Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
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.
NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
- Thread starter HumRsky
- Start date
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Not denying that Herb Brooks thought Mark Johnson was a great player, or that he was a crucial piece to that team. But he didn't think he was the best player on that 1980 team. I have read in numerous books by friends and confidants of Brooks that it was Mark Pavelich.
"Once in a while he'd [Pavelich] be down there and say he forgot his skates, and ask if any of us had any skates he could borrow. Then he'd borrow a stick. It might be left-handed, and he shot right; it didn't matter. Pav could go out there with somebody else's skates on that were the wrong size, and using a left-handed stick, and he'd still be the best player out there."
Last edited:
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
I apologize for being sucked into this conversation, but JDUBBS you need to give it a rest!
Yes, the history of Minnesota hockey (University and otherwise) is interesting and their contributions to hockey are considerable. But, your constant pontificating and defense of Minnesota hockey is simply getting old and exhausting.
In this day and age you are projecting a very provincial and restricting picture of the face of college hockey, hockey in general, and sports overall. Look at all the other college hockey programs and you will see the face of college hockey: the kids come from many diverse places across the country and the globe. Minnesota, in this day and age, is an anomaly; it is no longer the standard, the norm, or what fans expect to see on a college hockey roster. It's a good thing that Minnesota has players from Finland, Colorado, and Missouri--it allows for a less narrow-minded, parochial, and insular vision of team dynamics and the shape of the way things are in these times. Look how diverse the NHL has become. We don't care whether there are exclusively Canadians or Americans on those teams, because we know good players come from many different places. Most of us in this forum don't care where the players on our college teams come from; we simply want to see good, competitive talent. I suspect many in this forum could care less whether Minnesota's players are all Minnesotans or Americans or from South Australia for that matter.
As to whether the contributions of Minnesota hockey in 1974 or any other year were the greatest to USA hockey, most of us in this forum probably think that's just fine for Minnesota fans to think that; but, of course, we all have our own allegiances and we look to the contributions that our programs, big, medium, and small have made down through the years, and think: Those are pretty good contributions as well! We simply aren't out proselytizing and trying to convert others into thinking that we are the end all--we simply hope that our teams continue to perform well against the big, medium, and small programs with the talent our schools are able to send out on the ice each season.
Give the beating of the Minnesota drum a rest.
I apologize for being sucked into this conversation, but JDUBBS you need to give it a rest!
Yes, the history of Minnesota hockey (University and otherwise) is interesting and their contributions to hockey are considerable. But, your constant pontificating and defense of Minnesota hockey is simply getting old and exhausting.
In this day and age you are projecting a very provincial and restricting picture of the face of college hockey, hockey in general, and sports overall. Look at all the other college hockey programs and you will see the face of college hockey: the kids come from many diverse places across the country and the globe. Minnesota, in this day and age, is an anomaly; it is no longer the standard, the norm, or what fans expect to see on a college hockey roster. It's a good thing that Minnesota has players from Finland, Colorado, and Missouri--it allows for a less narrow-minded, parochial, and insular vision of team dynamics and the shape of the way things are in these times. Look how diverse the NHL has become. We don't care whether there are exclusively Canadians or Americans on those teams, because we know good players come from many different places. Most of us in this forum don't care where the players on our college teams come from; we simply want to see good, competitive talent. I suspect many in this forum could care less whether Minnesota's players are all Minnesotans or Americans or from South Australia for that matter.
As to whether the contributions of Minnesota hockey in 1974 or any other year were the greatest to USA hockey, most of us in this forum probably think that's just fine for Minnesota fans to think that; but, of course, we all have our own allegiances and we look to the contributions that our programs, big, medium, and small have made down through the years, and think: Those are pretty good contributions as well! We simply aren't out proselytizing and trying to convert others into thinking that we are the end all--we simply hope that our teams continue to perform well against the big, medium, and small programs with the talent our schools are able to send out on the ice each season.
Give the beating of the Minnesota drum a rest.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Neither Mariucci or Brooks just recruited Americans or just recruited Minnesotans. The overwhelming majority of the players they recruited were American, and specifically Minnesotans. That is still true today.
- Mariucci adopted the philosophy of recruiting primarily Americans from primarily in-state.
- That philosophy gave more opportunities to local kids to play, which increased local interest in the sport.
- The # of MN high school hockey programs grew ten fold.
- Minnesota won numerous championships with all American rosters and Minnesotans made at least half of two Gold Medal winning US Olympic hockey rosters.
- These achievements promoted the growth of hockey in this country and showed young kids here it was not just a Canadian game. Keep in mind, both college hockey and the NHL were comprised of mostly Canadian players at that time.
The Gophers still primarily recruit only Americans and primarily only from within the state. That hasn't changed from the days of Mariucci.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
aygwm2 - I made one comment, and was questioned, so I responded, questioned, then responded, asked a question, recieved an answer, etc.
