PDA

View Full Version : MN @ WI: Cheese And Paint Thinner And Dead Deer, Oh My!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Fighting Sioux 23
02-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Actually, just did a quick check in BC's media guide, and there were zero Minnesotan's on the '49 National Champions.

Tiggsy
02-16-2011, 11:48 AM
Maybe they can. Only 3 of the top 10 scorers in the WCHA are Minnesotans. That's staggering considering the majority of WCHA are by far from Minnesota.

I think you need to exclude all the Canadians eh... since they're not a real country anyways so they don't count. Once you do that, it looks much better.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-16-2011, 11:59 AM
Maybe they can. Only 3 of the top 10 scorers in the WCHA are Minnesotans. That's staggering considering the majority of WCHA are by far from Minnesota.

Not even close.

Only 102 total Minnesotans in the entire WCHA, out of 321. While a plurality, it's only about 32% (almost 42% of the schools in the conference are in Minnesota) of the players in total. The majority (almost 75%) of that 102 total play for the 5 Minnesota schools. If you look at the 7 non-Minnesota schools that percentage dips below 15%. In fact, for the non-Minnesota schools, there are only 27 Minnesotans on the rosters. That averages to a little less than 4/non-Minnesota school. That might explain why only 3 are in the top 10...fewer Minnesotans playing in the WCHA.

ScoobyDoo
02-16-2011, 12:03 PM
Not even close.

Only 102 total Minnesotans in the entire WCHA, out of 321. While a plurality, it's only about 32% (almost 42% of the schools in the conference are in Minnesota) of the players in total. The majority (almost 75%) of that 102 total play for the 5 Minnesota schools. If you look at the 7 non-Minnesota schools that percentage dips below 15%. In fact, for the non-Minnesota schools, there are only 27 Minnesotans on the rosters. That averages to a little less than 4/non-Minnesota school. That might explain why only 3 are in the top 10...fewer Minnesotans playing in the WCHA.

I stand corrected. I was too lazy to look and made an educated assumption.

state of hockey
02-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Actually, just did a quick check in BC's media guide, and there were zero Minnesotan's on the '49 National Champions.

Well, obviously that one doesn't count then. I am currently writing up a proposal to the BC AD suggesting that they forfeit that particular title to the University of Minnesota.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-16-2011, 12:11 PM
I stand corrected. I was too lazy to look and made an educated assumption.

I think 10 years ago you would have been correct. I was a little surprised at how low the number was.

Gurtholfin
02-16-2011, 12:27 PM
If you look back at history, schools winning national championships have at least one Minnesota player on their roster. Otherwise, they don't win virtually anything. No other state can say that.

Right on cue... :rolleyes:

Chuck Schwartz
02-16-2011, 12:53 PM
Anyone care about the teams playing this weekend or are we going to keep whipping it out to see who's is bigger?

Bertogliat
02-16-2011, 01:23 PM
Anyone care about the teams playing this weekend or are we going to keep whipping it out to see who's is bigger?

I will only pull out enough to win.

Gurtholfin
02-16-2011, 01:28 PM
If you look back at history, schools winning national championships have at least one Minnesota player on their roster. Otherwise, they don't win virtually anything. No other state can say that.

Okay, I'll bite...

• Also looking back at history, of all the NCAA titles in D-1 hockey, Minnesota schools have 5 total titles, all at U of M. (I believe although too lazy to check, but can't remember anyone else having one. :confused:)

• These schools have (and have had) rosters built primarily of Minnesota raised players.

• Despite this, they have a very small percentage of total titles won.

• So I put forth that it's the programs that make these kids into champions, not the kids making the programs into champions.

• If I was wrong on this, your in state schools would have a much higher percentage of national titles won.


Now tell me where I'm wrong.



As a footnote, no one outside of Minnesota cares where their players come from as we know that it's our program(s) that get results over the long run, not the home state (or country) of the kids playing for us.

Second footnote: Texas & Florida could probably make that same silly argument in football and still, no one would really care.

Finally, we (I, mostly) bring up football because we know it irks you that both the Badgers and the Packers are heads and tails above your teams. Admit it, it bugs you.

Deer, thinner, where Tom Gilbert was from... none of that bothers any of us.

There Chuck. It's settled. OURS is bigger. :D

On to the games... Badgers Sweep!

