DaveStPaul
New member
Re: most successful program - next year
I just assumed he had a code in his node.
I just assumed he had a code in his node.
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.
most successful program - next year
- Thread starter Osorojo
- Start date
Jon
Say, this is nice.
Re: most successful program - next year
I'd settle for some fava beans and a nice chianti.
*evil laugh*
I'd settle for some fava beans and a nice chianti.
*evil laugh*
Re: most successful program - next year
Do you think you are being clever? The point you're making is tired, old and quite frankly without any significant implication.
You think the ECAC, and more precisely the Ivy League, are somehow in greater compliance with the the "spirit" of college athletics. So what, then, is the meaning of this all-ECAC final? Does it show that adhering to the "spirit" (as you perceive it) of college athletics dictate success at a higher rate than adherence to other values? Is it some sort of divine intervention? Does it imply some sort of moral imperative?
Or are you just taking this as an opportunity to reinforce your delusions of superiority?
For what it's worth, I think you are horribly obtuse in your opinion that teams from the ECAC somehow choose to operate their programs with fewer NHL draft picks. If a quantity of guys who had a lot of NHL stock wanted to go to ECAC schools, there would be a quantity of NHL draft picks in the ECAC.
Do you think you are being clever? The point you're making is tired, old and quite frankly without any significant implication.
You think the ECAC, and more precisely the Ivy League, are somehow in greater compliance with the the "spirit" of college athletics. So what, then, is the meaning of this all-ECAC final? Does it show that adhering to the "spirit" (as you perceive it) of college athletics dictate success at a higher rate than adherence to other values? Is it some sort of divine intervention? Does it imply some sort of moral imperative?
Or are you just taking this as an opportunity to reinforce your delusions of superiority?
For what it's worth, I think you are horribly obtuse in your opinion that teams from the ECAC somehow choose to operate their programs with fewer NHL draft picks. If a quantity of guys who had a lot of NHL stock wanted to go to ECAC schools, there would be a quantity of NHL draft picks in the ECAC.
Re: most successful program - next year
Fact: Some fans and apparently some programs believe recruiting more and higher draft picks is essential to success.
Fact: Teams with more and higher draft picks were NOT successful in this year's playoff tournament - even teams with FIVE TIMES as many draft picks as their opponent.
Fact: SCSU [not ECAC] had a fine season with just five draft picks.
Nothing cute here- just reality. Why did ECAC teams and SCSU have relatively few draft picks? I have no idea, but the reason doesn't change their record. At least consider the possibility that acquiring the maximum number of draft picks may not be critically important to the performance of college hockey teams.
BTW: Beginning a sentence with "You think . . ." does not improve its credibility.
Fact: Some fans and apparently some programs believe recruiting more and higher draft picks is essential to success.
Fact: Teams with more and higher draft picks were NOT successful in this year's playoff tournament - even teams with FIVE TIMES as many draft picks as their opponent.
Fact: SCSU [not ECAC] had a fine season with just five draft picks.
Nothing cute here- just reality. Why did ECAC teams and SCSU have relatively few draft picks? I have no idea, but the reason doesn't change their record. At least consider the possibility that acquiring the maximum number of draft picks may not be critically important to the performance of college hockey teams.
BTW: Beginning a sentence with "You think . . ." does not improve its credibility.
Last edited:
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: most successful program - next year
Listen to this, folks. This guy is the expert on lacking credibility.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Re: most successful program - next year
It is a faulty premise, though. You think Don Lucia or Dave Hakstol bases who they are recruiting on whether they are NHL draft picks? No. They recruit based on who they think are the best players, or the players that best fit their system. They start recruiting these guys before they are even drafted, in some cases 2 years before.
Re: most successful program - next year
Fact: Putting fact on any statement makes it true.
Fact: Logic is not important. The only important point is to start the statement with "Fact:".
Fact: Beginning a sentence with "Fact:" improves its credibility.
Fact: Putting fact on any statement makes it true.
Fact: Logic is not important. The only important point is to start the statement with "Fact:".
Fact: Beginning a sentence with "Fact:" improves its credibility.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
You think I should just give up? I am trying my best.
Re: most successful program - next year
First somebody tells me what I think. Then somebody tells me I have a faulty premise but does not specify what it is, probably because I offered no "premise" - faulty or otherwise. Finally somebody declares that total number of draft picks and won-lost records are not facts and should not be identified as such.
