Should He Stay or Should He Go

[Swampy]

There's another thing here that may be at play. Speaking for myself, I chose to go to Cornell over an other Ivy and two safety schools (yes, HYPster trolls, some of us were accepted to other Ivies) for several reasons, one of which was the sheer scope of what Cornell has to offer. This includes the "any study" part, but it also includes one of the largest offerings of varsity sports in the country. (Actually, I think it is the largest.)

It stands to reason that as Cornell students we are introduced to new sports and, during our time on the hill, become devotees of some of them. It's natural that even naive, facetimer students are attracted to the sports in which Cornell is highly competitive. But over time, especially in a sport like hockey for which Cornell fans pride themselves for being knowledgeable, many facetimers learn about the sport and themselves become fans.

So sure, our interest will wane when a team isn't doing well. But I think most of us probably came to Cornell interested in a much narrower range of sports than when we left it. (Apologies to non-alums.) And, particularly thanks to the Internet, we follow sports in this wider range at a much higher intensity than we would otherwise, even if our interest vacillates with the fortunes of the teams.

[billhoward]

Are you daft, man? This is not Jack Parker, who hit the pinnacle of his career with BU's improbable OT win over Miami in 2009 and might have decided at 64, 65 to end on a high note. The teams were competitive since then but the off-ice issues the players created since then dimmed his luster and will make people wonder, did Parker jump, or was he pushed into retirement. Schafer has a lot of career left in him.

I'm more worried we'll have a poll in a couple years, when his kids are older and in college, "Why didn't Cornell do more to keep the best coach Cornell ever had post-Harkness?" Schafer might want to see what he can do at a different level.

(Yeah, I had trouble for a moment figuring out which way to vote for The Man Should Stay. Sometimes polls shouldn't use song titles.)

[KeithK]

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Well, the person who most questioned/criticized your post (Trotsky) is probably in the category of people whose devotion to Cornell hockey is unchanged with record. And he has the track record to prove it (years of traveling to every game post graduation even when he lived six or more hours away). So no hypocrisy there.

Personally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read thatn watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

[Trotsky]

Personally I find that I do read this forum just as obsessively when the team is doing poorly as when doing well. What sometimes lessens my enthusiam for eLynah is when the forum devolves into overwhelming negarivity. That's less fun to read that watching an abyssmal hockey team play.

Said much better (no surprise) and more tactfully (even less of a surprise) than I did.

210 days until the UNO game.

[Jim Hyla]

Absolutely ridiculous overreaction to my last post.  And it's not the disagreement that bothers me; it's the trite smartass "no one can possibly be this dumb, he must be a troll" comments that twelve-year-olds go around posting on the internet.  

I never said at any point I wouldn't follow the team if they were bad.  I said I wouldn't follow them as much, and I wouldn't commit as much to them.  
Are you honestly telling me that you'd go to exactly as many games and post on this forum exactly as much and sit through exactly as many Redcast broadcasts if Cornell were .400 instead of .650?  Do you honestly think nearly as many people would pack Lynah in the first place if Cornell hadn't won so much in the past?  You're delusional if you think so.  I'm not travelling 8 hours to watch a shitty team play, I'll tell you that much, and I doubt there are many here who would.  I'm never going to stop following Cornell hockey, but I am sure as hell not putting in as much effort as when they are actually good.  

Who here followed women's hockey until they got good these past four seasons?  5% of who follow them now?  What a bunch of hypocrites.

I, for one, don't think all of it was an overreaction, my post for example:-D. What got me going was your use of entitled. I have to say that even I would do more when the program is successful, then when it's a failure. However, to me, to be a failure requires a major change. I don't consider any of Schafer's years to be enough of a failure to change my enthusiasm.

Saying entitled is a whole different thing. That, at least for me, raises fanhood to a whole different level. I think if you go back and reread your post without the section on being entitled, because you're a devoted fan, then you'll see that it takes on a whole new meaning. And for me, that new meaning is one that I can understand.

Sometimes a small change can have major implications.

[Towerroad]

I have a finite amount of sports enthusiasm/viewing time. Over the course of the year I follow the Yankees and Big Red Hockey and Lacrosse. In recent years I have started adding the Big Red Women to my hockey time.

How a team does over the course of a year effect the percentage of time I devote to it. If the Yankees are in the Series I spend less time rooting for our Hockey Team in the fall. If the hockey teams fare poorly I will spend more on the Hot Stove Season and start focusing on Lacrosse earlier and this year I shifted to the Womens Hockey team.

Call me a facetimer if you want but we all have choices about how much time and effort we are willing to invest in a particular team. Winning teams get more attention (seriously who follows Big Red Football) and teams and coaches that "play the game right" get more of my attention.

I started loosing interest in this years mens team somewhere in Jan. I watched more Womens games from that time on.

[Jordan 04]

Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

[Towerroad]

Well, the good news is you should have plenty of time to root for our Hockey Team in the fall!

I am sure I will be rooting for both of them in Nov. Never count the Yankees and their checkbook out at the start of the season.

[Josh '99]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

[RichH]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

[ugarte]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

[RichH]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

On your first, point...you'll just have to trust me.  I like football, but am not offput by coverage or hype (excepting combine/draft nonsense).

On your second point, no. I complain about the hipster bashers.

[Trotsky]

I bashed hipster bashers before it was cool...

[Jim Hyla]

WHY ARE SO MANY OF YOU SO WRONG ABOUT BASKETBALL!?

Basketball and hockey are not mutually exclusive. It isn't like being a fan of both hockey and watching children drown in insufficiently frozen lakes.

I don't think anyone said they're mutually exclusive.  I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I never said "I like hockey, and therefore I dislike basketball."  I dislike basketball because I find it not to be entertaining, independently of finding hockey to be awesome.

Exactly.  Now the only question is where will ugarte find media sources with any basketball coverage?

This is the crux of my issue, really. Some of you seem to dislike basketball at least in part because it is popular. It oozes from the tone - "squeakball" and such.

And yet you probably complain about hipsters, too.

I'll watch basketball, it's hard to be in Syracuse and not see some, but it doesn't carry the same interest to me. It's mostly because, unless you're really into the specifics (such as watching SU's zone destroy Indiana) you don't have to pay attention to most of the game. Either one team runs away, in which case I lose interest, as it becomes a foul shooting contest, or it's close. If it's close you only need to watch, with itensity, the last few minutes.

I enjoy hockey more because every shift could produce a goal that could be extremely important to the outcome. Therefore, I'm much more into the game. If one team is behind at the end, they pull their goalie, which is exciting. At the end there's no such thing as fouling your way to a victory.

I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

[ugarte]

I watch basketball, but not with the same intensity. I like having it on as background while I'm doing something else. I do the same with baseball.

This is a little off-topic. Of course some people like some things more than other things. There is an undercurrent of "hating basketball" that runs through a lot of "liking hockey" and that's what I'm getting at. I'm not going to openly question any individual's sincerity when they say that the two are independent decisions but I will remain suspicious that you have sufficiently probed your own mind.