dagies

No Punk

Agree with you on the season as whole, but I think its arguable over the last 2 weekends of the season

I understand the point you are making, but is Duluth that much more blue collar than Grand Forks?

I certainly would have liked to see Jost stick around for another year for the program to really imprint on him. I suspect having been here less than 12 months he'll barely remember his time at UND.

Clearly, we're not married

He did one year, but if I recall correctly he gave it up after a while as it was difficult to act as a captain and play the position. it's been a long time, though, so someone feel free to correct me.

Armbrust's save % wasn't nearly that good....

True but they played without Boeser, or a healthy Boeser for a good share of the season. That accounts for some of it.

agree completely with this

No kidding, Brock must be loving the NHL compared to D1 defenses/goalies. Couldn't get those through either position at this level this year.

I saw that and was curious how that would play out, too. In the end, though, I agree with the logic employed to a certain extent. The initial offsides (if it was really offsides but not called) may not have provided an advantage to the attacking team, but the play that followed would never have happened if the call was made correctly on the ice. I do understand the logic here, and can understand the argument that says "yeah, but if the linesman had made the correct call in the first place we'd have never been scored on". I think that is a valid argument too. I also agree with the larger question of "well, in hockey there are lots of examples of things that are let go, so why does a missed offsides get to retroactively affect the game?" Someone, above, brought up a GREAT point.....especially late in games but even throughout officials will allow crosschecking, holding and interference in front of the net that would be called a penalty in other places on the rink. Why is that allowed, but a missed offsides is reviewable? Reason is called for and at some point reasonable people should find a concensus on how far back to go to review this sort of thing..

I think I understand the logic in going back to the zone entry to review a questionable entry, but you have laid out an oustanding argument why a situation like this provides a possible reason to NOT review that far back. I get it...the idea is if the zone entry was illegal play should have been stopped (it wasn't but should have been) and that would have negated all that came after. But it seems reasonable to apply some, ah, reason to the situation and you've laid out a good case study for it. I'm still burned by what is considered incontrovertible evidence, because I don't think what the public has had access to meets the criteria. (welcome back, PCM!)

Pretty much how i feel too

Do unto others.....

Post of the year!

Agreed, I wasn't saying it hurt Brock. I wonder if guys start to weigh the risk of getting hurt while in college, before they sign that contract. Or the chance of an injury affecting the contract options they could have.

I wonder how much Boeser being injured most of the year affects how guys look at signing early

Travis Roche

If it goes long enough UMD won't even have to fake it

As said, keep shooting and get bodies in front. That pinball will end up on our paddle eventually

I feel that way too. Nice recovery after a tough first 5 or so minutes of the 2nd. I like the last half of the period, need to keep that up and not make a bad mistake that costs us

I think I read they are Big10

:-)

Welcome aboard and thank you for your service

my gut perceived the same thing based on what I read