my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by Peter J. Tolm » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Since my favorite team lost in the last round, I have been thinking up the
most appropriate response to help me through the grieving process. And
here's what I say: so what if the Canucks were swept by the hawks this
year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and so the
Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a true
championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have looked
back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose they
officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

pjt

 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by John Carah » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
> year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and so the
> Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a true
> championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
> didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have looked
> back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose they
> officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
> half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

It was only a matter of time before someone said this... and it's nonsense
(and implicitly you agree by labeling it "sour grapes"). The fact is, the
regular season ceased to mean much to all but the marginal teams long ago,
and was plenty long enough that any team that deserved a shot at the Cup
had a fair chance to make the playoffs. And that's all that really matters.
--
John Caraher


 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by Nestor Ocam » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and so the
>Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a true
>championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
>didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have looked
>back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose they
>officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
>half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

>pjt

So what would your rationale be when the lose next year?

the 2-3-2 got them to the finals last year..

although i admit, vancouver's rookies look promising..
i doubt that even the "2-3-2" could save them this year.. or even the
next!
--

                               o o      go wings!
                        ---oOO-(_)-OOo---    

 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by nogal.. » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> Since my favorite team lost in the last round, I have been thinking up the
> most appropriate response to help me through the grieving process. And
> here's what I say: so what if the Canucks were swept by the hawks this
> year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and so the
> Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a true
> championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
> didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have looked
> back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose they
> officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
> half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

Sorry, but I can't quite agree with your logic.  Of course the regular
season was a lot shorter, but the playoffs are still the same length.  
AND, the majority of the teams make it into the playoffs.  I always
see the post regular season as, "OK, they've warmed up, the stats are
in place, now they're ready to play for when it counts."  After all, if
there's one thing that history has showed us, ANYTHING can happen in
the playoffs, and the regular season isn't necessarily an indication of
the outcome.

Just my 2 cents.

Renee

dd

Quote:
> pjt

 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by Sam Gaylo » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00

When the entire season is used only to eliminate 25% of the teams, the
regular season doesn't mean much anyway, no mater how long it is.

samg

 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by Andrew Surowi » Sat, 10 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>Since my favorite team lost in the last round, I have been thinking up
the
>most appropriate response to help me through the grieving process. And
>here's what I say: so what if the Canucks were swept by the hawks this
>year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and
so the
>Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a
true
>championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
>didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have
looked
>back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose
they
>officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
>half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

>pjt

Yes, but now when the Wings win the Cup this year, the hockey
historians will be able to look back and say that this year was the
beginning of a three or four year Detroit Red Wing Stanley Cup Dy***.

Andy

 
 
 

my "sour grapes" rationale for this years stanley cup

Post by Larry Lato » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Since my favorite team lost in the last round, I have been thinking up the
> > most appropriate response to help me through the grieving process. And
> > here's what I say: so what if the Canucks were swept by the hawks this
> > year, it's a bogus cup anyway. They only played a *half* season, and so the
> > Cup is only worth *half* as much this year... in fact, it ain't even a true
> > championship -- it being just half a Cup. And you know, I'm glad they
> > didn't win this year, because the future hockey historians would have looked
> > back at the 1995 Cup and said -- "ah, the Canucks, well, i suppose they
> > officially have a Stanley Cup, but  that was the year they only played
> > half the season, so it doesn't really count...."

> Sorry, but I can't quite agree with your logic.  Of course the regular
> season was a lot shorter, but the playoffs are still the same length.  
> AND, the majority of the teams make it into the playoffs.  I always
> see the post regular season as, "OK, they've warmed up, the stats are
> in place, now they're ready to play for when it counts."  After all, if
> there's one thing that history has showed us, ANYTHING can happen in
> the playoffs, and the regular season isn't necessarily an indication of
> the outcome.

> Just my 2 cents.

> Renee

Agreed.  Remember just a few years ago.  The Minnisota North Stars were
the 2nd worse team in the NHL, but because the worst team in the NHL
was in the same division, the Stars made it to the playoffs....and eventually
on to the Stanley Cup Finals.  The regular season has, and probably always
will, mean nothing when it comes to the playoffs.

IMO

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   /\/\     /\/\/\      /\           /\/\/\     Lawrence A. Latouf
 /\         /\    /\    /\         /\           General Dynamics Land Systems
 /\  /\/\   /\    /\    /\           /\/\       Vetronics Software Engineer

  /\/\/\    /\/\/\      /\/\/\/\   /\/\/\

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------