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.

RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

rpi82 said:
Quick question about the game itself:

On the 3rd Colgate goal that was an absolute buzz killer, why was icing waived off? From my seat on the Troy side I couldn't see whether the puck was deflected by a forechecker or some other reason for it. The bench didn't argue so perhaps it was obvious from the other side. Did anyone get a good look?
Click to expand...

This was a matter of much discussion in our section as well. We also were wondering why Colgate was allowed to get away with a pretty clear elbow to the head right in front of the net just before the goal as well.

I wasn't impressed with any of Colgate's first three goals - the first was on a really questionable penalty, the second obviously we put in our own net (which this team has just been waiting to have happen to it since October the way it has handled the puck in its own zone), and the third had that icing waved off at the last second. The arms were in the air, we won the race to the dot, and then suddenly it's waved off.

Of course, their last five goals were less questionable, so it doesn't matter.
 
ServinisScores said:
in the 23 years leading up to "the Split" there were 10 different ECAC tournament champions, in a league that varied from 15-17 teams, ~ 60% of the competitors won.

Since the split, there have been 8 different champions, which is 75% of competitors winning.

In Hockey East, there have been 6 different tourney champs, in a league that has varied from 8-11 competitors, ~ 60% winning.

I'm not sure there's enough of an imbalance in these numbers to claim superiority, w/ the exception of BC and BU. But, I don't think that's the argument here.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how relevant Northeastern's 1988 HE tournament championship or the scatter plot of the ECAC in the 1970s really is to the balance of the leagues in the 21st century. Frankly, I don't think it is even close.

During Friday night's game the announcers mentioned how much Shafer wants to win the regular season because they haven't done so since 2004 (actually '04-'05). That surprised me since the Big Red have been the league's strongest team overall during that stretch.

Over the last 7 years the ECAC has had 7 different teams ( including ties) win the regular season title. That compares with just 4 different teams winning HE during its entire 27 year lifespan and 3 in the last 7 years. The ECAC has had 5 different tournament winners in those years versus 2 for HE. Perhaps most shocking, 9 out of 12 ECAC teams (75%!!) have won either a regular season or tournament title during that period versus 3 out of ten for HE. The difference in balance is clear.

Perhaps most importantly, we are one of the 25%. We should get more consistently competitive at our current level before making a leap to a more highly regarded league that has been dominated by a few superpowers with larger enrollments, more admissions flexibility, better facilities and far more recognition with recruits.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

The kvetching about Freakout can stop any time now, because it's circular and irrelevant. It's not going anywhere because of the value it has for the school's alumni relations - it's essentially hockey homecoming and the events surrounding the game draw alums back to campus. Don't complain about alums who only come back for Freakout, many of them come from a long ways out for the game (or even the full weekend). If you want to point to an issue with Freakout, blame townies and students who only turn out for Freakout. They don't have an excuse. Fortunately we have solid turnout from both of those groups on a regular basis so this really doesn't bother me except for on an individual level.

Whether Appert treats Freakout as a special occasion or not is going to be an issue with some people no matter what. If he does, there will be those that will complain that it's worth as much as any other league game where it matters (which is the attitude that he appears to take). When he doesn't, people complain that the team underperforms.

I do think back to the impact of the 2002 Freakout on a number of levels. The team had been playing very uneven hockey up to that point, and the impact of that win propelled them to a very outstanding finish. There was a sense of pride in the locker room back then as well about the event. I was invited to the "after after party" that night and Matt Murley told me that the attitude in the locker room in the 2nd intermission, down 3-0 to Clarkson on Freakout, was pretty mean. He shouted at his teammates, "we don't ****ing lose Freakout," and they didn't. To be quite honest, I didn't see any indication on the ice that the game was at all important to anyone.

Just my observation.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

rpi82 said:
Quick question about the game itself:

On the 3rd Colgate goal that was an absolute buzz killer, why was icing waived off? From my seat on the Troy side I couldn't see whether the puck was deflected by a forechecker or some other reason for it. The bench didn't argue so perhaps it was obvious from the other side. Did anyone get a good look?
Click to expand...

I thought that I was the only one who thought it should have been icing. When no one complained, I just thought that I was wrong. I was gonna go get my eyes checked until your post. Thanks.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Red Cloud said:
The kvetching about Freakout can stop any time now, because it's circular and irrelevant. It's not going anywhere because of the value it has for the school's alumni relations - it's essentially hockey homecoming and the events surrounding the game draw alums back to campus. Don't complain about alums who only come back for Freakout, many of them come from a long ways out for the game (or even the full weekend). If you want to point to an issue with Freakout, blame townies and students who only turn out for Freakout. They don't have an excuse. Fortunately we have solid turnout from both of those groups on a regular basis so this really doesn't bother me except for on an individual level.

