TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: The Patty Kazmaier Memorial Award
Also, PICARD??
Literally zero (0) people in this thread have said, implied, or believe that , [c], or [d] have anything to do with the Kaz. However, while [a] is not in and of itself "what the award is about," it is nonetheless pretty damn good quantitative evidence that can be used to help determine who the top player in Division I women's ice hockey is.
How did you get "popularity contest" out of that?
This is ridiculous. The award is about the top player in the sport. Not everyone gets to be the top player in the sport and very few are even worthy of consideration.
Wow. Where to begin with this.I am sorry I just had to chime in here.
That's because 1) the thread is like 12 hours old, and 2) none of those players are the top player in Division I women's ice hockey, with the possible exception of Brandt, who *was* mentioned.Cracks me how some get caught up in the moment. None of you have ever mentioned Poulin, Brandt, Picard, Saulnier, Coyne, MacAuley or Hensley.
Also, PICARD??
From what I read, the award is NOT about [a] how many points you can get behind a stacked team, what your last name is, [c] how much press you get or [d] where you (or were not) born !
Literally zero (0) people in this thread have said, implied, or believe that , [c], or [d] have anything to do with the Kaz. However, while [a] is not in and of itself "what the award is about," it is nonetheless pretty damn good quantitative evidence that can be used to help determine who the top player in Division I women's ice hockey is.
I will give it to you on this one. The top players in any sport routinely are not clutch, are not competitive in the least, and hate the game they play. Hate it. This is well known.I read things like clutch player, love of the game, individual and team skills, competitiveness & love of hockey.
Please find one person in this thread who thinks this is about it being a popularity contest. In fact the bulk of this thread has been about which under-appreciated players from lesser teams should get some love in the voting -- a totally valid argument to be made. Which honestly might even be your point, I can't really tell.NOTHING about it being a popularity contest.
How did you get "popularity contest" out of that?
I literally have no idea what this means.I am not saying who should win or who should not win. I am just saying that the fact that NONE of these ladies were even mentioned shows me it is turning into a popularity contest.
Post #1 of this thread outlines the very clear criteria for which the Kaz is awarded. The post is actually labelled "The selection criteria"A criteria, I would guess, was never entered into the origin of this honorary award.
Yeah man, like, dude, we should, like, EXPAND OUR MINDS! Start a team in Colorado while we're at it.Women's hockey has grown exponentially in the past several years. Lets let our minds grow as well.
This is ridiculous. The award is about the top player in the sport. Not everyone gets to be the top player in the sport and very few are even worthy of consideration.
THIS IS NOT A THINGLets not get caught up in archaic female bantering of Miss Popularity.
That's adorable. There are lots of very good players. But this is a thread for discussion about who wins the award for the top player in women's hockey. If you want to create an award for "all these ladies and many more who are all winners in my book" then you might want to start a new thread.Lets try to be the athletically intelligent people that all of these wonderful ladies deserve. Good Luck to ALL. I personally would like to thank all of these ladies and many more for bringing women's athleticism to another level. You are all pioneers and winners in my book.
Last edited: