USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
- Thread starter solovsfett
- Start date
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
What are you talking about?
Not a very effective analogy there if you ask me.
I think the point here is where do you draw the line before something becomes important and actually matters. Are you telling me there was quality competition in the early days of the NCAA? How did they pick the 4 teams? Why? Who got screwed that should have been included? Michigan and CC played in the first several tournaments but did CC only play because it was in their city? I don't know for sure any of those answers, do any of you? Someone decided to draw a line arbitrarily based on their opinion and that's what everyone is fighting over. It's an important part of history and I'm fine with there being a banner hanging for it. Hockey did exist before 1948 so remembering it is fine too. So feel free to get back to the 6>5 routine that you hang onto so desperately because it's all you've got.
Now anyone got an answer on where to get my campus styled spring hat? That's the real fight that should be going on.
What are you talking about? Not a very effective analogy there if you ask me.
I think the point here is where do you draw the line before something becomes important and actually matters. Are you telling me there was quality competition in the early days of the NCAA? How did they pick the 4 teams? Why? Who got screwed that should have been included? Michigan and CC played in the first several tournaments but did CC only play because it was in their city? I don't know for sure any of those answers, do any of you? Someone decided to draw a line arbitrarily based on their opinion and that's what everyone is fighting over. It's an important part of history and I'm fine with there being a banner hanging for it. Hockey did exist before 1948 so remembering it is fine too. So feel free to get back to the 6>5 routine that you hang onto so desperately because it's all you've got.
Now anyone got an answer on where to get my campus styled spring hat? That's the real fight that should be going on.
Last edited:
mnstate0fhockey
New member
First off - Gurt is now on my ignore list. Life is too short to listen to what blow hards like he and JDUBBS have to say.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I could honestly care less about what you or Gurt think. I've already said a few times that all I really care about is how the University of Minnesota pays tribute to the 1940 team. I think that squad deserves the recognition from their school. And the U of M recognizes the 1940 national championship the same way it does the NCAA championships. Good enough for me.
Save the petty, childish arguments about which program has more titles for JDUBBS. Because you're really not acting much better right now.
Last edited:
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Thanks buddy. It really doesn't bother me much. I could care less about title comparisons between schools. I am just glad the U hangs that banner because I think the 1940 squad deserves the recognition.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
Agreed.
Yes, there was certainly quality competition in the early days of the NCAA. The East picked who they believed were their top 2 squads, and the West did the same. CC was selected because they were considered one of the top 2 teams out West. It had nothing to do with the fact that the tournament was held in the Springs. The Springs held the first 10 tourneys, and CC played in 7 of them. In those 7 years, CC's combined record was 135-45-5 (.743) (for the full 10 year period it was 175-76-6 (.693)). Only Michigan (195-41-11 (.812)) had a better winning percentage out West during that time period. FWIW, Minnesota was 142-110-6 (.562), and they made two trips (2nd place both trips, losing to Michigan in 1953 and RPI in 1954) to the Springs to represent the West during this time period. Michigan Tech was the other team to represent the west in this time period, and they were 90-120-9 (.432), but were 21-7-0 (.750) in 1956 that culminated with a close loss to Michigan in the '56 title game.
Not a very effective analogy there if you ask me.
Agreed.
Tiggsy said:
Yes, there was certainly quality competition in the early days of the NCAA. The East picked who they believed were their top 2 squads, and the West did the same. CC was selected because they were considered one of the top 2 teams out West. It had nothing to do with the fact that the tournament was held in the Springs. The Springs held the first 10 tourneys, and CC played in 7 of them. In those 7 years, CC's combined record was 135-45-5 (.743) (for the full 10 year period it was 175-76-6 (.693)). Only Michigan (195-41-11 (.812)) had a better winning percentage out West during that time period. FWIW, Minnesota was 142-110-6 (.562), and they made two trips (2nd place both trips, losing to Michigan in 1953 and RPI in 1954) to the Springs to represent the West during this time period. Michigan Tech was the other team to represent the west in this time period, and they were 90-120-9 (.432), but were 21-7-0 (.750) in 1956 that culminated with a close loss to Michigan in the '56 title game.
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
jdubbs won't recognize the 1940 team. They had a canadian on the roster, Robert McKenzie.
