I'm more concerned about how the Gophers never seem to get to the Frozen Four unless the games are played in their backyard.
Where did I read recently that all teams seem to have this issue? Teams that must fly to their regional have a significantly poorer record than those that bus in?
Where did I read recently that all teams seem to have this issue? Teams that must fly to their regional have a significantly poorer record than those that bus in?
Not sure where it was but I can confirm that I saw the same stats.
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
I'm defending having two regionals in the Northeast. My point was that you don't split hairs about the exact location of Bridgeport to reach that conclusion.
Apparently you're referring to things I've posted in the past? Or maybe you thought I was guilty of faint praise.
But I am sincere about this: If we're stuck with the current system, moving one of the Regionals further West in the name of greater neutrality would be a mistake.
I don't recall if I replied to you but often I'll reply as a continuation rather than rebuttal... frankly I'm not in the mood to think about this with any real depth.
BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09
Jerseys I would like to have:
Skating Friar Jersey
AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
Army Black Knight logo jersey
I'm more concerned about how the Gophers never seem to get to the Frozen Four unless the games are played in their backyard.
Well of course you'd find the cloud in the silver lining. The above is a pretty small sample size and their regional in 2002 wasn't in MN. Also remember the 2001 team was OT away from advancing and didn't thanks to a missed offsides call and a terrible penalty that allowed them to be tied with 3 seconds left. They've also had other close calls outside MN in regionals so it's not as though they've never had chances. Never mind none of the players on this roster were on any of those teams.
I don't recall if I replied to you but often I'll reply as a continuation rather than rebuttal... frankly I'm not in the mood to think about this with any real depth.
Fair enough & understood. Quite honestly the great regional debate could probably benefit from a year off. And in any event, we shouldn't be hijacking the Gophers' team thread for said topic.
Fair enough & understood. Quite honestly the great regional debate could probably benefit from a year off. And in any event, we shouldn't be hijacking the Gophers' team thread for said topic.
You and Pat are far more interesting than the usual hijackers.
Minnesota's Pride On Ice: 1974, 1976, 1979, 2002 & 2003 NCAA National Champions
And the preacher said, you know you always have the Lord by your side
And I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran
Twenty red lights in his honor
Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord
~Mick Jagger/Keith Richards
Don't know if anyone will answer tonight but......I have a plasma TV I bought because it was reviewed as better than LED for viewing hockey (especially 6-8 yrs ago when I got it). Well it just died, right before NCAA's start. Of course different internet reviews claim different things about different TV's so I am not sure what direction to go. I would really rather not spend more than about $500 (for 55 in) but the guy I talked to at Best Buy is telling me the high refresh rate of a Sony is the only thing that will satisfy me for hockey after having plasma ($800 on sale this week). But I am guessing a lot of you are watching on cheaper, older TV's (like the $400-500 range). Do you really notice an issue watching hockey? I just wonder if I could get by with choosing one of these with a decent refresh rate, and if it is only the videophiles that really notice? (I also want a TV that can be viewed from an angle, but apparently that has improved too in the last 5 years?) I don't want to regret my purchase the next 8-10 years, but also don't want to spend an extra $300. This is coming as enough of an unexpected hit already. Thanks if anyone responds.
Don't know if anyone will answer tonight but......I have a plasma TV I bought because it was reviewed as better than LED for viewing hockey (especially 6-8 yrs ago when I got it). Well it just died, right before NCAA's start. Of course different internet reviews claim different things about different TV's so I am not sure what direction to go. I would really rather not spend more than about $500 (for 55 in) but the guy I talked to at Best Buy is telling me the high refresh rate of a Sony is the only thing that will satisfy me for hockey after having plasma ($800 on sale this week). But I am guessing a lot of you are watching on cheaper, older TV's (like the $400-500 range). Do you really notice an issue watching hockey? I just wonder if I could get by with choosing one of these with a decent refresh rate, and if it is only the videophiles that really notice? (I also want a TV that can be viewed from an angle, but apparently that has improved too in the last 5 years?) I don't want to regret my purchase the next 8-10 years, but also don't want to spend an extra $300. This is coming as enough of an unexpected hit already. Thanks if anyone responds.
Koho, check out this site for independent recommendations: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/55-inch/best
It may be unrealistic to expect a great performer for sports with a wide viewing angle for less than $500. If getting the set you want turns out to be more than you're comfortable paying right now, I would depart with a set I'm not using right now for no charge. It's a Sony plasma that works like new, but is only 32". I'm not using it and it's just collecting dust. It may work as a bedroom set for you while you save up a few more bucks to get the set you really want. Send me a pm if interested; I'm in the western suburbs.
Koho, check out this site for independent recommendations: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/55-inch/best
It may be unrealistic to expect a great performer for sports with a wide viewing angle for less than $500. If getting the set you want turns out to be more than you're comfortable paying right now, I would depart with a set I'm not using right now for no charge. It's a Sony plasma that works like new, but is only 32". I'm not using it and it's just collecting dust. It may work as a bedroom set for you while you save up a few more bucks to get the set you really want. Send me a pm if interested; I'm in the western suburbs.
I'm up north. Thanks. I did get the TV to work through AV cables directly from the cable box, but won't work for DVD player, so not long-term solution. At least can get me through this weekend of hockey if I can't figure something out. And I was looking at some TV's that are $500 on sale, so slightly more than that. Just seems like they are miles ahead of what TV's were 10 years ago, so is a $500 TV really taht much worse than a $900 one?
Worst part of this is that I've read enough threads on people with a similar problem that I think I could fix mine, but you just can't find the part anymore.
Just seems like they are miles ahead of what TV's were 10 years ago, so is a $500 TV really taht much worse than a $900 one?
I think the answer is "no" if you're not too fussy and are on a budget! The 2017's are coming out, so it is a good time to pick up a discounted 2016 model.
Comment