ELynah Forum

If we're playing UNO at Lynah this year, will we be going to UNO next year?

Because I can actually get to Omaha. Last time we were there, the Nebraskans did not appreciate it when I yelled "red" during the anthem.

Glad no one got hurt by the bad ice. Hopefully we can figure that out.

Quote from: imafrshmn on November 15, 2025, 05:30:37 PMHuge win! God, 3x3 OT is such a lousy format, even moreso for the women than the men. But what a gritty, important, confidence boosting win!

3x3 suuuuuuuuucks.

If nothing else, you should lose possession if you leave the offensive zone intentionally.

Veilleux is a freshman playing 25 minutes a night and looking extremely composed both defensively and offensively.

Sky is the limit there.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 15, 2025, 12:30:37 PM

Quote from: VIEWfromK on November 15, 2025, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on November 15, 2025, 09:31:41 AM- The passing on the power play was quick and crisp.  Nice to see.

At this point I think unit two is better than unit one.  Unit two is typically only getting the final thirty seconds but they are looking to make plays.  Unit one is still doing too much perimeter work for my liking.  Still waiting for lanes to open that rarely do.

Perhaps but it's WAY better than it was last year.

Last season's power play was an elaborate long-form trolling attempt. I don't really understand the joke, but it had to be one.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 12:28:34 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on November 14, 2025, 12:01:59 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:58:43 AM

Quote from: Beeeej on November 14, 2025, 11:37:11 AM

Quote from: ugarte on November 14, 2025, 11:31:16 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:17:00 AMCHN has CHIP. 

I looked it up so you* don't have to: CHIP is a comprehensive-quality stat comparable to baseball's WAR.

* person like me

I still had to look up WAR, though.

(It's not all that relevant to the Mets, you see.)

We're about to piss away Pete's 23.3 career WAR.  Relevance.

There's a miserable, miserable part of me that says let Pete walk, let Edwin walk, and try to have an under the luxury tax threshold reset year.

Learned helplessness.  You and Senate Dems.

I say to your Depression Kitty what I say to them: you never win by losing.

Lol ouch. There is a pretty significant draft and tax penalty benefit to a reset year.

But as Rich H pointed out, who knows what the next CBA looks like.

Quote from: RichH on November 14, 2025, 01:59:24 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on November 14, 2025, 12:01:59 PM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:58:43 AM

Quote from: Beeeej on November 14, 2025, 11:37:11 AM

Quote from: ugarte on November 14, 2025, 11:31:16 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:17:00 AMCHN has CHIP. 

I looked it up so you* don't have to: CHIP is a comprehensive-quality stat comparable to baseball's WAR.

* person like me

I still had to look up WAR, though.

(It's not all that relevant to the Mets, you see.)

We're about to piss away Pete's 23.3 career WAR.  Relevance.

There's a miserable, miserable part of me that says let Pete walk, let Edwin walk, and try to have an under the luxury tax threshold reset year.

When/if baseball returns from the 2027 labor stoppage, there will be a different system with different rules.

This is a fair point.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:58:43 AM

Quote from: Beeeej on November 14, 2025, 11:37:11 AM

Quote from: ugarte on November 14, 2025, 11:31:16 AM

Quote from: Trotsky on November 14, 2025, 11:17:00 AMCHN has CHIP. 

I looked it up so you* don't have to: CHIP is a comprehensive-quality stat comparable to baseball's WAR.

* person like me

I still had to look up WAR, though.

(It's not all that relevant to the Mets, you see.)

We're about to piss away Pete's 23.3 career WAR.  Relevance.

There's a miserable, miserable part of me that says let Pete walk, let Edwin walk, and try to have an under the luxury tax threshold reset year.

I'm torn between thinking rest is always a good thing so it's okay to rotate goalies a few more weeks until Cournoyer (or who knows, maybe Keopple if things go in the other direction) gets his legs under him, and thinking Cournoyer looks a lot better.

Quote from: BearLover on November 12, 2025, 03:19:58 PMCornell needs to win at least 3 of its next 4 to have a realistic shot at an at-large bid. I doubt Dartmouth is actually very good so that will not remain a "good loss."

