jimdahl

I think Stafford has the potential to be a big upside surprise for Sioux fans. He's had an absolutely amazing year, exceeding expectations at all levels. I think he's been kind of living in the shadows of some other potential superstars at S-SM (e.g. Crosby), so hasn't gotten as much press attention as he maybe would have elsewhere. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly optimistic about Bina being an impact player, but don't know a LOT about him, either. It sounds like Smaby could be an impact at D pretty quickly (hopefully he won't take too many penalties).

The NCC press release.

I don't think he was trying to win friends, rather he's trying to get under the skin of Wild fans, and it seems to have worked. I've seen threads about this on every message board visited by Twin Cities-area hockey fans. Point, Kiszla. It's not like he's just making it up the anti-Wild animosity, either. There is a lot of dislike for the Wild among NHL fans outside the 200-mile radius around Minneapolis. The Wild engage in a perfectly legal style of play that annoys everyone who's not a fan (and bores quite a few people who are fans). Wild fans can now correctly respond, "but we win games with it," and that is the best revenge; but they can't complain that they're unpopular. Lest I now get eviscerated-- yes, Kiszla was classless and a major homer. I'm just saying there's a reason you see articles like this about the Wild but not about other playoff teams that had just as few or fewer regular season points (Lightning, Caps, Bruins, Islanders, Ducks, Oilers). Well, maybe the Islanders...

Here's my stat on how crazy UND goaltending got (and I don't think non-UND fans really realized it): No single UND goaltender exceeded 45% of the conference playing time last season. I struggle to think of a successful team (I'll even call the Wild successful for the purposes of this argument) with a similar statistic. It's not a slam on the players. I think Brandt could have been "the man". I think Ranfranz or Siembeda might have been able to, also. Unfortunately, none of them were able to with 45%, 35%, and 20% of the playing time, respectively.

Hmm... I immediately question any argument that can be summarized, "ZZZ is good. Look at the Minnesota Wild, they do ZZZ." Having a second viable goalie is undoubtedly a good thing -- stuff happens. To have that second goalie be viable, he has to get play time. Giving just one goalie ALL the play time is a bad thing. However, there's a line somewhere and I've never seen a successful team at college level or above that plays musical goalies to the extent UND did this Spring.

On the subject of how players react to their particular opponents on the ice, the Sioux problems the second half of this year seemed largely mental. We all saw their talent, even in brief periods of some of the games they lost. They just seemed to play to the level of every opponent, managing to lose by one point to good and bad teams alike. The last 8 regular season game had 2 wins, 2 ties, and 4 losses (each by one point). I fully believe the Sioux next year will have as many talented players as anyone. However, I also think it could still be "glory" or "bust". The big question is what changes are occurring in the mental game? What will make those players win next year instead of drop the close, late-season games? One big change is everyone is a year older. Can some of these young guys step up and be leaders? Another change is a slightly better schedule -- still too many home before Christmas and road after, but the competition is spread much more evenly. I think a better balance in the schedule will help the team develop better. A big Q is goaltending. I was convinced all Spring that our musical goaltending game did nothing to help the team mentally (and I was rabidly derided by other Sioux fans for sharing that opinion). If they can show any stability in goaltending, that could be a big mental change for the Sioux. Again, we don't need Goehring (who would actually win games for you), just someone "good enough" (who keeps you in games and gives you a chance to win). I think last two years we've tried too hard to force one of our goaltenders to become the next Goehring.

Most of the photos we post are from the professional photographer for USCHO, PCM, who has press credentials for home UND games. Any tournaments he attended, I believe he did solely as a spectator. Regardless, our photo collections are a unique service in college hockey, and it's a great privilege that USCHO and PCM share the collections of photos of UND home games with SiouxSports. I know both Kirk and I have also previously submitted amateur photos (from our seats) of some games that we attended. I didn't make it to any tournament games this year, and I believe Kirk was out of the country for most of them. That said, this is completely a fan-driven effort. If anyone ever has anything they think is worth sharing with the SiouxSports community, please contact administrator and we'll do what we can to make it as easy as possible for you to share it. Literally any contributions of interest to other Sioux fans are welcome and appreciated!