Whether Appert treats Freakout as a special occasion or not is going to be an issue with some people no matter what. If he does, there will be those that will complain that it's worth as much as any other league game where it matters (which is the attitude that he appears to take). When he doesn't, people complain that the team underperforms.

I do think back to the impact of the 2002 Freakout on a number of levels. The team had been playing very uneven hockey up to that point, and the impact of that win propelled them to a very outstanding finish. There was a sense of pride in the locker room back then as well about the event. I was invited to the "after after party" that night and Matt Murley told me that the attitude in the locker room in the 2nd intermission, down 3-0 to Clarkson on Freakout, was pretty mean. He shouted at his teammates, "we don't ****ing lose Freakout," and they didn't. To be quite honest, I didn't see any indication on the ice that the game was at all important to anyone.

Just my observation.
Click to expand...

Great insight and great post. Thank you.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

You know, Freakout and Black Friday aside, I noticed a couple of other games that were mentioned as "big games": Union and CCT. I sometimes like to make the joke that the fair weather fan's season consists of 3 games: Freakout, CCT, and at CCT. If we were to consider a move to Hockey East, what would happen from that standpoint?
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

hockeymascot said:
I'm sure his record doesn't bother SA based on the way he was throwing them back at the Alumni House after the game, once the team FINALLY showed up!!
Click to expand...

What are you ... his mother? SA is always gracious, even in defeat.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

FlagDUDE08 said:
You know, Freakout and Black Friday aside, I noticed a couple of other games that were mentioned as "big games": Union and CCT. I sometimes like to make the joke that the fair weather fan's season consists of 3 games: Freakout, CCT, and at CCT. If we were to consider a move to Hockey East, what would happen from that standpoint?
Click to expand...

The worst thing would be that we would lose the fairweather fans -- and how bad is that?

Seriously, the freakout would remain and I am sure that the FWF would find another team to subsititute for CCT, assuming that they don't remain on the schedule.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

rpi82 said:
I'm not sure how relevant Northeastern's 1988 HE tournament championship or the scatter plot of the ECAC in the 1970s really is to the balance of the leagues in the 21st century. Frankly, I don't think it is even close.

During Friday night's game the announcers mentioned how much Shafer wants to win the regular season because they haven't done so since 2004 (actually '04-'05). That surprised me since the Big Red have been the league's strongest team overall during that stretch.

Over the last 7 years the ECAC has had 7 different teams ( including ties) win the regular season title. That compares with just 4 different teams winning HE during its entire 27 year lifespan and 3 in the last 7 years. The ECAC has had 5 different tournament winners in those years versus 2 for HE. Perhaps most shocking, 9 out of 12 ECAC teams (75%!!) have won either a regular season or tournament title during that period versus 3 out of ten for HE. The difference in balance is clear.

Perhaps most importantly, we are one of the 25%. We should get more consistently competitive at our current level before making a leap to a more highly regarded league that has been dominated by a few superpowers with larger enrollments, more admissions flexibility, better facilities and far more recognition with recruits.
Click to expand...

I'm comparing tournament championships, not regular season ones. Regular season titles sound good on the golf course, but don't mean much otherwise.

Besides that, you're twisting the data. The "scatter plot" of the pre-split data you refer to makes no sense to me. If you move time periods around, you can make the data look any way you want. Example, from 88-01, SLU, Clarkson and Cornell accounted for 10 of the 13 titles in the ECAC. NU's 88 title is just as relevant as Princeton's in 2008.

I will concede BU and BC have distanced themselves, even within HE. If yoou skim those 2 teams off the top, the differentiation/ shift of power is not that great, and similar in each league.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Red Cloud said:
The kvetching about Freakout can stop any time now, because it's circular and irrelevant. It's not going anywhere because of the value it has for the school's alumni relations - it's essentially hockey homecoming and the events surrounding the game draw alums back to campus. Don't complain about alums who only come back for Freakout, many of them come from a long ways out for the game (or even the full weekend). If you want to point to an issue with Freakout, blame townies and students who only turn out for Freakout. They don't have an excuse. Fortunately we have solid turnout from both of those groups on a regular basis so this really doesn't bother me except for on an individual level.

