Talk:Jack Semler

Trying to have a more realistic portrayal of my teams efforts versus “last three years in a row description”
My Maine team’s entry in to NCAA DIvision I Men’s Ice Hockey always played in the seventeen college Conference known as The Eastern College Athletic Conference, The ECAC. One of the biggest thrills was jockeying for position because newspapers would always list the ECAC one after the other from top to bottom all seventeen would be listed based on conference winning percentage. That was all that mattered! If you looked at that list at the end of conference play and you were in the top eight you had made the playoffs for single elimination games 8 goes to one, seven goes to two, six goes to three and five goes to four.

Our Team who had started in Division I the season of 79-80 floundered in 81-82 and 82-83 because having only started NCAA HOCKEY AT Orono in 77-78 a ton of seniors and very good seniors graduated in 1981. We finished dead last in The ECAC for the next two seasons, but in 83-84 our overall record was 14-20 and finally we had moved up four spots from those cellar dweller years. When I noticed that in the article about Maine we were given the last for three straight years moniker I literally thought there must be some mistake. I was happy that there was a reference we had shown improvement the year I resigned, but still we were referred to as last for three straight years. We were thirteenth in The Conference that year instead of the two years we were 17th in The Conference. That was the only ranking that meant anything,THE ECAC, but somehow the story of Maine Hockey has been being looked at solely for our ranking in the division of THE ECAC in which we were considered even though where we ranked in The Division meant nothing toward our standing in The Conference, The ECAC. Consider the fact that if Maine finished last at number 7 but that year seven of the eight highest winning percentages were in that Division would it be fair to characterize Maine finishing last in their Division for three years in a row have much to do with the story of the team because nobody was focused on anything to do with finish in your geographic grouping because it would have put Maine in the playoffs as the seventh seed. Where a team finishes should always be where did it’s winning percentage put them amongst the seventeen teams in The Conference, not their geographic Division. We got the monkey off our back that last year by finishing 13th instead of last in THE CONFERENCE for two straight years, not three and it only makes sense to comment on Maine’s finish based on Conference (ECAC) winning percentage, not the geographic division which is not what your rank in The Conference depended on! § Jack Semler 2600:1000:B151:A5CD:D062:A11F:E9F3:CAED (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B16D:E32E:E4AB:BBA:EB50:2B58 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are wanting to change. This is an encyclopedia and not the place for first person stories. In the furture, please use a "I want to change X to Y" format for edit request. Thanks &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   &laquo;Talk&raquo;  17:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Semler
REQUEST EDIT 2600:1000:B15B:4ADB:F9A7:38A1:8654:1B10 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The saying we were last should say for two years, not three.
Where it says we were last for three years it should say two years. The original editor used the geographic division where we were last instead of the conference rank which are how the playoff and final winning percentages were figured from. The ECAC WAS A SEVENTEEN team conference which competed playing the same number of games against one another to make the playoffs. If anybody from that era of ECAC DIVISION I Hockey if they read we were last for three straight years in a row would automatically think were were number 17 in the conference for three years in a row. We were only last for two years in a row and with our 83-84 team with a record of 14-20 we were 13th in The ECAC. It was before there was even a League of The State Colleges all in a conference called Hockey East which started with The 84-85 season. 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Jack Semler

Jack Semler
I would like where is says in original article Jack Semler for where it says “last for three years” to be changed to “last for two years”. I have made the case in all my talk pages that emphasis on rank needs to be based on The ECAC rank and we were 13th in the 83-84 season and no reference to three years in last place is historically correct. It is completely misguided for anyone who followed ECAC DIVISION I HOCKEY to be thinking we were last for three years in a row which is what that statement creates in the heads of ECAC DIVISION I FOLLOWERS HEADS. It is hugely inappropriate since there was no CONFERENCE called HOCKEY EAST UNTIL THE 84-85 season!

Sincerely,

Jack Semler 2600:1000:B16F:CD57:5897:5D71:AD87:6A60 (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please in your response tell me how I may change this myself if this admin help does not change it for me. I have been as you can tell in my talk pages making this case over and over again and the original article is deceiving to say the least and I would like to bring something this outlandish to a close. My players and myself deserve better for fighting our way out of the cellar in 83-84 In THE ECAC.

I just took out that part altogether due to Wikipedia's policy on original research. The source itself doesn't say anything about last or not, let alone for how many years. If you have a better source, such as a newspaper or magazine article or sports broadcast, please feel free to cite it in the follow-up request, along with request edit. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)