I've actually wanted to make this point for a while, but wanted to let things cool down a bit first, lest it seem like sour grapes. I think a significant contribution to the Gophers' ability to repeat was that they came into the season an underdog. When you're the favorite all season, it's very difficult to make it through the NCAA tournament. Using a Sioux example, after 1997 the Sioux were considered a likely champion going into both '98 and '99. Tee times in April were our reward. Then when the Sioux entered the 2000 "rebuilding year", we marched on to another championship (don't even get me started on the 2001 repeat near-miss). This year the Gophers were expected to be a decent team, and expectations diminished after a slow start. Next year they're EXPECTED to win the national championship because of minimal player losses. The expectation to be the best (that wasn't on the Gophers this year) is what makes it really hard to repeat. On the other hand, the Sioux are reasonably confident of their prospects, but opponents don't share our optimism. That may make the road a bit easier for the Sioux, IF we field the quality of team of which these players are capable.

Leif, you never should have mentioned that. I checked tonight and it was ABOUT to be the new name for this site, but apparently ganggreen.com is already taken for some crazy war-related site.

Unlike some of our friendlier rivalries, there seems to be real hatred between some Sioux and Bison fans. In an attempt to raise these arguments to the level of civil, I requested last Fall that Bison fans refrain from intentional misspellings of UND and its nickname (which just serves to inflame, so reduces the likelihood of logic-based responses). Those Bison fans who remain have been generally quite courteous, so I would be remiss in not requesting reciprocity from UND fans. That said, "screaming yellow" should go down in history as one of the biggest marketing blunders ever. Even spelled properly, it brings an unpleasant image to mind

A new student resistance to the seat move, reports the Dakota Student (link will probably only work until Apr 18, I don't know why the DS doesn't archive stories like it used to).

There's no doubt we all have our biases and many of us Sioux fans would like to see a weakened Gopher team (though it would be even more fun to beat them next year with no excuses). However, I think the speculation here might be a little more objective on this one. College players going directly to the NHL is really a pretty recent phenomenon that has ramped up dramatically the last few years. Year after year we've seen the claims that players are going to stay, until the money is on the table. That's particularly true after a championship. Though recent Gopher recruiting successes have resulted in a record number of drafted players on the team, the Gophers haven't yet experienced the revolving door because they're relatively new to success in the direct-to-NHL era. Maybe the Gopher players have more loyalty to UMN, have more interest in getting a college degree, or Lucia is better at making them stay. My guess, until it's proven wrong, is that money talks for almost everyone with pro athletics aspirations.

If you're 20 or under on December 31 of the draft year (unlike the lower boundry which depends on your age as of Sept 15), you're eligible for the entry draft. Anyone not eligible for the entry draft (and whose rights aren't owned) is essentially a free agent. The big exception is that players from outside North America always have to go through the entry draft, regardless of age. Hockey's Future has a really good explanation of the draft. Note that is page 1 of 3, but is the one that deals with eligibility. The others are about where players come form, and how NHL teams scout and rank players.

Phoenix has Jones' rights. Pittsburgh has Schneider. FYI yellowdog-- your opinion of next year's Sioux team, though you're entitled to it, has absolutely nothing to do with whether a Sioux player leaves early. My point was that the teams' opinion of their possible contention next year could have some influence over a player's decision whether to stay or leave. Trust me, the team thinks they could contend.

I've already given my speculation about likely Gopher losses next year (Vanek gone, Ballard on the edge)... however, I'm not sure UND is done bleeding yet, either. There will certainly be mutiple Sioux players with offers on the table this summer. One of the only advantages of not coming of a national championship is a slightly reduced likelihood of players bolting (particularly since there's a general feeling that UND could contend next year).

UND isn't really built for rioting -- there isn't an on-campus/near-campus bar area like most large schools have. You really need all the students in one place and drunk to have a good riot. Plus it's way too cold to riot in Grand Forks in April (though my little Yahoo! weather map says G.F. is 82 today).

I would guess that Vanek is as good as gone. Ballard wouldn't surprise me either (Buffalo could use the help).

