Hammy

A little touchy?

They started off 11-0-2 two years ago. That's not too shabby is it? Last season, they were way too banged up in the early months that we had very little shot at catching CC for the league title. I do understand your point and I think every coach tries to emphasize playing their best hockey in March and (hopefully) April. However, they only lost 8 games each season the last two years so obviously Lucia doesn't overlook the importance of regular season play either. Otherwise, they wouldn't have earned a bye and a #2 seed two years ago nor a #1 seed this past season. When all is said and done though, I wouldn't trade spots with either Denver or CC from the past two years. If winning the WCHA next year means not winning the national title, let somebody else have it. I'd rather win three in a row.

As was pointed out to Gopher fans for MANY years (often by Sioux and Badger fans), "best talent" doesn't necessarily equate to the best team. I can't tell you how many times that was stuffed in our face prior to the last two years..... When all is said and done, the "best" team is who takes the title at the end. Otherwise, we'd be crowning a different champ than NJ and we'd be crowning a different champ than the Gophers. When people think of the best team in the NHL, they don't think of the Presidents' Cup winner.... they think of the Stanley Cup champ. Same goes for NCAA hockey. I don't recall any Gopher fans saying the title is going to be handed to the team. In fact, I would say I have seen those types of comments coming more from fans of other teams than anything else. I would say when you look at what they did last year and, at this point, what they return (and add) to the team next fall (only guy lost at this stage is DeMarchi).... you'd be hard pressed right now to argue another team that is clearly better than them.

What does that have to do with next year? Its one thing if your logic is that another team will be better than them, etc. but what does the last two years have to do with potentially winning the league next year? The Sioux didn't win the league the last two years either.... does that mean they won't next year either?

I think the Wild don't really have one trend over the other. There are instances in which they have been more patient and a few instances in which they did the opposite. For instance, if you look at Bouchard, I don't see him as being far superior to Parise. Bouchard is physically even smaller than Parise is and I would gather they are relatively similar in regards to hockey sense and skill..... the Wild felt Bouchard was ready to play NHL last year so it is possible they may feel similar about Parise. I would also say that unlike some NHL teams, the Wild seem more open to bringing smaller players into the lineup at a faster pace. But I don't feel anybody can honestly say what they'd do because the Wild haven't shown a major tendency either way. If they feel a guy is ready (even one as slight as Bouchard), they will take him right away. Risebrough has mentioned that the team is looking to get younger as well so they may be looking to bring more prospects in to challenge. My feeling is Parise will be gone if the Wild stay in their current draft spot anyway. I am hoping they'll trade up from their current spot to get a better player but I guess we'll see.

So you are saying I should receive a pay check from the U athletic department for PR work or something? No worries dagies. We can agree to disagree.

And Erickson can as well. That door was still left open for him. It is up to him to walk through it or go elsewhere.

My points are more aimed at some Sioux fans who talk about "Blais should cut this guy cause he sucks" more than I am saying Blais actually does it. I don't have enough first hand knowledge to say whether he has or hasn't done it with some of the departing players (though I do tease some Sioux fans about it cause it does ruffle their feathers). You have to admit, there have been more guys leaving the Sioux program for unexpected reasons than most clubs which does raise an eyebrow and make you wonder.

You mean just like Blais did with Quinn Fylling? Check the facts. Erickson's scholarship is waiting for him if he wants to come back. He only left because he couldn't get the kind of ice time he sorely needed. His scholarship was never taken away and he could have stayed had he chosen to. If you are gonna try to make Lucia look bad, you may want to at least try doing it with a player that isn't quoted as saying he respects the program and where the coach says he can return with the same scholarship he had before.

Somehow I doubt they'd be complaining about heading 300 miles down the road based on the last two seasons.

Obviously not every player is approached the same way. But I don't know many parents who have a son recruited that think it is only for one year. Recruiting battles can be lost on relatively minor factors. If a recruit feels a coach isn't as committed to him as other coaches are..... well, you figure out what the results are likely to be. I am sure prospective players will enjoy reading that type of thinking from an "insider" of the Sioux. Food for thought for them.

Maybe the coach needs to do a better job assessing some players then so it doesn't come to that kind of a situation? It seems to me this aspect is sort of overlooked. As if it is all on the player's shoulders. But shouldn't the coach also be held accountable for recruiting the player? Obviously the coach made a mistake in his own right if he has to resort to cutting a scholarship player. But I don't see much criticism towards a coach. It always seems to be a player's fault. (and I mean that in general. Not saying that for the Sioux alone). BTW, I don't have any issues with walk on players not making it. They aren't guaranteed anything other than a chance to try out.

