PDA

View Full Version : Which teams advance to the Frozen Four in Minneapolis?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

Watson Rink
03-14-2013, 12:17 PM
Brookyone wrote:

"Touchy? Imagine that. With the bulk of the NCAA women's D-I hockey world hoping with all their energy and praying to their Gods that Minnesota loses. I'm pretty sure if it were the same situation for an ECAC, CHA or HE team with similar attention and expressions from fans of other teams and conferences we'd see much the same from a few fans of the team wearing the target."

Assuredly, Crimson fans can relate to any nervousness you all may be feeling right now. Back in '08, shooting for the lesser prize of a perfect ECAC season (two-thirds as many games, out-of-conference losses didn't matter), first the championship game goes to overtime, then the refs disallow the apparent game-winning goal....were we nervous until Cahow came through? Were we touchy? Were we chewing the backs of the seats in front of us? You betcha.

But did any of us ever question the referees' eyesight? Along the entire months-long trek, did we ever utter a word that might be deemed critical of an opponent, or below the standards of sportsmanlike calm, or did we advance any rejoinders to others' denigration of our team's achievements? Of course no.... (Sorry, had to stop typing for a minute as my nose suddenly turned into wood, grew long and banged into the screen). Where was I? Oh yes, that feeling of nervousness....

Now, for all we know, Minny's final this year may be a cakewalk, and when the Zamboni cleans the ice after the first period you may have already started celebrating a (much deserved) feat that has never been done by anyone before. But going to overtime might just add an extra zest to the experience?

And since you've already celebrated the similarly unprecedented feat of a perfect regular season (including OOC games), are you focused yet on how to appropriately celebrate the greater feat? Hope it doesn't involve cigars....

brookyone
03-14-2013, 12:28 PM
This is not a takes sides comment.

I think it would be a good thing for the game if the trophy does NOT go to the WCHA yet again. More parity creates more interest. If a team or conference keeps on dominating, eventually it turns into a Ho Hum here we go again reaction, and it becomes boring.
That's your position I have been aware of for some time which I don't quite agree with. I don't think the championship history of NCAA women's hockey is a negative, or of negative impact on the sport in any way...or to the interest in it. I don't think it's bad for the sport to have had, to this point, a small number of teams that have excelled at putting championship teams on the ice. If anything is to be considered detrimental to the sport or interest in it, IMO it isn't the teams that build championship winning programs. I think it's a good thing, and good for the sport that the best team in the country wins the championship and plays the game at the highest level, regardless of what conference they're from. I think that's what sells the game.

Adopting a ho hum, here we go again attitude is the issue of the fan who arrives at that state of mind. Take a look at many typical MLB fans where there is huge disparity and long term frustration. Millions want to see the Yankees lose in the post season. Does dominance degrade a sport or drive fans away...cause a loss of interest? Maybe if you're not a die hard fan of the sport. Not for me. I don't think parity alone creates increased interest. I think the quality of the product counts as well. I've seen enough championship games that were great games which could have gone either way. If a fan has lost interest due to the final outcomes and the WCHA's record in championships the sport won't miss them IMO.

brookyone
03-14-2013, 12:45 PM
Assuredly, Crimson fans can relate to any nervousness you all may be feeling right now. Back in '08, shooting for the lesser prize of a perfect ECAC season (two-thirds as many games, out-of-conference losses didn't matter), first the championship game goes to overtime, then the refs disallow the apparent game-winning goal....were we nervous until Cahow came through? Were we touchy? Were we chewing the backs of the seats in front of us? You betcha.

But did any of us ever question the referees' eyesight? Along the entire months-long trek, did we ever utter a word that might be deemed critical of an opponent, or below the standards of sportsmanlike calm, or did we advance any rejoinders to others' denigration of our team's achievements? Of course no.... (Sorry, had to stop typing for a minute as my nose suddenly turned into wood, grew long and banged into the screen). Where was I? Oh yes, that feeling of nervousness....

