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.

Reforming College Hockey

Re: Reforming College Hockey

bigblue_dl said:
I guess I should be more clear now that the list is getting big.
4. Darwin
15. Thomas Jefferson
64. Picasso
19. Michelangelo
Be more clear on one of those other ones you suggested, I'm not sure if who you're suggesting is who I think it is. ;)
Click to expand...

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

ts8801 said:
note: we are think your idea is bat sh** crazy, not the idea of a min GSR to compete in the playoffs, I would be fine with a 50% min.

Now take you solution and and apply it to the financial (i guess 75% is good enough for you but not as a GSR) markets. Would it be to completely close all of the banks in the US and instead only use credit unions? That idea is bat sh** crazy, just like yours. What is happening in reality is there will be better regulation, in the NCAA their might be a new rule. Your proposal is the insane thought of a bored geriatric.
Click to expand...

"We?" Are you royalty, or do you have a mouse in your pocket? Wait. "There will be better regulation." You are a fortune teller! Awesome. Tell me when this better regulation will arrive and who will enforce it. Just don't say the NCAA, which is firmly commited by practice and precedent to welcome teams with 8% GSR's (2010 Maryland b-ball) into post season playoffs.
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
"We?" Are you royalty, or do you have a mouse in your pocket? Wait. "There will be better regulation." You are a fortune teller! Awesome. Tell me when this better regulation will arrive and who will enforce it. Just don't say the NCAA, which is firmly commited by practice and precedent to welcome teams with 8% GSR's (2010 Maryland b-ball) into post season playoffs.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are being serious, insulting, joking, or just being an arse. Either way, basketball (aka bouncy-ball, handball, etc...) doesn't count. :p

If they do, then consider Duke and Kentucky. :p
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

Osorojo said:
"We?" Are you royalty, or do you have a mouse in your pocket? Wait. "There will be better regulation." You are a fortune teller! Awesome. Tell me when this better regulation will arrive and who will enforce it. Just don't say the NCAA, which is firmly commited by practice and precedent to welcome teams with 8% GSR's (2010 Maryland b-ball) into post season playoffs.
Click to expand...

yes I meant we; Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer:

We think you are bat **** crazy, proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You draw parallels between sports that do not exist. The GSR's of college basketball team's are not relevant to hockey. The reason they are not relevant is because of the new NBA rules requiring players to wait at least one year after high school before they enter the NBA. This causes all of the kids who would normally go straight to the NBA, are almost all going into D1.

Also better regulation is coming because some is coming, I don't know if you actually follow things like this but I do on a daily basis.

Finally I am done arguing with you until you learn how to spell, for strike three its committed. You fail at the most basic level, you over look the most minor details or are so inept you do not know how to use spell check, do you even know what that red squiggly line means?
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

ts8801 said:
yes I meant we; Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer:

We think you are bat **** crazy, proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Yep, I completely agree, so there are more than one of us who think this, so "we" is correct.

Finally I am done arguing with you until you learn how to spell, for strike three its committed.
Click to expand...
However, I just have to call out your improper spelling of the contraction for "it is," mostly because I'm a big fan of irony. :)
 
Re: Reforming College Hockey

LynahFan said:
Yep, I completely agree, so there are more than one of us who think this, so "we" is correct.


However, I just have to call out your improper spelling of the contraction for "it is," mostly because I'm a big fan of irony. :)
Click to expand...

Not to mention, "overlook" is a compound word, instead of two words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top