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
So you're they picked teams based on record alone? So was there one guy at the NCAA responsible for making the call to these teams letting them know they were selected? So if one of these schools found some weak team they could beat up on multiple times a year and racked up the wins they would be picked to play? 4 teams isn't enough to determine a championship. Too many good teams were not given an opportunity. I don't think they should count until the tournament was expanded.
So you're they picked teams based on record alone? So was there one guy at the NCAA responsible for making the call to these teams letting them know they were selected? So if one of these schools found some weak team they could beat up on multiple times a year and racked up the wins they would be picked to play? 4 teams isn't enough to determine a championship. Too many good teams were not given an opportunity. I don't think they should count until the tournament was expanded.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
I suppose we could just count from 1981 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
Titles Won:
North Dakota - 4
Wisconsin - 4
Boston College - 4
LSSU - 3
BU - 2
DU - 2
Maine - 2
Michigan - 2
Michigan State - 2
Minnesota - 2
Bowling Green - 1
RPI - 1
Harvard - 1
Northern Michigan - 1
Duluth - 1
I suppose we could just count from 1981 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
Titles Won:
North Dakota - 4
Wisconsin - 4
Boston College - 4
LSSU - 3
BU - 2
DU - 2
Maine - 2
Michigan - 2
Michigan State - 2
Minnesota - 2
Bowling Green - 1
RPI - 1
Harvard - 1
Northern Michigan - 1
Duluth - 1
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
Fine by me.I suppose we could just count from 1981 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
Titles Won:
North Dakota - 4
Wisconsin - 4
Boston College - 4
LSSU - 3
BU - 2
DU - 2
Maine - 2
Michigan - 2
Michigan State - 2
Minnesota - 2
Bowling Green - 1
RPI - 1
Harvard - 1
Northern Michigan - 1
Duluth - 1
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
I'm hurt. That may be the first time I've made someone's list.
To quote Martin Zellar though... "I'm not surprised it's come to this, I'm just surprised it took this long."
And you do care or you wouldn't keep responding.
I'm hurt. That may be the first time I've made someone's list.
To quote Martin Zellar though... "I'm not surprised it's come to this, I'm just surprised it took this long."
And you do care or you wouldn't keep responding.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
I believe that this is the most fair way to do it.
Lake State > Minnesota
I suppose we could just count from 1981 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
Titles Won:
North Dakota - 4
Wisconsin - 4
Boston College - 4
LSSU - 3
BU - 2
DU - 2
Maine - 2
Michigan - 2
Michigan State - 2
Minnesota - 2
Bowling Green - 1
RPI - 1
Harvard - 1
Northern Michigan - 1
Duluth - 1
I believe that this is the most fair way to do it.
Lake State > Minnesota
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
FYP. We are about to embark on a new era of college hockey so the 2012-2013 season is the last of its kind, after that the titles don't mean anything anymore.
I suppose we could just count from 1981-2013 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
FYP. We are about to embark on a new era of college hockey so the 2012-2013 season is the last of its kind, after that the titles don't mean anything anymore.
SCSU Euro
New member
Forget that, try explaining to Ann Arbor Lake Superior > U of Mich
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
It does remind us that any title of any kind in any era is subject to a certain amount of scrutiny based on context.
What context and reasoning we use to acknowledge or discredit the significance of a particular title tells a lot about us as sports fans.
It does remind us that any title of any kind in any era is subject to a certain amount of scrutiny based on context.
What context and reasoning we use to acknowledge or discredit the significance of a particular title tells a lot about us as sports fans.
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"
Wow, you totally missed my point and turned this in to yet another version of 7>5.
But you have illustrated perfectly how nutty this whole thing has become. Cherry picking to prove whatever you want or try and throw some random cheap shot. This is exactly why this is continuing. Its because no one can handle us getting any closer to the top of the list. Fight the power.
Not really. In this case it just tells us how pro/anti gophers you are.
I suppose we could just count from 1981 on then when the tournament expanded to 8 teams.
Wow, you totally missed my point and turned this in to yet another version of 7>5.
But you have illustrated perfectly how nutty this whole thing has become. Cherry picking to prove whatever you want or try and throw some random cheap shot. This is exactly why this is continuing. Its because no one can handle us getting any closer to the top of the list. Fight the power.Not really. In this case it just tells us how pro/anti gophers you are.
Last edited: