Cornell 4 St. Lawrence 3 (ot)

[Jim Hyla]

It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.  

Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here. Not to say it's not an enjoyable gig, but it's not the glamorous full-time jet-setting role that many fans seem to believe it to be. USCHO simply doesn't have the resources to be anyone's full-time job.

As far as "slagging" Mr. Scott there, I simply pointed out that he laid into USCHO for things we don't even do... "Teams of the Week" is a CHN feature, for example (I think). He wasn't wrong with most of what he said about Union, but I got the impression that the comment was a copy-paste job of something he originally intended for CHN, or something like that.

PS: I'm not a "reporter for USCHO"... I'm a correspondent, dammit.

As the one who posted this first, I have to say I agree with Brian on this. He was certainly jusified in responding the way he did. The comment to his column was weird at best.

[Robb]

It is from the most recent ECAC article from USCHO.

If you haven't looked at it, check out the Union grad's comment and Brian Sullivan's response. "an awful lot of time on your hands", indeed.

I dunno; If I were a blogger on a tiny niche sports site, I probably wouldn't slag the only reader who actually took the time to respond to my article, though.

I'm sure Brian is a fine and wonderful person, but he might stand reminding that "reporter for USCHO" is right up there with Second-runner-up for Miss Tacoma in the grand scheme of things.  

Oh, I don't need any reminding... the paycheck serves plenty notice that I'm not exactly working for the Washington Post here. Not to say it's not an enjoyable gig, but it's not the glamorous full-time jet-setting role that many fans seem to believe it to be. USCHO simply doesn't have the resources to be anyone's full-time job.

As far as "slagging" Mr. Scott there, I simply pointed out that he laid into USCHO for things we don't even do... "Teams of the Week" is a CHN feature, for example (I think). He wasn't wrong with most of what he said about Union, but I got the impression that the comment was a copy-paste job of something he originally intended for CHN, or something like that.

PS: I'm not a "reporter for USCHO"... I'm a correspondent, dammit.

As the one who posted this first, I have to say I agree with Brian on this. He was certainly jusified in responding the way he did. The comment to his column was weird at best.

Me, too.  Bizarre response - sure, tout your team.  But just because you've finished first place once in the last, well, ever, does not mean that 50% of USCHO's ECAC coverage should be devoted to your team.  Anything above 8% (1/12) is a bonus, and Union is clearly getting that.  Putting the game last, as Brian points out, actually *is* a sign of respect.  Sheesh.

[kingpin248]

When your team has been a perennial bottom feeder throughout its D1 existence, I can see h finishing first will mean an awful lot. But then, I'm all for bringing back the Clarkson and CC rules (or some variant thereof).

Not only this, there was a time (about eight years ago) and a place (the Union president's office) when the Dutchmen going almost .500 was a source of tremendous pride and deemed sufficiently "competitive."