This is a message board and this is a discussion. I'm not upset, and unclear as to why you are. If you don't like the discussion, you aren't being forced to read it.
And I'm not at all being provincial. I clearly said that Minnesota's choice to use only Americans shouldn't be considered a handicap and other program's choices to use players from a variety of other places should not deminish the accomplishments of those programs. All achievements on the ice should count the same.
That said, the growth of hockey in this country has been very important to college hockey and the University of Minnesota has been instrumental in fostering that growth. Not sure why that should be off the table in a discussion about the "greatest programs"?
aygwm2 - I made one comment, and was questioned, so I responded, questioned, then responded, asked a question, recieved an answer, etc.
This is a message board and this is a discussion. I'm not upset, and unclear as to why you are. If you don't like the discussion, you aren't being forced to read it.
And I'm not at all being provincial. I clearly said that Minnesota's choice to use only Americans shouldn't be considered a handicap and other program's choices to use players from a variety of other places should not deminish the accomplishments of those programs. All achievements on the ice should count the same.
That said, the growth of hockey in this country has been very important to college hockey and the University of Minnesota has been instrumental in fostering that growth. Not sure why that should be off the table in a discussion about the "greatest programs"?
Last edited:
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
You know, Dubber, reading this thread evokes memories of driving in western parts of North Dakota, Wyoming, and eastern Montana. You go through miles and miles and miles of unchanging landscape. Nothing changes. You look ahead of you and nothing changes. You look behind you and nothing changes. It's the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's not even bad stuff--it just never changes. Pretty soon you start playing silly word games, not to make it all go away (OK, maybe that), but just to tolerate the changelessness of it.
Miles upon miles of range land is one thing: a mind is something else.
In the words of Doyle Lonnegan in The Sting: You follow?
You know, Dubber, reading this thread evokes memories of driving in western parts of North Dakota, Wyoming, and eastern Montana. You go through miles and miles and miles of unchanging landscape. Nothing changes. You look ahead of you and nothing changes. You look behind you and nothing changes. It's the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's not even bad stuff--it just never changes. Pretty soon you start playing silly word games, not to make it all go away (OK, maybe that), but just to tolerate the changelessness of it.
Miles upon miles of range land is one thing: a mind is something else.
In the words of Doyle Lonnegan in The Sting: You follow?
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
"I will follow you down but not that far. "
"I will follow you down but not that far. "
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
That's your second Sting reference in the past week or so.
Grew up in Joliet, btw.
That's your second Sting reference in the past week or so.
Grew up in Joliet, btw.
Mile High Hockey
New member
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
You continue to not answer my questions. The reason is because they are coaches' philosophies, not the University's philosophy. Woog had an All-Minnesota policy. Lucia changed that. If it was the University's philosophy, my guess is that Lucia would have been fired. Universities don't like people coming in and trying to change their philosophies. If a new coach came in and recruited solely Canadians, and they won 3 titles in 4 years, they wouldn't be fired either. Or, why did Minnesota go after Dean Blais around the turn of the century? He was known for recruiting kids from all over. If Blais had decided to take the job, it would have conflicted with this mythological philosophy that you think Minnesota has. In sum, it's a coach's recruiting philosophy, not a University philosophy.
On the flip side, my second question (which you never even addressed) addressed the issue that if you are going to praise a University for doing well under a coach's vision, and give that University extra credit, then you should also punish that University and deduct extra points when they do not meet standards.
You continue to not answer my questions. The reason is because they are coaches' philosophies, not the University's philosophy. Woog had an All-Minnesota policy. Lucia changed that. If it was the University's philosophy, my guess is that Lucia would have been fired. Universities don't like people coming in and trying to change their philosophies. If a new coach came in and recruited solely Canadians, and they won 3 titles in 4 years, they wouldn't be fired either. Or, why did Minnesota go after Dean Blais around the turn of the century? He was known for recruiting kids from all over. If Blais had decided to take the job, it would have conflicted with this mythological philosophy that you think Minnesota has. In sum, it's a coach's recruiting philosophy, not a University philosophy.
On the flip side, my second question (which you never even addressed) addressed the issue that if you are going to praise a University for doing well under a coach's vision, and give that University extra credit, then you should also punish that University and deduct extra points when they do not meet standards.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
Mile High - I did answer your first question. You just didn't get the answer you want. Keep asking and you'll keep getting the sane answer. Minnesota hasn't changed it's recruiting philosophy much since the days of Mariucci. And since the answer to your first question is that it hasn't changed, the second question is irrelevant.
Mile High - I did answer your first question. You just didn't get the answer you want. Keep asking and you'll keep getting the sane answer. Minnesota hasn't changed it's recruiting philosophy much since the days of Mariucci. And since the answer to your first question is that it hasn't changed, the second question is irrelevant.