Whether Appert treats Freakout as a special occasion or not is going to be an issue with some people no matter what. If he does, there will be those that will complain that it's worth as much as any other league game where it matters (which is the attitude that he appears to take). When he doesn't, people complain that the team underperforms.

I do think back to the impact of the 2002 Freakout on a number of levels. The team had been playing very uneven hockey up to that point, and the impact of that win propelled them to a very outstanding finish. There was a sense of pride in the locker room back then as well about the event. I was invited to the "after after party" that night and Matt Murley told me that the attitude in the locker room in the 2nd intermission, down 3-0 to Clarkson on Freakout, was pretty mean. He shouted at his teammates, "we don't ****ing lose Freakout," and they didn't. To be quite honest, I didn't see any indication on the ice that the game was at all important to anyone.

Just my observation.
Click to expand...

Great post. The team and parts of fan base buying into the BRF is "just another game" is depressing and tells a lot about the state of the program and fanbase.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

It's everyone for themselves, but we'll get together for a while.
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

ServinisScores said:
I'm comparing tournament championships, not regular season ones. Regular season titles sound good on the golf course, but don't mean much otherwise.

Besides that, you're twisting the data. The "scatter plot" of the pre-split data you refer to makes no sense to me. If you move time periods around, you can make the data look any way you want. Example, from 88-01, SLU, Clarkson and Cornell accounted for 10 of the 13 titles in the ECAC. NU's 88 title is just as relevant as Princeton's in 2008.

I will concede BU and BC have distanced themselves, even within HE. If yoou skim those 2 teams off the top, the differentiation/ shift of power is not that great, and similar in each league.
Click to expand...

College hockey has changed tremendously in the last 30 years (or 23 since NU last won). In those days when I went on a road trip to UNH, BC or BU it would be to rinks like Snively Arena, McHugh Forum or Walter Brown Arena - all of which were dwarfed by the RPI Field House. Now the powers have invested in facilities like the Whittemore Center, Conte Forum and Agganis Arena that offer far more fan and player features - not to mention some of the even larger new facilities out west. Power schools have invested heavily in hockey as a revenue sport. Those teams have also become dominant in league play. That's become particularly apparent in HE. While some second tier HE programs will eventually again have a day in the sun (I never liked UML, but I'll be rooting for them next month), for many years none has been able to attain the level necessary to win a title or sustain excellence.

As for regular season stats, I think they are much more indicative of the balance of power in a league than tournament championships. While regular season champs don't get the automatic bid, they are effectively in as they've built up a strong RPI with week to week and game to game excellence. A lesser team might get hot enough to win 4 or 6 games in a tournament, but the real balance of the league is revealed by who can bring it over a 4-5 month season. By that measure, the ECAC has nearly 2x as many different winners in the last 7 years as HE has had in 27. However, if you want to focus on tournaments, the ECAC has also had more different tournament winners in the last 7 years than HE has had in the last 15. Those are huge margins.

I chuckled at the comment about removing BU and BC and then the balance of power is similar. Of course, if you remove the teams that have won 17 out of 27 tournaments (including 7 in a row) and 19 out of 27 regular season championships the rest of the league is more balanced. It basically makes my point. If you wanted to remove 2 ECAC teams it wouldn't be clear which to remove because no teams have had nearly the dominance in the ECAC as those two have had in HE.

Is the ECAC as powerful as HE? Of course not. However, we've seen that any team can rise to top of the ECAC over a few year period while that has not been the case in HE. The latter is dominated by a few schools with bigger budgets, facilities and reputations - a trend that is likely to continue, if not accelerate, with the addition of ND. Let's take advantage of the opportunities that the ECAC offers and then we can think about taking on the more difficult challenge of HE.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Pensfan08's wife summed it up well: Great players, horrible team. I've been saying that since November. We have terrific athletes that have a tremendous amount of talent and proudly wear those letters on the backs of their jerseys.

This has been a long time coming...wait for it....wait for it....wait for it....I BELIEVE THE LETTERS ARE ON THE FRONT OF THE JERSEYS....Just sayin
 
Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

troyboy said:
Pensfan08's wife summed it up well: Great players, horrible team. I've been saying that since November. We have terrific athletes that have a tremendous amount of talent and proudly wear those letters on the backs of their jerseys.

This has been a long time coming...wait for it....wait for it....wait for it....I BELIEVE THE LETTERS ARE ON THE FRONT OF THE JERSEYS....Just sayin
Click to expand...

Wow, Michael Bay got closer to the point with Pearl Harbor then you got with my post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top