NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

[JDUBBS1280]

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.

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.

 

[Tater]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

It sounds like the 2011 Frozen Four will shift those rankings a bit.

A few stats from the NCAA Hockey twitter account:

I find that hard to believe. If indeed 3.2 million people watched, it will be the highest watched game by over 1 million people.

Must be a different rating system.

Wouldn't completely surprise me if it took over second though, as UMD has been waiting forever for a championship and a lot of Gopher, Sioux, Badger fans were cheering for them too.

I believe the 3.2 million is for the three games combined. Notice it says "Frozen Four," not "Championship Game."

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I believe the 3.2 million is for the three games combined. Notice it says "Frozen Four," not "Championship Game."

Gotcha. Thanks

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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.

I chimed in when you started talking about how Minnesota was expected to blowout New Hampshire and that is why nobody tuned into that game. I've since proven you were wrong about that, and you have not come up with a valid reason for why so few wanted to watch that Frozen Four.

Consider your point thoroughly destroyed.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I chimed in when you started talking about how Minnesota was expected to blowout New Hampshire and that is why nobody tuned into that game. I've since proven you were wrong about that, and you have not come up with a valid reason for why so few wanted to watch that Frozen Four.

Consider your point thoroughly destroyed.

Many at the time believed Minnesota would. And although the game was close until late, they ultimately did.

Posting one preview doesn't prove anything.

Now if you would go back and read the entire conversation, you'd have a better understanding of how this fits into the context of the discussion.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

And FYI... Your argument was "thoroughly destroyed" the second you used a statement as childish and lame as "thoroughly destroyed".

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Many at the time believed Minnesota would. And although the game was close until late, they ultimately did.

Now if you would go back and read the entire conversation, you'd have a better understanding of how this fits into the context of the discussion.

I don't have that kind of time right now. If you would, please provide one legit article stating that Minnesota would destroy New Hampshire. If not, then I'll take that as a concession to my point, and wait for you to come up with a new point to base your argument on.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

I don't have that kind of time right now. If you would, please provide one legit article stating that Minnesota would destroy New Hampshire. If not, then I'll take that as a concession to my point, and wait for you to come up with a new point to base your argument on.

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.

We remember it differently. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Dirty]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Everyone who even bothers to talk to JDubbs should wear this shirt.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Dirty is Obsessed with the Gophers

<IMG SRC="http://www.directfragrancesource.com/assets/images/full/FN-115979.jpg"></>

 

[Dirty]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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

 

[JDUBBS1280]

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

1) Hardly. 2) Only to laugh at others' fine work

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

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.

 

[RinkPig]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

How bout a beer?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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?

 

[4four4]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

No, the most important thing is that I had Old Chicago Pizza today.

Yuck.

 

[The Rube]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

Yuck.

You are dead to me.

 

[4four4]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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?

 

[4four4]

Re: NBC/Versus deal with College Hockey

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?