The prize for the most insightful comment goes to: "Logic doesn't work."
First somebody tells me what I think. Then somebody tells me I have a faulty premise but does not specify what it is, probably because I offered no "premise" - faulty or otherwise. Finally somebody declares that total number of draft picks and won-lost records are not facts and should not be identified as such.
The prize for the most insightful comment goes to: "Logic doesn't work."
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Your premise is that coaches are trying to "acquire the maximum number of draft picks". Otherwise, what the **** is the point of this thread? Just a masturbatory exercise?
Re: most successful program - next year
Fact: Apparently some fans might not necessarily disagree with part of what you seem to be implying. Jeebus Oso, we're all idiots here a fair share of the time, but you really excel at it.
Fact: Apparently some fans might not necessarily disagree with part of what you seem to be implying. Jeebus Oso, we're all idiots here a fair share of the time, but you really excel at it.
Last edited:
Happy
Registered User
Re: most successful program - next year
I will tell you, dumbass. The NHL drafts young players with talent. These players have to show their talent before they are 20 years old. They then try and sign these players before 3 years of school are completed. This hurts teams with young talent, say Minnesota, or UND, or Michigan, and helps teams with overage players, like this years FF teams. To win this year, you had to make sure your players were not good enough to be taken by the NHL last year, and then have them old enough that the age factor overcomes their lesser talent.
I will tell you, dumbass. The NHL drafts young players with talent. These players have to show their talent before they are 20 years old. They then try and sign these players before 3 years of school are completed. This hurts teams with young talent, say Minnesota, or UND, or Michigan, and helps teams with overage players, like this years FF teams. To win this year, you had to make sure your players were not good enough to be taken by the NHL last year, and then have them old enough that the age factor overcomes their lesser talent.
Re: most successful program - next year
It may be that the best pro hockey prospects make not only the best college hockey players but the best college hockey teams. This year's results may be a freak of chance. Or in general the motives or personal goals or playing style or compatibility with academic expectations differ significantly between pro draft picks and other college hockey recruits - and these differences affect team performance. Time will tell, but if you are sure of what the future will bring why bother to think about or respond to such unpleasant possibilities?
It may be that the best pro hockey prospects make not only the best college hockey players but the best college hockey teams. This year's results may be a freak of chance. Or in general the motives or personal goals or playing style or compatibility with academic expectations differ significantly between pro draft picks and other college hockey recruits - and these differences affect team performance. Time will tell, but if you are sure of what the future will bring why bother to think about or respond to such unpleasant possibilities?
Re: most successful program - next year
Like I said, tired old and without significant import.
No one other than a handful of clods would argue that a large number of NHL draft picks dictates success. At the same time, only a handful of clods would argue that getting guys good enough to have NHL clubs interested in them to play for your team (and then getting those guys to stick around and develop in the college game) doesn't increase the team's potential. The reasons for both are clear and easy to discern.
For what it's worth, only 1 in 4 teams across the rest of Div. 1 hockey had more draft picks than Yale. In terms of pro prospects, Yale was one of the top teams this year.
And I'll say again, if teams like Yale and Quinnipiac were able to get more commitments from guys with the talent and size to be on the NHL Draft radar, then teams like Yale and Quinnipiac would have even more guys than they already do who are NHL draft picks. And that may be a change we are starting to see. This year, 11 out of the 12 teams in the ECAC had NHL drafted talent on their roster, and 75% of the league had multiple draftees.
Like I said, tired old and without significant import.
No one other than a handful of clods would argue that a large number of NHL draft picks dictates success. At the same time, only a handful of clods would argue that getting guys good enough to have NHL clubs interested in them to play for your team (and then getting those guys to stick around and develop in the college game) doesn't increase the team's potential. The reasons for both are clear and easy to discern.
For what it's worth, only 1 in 4 teams across the rest of Div. 1 hockey had more draft picks than Yale. In terms of pro prospects, Yale was one of the top teams this year.
And I'll say again, if teams like Yale and Quinnipiac were able to get more commitments from guys with the talent and size to be on the NHL Draft radar, then teams like Yale and Quinnipiac would have even more guys than they already do who are NHL draft picks. And that may be a change we are starting to see. This year, 11 out of the 12 teams in the ECAC had NHL drafted talent on their roster, and 75% of the league had multiple draftees.