"And Then There Was One"

[Trotsky]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I don't speak Shakespeare.

Sigh.

[ugarte]

[quote Trotsky]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I don't speak Shakespeare.

Sigh.[/quote]Well, he probably don't speak Bible neither.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Trotsky]

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

I don't speak Shakespeare.

Sigh.[/quote]

Jerk

[Jim Hyla]

Well, I still say that if ND had lost to UAH, for god's sake they were the last team in the CHA, then ND choked. Unless, of course they had gone to a certain restaurant in the NC first.:-}

[Roy 82]

[quote ugarte]
And how often were we the best team over that span? Once, maybe? I'll call the loss to UNH in 2003 a choke if you'd like. We only choked the first period but that was enough. (That said, that Minnesota team was pretty impressive in the finals and I don't think we were actually the best team in the country.)[/quote]

Shame on you. Don't you know the official party line on that game? Here:

It wasn't a high stick. We were robbed of that goal. That bad call sucked out all of our momentum and allowed UNH to take over the game until we nearly tied it up at the end.

Choke? No. We was robbed.:`-(

[oceanst41]

[quote ftyuv][quote DeltaOne81][quote Trotsky][quote DeltaOne81]Okay, but what if its repeatedly? Year after year getting upset or unable to win. Eventually, you're choking right? Would it be better if we called it Harvarding?[/quote]And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

37 years and counting.[/quote]

I'm not talking national titles, I'm talking inability to win a solitary game, even when you have a 4-1 lead after 2. I don't think anyone ever 'chokes' by not winning a national title.[/quote]

Well, are we defining choking as any instance of not playing to one's potential, or does it have to specifically be caused by fear, nervousness, etc?  To me, choking includes those causes.  In that case, since I don't think a team up by 3 with 20 minutes to go is really shaking in their skates, I'd say that blowing that lead is more laziness than choking.[/quote]

Now if that's not choking my sign makes no sense anymore. :-/

And I thought Noah really seemed to enjoy it during pregame warm ups. :-}

[Robb]

[quote ftyuv][quote DeltaOne81][quote Trotsky][quote DeltaOne81]Okay, but what if its repeatedly? Year after year getting upset or unable to win. Eventually, you're choking right? Would it be better if we called it Harvarding?[/quote]And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

37 years and counting.[/quote]

I'm not talking national titles, I'm talking inability to win a solitary game, even when you have a 4-1 lead after 2. I don't think anyone ever 'chokes' by not winning a national title.[/quote]

Well, are we defining choking as any instance of not playing to one's potential, or does it have to specifically be caused by fear, nervousness, etc?  To me, choking includes those causes.  In that case, since I don't think a team up by 3 with 20 minutes to go is really shaking in their skates, I'd say that blowing that lead is more laziness than choking.[/quote]

I strongly disagree.  When you're up by 3 with 20 to go, the table has been set, the candles have been lit, the fatted calf is cooling on the platter, and the appetizer has been served.  But instead of enjoying a sumptuos repast, you choke on your foie gras, and never get to enjoy what should have been a fabulous evening.  

Case in point: Yes, Minnesota is good, but Air Force looked scared to me.  They definitely tightened up in the third period and became much more tentative; Minnesota pounced on them like a good team should.  Yes, I said it: Air Force choked against Minnesota.

Choke doesn't have to do with rankings or upsets - it's not being able to achieve what is laid out before you for the taking.

[Liz '05]

[quote ftyuv]Well, are we defining choking as any instance of not playing to one's potential, or does it have to specifically be caused by fear, nervousness, etc?  To me, choking includes those causes.  In that case, since I don't think a team up by 3 with 20 minutes to go is really shaking in their skates, I'd say that blowing that lead is more laziness than choking.[/quote]

So, the Yankees, 2004 edition (up by three games and some runs, then losing the series), were lazy, not chokers?  I beg to differ.

Fear, nervousness, etc. may be present in instances of choking, but it's only because of the Big Game factor, a necessity in my definition of choking.  Season-end tournament games are Big Games.  Rivalry games are Big Games.  Random game against a weak, out-of-conference team that Team loses may be terrible, horrible, no good, etc., but isn't choking.

[JohnnieAg'99]

[quote DeltaOne81]Okay, but what if its repeatedly? Year after year getting upset or unable to win. Eventually, you're choking right? Would it be better if we called it Harvarding?[/quote] Well, IIRC correctly not one of those losses was against a lower-ranked team.  You could call the Maine game a choke or you could give them props for building a big lead against a better / higher seeded team :-D , but at least 4 losses as a #4 seed can't be called chokes.

[marty]

[quote JohnnieAg'99][quote DeltaOne81]Okay, but what if its repeatedly? Year after year getting upset or unable to win. Eventually, you're choking right? Would it be better if we called it Harvarding?[/quote] Well, IIRC correctly not one of those losses was against a lower-ranked team.  You could call the Maine game a choke or you could give them props for building a big lead against a better / higher seeded team :-D , but at least 4 losses as a #4 seed can't be called chokes.[/quote]

You mean they can't be correctly called chokes.

As for me, I will be happy in my ignorance to incorrectly label Harvard's one and done performances....CHOKES!!::burnout::

[Jordan 04]

[quote Liz '05][quote ftyuv]Well, are we defining choking as any instance of not playing to one's potential, or does it have to specifically be caused by fear, nervousness, etc?  To me, choking includes those causes.  In that case, since I don't think a team up by 3 with 20 minutes to go is really shaking in their skates, I'd say that blowing that lead is more laziness than choking.[/quote]

So, the Yankees, 2004 edition (up by three games and some runs, then losing the series), were lazy, not chokers?  I beg to differ.
[/quote]

As do I.  The Yankees merely suck.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote JohnnieAg'99][quote DeltaOne81]Okay, but what if its repeatedly? Year after year getting upset or unable to win. Eventually, you're choking right? Would it be better if we called it Harvarding?[/quote] Well, IIRC correctly not one of those losses was against a lower-ranked team.  You could call the Maine game a choke or you could give them props for building a big lead against a better / higher seeded team :-D , but at least 4 losses as a #4 seed can't be called chokes.[/quote]

Well, first, not true, one game Harvard was ranked higher.

Second, even if you are only have 30% odds in each game, the odds of losing all 5 is still less than 17% (.7 ^ 5).

In fact, that's remarkably close to the actual numbers. Using KRACH odds, Harvard's chance of losing all 5 NCAA games this decade was 13.4%. For comparison, that's *less* than HC's odds to beat Minn last year. A bunch of reasonable events happening each and every time gets to be pretty slim odds reasonable quickly.

Choking is, quite simply, 'overcoming non-trivial odds to perform poorly'. So Clarkson, despite the rankings, no, wasn't really a choke (although losing *their* last 5 as well is getting there). Harvard though... 13% is bad enough for me.

[Ben Rocky '04]

[quote Robb]I strongly disagree.  When you're up by 3 with 20 to go, the table has been set, the candles have been lit, the fatted calf is cooling on the platter, and the appetizer has been served.  But instead of enjoying a sumptuos repast, you choke on your foie gras, and never get to enjoy what should have been a fabulous evening. [/quote]

In this situation, we should thank god that Heimlich is a Cornellian.

[fink]

Harvard though... 13% is bad enough for me.

Doesn't that come out to a 4.0 there?