What's new
By:
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!"

Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

JDUBBS1280 said:
Sorry, UW doesn't have more titles. And it wouldn't matter if they did. They have far less history and virtually no tradition. They are a plug-n-play program that owes it's existence to Minnesota. All of their coaches have had MN connections, they have relied heavily on MN players, their only real tradition is being so tied to Minnesota ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah the SOFAKING is back! You're SOFAKING gay Dubbs!
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

burd said:
North Dakota doesn't need titles any more. It has tradition.
Click to expand...

Well played even if it's Fighting Irish/Blackhawk wannabe tradition... :p

Plus... you guys could just hang individual banners for each FF appearance. As long as they are hung with the NCAA title banners, are the same color and your university thinks they are important...
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

Gurtholfin said:
Well played even if it's Fighting Irish/Blackhawk wannabe tradition... :p

Plus... you guys could just hang individual banners for each FF appearance. As long as they are hung with the NCAA title banners, are the same color and your university thinks they are important...
Click to expand...

Great idea. And another thing NoDak could do to reach a par with its big 10 big brothers is a more demonstrative way to showcase its academics with more than banners. I mean, where titles is concerned, "M" "I" "N" "N" "E" "S" "O" "T" "A" has 5 ("We've got 7!"), while Wisconsin has "ONE" "TWO" "THREE" "FOUR" "FIVE" "SIX" ("We want more!")

Kind of intimidating, really.
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

*yawn* Good morning folks. Sorry, slept in a little today. Reading back a few posts I'm a little lost. What the heck are we arguing about now? Just trying to know what mind set I gotta get into for the day. Back to talking about 1940 importance again or how much those teams not named the Gophers suck? I can do both so just let me know. :)
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

You're losing your edge, Tiggsy. Just argue. About anything. It doesn't have to make any sense to anybody (even yourself). It doesn't have to be relevant, timely, cogent, appropriate, on-topic, or have any facts whatsoever. Just argue.
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

Gurtholfin said:
No one on here is suggesting that you shouldn't be excited that your team won an invitational tourney in 1940. Make t-shirts if you want. Just don't expect anyone else to accept it as a national title that matters.
Click to expand...

I just ordered 2 from Jdubbs...get em' while supplies last.
 
Last edited:
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

UncleRay said:
You're losing your edge, Tiggsy. Just argue. About anything. It doesn't have to make any sense to anybody (even yourself). It doesn't have to be relevant, timely, cogent, appropriate, on-topic, or have any facts whatsoever. Just argue.
Click to expand...

NO! Wait, YES! Shoot, you may be right. It's Friday, boss is gone and I've already checked out for the day.

Okay, back on track.

Gurt, isn't the NCAA tourney today an invitational? Sure there is a system to predict who is going to get the invites and autobids for a few spots, but it's still up to the NCAA to decide who gets to play. You single handedly just legitimized the whole argument for how important the 1940 title is. Thanks for saving me some of the work. Put me down for a couple of t-shirts while you're at it. :)


darker98 said:
That's not very positive. ;)
Click to expand...

You just quoted Gurt so mnstate0fhockey would see his post. I'm on to your little game!
 
Last edited:
Tiggsy said:
NO! Wait, YES! Shoot, you may be right. It's Friday, boss is gone and I've already checked out for the day.

Okay, back on track.

Gurt, isn't the NCAA tourney today an invitational? Sure there is a system to predict who is going to get the invites and autobids for a few spots, but it's still up to the NCAA to decide who gets to play. You single handedly just legitimized the whole argument for how important the 1940 title is. Thanks for saving me some of the work. Put me down for a couple of t-shirts while you're at it. :)




You just quoted Gurt so mnstate0fhockey would see his post. I'm on to your little game!
Click to expand...

Except I've had Darker on ignore for quite a while :)

Anyways, enough of this thread for me.
 
Last edited:
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

Tiggsy said:
You just quoted Gurt so mnstate0fhockey would see his post. I'm on to your little game!
Click to expand...

Oh, he's seeing them. He's itchin' to reply too, but he can't coz then he'd have to admit that he's seeing them and lose face.
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

solovsfett said:
here's my point. the ONLY people including AAU Championships w/NCAA Championships are 2 minnesota fans. no-one else, and I've not read anytime anywhere that hockey beat writers or coaches consider these pre-NCAA titles on the same level as actual NCAA Titles.
Click to expand...

Clearly, an AAU championship isn't the same as one during the NCAA era--everything about the game from the number of organized teams to the quality of players, equipment and facilities was not comparable. And it follows that a championship from earlier eras of the NCAA isn't the same as one from more recent decades for the same reasons.

It's much more difficult to win it all today than it was decades ago--players are bigger, stronger, faster; equipment is far better; ice facilities are light years ahead of what I played on in the 60's; coaching and tactics are considerably more sophisticated; there are many more college teams playing D1; elite-level players are emerging from non-traditional hockey areas of the US; players from Europe are being recruited to US colleges; and so on.

No matter where you choose to draw the line, disparate eras, regardless of auspices, cannot be logically compared. Nonetheless, the facts are that a tournament was played and a championship won. That's all that matters to those who care. The rest is just a silly ****ing contest between rival fans. Have fun with that.
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

HiStick said:
Clearly, an AAU championship isn't the same as one during the NCAA era--everything about the game from the number of organized teams to the quality of players, equipment and facilities was not comparable. And it follows that a championship from earlier eras of the NCAA isn't the same as one from more recent decades for the same reasons.

It's much more difficult to win it all today than it was decades ago--players are bigger, stronger, faster; equipment is far better; ice facilities are light years ahead of what I played on in the 60's; coaching and tactics are considerably more sophisticated; there are many more college teams playing D1; elite-level players are emerging from non-traditional hockey areas of the US; players from Europe are being recruited to US colleges; and so on.

No matter where you choose to draw the line, disparate eras, regardless of auspices, cannot be logically compared. Nonetheless, the facts are that a tournament was played and a championship won. That's all that matters to those who care. The rest is just a silly ****ing contest between rival fans. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Way too sane.
 
Re: MN Hockey - "We're So SPECIAL!"

HiStick said:
Clearly, an AAU championship isn't the same as one during the NCAA era--everything about the game from the number of organized teams to the quality of players, equipment and facilities was not comparable. And it follows that a championship from earlier eras of the NCAA isn't the same as one from more recent decades for the same reasons.

It's much more difficult to win it all today than it was decades ago--players are bigger, stronger, faster; equipment is far better; ice facilities are light years ahead of what I played on in the 60's; coaching and tactics are considerably more sophisticated; there are many more college teams playing D1; elite-level players are emerging from non-traditional hockey areas of the US; players from Europe are being recruited to US colleges; and so on.

No matter where you choose to draw the line, disparate eras, regardless of auspices, cannot be logically compared. Nonetheless, the facts are that a tournament was played and a championship won. That's all that matters to those who care. The rest is just a silly ****ing contest between rival fans. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Ever been on this message board before, Captain Obvious?

However I'm not so sure I agree that its so much harder to win it all. Of course if you take players from back then in their prime against todays teams they would get clobbered in epic style. But that's because the entire sport has elevated. It's natural for the players, equipment, strategies, etc to evolve as new technology and new ideas are discovered and perfected. If it was so easy back then, why is it typically the same teams that seem to do well and play in the NCAA tournament? Even in the early NCAA days, it was always the same handful of teams. Its because they figured it out first and the rest of the teams had to catch up. If it was so easy, more teams would have been in the chase. Sure doesn't look that way to me from scanning historical records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top