q]
I didn't think I needed this ::nut:: but I guess it was too subtle ::doh::
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Sorry, Pace. I just think you meant "in a rut." And while I wouldn't normally pick on someone for a single error like that, the idea of a goalie being "in a runt" evoked too many funny images in my head for me to pass it up completely.
Beeeej[/q]
*looks up "runt" in a dictionary"
Haha. Oh my. That would be quite something...
Thanks for pointing it out, Beeeej. This happens to me sometimes with English expressions that I've heard used but never seen written. English not being my first language and all...
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
[Q2]nshapiro Wrote:
I think it is bad form to pick on someone because they don't dot their Ts and cross their eyes correctly.
redhair34 Wrote:
I agree...I just couldn't resist my impulse to complain about my least favorite of a certain candy [/Q]
I didn't think I needed this but I guess it was too subtle [/q]
My humor detector suddenly crumbled
[Q]Pace Wrote:
This happens to me sometimes with English expressions that I've heard used but never seen written. English not being my first language and all...[/q]
See, and this is why I normally wouldn't point it out. :-) Though you'd be surprised at how many native speakers make much stupider mistakes.
Beeeej
Oh, I got it. But you still could've been pointing your irony at Pace, not at me. B-]
Beeeej
[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Oh, I got it. But you still could've been pointing your irony at Pace, not at me.
Beeeej[/q]
Indeed. Let us not lose sight of who's being ridiculed here. ;-)
I would just like to thank Pace, Beeeej and redhair34 for demonstrating how a thread is supposed to deteriorate. All in good fun with no flames.
[Q]nshapiro Wrote:
I would just like to thank Pace, Beeeej and redhair34 for demonstrating how a thread is supposed to deteriorate. All in good fun with no flames.[/q]
Asshat!
Sorry, it's the hangover talking.
See y'all in about eleven hours.
Beeeej