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.
Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
- Thread starter THE OHIO STATE
- Start date
- Status
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
I expect good results from this team in the next two years , here's why.
2008/2009, Only lost 1 Senior from the team that went to the tournament.
2009/2010 , Only will lose 1 Senior again after this year. Currently have on roster. 1 Senior , 13 JRs , 8 SO and 5 Freshman and 1 red-shirt transfer. This should be are best chance at the NCAA Tournament.
2010/2011 , Rebulding year as we will lose 13 Seniors , hopefully after winning the NCAA Tournament.
I expect good results from this team in the next two years , here's why.
2008/2009, Only lost 1 Senior from the team that went to the tournament.
2009/2010 , Only will lose 1 Senior again after this year. Currently have on roster. 1 Senior , 13 JRs , 8 SO and 5 Freshman and 1 red-shirt transfer. This should be are best chance at the NCAA Tournament.
2010/2011 , Rebulding year as we will lose 13 Seniors , hopefully after winning the NCAA Tournament.
Brewmaster
Intentionally Offside
How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
At least as 2009-2010 is concerned, logic would support you. However, my optimism is decidedly more guarded, having lived through the 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 campaigns. See their prior seasons for reference. That's not pessimism, necessarily, more like pragmatism, perhaps.
And while we lost 3 seniors from last year, the one that THE OHIO STATE likely references, Corey Elkins, accounted for 41 points. That's a lot to make up. Add in three other non-graduation losses (Palmer, Rudasill, and West), too.
And we do have to wonder how Markell will handle the contract year situation. Will he play even more conservatively than he normally does? Hmmmm.
Finally, in recent CCHA news, this was on OSU's hockey website:
This season, a regulation or sudden-death overtime win will earn a team three points in the standings, a shootout victory will garner two points, a shootout loss will be rewarded by one point, and a loss in regulation or overtime will mean no points. So, any game that goes to a shootout will see the victor credited with a tie and a shootout win in the conference standings, while the loser will receive credit for a tie.
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?
How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
I expect good results from this team in the next two years , here's why.
2008/2009, Only lost 1 Senior from the team that went to the tournament.
2009/2010 , Only will lose 1 Senior again after this year. Currently have on roster. 1 Senior , 13 JRs , 8 SO and 5 Freshman and 1 red-shirt transfer. This should be are best chance at the NCAA Tournament.
2010/2011 , Rebulding year as we will lose 13 Seniors , hopefully after winning the NCAA Tournament.
At least as 2009-2010 is concerned, logic would support you. However, my optimism is decidedly more guarded, having lived through the 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 campaigns. See their prior seasons for reference. That's not pessimism, necessarily, more like pragmatism, perhaps.
And while we lost 3 seniors from last year, the one that THE OHIO STATE likely references, Corey Elkins, accounted for 41 points. That's a lot to make up. Add in three other non-graduation losses (Palmer, Rudasill, and West), too.
And we do have to wonder how Markell will handle the contract year situation. Will he play even more conservatively than he normally does? Hmmmm.
Finally, in recent CCHA news, this was on OSU's hockey website:
This season, a regulation or sudden-death overtime win will earn a team three points in the standings, a shootout victory will garner two points, a shootout loss will be rewarded by one point, and a loss in regulation or overtime will mean no points. So, any game that goes to a shootout will see the victor credited with a tie and a shootout win in the conference standings, while the loser will receive credit for a tie.
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
[
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?[/QUOTE]
Now that's " FUNNY. " 
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
[
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?[/QUOTE]
Now that's " FUNNY. "
klbaum1077
Registered User
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
What do they think this is soccer 3 pts for a win?
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
Finally, in recent CCHA news, this was on OSU's hockey website:
This season, a regulation or sudden-death overtime win will earn a team three points in the standings, a shootout victory will garner two points, a shootout loss will be rewarded by one point, and a loss in regulation or overtime will mean no points. So, any game that goes to a shootout will see the victor credited with a tie and a shootout win in the conference standings, while the loser will receive credit for a tie.
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?
What do they think this is soccer 3 pts for a win?
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
How about an extra point for the HOME team.