If I recall, Lucia also eventually helped arrange for Cugnet to be able to stay at school at CC (if he wanted to) by getting him scholarship help via the academic route. Like I said, I don't have a problem when a coach cuts a kid for not working hard in practice, class, etc. I just have a problem with it when it a player is cut because he didn't produce in games as the coach thought he would when he was recruited.

I am not saying Lucia isn't honest with a player and doesn't tell him his opportunities may be limited if his play doesn't improve. What I am saying is he doesn't pull scholarships based on that nor forces a kid to leave because of that reason. Even Lucia says he doesn't pull scholarships based on that because he doesn't feel comfortable doing it. Like I said, unless you want to call Lucia a liar (and I don't think many people would connect that label with him), he doesn't do it. Unless it was an academic situation (and I believe he had one instance at both CC and MN in which there was a behavioral casualty), he doesn't show a kid the door based on stats. I do think it is unfortunate that college hockey seems to have taken on a more professional "tone" than it was in the past. The player movement these days seems to be much greater than it was 10+ years ago and I find that unfortunate.

I know I tease people on this topic but all my point has ever been is that if a kid is going to class and gets decent grades, follows team/school rules and does his work in practice, then a coach should not cut his scholly. I don't have a problem with a coach if he boots a player for breaking team rules (academics or poor behavior). But when a coach cuts based on mostly game performance, that reeks too much of pro sports rather than college. I have a problem with any coach that cuts a scholarship simply because of game performance. I realize the ultimate judge of athletic performance is how you play in games but I just feel there is more to college sports than just the games. After all, that is why they call them "student-athletes". If a coach wants to be able to cut based strictly on game performance, maybe that coach ought to consider going to the pro ranks where it is a common practice. As for Lucia, he has not pulled one scholarship because of a player's game performance. There have been a few academic casualties (Roed & Welch), a behavioral issue (Meyer) and a few kids decided to leave to find more playing time (and these kids were quoted as saying as such and Lucia maintained that they could stay with the team with their scholarship intact if they wanted). There is no spin involved (unless you want to call the players and Lucia a liar).

I didn't see Grant in HS but I did watch him play for Lincoln a few times prior to being a Gopher and I felt he was worthy of recruitment to the U in his own right at that time. He has exceeded my expectations from the standpoint of how good he has been scoring goals but his leadership, grit (something the Gophers needed) and hard work have been exactly as expected. We needed a guy like him. I don't believe Lucia is gonna waste scholarship money on a player he doesn't think can contribute nicely to the team in his own right just so he can gamble on landing a sibling a few years later. Lucia may have had some brother combos in his time as a coach but most of them were talented in their own right.

Sica, I was just curious. I don't know anything about his status but I came across that info last week and I found it curious for them to pick up an established college player for no reason. I do feel it is a little different than Crosby's situation since he was purely a flier draft pick for Lincoln as opposed to putting a guy on a protected list out of nowhere.

Is Genoway for sure going to return to the Sioux? I saw that a Major Jr. team put him on their protected list recently.... kind of makes you wonder if he could be a roster casualty?

I agree on the above comment Scott. Though the Gophers have had some pretty good success with NTDP players, I feel more comfortable when Lucia recruits like he has this year and lands guys who have had high success against USHL competition than to recruit too much from a NTDP team that is often built more on promise than anything else. Yes, some NTDP players pan out nicely but not as often as some people would like to think. Though some Badger fans like to use age as a reason for the results, I think it is pretty telling how poorly the US team fared this year against USHL teams in head to head play (and the USHL isn't as "old" as it was years ago as they have more players still attending HS than ever before). Whatever the age, all those kids will be the same next fall as they will all be lumped in as freshman... and I'd rather have more guys who proved themselves against the best in juniors.

I believe once they do the draft lottery and find out who gets to move up via that route, they go by what the final seedings were heading into the playoffs to shuffle out the rest. For instance, Carolina had the lowest point total of the 6 divisional winners from last year's regular season and picked 25th in the 2002 draft. Yet they went to the finals against Detroit and were runners up for the title. Since Carolina didn't pick 2nd to last in the 1st round last year, the NHL must stick to what the playoff seedings are when deciding draft spots. Since the Wild are the 11th overall seed this year, they would pick #20 overall no matter what they did in the playoffs.