Now, for all we know, Minny's final this year may be a cakewalk, and when the Zamboni cleans the ice after the first period you may have already started celebrating a (much deserved) feat that has never been done by anyone before. But going to overtime might just add an extra zest to the experience?

And since you've already celebrated the similarly unprecedented feat of a perfect regular season (including OOC games), are you focused yet on how to appropriately celebrate the greater feat? Hope it doesn't involve cigars....
Well I don't get particularly worked up by the postings, predictions or byline musings of TTT...as much as entertained and amused. Kinda why I would like to see a Minnesota / BC semi. I'd bet we get lots of fine material if that happens. At the very least I bet it would be more amusing than pre-game BC vs. Whioux banter.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 01:01 PM
That's your position I have been aware of for some time which I don't quite agree with. I don't think the championship history of NCAA women's hockey is a negative, or of negative impact on the sport in any way...or to the interest in it. I don't think it's bad for the sport to have had, to this point, a small number of teams that have excelled at putting championship teams on the ice. If anything is to be considered detrimental to the sport or interest in it, IMO it isn't the teams that build championship winning programs. I think it's a good thing, and good for the sport that the best team in the country wins the championship and plays the game at the highest level, regardless of what conference they're from. I think that's what sells the game.

Adopting a ho hum, here we go again attitude is the issue of the fan who arrives at that state of mind. Take a look at many typical MLB fans where there is huge disparity and long term frustration. Millions want to see the Yankees lose in the post season. Does dominance degrade a sport or drive fans away...cause a loss of interest? Maybe if you're not a die hard fan of the sport. Not for me. I don't think parity alone creates increased interest. I think the quality of the product counts as well. I've seen enough championship games that were great games which could have gone either way. If a fan has lost interest due to the final outcomes and the WCHA's record in championships the sport won't miss them IMO.

We agree to disagree then.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 01:14 PM
As in all years, may the best team win.

Agreed, and to add to that "without controversy"....in other words...

Let the teams decide it on the ice. :)

brookyone
03-14-2013, 01:30 PM
We agree to disagree then.
Yes. If "fans" are lost and their interest in the sport wanes you'll not hear me blaming programs building championship teams resulting in championships regardless of regularity or frequency as causal. That "cause" rests with the "fan" in my view.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 02:21 PM
Yes. If "fans" are lost and their interest in the sport wanes you'll not hear me blaming programs building championship teams resulting in championships regardless of regularity or frequency as causal. That "cause" rests with the "fan" in my view.

Did I ever blame programs building Championship teams ?. No I did not. That was your interpretation.

All I said was, that it would be Good for the sport if the Trophy went somewhere other than where it has always landed in the past. That gets boring after a while. Does not imply a knock against the programs that build strong/championship caliber teams.

brookyone
03-14-2013, 02:35 PM
Did I ever blame programs building Championship teams ?. No I did not. That was your interpretation.

All I said was, that it would be Good for the sport if the Trophy went somewhere other than where it has always landed in the past. That gets boring after a while. Does not imply a knock against the programs that build strong/championship caliber teams.
I interpret your comments to mean it would be better for a non WCHA team to win the championship. Better for the sport. Yes, I interpret that to mean you think it would bad and detrimental to the sport for the WCHA to win the championship again. Or, if you prefer, the cause for potential loss of interest of some fans. What the hell is the difference between pointing at WCHA championship teams as the cause of hypothetical loss of fan interest and blaming repeated WCHA championship teams for same hypothetical loss of interest as the cause? So...you don't like my choice of words. We'll have to agree to disagree on the alleged distinction too I guess.

It would be a good thing if the trophy did not go to the WCHA again is much different than it would be a bad thing if the trophy went to the WCHA again. Got it. ;)

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 02:52 PM
I interpret your comments to mean it would be better for a non WCHA team to win the championship. Better for the sport. Yes, I interpret that to mean you think it would bad and detrimental to the sport for the WCHA to win the championship again. Or, if you prefer, the cause for potential loss of interest of some fans. What the hell is the difference between pointing at WCHA championship teams as the cause of hypothetical loss of fan interest and blaming repeated WCHA championship teams for same hypothetical loss of interest as the cause? So...you don't like my choice of words. We'll have to agree to disagree on the alleged distinction too I guess.