How about an extra point for the HOME team.
Draighlicht
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
and while we're at it we could give a point for every time a team comes out with a new uniform. OSU could get 3 to 6 extra points a year with this.
and while we're at it we could give a point for every time a team comes out with a new uniform. OSU could get 3 to 6 extra points a year with this.
tic tac toe
Registered User
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
I expected Zach Pelletier to go pro and become an enforcer at some level, but apparently not. He has become a DEA agent. An enforcer in the Federal League. Maybe he'll cuff a couple of his former teammates-I 'd know what that could possibly mean.
GOOD FOR HIM
I expected Zach Pelletier to go pro and become an enforcer at some level, but apparently not. He has become a DEA agent. An enforcer in the Federal League. Maybe he'll cuff a couple of his former teammates-I 'd know what that could possibly mean.
GOOD FOR HIM
Last edited:
Dirty Hobbit
Buckeye
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
I was talking to a co-worker at a training class yesterday who is also a season ticket holder. He was telling me how Zach recently did a "ride along" with our Department and how he was hired with the U.S. Border Patrol. He told me that Zach was in the selection process with the DEA and was hoping to get selected before he left for the Border Patrol academy since government agencies typically remove candidates from the process after they start to attend another government training academy. So this is GREAT news for Zach. Congrads, will be looking for you on the DEA's agency hockey team.
I was talking to a co-worker at a training class yesterday who is also a season ticket holder. He was telling me how Zach recently did a "ride along" with our Department and how he was hired with the U.S. Border Patrol. He told me that Zach was in the selection process with the DEA and was hoping to get selected before he left for the Border Patrol academy since government agencies typically remove candidates from the process after they start to attend another government training academy. So this is GREAT news for Zach. Congrads, will be looking for you on the DEA's agency hockey team.
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
Exhibition Game,
Sunday 4th , VS. Western Ontario.
Anyone going to this game?
I live out of state so I will be watching it on BUCKEYE vision.
This should be a good game for the coaches to set some line combinations up and see how the boys are clicking.
" DROP THE PUCK " or " DROP THE GLOVES. "
Exhibition Game,
Sunday 4th , VS. Western Ontario.
Anyone going to this game?
I live out of state so I will be watching it on BUCKEYE vision.
This should be a good game for the coaches to set some line combinations up and see how the boys are clicking.
" DROP THE PUCK " or " DROP THE GLOVES. "
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
Under the old system, 3 points were awarded for shootout games -- two for the winner, 1 for the loser. In contrast, when actual hockey determined the winner, only two points were awarded. While I'm not arguing there was any actual collusion between teams to create more shootouts, the league was awarding extra credit when a shootout occurred. To me, the idea that a shootout should be officially recognized as more valuable than a regular game was one of the most galling aspects of the matter.
Further, the old system created an unhealthy incentive structure. Under last year's rules, there was no reason to avoid the shootout. The old system actually created an incentive to play for the tie. Granted, the maximum payoff was 2 points either way. But taking the game to a shootout meant you were guaranteed 1 point, thus eliminating half of the downside risk.
With the change, there is now a 1 point penalty for winning in a shootout. The maximum payoff for a real hockey victory is 3, the maximum payoff for a gimmick victory is 2. That's a much better situation, IMHO.
Re: How many points for a Chuck-a-Puck winner?
I certainly agree with your starting point -- I wish we hadn't added shootouts. But if the shootouts are a given, then the new point system should be seen as a significant improvement.Finally, in recent CCHA news, this was on OSU's hockey website:
This season, a regulation or sudden-death overtime win will earn a team three points in the standings, a shootout victory will garner two points, a shootout loss will be rewarded by one point, and a loss in regulation or overtime will mean no points. So, any game that goes to a shootout will see the victor credited with a tie and a shootout win in the conference standings, while the loser will receive credit for a tie.
I must admit I'm not a big fan of the shootout, but this just adds a gimmick to a gimmick. Heaven knows how they'll work out the tiebreakers this year. Paper/scissors/rock?