ScoobyDoo
02-16-2011, 01:49 PM
Anyone care about the teams playing this weekend or are we going to keep whipping it out to see who's is bigger?

I don't care much. I'll pay attention but I'm not very optimistic about my squad anymore.

SanTropez
02-16-2011, 02:01 PM
I care, but what fun is it to talk about the actual game until about Thursday.

Tiggsy
02-16-2011, 02:34 PM
I care, but what fun is it to talk about the actual game until about Thursday.

Ordinarily that may be true, but this thread just isn't living up to the typical standards. Rather disappointing so I am hanging on until tomorrow and hope it turns around.

Tiggsy
02-16-2011, 02:43 PM
Finally, we (I, mostly) bring up football because we know it irks you that both the Badgers and the Packers are heads and tails above your teams. Admit it, it bugs you.



I'll just comment on these parts of your rambling.
Sorry but that's not true. What bothers me is that you try to hold it over our heads because its all the majority of people care about over there. It is completely pointless when discussing hockey but you constantly bring it up like your football team also plays hockey. If this were a thread in a cafe discussing football, then of course you're well within your rights, but I keep seeing hockey as I look around this thread so why not keep the topic on that? Just a thought.



Deer, thinner, where Tom Gilbert was from... none of that bothers any of us.


If that were true, why do you keep bringing that up? You've mentioned it at least twice in the last 2 days replying directly to me. It obviously bothers you.

state of hockey
02-16-2011, 03:00 PM
Finally, we (I, mostly) bring up football because we know it irks you that both the Badgers and the Packers are heads and tails above your teams. Admit it, it bugs you.

Good God. For the last time, no it does not. What bugs me is that this doesn't sink into your thick skull.

Also, I notice that all of a sudden women's hockey no longer matters to you when adding up Minnesota school championships. :)

sweatpants
02-16-2011, 03:02 PM
I believe the original post stated "all" the top end hockey talent, not some. And if I wanted to participate in your dumb exercise in futility, I could realistically come up with a list of top end talent that played for the Gophers which most likely would eclipse your list. The question is: What does it really indicate? Correlating coefficients such as this can only lead to one conclusion: Wisconsin doesn't appear to have any inherent hockey talent within its borders to choose from.:p

Nope, I said "athletes", but you can backtrack all you want. And I could care less if Minnesota has more inherent hockey talent over Wisconsin. As long as the Badgers win in the sports I root for, I'm a happy man. Isn't that the whole point, that your school's programs are winning?!? Gopher fans can thump their chests all they like about how so many Minnesota natives there are in NCAA hockey, but what good is it to brag when your own hockey team has sucked for the last 3 years.

Tiggsy
02-16-2011, 03:47 PM
Nope, I said "athletes", but you can backtrack all you want. And I could care less if Minnesota has more inherent hockey talent over Wisconsin. As long as the Badgers win in the sports I root for, I'm a happy man. Isn't that the whole point, that your school's programs are winning?!? Gopher fans can thump their chests all they like about how so many Minnesota natives there are in NCAA hockey, but what good is it to brag when your own hockey team has sucked for the last 3 years.

I think it says quite a lot for the quality of a program when you define "sucked" as you do for the Gophers. Over the last few years they were an average team who with a few more quality wins had a shot at making the NCAAs (yes this includes the 7th place finish). So they were still likely near a top 25 or so program. But such greatness is constantly expected even by our rivals so anything less = sucks. Yes they are in a down cycle, no one can deny that. But they are still able to pull off victories over top notch opposition every so often even when they "suck".

ScoobyDoo
02-16-2011, 03:51 PM
Also, I notice that all of a sudden women's hockey no longer matters to you when adding up Minnesota school championships. :)

Why would it? Minnesota and Wisconsin both have 3 and if you only include NCAA titles Wisconsin has one more.

Tiggsy
02-16-2011, 04:03 PM
Why would it? Minnesota and Wisconsin both have 3 and if you only include NCAA titles Wisconsin has one more.

Maybe Duluth was included in the women's discussion. Then it's not even close.

ScoobyDoo
02-16-2011, 04:07 PM
Maybe Duluth was included in the women's discussion. Then it's not even close.

Aaah, I missed that. Duluth has owned that. Although give Wisconsin some credit they're a huge power and they could have went the other way with it.