"And Then There Was One"

Beeeej · March 26, 2007, 11:29:59 AM

[quote Rich S][quote Will][quote Beeeej]And I'm right 'cause I'm a lawyer!!::banana::[/quote]

Yes, yes, we know. You arrogant bastard. :-P[/quote]

get it right. He's a "pompous ass."[/quote]

That's "pompous aaaass," if you please.

Trotsky · March 26, 2007, 12:35:32 PM

[quote Rich S]They played hard and pretty well against an underrated opponent who has been hot lately.

They lost 1-0 on OT. How is that choking? Not a chance.[/quote]There are no "chokes" in NCAA games. Teams are there either because they ripped it up all season or they are red hot and just won their tournament. No NCAA loss is shameful -- not even Minny to Holy Cross.

I hate agreeing with Rich S., ever, but he's absolutely correct. However, it should be added that Nickerson eats babies, flosses with kittens, and molests several species of small, woodland creatures. To be fair, the latter behavior we will ascribe to accepted North Country norms.

CowbellGuy · March 26, 2007, 12:45:27 PM

[quote Trotsky]There are no "chokes" in NCAA games. Teams are there either because they ripped it up all season or they are red hot and just won their tournament.[/quote]

What? Just because they made the tourney, they are now elevated to some untouchable status where their individual game results are suddenly absolved of scrutiny? If a #1 overall seed loses to a #16 10-0, that's not a choke?

[q]Choke: To fail to perform effectively because of nervous agitation or tension.[/q]

If there's any time in which a team is susceptible to choking, it's during NCAA games. All teams in the tourney are not created equal. Given the autobids and number of teams playing with respect to the total number of D-1 teams, some of those #4 seeds really are mid-pack teams and in most cases a #1 losing to them is most certainly choking.

Trotsky · March 26, 2007, 12:51:37 PM

[quote CowbellGuy]What? Just because they made the tourney, they are now elevated to some untouchable status where their individual game results are suddenly absolved of scrutiny? If a #1 overall seed loses to a #16 10-0, that's not a choke?.[/quote]

If a #1 loses to a #16 10-0, that's probably more like "a deliberate throw." ;-)

There is considerably less distance between teams, now. How many more huge upsets / ot near upsets will it take to realize that the teams that make the tourny are all capable of performing well enough to hold themselves in a game against anybody? A "choke," to me, means you had complete control of the game and all you needed to do was show up and it was yours. (Like, say, blowing a 4-goal lead in the third period in an NCAA SF... :-( ) It used to be the case that a 1-seed simply had to win their game or they were choking. Not any more.

You may now hyperbolize to your heart's content.

Jim Hyla · March 26, 2007, 01:16:16 PM

[quote Trotsky]There are no "chokes" in NCAA games. No NCAA loss is shameful -- not even Minny to Holy Cross.[/quote]

So, if ND, a number one seed and undisputed CCHA champ at 32-6-3, had lost to Alabama-Huntsville, the bottom team in the CHA, at 13-20-3, instead of winning in 2OT, that wouldn't have been a choke? (What a terrible sentence I just wrote) I might argue that they lost the following night because they did choke to UAH. But then again I might have been wrong.:-/

Dafatone · March 26, 2007, 01:21:48 PM

An upset isn't a choke. Save the phrase "choke" for a more specific action, say, falling over instead of shooting into an empty net.

Didn't that happen to someone in the NHL this year?

ftyuv · March 26, 2007, 01:28:23 PM

[quote Dafatone]An upset isn't a choke. Save the phrase "choke" for a more specific action, say, falling over instead of shooting into an empty net.

Didn't that happen to someone in the NHL this year?[/quote]
There was some guy who missed an ENG because he took it in close instead of shooting it in from the blueline, and the puck hit a bump or something and jumped over his stick. When he tried to recover it, he ended up falling over and crashing into the boards, and then someone from the other team took it up, skated it all the way in and scored to tie up the game with seconds remaining. I forget who it was, but it's on youtube.

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbEX666G3Y

Trotsky · March 26, 2007, 01:29:00 PM

[quote Dafatone]Didn't that happen to someone in the NHL this year?[/quote]
http://nhldigest.com/widemans-shootout-blunder

As a reward, the Bruins traded for him.

CowbellGuy · March 26, 2007, 01:31:37 PM

[quote Dafatone]Save the phrase "choke" for a more specific action[/quote]

Or, say, advancing past the first round twice in nine NCAA appearances in the 90s?

DeltaOne81 · March 26, 2007, 01:55:06 PM

[quote Trotsky][quote Dafatone]Didn't that happen to someone in the NHL this year?[/quote]
http://nhldigest.com/widemans-shootout-blunder

As a reward, the Bruins traded for him.[/quote]

That seems like appropriate punishment ot me.

Okay, so Greg makes a good point. Upsets in the NCAA aren't 'choking', they happen, especially this year.

Rich, I think the biggest problem with your post was trying to compare a favorite losing in OT to an underdog losing in 3 OTs. The comparison was just so over-the-top that what coulda been a reasonable point got lost in the mix.

However, I do believe Greg is right. And while I don't believe that Clarkson played up to their ability - and that's a shame - I guess it wasn't a choke either.

QuoteAn upset isn't a choke.

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?

Trotsky · March 26, 2007, 02:25:31 PM

[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.

ftyuv · March 26, 2007, 02:29:56 PM

[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]For verily Harvard doth suck.

ugarte · March 26, 2007, 02:30:38 PM

[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]
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.)

DeltaOne81 · March 26, 2007, 03:15:09 PM

[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.

Either that or I don't speak Shakespeare.

ftyuv · March 26, 2007, 03:41:05 PM

[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.