Under the old system, 3 points were awarded for shootout games -- two for the winner, 1 for the loser. In contrast, when actual hockey determined the winner, only two points were awarded. While I'm not arguing there was any actual collusion between teams to create more shootouts, the league was awarding extra credit when a shootout occurred. To me, the idea that a shootout should be officially recognized as more valuable than a regular game was one of the most galling aspects of the matter.
Further, the old system created an unhealthy incentive structure. Under last year's rules, there was no reason to avoid the shootout. The old system actually created an incentive to play for the tie. Granted, the maximum payoff was 2 points either way. But taking the game to a shootout meant you were guaranteed 1 point, thus eliminating half of the downside risk.
With the change, there is now a 1 point penalty for winning in a shootout. The maximum payoff for a real hockey victory is 3, the maximum payoff for a gimmick victory is 2. That's a much better situation, IMHO.
tic tac toe
Registered User
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
i will be there
Sunday 4th , VS. Western Ontario.
Anyone going to this game?
i will be there
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
Will you be there as a ;
Fan , Player , Zamboni Driver , Ref , or " BEER MAN. "
" GO BUCKS GO. "
Will you be there as a ;
Fan , Player , Zamboni Driver , Ref , or " BEER MAN. "
" GO BUCKS GO. "
Buckeyefan2009
Registered User
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
LETS PLAY HOCKEY! Any predictions on the year?
LETS PLAY HOCKEY! Any predictions on the year?
klbaum1077
Registered User
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
I think its a bad year if the bucks dont finish in the top 4 get a bye and make it back to the Tournament.
I think its a bad year if the bucks dont finish in the top 4 get a bye and make it back to the Tournament.
Draighlicht
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
especially since the coach is (supposedly) in the last year of his contract.
THE OHIO STATE
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
Here's how I see it ,
Coach = 50 %
Players = 50 %
Team-Work = 100 %
Here's how I see it ,
Coach = 50 %
Players = 50 %
Team-Work = 100 %
tic tac toe
Registered User
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
With last year's success, a lot of talent returning and lost very little one would think a top four finish would be easy. But one must consider, UM, ND and Miami should all three be a lock for a top four finish. The last spot will be a dog fight between Alaska, N Mich and OSU. Ohio St. will be a better team this and my finish 6th. That is assuming a surprise team doesn't jump into the mix(Blais/UNO). There is a chance ND could falter, lost two of their top scorers, G and a couple of key D-men, but they a still loaded.
With last year's success, a lot of talent returning and lost very little one would think a top four finish would be easy. But one must consider, UM, ND and Miami should all three be a lock for a top four finish. The last spot will be a dog fight between Alaska, N Mich and OSU. Ohio St. will be a better team this and my finish 6th. That is assuming a surprise team doesn't jump into the mix(Blais/UNO). There is a chance ND could falter, lost two of their top scorers, G and a couple of key D-men, but they a still loaded.
Draighlicht
New member
Re: Ohio State U. ( 2009-2010 )
I've seen it happen very often that a pre-season favorite simply lacks the chemistry among the players to be a good team. OSU went through this very recently after everyone thought they had made the break into the top echelon. They dropped like a rock. And it was only a couple of years ago the MSU was considered a lock for the top three.
Not saying one of these three will falter - only that it is more than possible. Talent and coaching can't make up for developing a wrong or bad attitude or a rash of injuries. Also when some team falters there is usually a surprise team coming out of nowhere.
Much to the chagrin of the media the games are played on the ice (or field, or court etc.) and not on computers or in the mind of so called experts.
As for the "Big Three" in the league....
I've seen it happen very often that a pre-season favorite simply lacks the chemistry among the players to be a good team. OSU went through this very recently after everyone thought they had made the break into the top echelon. They dropped like a rock. And it was only a couple of years ago the MSU was considered a lock for the top three.
Not saying one of these three will falter - only that it is more than possible. Talent and coaching can't make up for developing a wrong or bad attitude or a rash of injuries. Also when some team falters there is usually a surprise team coming out of nowhere.
Much to the chagrin of the media the games are played on the ice (or field, or court etc.) and not on computers or in the mind of so called experts.
- Status