Hoping for some good crowds, don't know if they sold more season ticket packages after earlier reports of underwhelming sales...

And we have officially hit "it's too early for that" season.

Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 05:57:35 PM

Quote from: nshapiro on November 11, 2025, 05:37:57 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 05:17:56 PM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on November 11, 2025, 05:01:04 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on November 11, 2025, 01:07:46 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 09, 2025, 08:49:20 PMI'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

The lost funding, the job cuts, the uncertainty, the huge risk that Harvard doesn't ultimately win (it won the first case before a friendly judge, but there is no ultimate guarantee of success on appeal/in other cases), the fact the Trump administrations has responded by drumming up other charges and additional fines/suspensions, and is taking even more draconian action like trying to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students at all. The list goes on. Harvard is in a terrible position now. It's especially terrible for those whose careers depend on Harvard succeeding.

I can't find them now but there were several articles published a few months back about how Harvard can't win this fight. Kotlikoff's job is to protect Cornell, its students and its employees. He clearly made the right call IMO. I think it's telling that no one here can sketch out how the rest of the Trump administration (and god forbid another Republican administration) would go in the universe where Cornell doesn't settle.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

confessional prose piece by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

So you would have Cornell sacrifice itself to take a performative stand against the Trump administration? That's the only way I can see this analogy applying to the present situation. And yes, many of us are Jews who identify with this piece.

I think there's a valid argument to be made for a yes to that question, setting aside whether sacrifice versus appeasement are the only two options.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82 on November 11, 2025, 05:01:04 PM

Quote from: Dafatone on November 11, 2025, 01:07:46 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 09, 2025, 08:49:20 PMI'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

I don't think it was the legal fees.  I think it was the lost funding and the associated job cuts.

Most of the lost funding was restored in court.

Quote from: Trotsky on November 11, 2025, 02:42:29 PM

Quote from: BearLover on November 11, 2025, 01:44:21 AM

Quote from: The Rancor on November 11, 2025, 12:10:25 AMWow.

I should have also mentioned that a lot of the time I'm trolling but somehow taken seriously.

IMHO, FWIW, when you post straight without trolling your observations about games, and in particular your observations about our recruiting and our prospects' performance for their pre-Cornell teams, are excellent.  You have a lot to contribute.  But, much like me, when you try to be funny you miss, and when you provide criticism you tend to veer into ad hom and/or embarrass yourself.  Nobody asked me, but if you stick to matters of fact you are a high value contributor.  If your intent is provide clarity then you are washing our windows with bricks.

Mostly I suppose I just miss being unquestionably the most unnecessarily caustic prick here.  It was all I had, man.  Don't take that from me.

I feel like someone had you (and BL) beat about 15 years ago, but I'm not certain on the name details.

Quote from: BearLover on November 09, 2025, 08:49:20 PMI'd like to see the people lambasting the deal lay out how they would expect the next three years to play out in the universe where Cornell refuses to play ball.

There's only one school that isn't playing ball—-it's Harvard, and because they fought back they're getting totally screwed over by the Trump admin currently. They're also orders of magnitude richer than us, meaning their risk tolerance is much higher. Oh, and they're probably going to end up settling soon anyway, for probably five times as much as if they had just played ball from the start.

I don't see how Cornell had any real choice here. The alternative was financial ruin and ruining the lives of countless university students and workers.

This is where I disagree. It seems like Harvard is winning by fighting back.

And sure they're richer, but it's not like Cornell can't afford legal fees, even if they are significant.

Quote from: BearLover on November 10, 2025, 02:42:52 PM

Quote from: gjp84 on November 10, 2025, 02:29:49 PMLooks like the player originally in the zone before the puck reached back with his skate to try and tag up and may have done so before the second Dartmouth player touched the puck? Or it may have been impossible to tell whether he was successful in doing so on the replay which would have prevented the referee's from overturning the original call.

This was my thought as well. It seems he stops to tag up. Impossible to tell from the replay so that's why the goal stood.

Doesn't he have to entirely leave the offensive zone to reenter onside? And he'd have to do this before the nearby guy enters.

My guess is they couldn't quite determine if he went in first. It sure looks like he did, but it's also tough to be sure when the puck is in the air at that angle.