It would be a good thing if the trophy did not go to the WCHA again is much different than it would be a bad thing if the trophy went to the WCHA again. Got it. ;)

You funny, or sad, not sure which.

I went with the "It would be good for the sport"...and you somehow turn that into "Blaming teams that build championship teams".

Me thinks you should go into politics, as you are great at twisting words making something into something that the source never said.

I'm an engineer, so better go back to building bridges and highways, so you can drive over them, or when you become a politician, cut the ribbon with a smile and a white hard hat on. !

brookyone
03-14-2013, 03:13 PM
You funny, or sad, not sure which.

I went with the "It would be good for the sport"...and you somehow turn that into "Blaming teams that build championship teams".

Me thinks you should go into politics, as you are great at twisting words making something into something that the source never said.

I'm an engineer, so better go back to building bridges and highways, so you can drive over them, or when you become a politician, cut the ribbon with a smile and a white hard hat on. !
I was going to make the same political reference about you. You're adept at saying something then claiming you didn't mean it...meant something altogether different.

I'm less ambiguous on which applies to you. WCHA dominance in NCAA play is bad...will lead to loss of fans and overall fan interest. Yeah...vastly different then pointing a finger (blaming) WCHA teams success for loss of fans and fan interest. Vastly different. One of us would make a fine politician alright.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 03:25 PM
I was going to make the same political reference about you. You're adept at saying something then claiming you didn't mean it...meant something altogether different.

I'm less ambiguous on which applies to you. WCHA dominance in NCAA play is bad...will lead to loss of fans and overall fan interest. Yeah...vastly different then pointing a finger (blaming) WCHA teams success for loss of fans and fan interest. Vastly different. One of us would make a fine politician alright.

Really ?. Lets follow along shall we...For the record......

This is what I said:


This is not a takes sides comment.

I think it would be a good thing for the game if the trophy does NOT go to the WCHA yet again. More parity creates more interest. If a team or conference keeps on dominating, eventually it turns into a Ho Hum here we go again reaction, and it becomes boring.

and this is how YOU interpret that:


That's your position I have been aware of for some time which I don't quite agree with. I don't think the championship history of NCAA women's hockey is a negative, or of negative impact on the sport in any way...or to the interest in it. I don't think it's bad for the sport to have had, to this point, a small number of teams that have excelled at putting championship teams on the ice. If anything is to be considered detrimental to the sport or interest in it, IMO it isn't the teams that build championship winning programs. I think it's a good thing, and good for the sport that the best team in the country wins the championship and plays the game at the highest level, regardless of what conference they're from. I think that's what sells the game.

Adopting a ho hum, here we go again attitude is the issue of the fan who arrives at that state of mind. Take a look at many typical MLB fans where there is huge disparity and long term frustration. Millions want to see the Yankees lose in the post season. Does dominance degrade a sport or drive fans away...cause a loss of interest? Maybe if you're not a die hard fan of the sport. Not for me. I don't think parity alone creates increased interest. I think the quality of the product counts as well. I've seen enough championship games that were great games which could have gone either way. If a fan has lost interest due to the final outcomes and the WCHA's record in championships the sport won't miss them IMO.

At which point I decided to disagree without any further comments.


We agree to disagree then.

and then you proceed to "put words in my mouth" indirectly suggesting I was "blaming programs building championship teams"...


Yes. If "fans" are lost and their interest in the sport wanes you'll not hear me blaming programs building championship teams resulting in championships regardless of regularity or frequency as causal. That "cause" rests with the "fan" in my view.

Ever heard of the term...The pot calling the kettle black ?.

