PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota Gophers Season Thread - 2016-2017



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20

Patman
03-21-2017, 12:55 PM
:confused:

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.

Slap Shot
03-21-2017, 05:04 PM
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.

pgb-ohio
03-21-2017, 07:14 PM
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.

Greyeagle
03-21-2017, 07:51 PM
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. :)

D2D
03-21-2017, 08:06 PM
You and Pat are far more interesting than the usual hijackers. :)
pgb-ohio is one of the "Three Stars of the Forum". ;)

pgb-ohio
03-21-2017, 10:41 PM
You and Pat are far more interesting than the usual hijackers. :)


pgb-ohio is one of the "Three Stars of the Forum". ;)Generous & way too generous, respectively. But I have to admit that those posts were nice to see. Thank you both for the kind words.

Koho
03-22-2017, 08:14 PM
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.

D2D
03-22-2017, 09:27 PM
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
03-22-2017, 10:06 PM
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.

D2D
03-22-2017, 10:28 PM
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.

Good luck, and GO GOPHERS! :)

Great Day for Hockey
03-22-2017, 10:47 PM
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.

My better half picked up a 46 in Samsung led a few years ago for right around your price range. I know she got it on sale and time wasn't an issue. It's 1080p and 60 Hz but I can adjust it to 120 Hz (which I do for any sports). It gives a good clear picture for hockey games. No blurring or streaking. The picture from the sides is good also. I guess at a minimum I would recommend 1080p and 120 hz. Haven't done much research on tvs for a couple years so not sure what's standard now and what it costs. Good luck. (To you, not the gophers)

dxmnkd316
03-23-2017, 12:19 AM
Nothing will replace a high end plasma like the Kuro or the Panasonic VT series but it had zero to do with refresh. It has everything to do with black level and color reproduction.

Plasma is the closest thing to CRT we have that can be easily scaled to that size. The problem is no one makes plasma anymore, which makes me insanely sad. I'm glad I got a 65" VT50 while they were still in production. I'll pay to have it repaired if it dies.

If you want to get close, you'll need a full panel backlit LED screen. Not one with just the edge backlit.

don't bother paying extra for 4K.

Oh, and there is a big difference between a $500 tv and a $1,000 tv. But if you can't tell the difference, buy the $500 one.

Koho
03-23-2017, 06:19 AM
Nothing will replace a high end plasma like the Kuro or the Panasonic VT series but it had zero to do with refresh. It has everything to do with black level and color reproduction.

Plasma is the closest thing to CRT we have that can be easily scaled to that size. The problem is no one makes plasma anymore, which makes me insanely sad. I'm glad I got a 65" VT50 while they were still in production. I'll pay to have it repaired if it dies.

If you want to get close, you'll need a full panel backlit LED screen. Not one with just the edge backlit.

don't bother paying extra for 4K.

Oh, and there is a big difference between a $500 tv and a $1,000 tv. But if you can't tell the difference, buy the $500 one.

So plasma was on its way out when I got mine. And I remember reading that part of the reason was they didn't look great under the artificial lighting of stores (a bunch of fluorescent lights) so people didn't see their superior picture they would have in their homes. So this also makes me wonder how well I can compare LED TV's in a store.

dxmnkd316
03-23-2017, 07:59 AM
Could be. The biggest problem is that stores turn their TVs up to ultra brightness instead of having them properly calibrated. People think it looks better in the stores, probably the fluorescents*, they spend a wad, and don't get a great picture. They might be happy with it for a long time. Who knows. LEDs aren't bad TVs, they just won't be as good as plasmas.

* this almost certainly explains why Best Buy and other major stores would put their highest end TVs in a separate section, dimly lit with warm lights, and isolated from the fluorescents. Also it gives an air of superiority, but I'm guessing if you stacked a $3k TV next to a $750 TV in the main floor and cranked the brightness, it would probably be hard to sell a $3k TV.

5mn_Major
03-25-2017, 05:14 PM
Congrats to the guys on a decent season. It is frustrating to seemingly have this happen the first weekend of the NCAAs as many times as it does. But we have not been playing stellar hockey - 3-4-1 over the last 8 with some pretty soft teams in that mix. I do wonder if perhaps the team just overachieved in the middle part of the season.

Rabid Gopher
03-25-2017, 05:19 PM
****, I'm tired of this BS.
Now I gotta watch the Mild end their season in a colossal train wreck too.

state of hockey
03-25-2017, 05:22 PM
****, I'm tired of this BS.
Now I gotta watch the Mild end their season in a colossal train wreck too.

We don't have to watch at all.

But, we will. It's what us saps do.

Koho
03-25-2017, 05:40 PM
We don't have to watch at all.

But, we will. It's what us saps do.

Why the he!! do we invest so much emotionally? Builds up over a whole season, to end in one game. Seems this team didn't learn from several games this year where they got a lead and started dumping it out more often than trying to attack and extend the lead.

Thanks Seniors for a fun run. Too bad you didn't get a win today. Hopefully everyone else returns.

Gurtholfin
03-25-2017, 10:14 PM
If anyone sees Happy, tell him I said congrats on the Championship Year.

J.D.
03-25-2017, 10:21 PM
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.

That 2001 game against maine wasn't a QF game. Winner got BC next day.