A UNH choke, how familiar... Minnesota seems to have been saving all of their steam for a late third period burst. I'm a little surprised they became more aggressive at that point in the game rather than more defensive, but you can't argue with the result.

I think the forecheck improved a bit after Minnesota's goal (as I mentioned above), but not nearly as much as the backcheck improved. They definitely seem to lack aggressiveness on offense so far. My end of the 2nd update: That period looked much more like I expected the game to look. UNH successfully choked off a lot more of the shots, Ayers was superb. Lucia now says the way to win is to get more shots off with traffic in front of the net (I said that yesterday!) UNH failed to generate much offense. I was really surprised UNH didn't generate better opportunities on that end-of-the-2nd power play (and almost gave up a SH!) Their offense has been spotty.

After the 1st: I think Minnesota read my post about the UNH D smothering them on shots -- the Gophers seem to be doing whatever they can to put the puck on net, taking a lot of low percentage outside shots. Of course, that's not a criticism, a slapshot straight into Ayers slipped in the five-hole. Up until Minnesota scored it looked like they controlled the ice, easily skating around UNH like they did Ferris. However, I thought UNH really stepped up the neutral zone checking (in both directions) after UMN's first goal. They really started limiting the outside shots at that point, too. What's up with UNH's power play? The first one was one of the most pathetic I've ever seen in playoff hockey. Then on the power play right before the period ended they could shoot and pass at will -- it was like it was a drill with no D on the ice. UMN had two pretty good power plays; as a lot of people predicted, stupid penalties by UNH might be the key to this game.

I'll repeat my response to StreakyGophers "Who can possibly be better than Minnesota next year?" thread: I think Minnesota is going to be the best team in the WCHA next year in much the same way as everyone thought Denver was going to be the best team in the WCHA this year.

If bad things come in threes, we've had our three for the month. There was (yet again) an hour or two of forum downtime this afternoon. Apparently almost everyone who uses PHP & MySQL has been having problems the last few days as some critical pieces of software have begun to require an upgrade to MySQL 4.x. That upgrade apparently causes problems with lots of other widely used software. The downtime lasted so long because I was in the midst of a Zelda marathon and failed to check my email. Since it is such a widespread problem, lots of people are working on it so I'm confident it will be resolved soon. In the meantime, I've installed a "band aid" script that verifies the SQL tables for the forums every 15 minutes, so until they fix this problem we shouldn't ever have more than 15 minutes of downtime.

The possible way I think UNH could win is if their aggressive, physical defense can keep Minnesota from carrying the puck to the net, and leave them dumping and chasing. The ideal UNH battle plan should involve keeping UMN under 25-30 shots. Clearly Ayers being on his game could magnify that problem dramatically. "Wait, Jim," you say? "Wasn't Minnesota tested just recently against a similar team in Ferris St?" Not a bit -- Ferris was thuggy, but they were SLLOOOWWW. The Gophers had plenty of room to just skate around the backcheck (think of how many times that happened). I don't think UNH is quite that slow and I don't think the Gophers will quite have the room. So how does Minnesota win in this situation? Plenty of ways -- be willing to move the puck through traffic in the zone, or put up a mighty defensive effort and hold UNH to a couple goals. The UNH offense wasn't particularly impressive yesterday (the only time I've seen them play), but I don't how much of that was the mighty Cornell D. Keep in mind that I've seen UNH play one opponent who is very different from UMN. However, if UNH plays like they did on Thursady, I'd be surprised if Minnesota won this game on forechecks or breakaways. It's always interesting to see a finesse team clash with an aggressive D, and very tough to predict the outcome.

As the announcers said, it's pretty tricky to wave off a high stick goal on the basis of video replay when the high stick standard is no longer visually measurable (i.e. goal crossbar, some body part of the player), but rather 4 feet. It's sure to be a very controversial call. They need to put those height measurement lines like they have at 7-11 on the boards.

Hmmm... I think we're all agreeing but don't realize it (or don't want to admit it). That's exactly what I meant two posts up when I said: Like teamsioux alluded to, this isn't the 6000 fan per game team we had back in '96. Sioux football is hot right now riding a new stadium and one year removed from a national championship (despite a mediocre finish last year), so the timing is right to step up and sink in some $$$ to improve the product.