Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    This sums up my feelings over this "argument."

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Who was the defending national champion that year?
    Minnesota obviously. However, they weren't world beaters that year, and did not win the WCHA. As to the question of why the 2003 Frozen Four was a dud, I would think the fact that the Gophers had won the previous year to actually help viewership. The thought behind that is that a previous run to the title the year before would increase interest in the program, leading the more casual fan to watch. It is just a theory though, impossible to prove at this point in time.

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Two years. Right?
    I was merely messing with Jdubbs by this point in time. I'm not sure USCHO has broadened the advanced search scope, but if they have, I have stated on numerous occasions that I respect what Minnesota has done with their program, and the past few years are an aberration, not the norm. I have also stated that tDon is one of the best coaches in college hockey, and that it would be foolish to fire him (and not in the "he sucks so keep him please" kind of way).

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.
    Sorry, as I had stated I was pretty busy.

    Also, I believe my formula for greatest programs of all-time show that I do not think the pre-NCAA era is meaningless. It was a significant portion of that formula (and obviously helped Minnesota tremendously in those rankings). As for the current thread I'm on, the formula I have developed for specific years is largely based on national success. Since pre-NCAA Tournament saw very few "national" games, it would not accurately reflect just how good some of those teams were. Perhaps some day I will get around to that.

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    lol. We all know it helps his argument.
    I'm not sure what "argument" you are talking about. The only argument I have made in this thread concerns a statement that so many people expected Minnesota to destroy New Hampshire that they didn't tune in to watch the game. It is pretty clear that that point has been made.

    If you are referring to pre-NCAA hockey, please look at my response to Jdubbs.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4four4
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.
    lol. We all know it helps his argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Two years. Right?
    He can't answer. He's too busy trying to come up with asinine justifications for why any hockey played before the NCAA era is meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?
    Right back at ya.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4four4
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
    I don't think anyone cares about who was in the most widely watched college hockey game in NCAA Tournament history. You don't see Maine fans gloating about it. Man, the Gopher program has crashed worse than I thought...beating their chests about viewership stats from 10 years ago.
    Two years. Right?

    Leave a comment:


  • 4four4
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
    You're joking right? New Hampshire was a #1 seed (just like Minnesota) was ranked higher, and had beaten the #1 team in college hockey that year (Cornell) in the Semifinal. Minnesota wasn't even the highest ranked team in its conference (Colorado College).
    Who was the defending national champion that year?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rube
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Yuck.
    You are dead to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4four4
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by Dirty View Post
    No, the most important thing is that I had Old Chicago Pizza today.
    Yuck.

    Leave a comment:


  • St. Clown
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    You clearly didn't take the time to read the entire thread to understand the context in which this discussion came up (If you did, You'd know that I didn't bring it up). Instead, you decided it best to blindly interject your opinion into a discussion you don't fully understand.

    Congratulations for being absolutely clueless.
    Welcome to the internet. Are you new here?

    Leave a comment:


  • RinkPig
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    How bout a beer?

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    Others here have found old articles or publications to shed light on the topic or a point they've made. It gives a little more credence to their arguments, most thinking people would say.
    It was a side discussion, and is really rather meaningless to the discussion I was here for. So, it really isn't worth my time. Especially considering the fact that he really isn't interested in the conversation. If he was, he would have invested the time to read the thread and understand the discussion being held.
    Last edited by JDUBBS1280; 10-20-2011, 11:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
    If you don't have the time to read this thread and understand the context of this point in the discussion, I sure as hell am not going to take the time to look for a nearly decade old article to prove an arbitrary point that was nothing more than a side discussion in a larger discussion.
    Others here have found old articles or publications to shed light on the topic or a point they've made. It gives a little more credence to their arguments, most thinking people would say. And I'm willing to admit I've made a couple that either needed something to back them up or proved wrong.

    We remember it differently. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
    Isn't that my line? Besides, it's one thing to "agree to disagree" on something like predicting future recruiting success based on current changes in the historical hockey landscape. It's completely another to disagree with a point of fact just because you refuse to see it. Point of fact is nothing in the article FS23 linked indicated that the USCHO editorial staff felt it would be anything but a close battle. In fact if one wanted to, one could actually see a little more tangible wording that makes you think they gave the edge to Hew Hampshire. I guess there probably were some Gopher fans here on the forum "predicting" an easy Minnesota win over New Hampshire, but that's not really the point you were originally trying to make regarding the lack of viewers in 2003.

    Leave a comment:


  • JDUBBS1280
    replied
    Originally posted by Dirty View Post
    Says the guy who has the most posts in the Sioux-Badgers thread.
    1) Hardly. 2) Only to laugh at others' fine work

    Leave a comment:


  • Dirty
    replied
    Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

    Says the guy who has the most posts in the Sioux-Badgers thread.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X