ARM
03-14-2013, 04:05 PM
So ... yeah. Leaving the who-said-what-first debate for a moment, I don't always agree with Shannon Miller, but I do think what she said when interviewed during the second intermission of the 2012 championship game was accurate. She said that she thinks UMD raised the bar of the sport when they launched a program and won in years 2-4. I'd agree with that. It took a better team to win than it had before. Not always, as there are still some Olympic years that are a little lean. Not so much 2006, but I think that both 2002 and 2010 were noticeably weaker than the seasons that followed.

So if some school wants to break the WCHA string and invests in their program to the level needed to be competitive with the top teams, I think that is a good thing.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 04:20 PM
So if some school wants to break the WCHA string and invests in their program to the level needed to be competitive with the top teams, I think that is a good thing.

Indirectly my point is this. If teams from the ECAC, HE or CHA can boast/advertise a past NCAA champion, it is good for the game overall, for each league to have past Champions and to be able to commemorate them and to be able to use it as a recruiting tool, and to be able to attract more widespread attention to the sport via the media.

Teams like Brown, Harvard, NE and UNH have a storied history in this sport. It just so happens to predate the NCAA era. Those around long enough may remember Colby. I think they had pretty close to an undefeated season back in the mid 70's.

ARM
03-14-2013, 04:32 PM
Teams like Brown, Harvard, NE and UNH have a storied history in this sport. It just so happens to predate the NCAA era.I'm sure that schools like Providence do recruit to their tradition -- the program was great once, so there isn't a reason that it can't be again. But it becomes a chicken/egg thing to a certain extent. You can't win so that you can recruit and get stronger, you have to recruit so that you can win.


Those around long enough may remember Colby.Minnesota fans who go back more than half a dozen years have heard of Colby, as it is a player in the roots of our program.

Blackbeard
03-14-2013, 04:45 PM
a fine politician

Isn't this an oxymoron? Or at the very least, in most other cases, some other type of moron?

Blackbeard
03-14-2013, 04:48 PM
I don't always agree with Shannon Miller

WHAT?!!!! I can't belive what I'm hearing...I know you don't really mean that.

OnMAA
03-14-2013, 04:49 PM
Minnesota fans who go back more than half a dozen years have heard of Colby, as it is a player in the roots of our program.

I believe that involves a coach ?.


This is from 1999:
The Colby women's ice hockey team, one of the oldest women's hockey programs in the nation, recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. As a result of its long history, the women's hockey team has been the only Division III program competing in the ECAC Division I league. During the team's tenure as a Division I team, the team posted back-to-back tournament appearances in 1995-96 and 1996-97 and in 1998 placed two players on the inaugural Women's College Hockey All-American Team.

P.S....Nice article. Program is 40 years old. I think it is one of the oldest, after Brown and Cornell.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/sports/theyve-come-a-long-way_2013-01-19.html

mattj711
03-14-2013, 04:54 PM
I believe that involves a coach ?.


This is from 1999:
The Colby women's ice hockey team, one of the oldest women's hockey programs in the nation, recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. As a result of its long history, the women's hockey team has been the only Division III program competing in the ECAC Division I league. During the team's tenure as a Division I team, the team posted back-to-back tournament appearances in 1995-96 and 1996-97 and in 1998 placed two players on the inaugural Women's College Hockey All-American Team.

P.S....Nice article. Program is 40 years old. I think it is one of the oldest, after Brown and Cornell.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/sports/theyve-come-a-long-way_2013-01-19.html

And two players, who followed said coach to UMinn at its start.

Eeyore
03-14-2013, 05:02 PM
Maybe it would be best for women's hockey if someone from the east won, but you're going to have to take it from us. Expecting anyone out here to just agree with you is asinine. If you want it, come and get it, but we're going to fight you.

mattj711
03-14-2013, 05:40 PM
Maybe it would be best for women's hockey if someone from the east won, but you're going to have to take it from us. Expecting anyone out here to just agree with you is asinine. If you want it, come and get it, but we're going to fight you.

Completely agree and that is the way it should be.