Cornell @ Colgate pre-game

[billhoward]

If the woofing gods apply to PR and not just fans, Colgate has been and may be beneficial to the Big Red http://athletics.colgate.edu/mhockey/release.asp?id=4613 :

 
>>> A major key to this weekend's series seems to be which team scores three goals first. [check] 

>>> The Big Red are led offensively by 2003 Pittsburgh Penguins draft selection  
Matt Moulson. The senior, who was a ninth-round pick, leads the Big Red with 14  
goals, 13 assists, and 27 points this season. This is the third straight season  
that Moulson has led the Big Red in scoring. He has not performed well against  
Colgate, however, mustering just one point in six career games against the  
Raiders.  [check - 1 more point Friday] 

>>> Cornell's starting goaltender, junior David McKee, ...  is 1-2-1 against the 
Raiders in four career starts with a 1.49 goals against average and a .941 save 
percentage. [now he's even. who else has Mckee had a losing record against other than Minnesota?] 

[Josh '99]

A)  I'm really getting tired of this whole ridiculous concept of "Woofing Gods".
B)  Describing things that already took place is not woofing.  It's not like they said "After this weekend Moulson will still only have one career point against Colgate."  ::rolleyes::

[ugarte]

[quote jmh30]A)  I'm really getting tired of this whole ridiculous concept of "Woofing Gods".
B)  Describing things that already took place is not woofing.  It's not like they said "After this weekend Moulson will still only have one career point against Colgate."  ::rolleyes::[/quote]Ramen.

[Avash]

[quote billhoward] who else has Mckee had a losing record against other than Minnesota? [/pre][/quote]

Boston College (0-1)
Western Michigan (0-1-1)
Michigan State (1-2-1)
Dartmouth (2-3)

His record against some other ECAC teams -

Union (2-2-1)
Clarkson (7-2-1)
Harvard (4-1)

[billhoward]

[quote jmh30]A)  I'm really getting tired of this whole ridiculous concept of "Woofing Gods".
B)  Describing things that already took place is not woofing.  It's not like they said "After this weekend Moulson will still only have one career point against Colgate."  ::rolleyes::[/quote]
Me, too. But there has to be mutual disarmament here - everyone steps back from the concept, not just a handful. Who wants to be first to lay down the sword? People who think Shirley MacLaine and her crystals and channeling are silly hold as gospel that their thinking about David McKee's 18th career shutout altered the force field at 18:11 of the third period Friday night. (They probably see a connection: 18th shutout hoped for, 18th minute it's lost, and the 11 ... well, maybe McKee wore 11 in the juniors when he lost a crucial shutout.)

Are we confusing alleged retroactive woofing with observations on Colgate's fate as tempted by Colgate itself: Team to get three goals does well (right, but it wasn't Colgate) ... Moulson only one career point against Colgate (he got another one) ... McKee lifetime losing record vs. Colgate (at least not after Friday, at least for one more day).

Cornell's weekly press release before home games notes that it's the 75th, 76th, etcetera home sellout. Unlikely any WG force is powerful enough to blow that one away.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote jmh30]A)  I'm really getting tired of this whole ridiculous concept of "Woofing Gods".
B)  Describing things that already took place is not woofing.  It's not like they said "After this weekend Moulson will still only have one career point against Colgate."  ::rolleyes::[/quote]

I think B explains A.  Too often the name of the woofing gods is invoked in vain, and so you get tired of hearing about it.  True woofing is making overconfident and obnoxious predictions before a game.  It's not so much superstition as etiquette.  Hillel said it pretty well here: http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,68447,68603#msg-68603

See also the following from the old Hockey-L FAQ:
[Q]
    4. Woofs.  A woof is partisanship that goes beyond the general
    "Let's go team!"  attitude most people express toward their
    favorite teams.  This should not be confused with discussions
    about why one team performed better than another.  For example,
    saying "Wisconsin outplayed Minnesota last night because they
    skated faster and made short, crisp passes," is perfectly fine to
    post.  Saying "MSU is going to cream Michigan because the
    Wolverines stink!" is a woof.  Not only is woofing itself undesired,
    but it leads to flames and the "my team is better than yours"
    debate.
[/Q]

[DeltaOne81]

[quote jtwcornell91]It's not so much superstition as etiquette.[/quote]

I think it's about 50/50

But if you don't expect sports fan to be superstitious, you're crazy. Be it wearing the same thing, or whatever, the higher the stakes the more superstitious we tend to get. I'm not saying that anyone necessarily believes it, but... "hey, why take the chance?"

I agree if its referenced incorrectly and too often it gets tiresome (I'm looking at you Bill :-P)... but its fun, funny, and keeps people polite and in their place... so lighten up a bit