@bearpaw28 it’s really not even packed. And all the sue fans bitched about the “ lack “ of seating. When they played on Friday there were so many empty seats so in all reality, it was the perfect venue. and also what would a game like state vs w mich look like at the Ralph? It would be a cave!
I would bet dollars to donuts that people bought tix to re-sell them, and the inflated prices kept some of those seats from being resold.
And when you see prices at $800 a ticket, you don’t even bother making the trip. If they’re less, you can maybe stomach trying to get down there and get in for cheaper.
Not exactly sure where to put this so I am going to put here. We bought tickets back at release date and were 100% planning on coming regardless of if the Gophs made it or not. But now with 4 teams that I don't see I can see myself rooting for at ALL, is it worth it to go? We have never been to a FF before, is the atmosphere worth it even though the teams are less than ideal? Any input appreciated haha
I've been to two (Denver, St Paul; and MN was not there either time). It is fun, it basically comes down to what you make it out to be. If you don't care about the games, dump the tix, and make it a general vacation. Go sight-see, tour the town, whatever.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
I've been to two (Denver, St Paul; and MN was not there either time). It is fun, it basically comes down to what you make it out to be. If you don't care about the games, dump the tix, and make it a general vacation. Go sight-see, tour the town, whatever.
yeah my debate is on dumping them for a bunch to make myself feel better given there should be pretty massive demand for the tickets
To me, UND is worse. They have ONE D1 Dream. Let's kill it. WI, 2nd, just due to proximity and other sports options. MI, don't care. Yeah, hate 'em, but don't really register unless asked.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
Does anyone know when the last time none of the #1 seeds lost in the first round? I know there was a long stretch of years with at least one upset.
When you say first round, do you mean the regional semis or the regional finals? According to wikipedia, all the #1 seeds advanced to the region finals in 2022. Also, per Schlossman (quoted above), it hasn't happened since the NC$$ went to a 16 team tournament in 2002-2003.
The last time the top seeds from each region advanced to the Frozen Four was 1996, when it was a 12 team tournament with only two regions. Top seeds that year were BU (E1) and Vermont (E2) in the Eastern Region and CC (W1) and UMi (W2) in the West.
Tact is the ability to step on a man's toes without messing up the shine on his shoes - Harry S Truman
Does anyone know when the last time none of the #1 seeds lost in the first round? I know there was a long stretch of years with at least one upset.
When you say first round, do you mean the regional semis or the regional finals? According to wikipedia, all the #1 seeds advanced to the region finals in 2022. Also, per Schlossman (quoted above), it hasn't happened since the NC$$ went to a 16 team tournament in 2002-2003.
The last time the top seeds from each region advanced to the Frozen Four was 1996, when it was a 12 team tournament with only two regions. Top seeds that year were BU (E1) and Vermont (E2) in the Eastern Region and CC (W1) and UMi (W2) in the West.
Wow. Thanks. This just confirms I have no memory. Been running a work bracket since about 2006 and I used to include stats on how many 3 and 4 seeds make frozen Four and how many #1's get upset in first game since the bracket started. Seemed like a first seed always lost in first game for a while back, and often two, but forgot about 2022. Seems like last few years higher seeds are winning higher percentage of games than they were like 5-10 years ago. (But that assumes my memory works.)
We tend to talk about how important it is to have an older team and teams don't win with a bunch of blue chip youngsters. (Nice way to justify in our minds when the superstar decommits or we miss a potential first rounder.) I have also felt this way as we've seen those teams lose regularly, albeit in a one-and-done. I run an office bracket and for fun score brackets based on if the higher seed always wins, if the team picked by a coin flip wins and if the oldest team wins, just so people can see how they would have done if they used one of these methods. I searched on age and found a page on CHN that I think is from this year with mean age of teams. So far in the NCAA tourney (if I am looking at correct season) the only game in which the older team won was Quinnipiac over Wisconsin. The youngest team in the country is BC and second is Denver, with BU at 4th youngest. Michigan is at 54th in age, with younger teams in tourney including MN, Cornell, Wisconsin and Mich State. RIT is oldest team in country.
We tend to talk about how important it is to have an older team and teams don't win with a bunch of blue chip youngsters. (Nice way to justify in our minds when the superstar decommits or we miss a potential first rounder.) I have also felt this way as we've seen those teams lose regularly, albeit in a one-and-done. I run an office bracket and for fun score brackets based on if the higher seed always wins, if the team picked by a coin flip wins and if the oldest team wins, just so people can see how they would have done if they used one of these methods. I searched on age and found a page on CHN that I think is from this year with mean age of teams. So far in the NCAA tourney (if I am looking at correct season) the only game in which the older team won was Quinnipiac over Wisconsin. The youngest team in the country is BC and second is Denver, with BU at 4th youngest. Michigan is at 54th in age, with younger teams in tourney including MN, Cornell, Wisconsin and Mich State. RIT is oldest team in country.
average age is probably not the best way to look at this anymore. Michigans top 6 scorers are all sophomores or older. Denver has 2 freshman in their top 11 scorers (and one is going to be a top ten pick this year). BU has Celibrini, but that roster is full of sophomores as well as upperclassmen who score plenty. BC is a generational team right now with friends who decided to go and play together. What I’m meaning by all of this is you need some high end guys, but you need contributing veterans. Years in college is a better thing to look at as average age is going to get skewed by teams who can’t/don’t get guys who come in before they play 3 years of juniors. In spite of how “old” we were this year, we were still tied for 7th youngest this year because of how young our players are when they enter college comparatively
Off topic but whatever happened to UMD? What's going on up there? They suddenly dropped out of sight. No NIL $$$ ? Transfer portal? Not enough fiber in their diet?
The dreaded blind pass behind the net by the defense bit BU. You almost wonder if the Denver player called for the puck how it came right to him. Caron for mvp in this one
That was really close to head first into the boards, scary hit, I was glad to see him get up and skate away from that one, he just got his head turned enough to save himself
