PDA

View Full Version : how come?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Osorojo
09-28-2010, 11:20 AM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs? Better coaching? Brighter players? More stable rosters? Smarter recruiting? Any opinions about this phenomenon, excluding outbursts of scatology?

ronmexico
09-28-2010, 11:25 AM
scatology

Did someone say fecal freak?

Dirty
09-28-2010, 11:28 AM
Because:
Polls are meaningless.
Players at Ivy League schools may not get athletic scholarships, they still often get financial assistance.

Now that that has been settled, please start your next pointless thread. Thank You.

owslachief
09-28-2010, 11:33 AM
insuperable (5 syllables, maximum esoterica)
phenomenon (4)
scatology (4, medium esoterica)
absolutely (4)
regularly (4)

Couldn't you have put this in the form of a haiku? a pole?

Hammer
09-28-2010, 11:34 AM
Couldn't you have put this in the form of a haiku? a pole?

Poles don't matter.

FlagDUDE08
09-28-2010, 11:37 AM
How come this poster
Makes ridiculous topics
Someone drop the puck.

owslachief
09-28-2010, 11:39 AM
How come this poster
Makes ridiculous topics
Someone drop the puck.

:)

Nick Papagiorgio
09-28-2010, 11:39 AM
He is annoying.
Cause he's missing chromosomes.
I blame his parents.

Driftryder
09-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs?

Because poles do not matter. How many Ivy league schools have won a NC?

LynahFan
09-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Because poles do not matter. How many Ivy league schools have won a NC?
2. Brown and Dartmouth have both been runners up - but it's been a while. :)

owslachief
09-28-2010, 12:12 PM
http://i438.***********.com/albums/qq109/Obitheincredible/Funny/ThreadFailure.png

LtPowers
09-28-2010, 12:12 PM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Let's stop you right there. Who says this? I think most would acknowledge that while it's a valid route to success, there are other routes. Those other routes may require more effort (in recruiting and in finding financial aid for players) and maybe even more luck (in finding recruits who are not destined to leave for the pros in a year or two), but I don't think anyone denies they exist.


Powers &8^]

LynahFan
09-28-2010, 12:13 PM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs? Better coaching? Brighter players? More stable rosters? Smarter recruiting? Any opinions about this phenomenon, excluding outbursts of scatology?

It all depends how you define success. Would Michigan, Nodak, BC, et al be satisfied with being in a top 10 poll (or even ranking) every couple years? No, they would not. For any team to achieve the level of success that those types of teams want, it would need to give out 18 scholarships and would need to bring in at least a few truly gifted players even at the risk that some of them could be gone in a couple years.

The idea that Yale or Cornell (the current tops of the Ivies) is actually on par with the true powerhouses is preposterous - they aren't. People consider Cornell to have been on a "good run" lately, but they've missed the NCAA tournament 5 out of the last 11 years - hardly one of the elite teams in college hockey. Yale's success is more recent, so it's hard to say if it will stick, but recent trends make it seem unlikely. The last Ivy NCAA championship was 21 years ago, and no Ivy has even made the championship game since then. I'm content with the current level of Ivy play - but let's not kid ourselves by thinking that they're elite teams.

Runninwiththedogs
09-28-2010, 12:22 PM
I believe Red Bear
Is suffering from some form
Of Tourette's Syndrome.

Is there another
Possible explanation
for all of his posts?

Possibly he thinks
this is some form of flirting
and he wants Dirty.

FadeToBlack&Gold
09-28-2010, 12:24 PM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs? Better coaching? Brighter players? More stable rosters? Smarter recruiting? Any opinions about this phenomenon, excluding outbursts of scatology?

Because you touch yourself at night.

jcarter7669
09-28-2010, 01:57 PM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs? Better coaching? Brighter players? More stable rosters? Smarter recruiting? Any opinions about this phenomenon, excluding outbursts of scatology?

I really can't figure out why I respond to you. I must be going insane. But here goes :

a.) no one says that. Your last thead that generated discussion on the subject result in the statements that it typically leads to an increase in success, but never that success is dependent on a one and done or 18 scholarships. You are misrepresenting what was said.

B.) Ivy league schools have a successful recruiting tool, namely that you can get an education at an elite institution. Moreover, athletic scholarships aren't necessary when for example Harvard meets 100% of financial needs. So while there are no athletic scholarships it maybe close to a free ride. And you get the benefit of a Harvard education.


http://i158.***********.com/albums/t85/cyber619312/CatsaysYouFail.jpg

Jon
09-28-2010, 02:25 PM
Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs?

According to Brown's radio team, it has a lot to do with the awful officiating in the ECAC.

According to Harvard's radio team, it has to do with the slow slowing style of Big Red Hockey.

And we really really don't want your opinions on the subject.

wolverineTrumpet
09-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs?

Probability? :p

Top 10 teams / 5 conferences = 2 teams per conference

(yes I know the Ivy League isn't a hockey conference...blah blah...I don't care)

The Sicatoka
09-28-2010, 03:29 PM
Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs?

Ivy League females don't shave; they go for that Euro/green/'back to nature' (hairy legs, hairy pits, hairy backs :eek: ) thing.

Without females to focus on, they devote that extra time to hockey.

And they still don't win the Title.

MikeAnderson
09-28-2010, 03:41 PM
Popular opinion insists that the success of a D1 college hockey program absolutely depends upon 18 hockey scholarships and a roster which relies upon recruits who will probably leave college after a year or two.

Facing these (reportedly) insuperable obstacles how come the Ivy League manages to regularly put two or three schools in the top ten D1 hockey programs? Better coaching? Brighter players? More stable rosters? Smarter recruiting? Any opinions about this phenomenon, excluding outbursts of scatology?

Why is there is overarching opinion that if a college student begins work in his field before completing his degree that he is a "failure" or that his school has "failed" him.

Alabama-Huntsville is a rocket scientist school. Plenty of undergrads there start becoming rocket scientists professionally long before their degrees are conferred through internships and the coop program. This is seen as "a good thing," and a success on a part of the institution.

Same kid plays on the hockey team, gets selected to become a professional athlete and pursues that career path, and this is seen as a failure on the part of the school.

Both people were prepared by their institutions for their eventual career paths.

Why is one necessarily better than the other?