The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

[jcarter7669]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Haiku.

Elephant walkers...
Winning beanpot tougher than
beating yale, air force

So true, Nick. Winning two games against unranked opponents will be a monumental task.

[joegrav]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

*****http://i476.***********.com/albums/rr125/paullopez41491/no-hippies.jpg******

[Chickens@NU]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

This is not our year. I give up. I'm only going because I have to. And it's fun to make fun of bu/bc fanboys.

[Rover]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

I for one am inclined to cut BC fans some slack. They've been a bit cranky since last April when they realized their chances of catching BU in total championships went up in smoke. Its even worse when you consider that York can't coach forever, and once he retires in a bid to add some glitz to the program the leading candidate to take over coaching duties is Fred Smerlas.

[joegrav]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

They've been a bit cranky since last April when they realized their chances of catching BU in total championships went up in smoke. )

Personally, I don't care about 5 championships. North Dakota has 7. Why would I care about having 5? I know you have more than we do, but neither of us are as good as North Dakota, so obviously we both suck.

Plus, you have the added pain of being so close to NoDak's title count, yet so far away. I'd rather just be where we are.

[BUT09]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Personally, I don't care about 5 championships. North Dakota has 7. Why would I care about having 5? I know you have more than we do, but neither of us are as good as North Dakota, so obviously we both suck.

Plus, you have the added pain of being so close to NoDak's title count, yet so far away. I'd rather just be where we are.

Uh, Michigan has 9. So why would we care about being close to NoDak?

[joegrav]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Uh, Michigan has 9. So why would we care about being close to NoDak?

Oh shizzle, I just got roasted.

Even better. 5 is closer to 3 than it is to 9! WE BOTH SUCK!

[joegrav]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

The one thing I do like about "Rover Logic" is that it means Vermont=Merrimack

[Rover]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

WE BOTH SUCK!

Speak for yourself. But as you seem to be having some trouble with math, 5 > 3.

Vermont = Merrimac....well, Merrimac does have that popular radio announcer....

[Terrier520]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Random question: Why was the garden able to put down a "beanpot sheet" for the 06 'pot and not able to do so since?

Does it have something to do with NU coming apart?

[Agganis]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Random question: Why was the garden able to put down a "beanpot sheet" for the 06 'pot and not able to do so since?

Does it have something to do with NU coming apart?

Wasn't it '05? And then it'd be because that pesky little NHL started playing again and the Bruins wanted their logo on the ice for their games, the nerve of them

[TonyTheTiger20]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Random question: Why was the garden able to put down a "beanpot sheet" for the 06 'pot and not able to do so since?

Does it have something to do with NU coming apart?

Why didn't you respond to us saying you're a creeper? Is it because you're a creeper?

[bostonfan86]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Rosie's Rebounds from Inside Hockey with Beanpot Talk. First I hope everyone gets the important message from George W. Bush regarding the month of February (first video)

http://www.insidehockey.com/columns/5737

[SteveF]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

Uh, Michigan has 9. So why would we care about being close to NoDak?

well he clearly is using the BU logic of discounting all old national championships to somehow discredit BC's 1949 title. so once we wipe out all those from the 40's and 50's, michigan actually goes down to 3.

I just wish I knew what the rationale was for selecting years to wipe out, other than selectively doing it to cover years BC won, because I cant wait till we get to wipe out the 70's!

[Rover]

Re: The 2010 Beanpot: Featuring One Team Under Consideration

well he clearly is using the BU logic of discounting all old national championships to somehow discredit BC's 1949 title. so once we wipe out all those from the 40's and 50's, michigan actually goes down to 3.

You might want to consider that. I heard something like the rules for eligibility were different during those years when Michigan ran up all those titles, maybe minor league players could play college too or something??? Find some old geezer to clarify that for me, will ya?