Vote for your favorite hockey player by jersey number

[Trotsky]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

[Give My Regards]

Still bugs me that I couldn't vote for my favorite #39 ever, Eddy Skazyk.

[Beeeej]

It seems pretty dumb to me that they're only going to update the page with leading bids every two days (until the last day, when they'll conduct bidding by e-mail).  They'll probably have a dozen $150 bids on each jersey in the first two days, when they could have had bidding up to $200 or more by updating it every few hours - or by using an algorithm that would update the bids automatically.  It can't be that difficult.*

*...said the English major.

[Robb]

It seems pretty dumb to me that they're only going to update the page with leading bids every two days (until the last day, when they'll conduct bidding by e-mail).  They'll probably have a dozen $150 bids on each jersey in the first two days, when they could have had bidding up to $200 or more by updating it every few hours - or by using an algorithm that would update the bids automatically.  It can't be that difficult.*

*...said the English major.

Why don't they just put them up on eBay?*

*...said the non-lawyer

[Beeeej]

Why don't they just put them up on eBay?*

*...said the non-lawyer

Presumably, eBay would charge a listing fee and a percentage of the final price for each jersey - and also wouldn't allow an auction that's nearly four weeks long.

[Jim Hyla]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

Yeah, but still sad to me that they are using '67 sweaters, without many of the '67 stars. Now, that may be important to me since I saw that '67 team, but...

[Trotsky]

Yeah, but still sad to me that they are using '67 sweaters, without many of the '67 stars. Now, that may be important to me since I saw that '67 team, but...

Anything that helps scour away the memory of this year's cheap knock-off jerseys is a Good Thing.



Is the old font a little more squared off?

[jkahn]

Yeah, but still sad to me that they are using '67 sweaters, without many of the '67 stars. Now, that may be important to me since I saw that '67 team, but...

Anything that helps scour away the memory of this year's cheap knock-off jerseys is a Good Thing.



Is the old font a little more squared off?

Actually, I noticed awhile back that this year's reds are like the '67's, with white on the bottom rather than red below the white, so I've been fine with the red uniforms.  The white on the other hand is BU and we should not be wearing those.

[Al DeFlorio]

Is the old font a little more squared off?

Yes.Sans serif, too.

[Josh '99]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

It doesn't even purport to be an all-time team, rather a list of "favorites".  The polling was going to be subjective and subject to recency bias no matter what they called it, so at least they picked a name that builds the subjectivity right in.  Doesn't seem worth getting agitated over to me, and I say that as someone who didn't overlap as an undergrad with ANY of the guys who were listed.  (As far as I can figure, there's nobody between Dan Ratushny and the guys from the class of 2003, i.e. nobody from the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championship teams.)

[Jim Hyla]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

It doesn't even purport to be an all-time team, rather a list of "favorites".  The polling was going to be subjective and subject to recency bias no matter what they called it, so at least they picked a name that builds the subjectivity right in.  Doesn't seem worth getting agitated over to me, and I say that as someone who didn't overlap as an undergrad with ANY of the guys who were listed.  (As far as I can figure, there's nobody between Dan Ratushny and the guys from the class of 2003, i.e. nobody from the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championship teams.)

Who is agitated?

[Josh '99]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

It doesn't even purport to be an all-time team, rather a list of "favorites".  The polling was going to be subjective and subject to recency bias no matter what they called it, so at least they picked a name that builds the subjectivity right in.  Doesn't seem worth getting agitated over to me, and I say that as someone who didn't overlap as an undergrad with ANY of the guys who were listed.  (As far as I can figure, there's nobody between Dan Ratushny and the guys from the class of 2003, i.e. nobody from the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championship teams.)

Who is agitated?

Maybe "agitated" was the wrong word; "Ugh." would seem to suggest that Al is at least...  irked?

[Al DeFlorio]

Ugh.

Guess you should've organized your contemporaries a little better.    In all seriousness, the bidding is likely going to go pretty much the same way as the voting, so it's probably just as well.

Good point.  The idea is to maximize revenue, not pick the real all-time team by number.

It doesn't even purport to be an all-time team, rather a list of "favorites".  The polling was going to be subjective and subject to recency bias no matter what they called it, so at least they picked a name that builds the subjectivity right in.  Doesn't seem worth getting agitated over to me, and I say that as someone who didn't overlap as an undergrad with ANY of the guys who were listed.  (As far as I can figure, there's nobody between Dan Ratushny and the guys from the class of 2003, i.e. nobody from the 1996 and 1997 ECAC championship teams.)

Who is agitated?

Maybe "agitated" was the wrong word; "Ugh." would seem to suggest that Al is at least...  irked?

Yes, "agitated" was, not surprisingly, an overstatement.  I wouldn't say "irked" is accurate, either.  I'm just disappointed with the list.  That's all.  I suspect others of my era are, too.  And I'm not convinced that bidders from the classes of '00 through '10 will be more generous in their offers than those from the '60s and '70s would have been, so that argument seems spurious to me.

Where Josh was right was in saying the outcome of the voting was predictable, as Jim Hyla's prescient posting back on January 26 demonstrates.  Being predictable doesn't mean an "ugh" isn't an appropriate response from some of us who've seen all those players on the ice.  With that, I think we've wasted enough time and space on this.

[Josh '99]

Yes, "agitated" was, not surprisingly, an overstatement.  I wouldn't say "irked" is accurate, either.  I'm just disappointed with the list.  That's all.  I suspect others of my era are, too.  And I'm not convinced that bidders from the classes of '00 through '10 will be more generous in their offers than those from the '60s and '70s would have been, so that argument seems spurious to me.

Sorry if I misunderstood; didn't mean to put words in your mouth, of course.

[Beeeej]

Nieuwendyk's and Dryden's jerseys currently lead the bidding, at $500 and $300 respectively.  Several more recent players are still at the $125 starting bid.