Snake

Members
  • Content count

    1,530
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About Snake

  1. The only reason DU has a shot at back-to-back next season is because we had so many early departures last season. We should be talking three-peat!
  2. Bjorgstrom and Monty should just go to Florida together. Win-Win!
  3. The NCAA always has them at the top of their preseason list to do the title game. It's the most likely scenario!
  4. Interesting move if true. Would think an expansion franchise would want someone with NHL experience, but it would certainly be a clean start for them.
  5. My guess would be Florida. Tandem deal with Borgstrom, haha!
  6. Perhaps, but if the best league in the world comes calling I don't know how you turn that down.
  7. I have to think Monty is on someone's short list. If he talked to Calgary last year, his stock only increased this year. There are already three NHL openings with only one interim coach in the playoffs. It'll be interesting for sure.
  8. He'll get an NHL job.
  9. Not to mention Montgomery. If he got looks last year, his stock is very high. Already three NHL teams with interim coaches, so who knows.
  10. I'm not advocating for or against checking...just thinking out loud about how it would be implemented and what a potential unintended consequence could be. It would certainly increase the entertainment value, but as for player development I could argue that a larger talent pool would force the "shity" players to improve more so than forcing them to deal with checking. I could also argue that allowing checking in the world championships would widen the gap between the North American teams and the rest of the world, making the non-USA/Canada games even more unwatchable. I feel they are that much better. If checking means less players playing through High School, I don't want it. If it doesn't affect growth or enhances it, put me in the "yes" column! I gotta think/hope that it has at least been talked about or studied by the sport's governing bodies.
  11. Will adding checking at the higher levels, say 15U and above, increase or decrease the number of girls playing the sport at those levels? If it causes the numbers to decline, I want nothing to do with checking. This sport needs more athletes, plain and simple. The USA and Canada dominate because they have the numbers. The only way the college game will get better is if the talent pool grows. Mediocre teams that can check are still mediocre.
  12. I thought I saw the officials mouth "well, they did lose to Michigan State, so it can't possibly be a legit goal." You were so right!
  13. Don't forget that anything goes as long as it's "within the context of the game."
  14. Do all college rinks have the same height glass these days? Could that be why it's not implemented?
  15. I think you're both right since Reebok and CCM have consolidated under the CCM brand.