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
Can't help it. A wonderful movie and a great character.
Was there some legendary or historical con artist from Joliet that caused it to be used as the location for that part of the book/movie?
Can't help it. A wonderful movie and a great character.
Was there some legendary or historical con artist from Joliet that caused it to be used as the location for that part of the book/movie?
Last edited:
Mile High Hockey
New member
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
You didn't. I can see why you have the reputation that you do. I'm done with you.
You didn't. I can see why you have the reputation that you do. I'm done with you.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
Woogs all Minnesota philosophy isn't what grew the sport in this country or in Minnesota. The fact that Woog, as did his predecessors and Lucia still today, recruited primarily Americans is what grew the sport in this country and the fact that they all recruited and are still recruiting primarily Minnesotans is what grew the game in-state.
Woogs all Minnesota philosophy isn't what grew the sport in this country or in Minnesota. The fact that Woog, as did his predecessors and Lucia still today, recruited primarily Americans is what grew the sport in this country and the fact that they all recruited and are still recruiting primarily Minnesotans is what grew the game in-state.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
I did. And elaborated above. Recruiting only in-state isn't the philosophy that grew the sport or the philosophy I am referring to. It was a nice story in-state, and a source of local pride, but not what I am referring to when I discuss the recruiting philosophy that grew the game. I'm talking about using primarily American (much local) rosters instead of primarily foreign.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
good idea, should have given up long ago.
JDUBBS1280
MN Hockey Enthusiast
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
Funny thing is, this all started because I made a simple post about there being imeasurable factors that should contribute to what makes a program great and was challenged over and over.
It's my opinion. One that I firmly believe in and bet many other people do too. All said, I am sure each and every person here is delighted by how much USA Hockey has grown in this country, and whether or not they want to admit it know that some of the tough decisions the University of Minnesota made very early on and have had the resolution and determination to stick with played a big factor in that growth.
If you didn't agree that these immeasurable factors should be a factor in a team's greatness, you should have just politely agreed to disagree instead of engaging in the discussion.
Yet, the group think on this board to fight the reality that Minnesota's recruiting philosophies have had any other meaning or impact other than just "Minnesota being provincial" is so strong that any time the subject is brought up it is met with an unequivocal attack on the poster.
It's just discussion. If you disagree, then disagree. But the lengths that some go to in order to "disprove" that Minnesota's recruiting philosophies have had any meaningful impact on USA or college hockey is disappointing. Especially when it comes from fellow Gopher fans.
Funny thing is, this all started because I made a simple post about there being imeasurable factors that should contribute to what makes a program great and was challenged over and over.
It's my opinion. One that I firmly believe in and bet many other people do too. All said, I am sure each and every person here is delighted by how much USA Hockey has grown in this country, and whether or not they want to admit it know that some of the tough decisions the University of Minnesota made very early on and have had the resolution and determination to stick with played a big factor in that growth.
If you didn't agree that these immeasurable factors should be a factor in a team's greatness, you should have just politely agreed to disagree instead of engaging in the discussion.
Yet, the group think on this board to fight the reality that Minnesota's recruiting philosophies have had any other meaning or impact other than just "Minnesota being provincial" is so strong that any time the subject is brought up it is met with an unequivocal attack on the poster.
It's just discussion. If you disagree, then disagree. But the lengths that some go to in order to "disprove" that Minnesota's recruiting philosophies have had any meaningful impact on USA or college hockey is disappointing. Especially when it comes from fellow Gopher fans.
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only
This thread was about accomplishments of PROGRAMS, the person that started this thread was trying to quantify a ranking based solely on accomplishments. Winning a title is the same if you do it with 20 people from Minnesota or from Austria. The reason people get so **** annoyed with you is continue to repeat yourself OVER and OVER and OVER again across many threads every time we have this discussion. People disagree with you and you can't let it go, and they can't let it go...its f ing annoying. Why don' you learn to be the better person and stop beating a dead horse every 10 posts?
The problem isn't your opinion, the problem is the fact that you simply refuse to let something go, and everyone else tends to refuse to let something go when talking to you about it because of your attitude. We get it, Minnesota is awesome, they are the reason college hockey is awesome. It had nothing to do with other programs, its all about Minnesota choosing to give Americans and mostly Minnesotans the opportunity for 20 scholarships. Those 20 scholarships alone are responsible for American Hockey...
This thread was about accomplishments of PROGRAMS, the person that started this thread was trying to quantify a ranking based solely on accomplishments. Winning a title is the same if you do it with 20 people from Minnesota or from Austria. The reason people get so **** annoyed with you is continue to repeat yourself OVER and OVER and OVER again across many threads every time we have this discussion. People disagree with you and you can't let it go, and they can't let it go...its f ing annoying. Why don' you learn to be the better person and stop beating a dead horse every 10 posts?