PCM

Am I the only one who saw the story WDAZ ran on Zach between periods during the CC series? It was produced by a Minneapolis TV station while Zach was back at Shattuck after the WJC. When asked how long he'd play college hockey, Zach said that if it were up to him, he'd leave as soon as possible. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for staying at UND for four years or even two years. However, it does sound as if he will follow his father's advice on what to do.

I've heard lots of things said. Until the season is done and we see where Zach goes in the NHL draft, anything said is pure speculation.

Your guess is as good as mine.

I saw Brian Canady at the game last night and talked to him a bit. He said his knee is coming around very well and he expects to be playing again soon. That's good news for him and the Sioux.

daigies, it's tough for me to single out any player on any line because last night, they all looked good. Connelly continued to play as hard and as well as he has been. He just keeps missing on scoring opportunities. He had a couple of good opportunities against MTU and just couldn't cash in. You figure it's just a matter of time before he buries some of them.

When I asked Sertich if he was going to change anything on Saturday, he said, "My underwear."

After the game against MTU Friday night, Mike Sertich was being interviewd by us media jackals. He asked a reporter who he was with. When he gave his radio station call letters, Sertich said, "Is that Ed Schultz? I'm not talking to Ed Schultz." When the reporter assured Sertich that he wasn't with Schultz's station, KFGO, Sertich said, "Good idea because I'd kill 'em. I'd be right around with Blaiser. If he missed, I'd get 'em. Call me the Houghton Taliban. Oscar bin Loggin." Vintage Sertich!

I suspect that Blais wants the NCAA to mandate that all rinks be the same size, not the WCHA. Aren't most rinks in other leagues NHL size or as least closer to NHL specs than Olympic specs?

forecheck did such a great job with her total recall of the coaches show that I have nothing to add to her excellent synopsis. I listened to the show, but I was in the process of writing an article about David Hale for USCHO based on my interview with him Wednesday evening. With any luck, the story will be posted there before too long. Edit: My USCHO article on David Hale can be found here.

Scott, I agree that goaltending remains the Achilles heal of this team, although I don't think that either Jake or Josh played poorly this past weekend. I recall that the 2000-2001 season wasn't Goehring's best, but it was good enough to get the Sioux into the Frozen Four championship game. Hope might be slim at this point, but I sitll think the Sioux are far from out of it.

Here's one: Only one penalty on Greene during the series!

I totally agree, jk. And, yes, Marvin and Leinweber were both on the ice much longer than they normally would have been. I know they were on during one of the odd-man rushes on which CC scored and I believe during one of the power play goals. I'm not blaming them, but I think they're best as spot players to give the top four guys an occasional breather.

I was hoping to hear some post-game comments from Blais, but I imagine that between the officiating, the CC fan doing whatever and Liebel's act at the end, it was probably better that he didn't say anything. There's no question that CC deserved both wins. Although I don't know how much difference it would have made, I wish David Hale could have played.

I just noticed in the box score from last night's game: NO penalties on Greene! Blais says Siembida is starting tonight. Interesting choice. Now I'm nervous. David Hale is still out. Blais also says there will be some line changes tonight because of poor efforts last night. He specifically mentioned the Cullen line against the McMahon line.

That's what I always do. I can't provide an opinion on Jeff's color commentary because I don't listen to it. But I wonder if perhaps part of his job isn't to provide balance to the broadcast, knowing that not everyone watching is a Sioux fan. I don't know what outfit WDAZ contracts with to do the camera work, but over the past few years when the games from CC have been broadcast, watching them is a painful experience. If they'd just use the center-ice camera and follow the puck up and down the ice, it would improve the broadcast 100%.

I think you're right that it would be a PR disaster -- for NDSU -- as it was that university which decided to leave the NCC. Nobody, except perhaps delusional Bison fans, is going to blame UND for not wanting to play NDSU when it goes DIAA.

The one post-game comment Blais made that sticks out in my mind was about how all it takes is one guy on a line not playing hard to make the entire line look bad. He didn't say who they were, but I have my suspicions. My wife said that she thought that Blais didn't sound as upset about the loss as she thought he would. I agreed with her and suspect that it was because there's another game tonight and it wouldn't do any good to publicly rip into anyone. We need to have some of our big-game players step it up tonight and score more, especially if David Hale or any of the other defensemen are out.

I just had a bad feeling when the Sioux got up 3-0 so quickly. It was just too easy and I think it lulled the team into complacency. I'm not going to name names, but Blais was right in his post-game comments when he said there were certain players on each line who didn't play up to their abilities. I hope tomorrow night, everyone gives a full 60 minutes of effort. A split looks awfully good at this point.

Hammy, I don't think it's so much about uninformed "dopes" as it is about the NCAA rule not making a whole lot of sense to most people. Essentially, the rule says that coaches can say that they're pursuing certain recruits, but they can't say why. What is the NCAA's rationale for that?

I thought it was a good omen in Providence when a bus from the Shamrock Lines picked up the Sioux team at the airport. That same bus -- painted green and white -- provided the team's transportation during the 2000 Frozen Four. Not that I'm superstitious or anything...

I want to thank Hammy for posting the actual text of the NCAA rule in question on POI and others for reposting it here. As I interpret it, the rule says that a coach can say the name of a potential recruit and can say that the school is pursuing him as a recruit. The coach is not allow to comment on the player's abilities, what strengths he might bring to the team or the likelihood of the recurit making a commitment to the school. Regarding Sydney Crosby, the question of the moment is whether he'll go the NCAA route or the major junior route. At this point, Crosby himself probably doesn't know the answer. But until he makes that decision, the question of which school he'll attend if he chooses the NCAA route is a moot point. Blais said UND is one of two or three schools recruiting Crosby. He didn't say anything about whether Crosby was more likely to attend UND than any of the other schools. Personally, the part of the rule that prohibits coaches from commenting on the abilities of players they're recruiting seems rather silly. What, exactly, is the point? Consider this purely hypothetical call to the UND coaches show: Caller: Coach Blais, are you recruiting Sydney Crosby? Blais: Yes, I am. Caller: How good is he? Blais: I can't say. Caller: Is he fast? Does he have good hands? Does he have a good shot? Is he strong on the forecheck? Is he a good two-way player? Blais: Sorry, but the NCAA prohibits me from commenting on a player's abilities. Caller: You must have a reason for recruiting him, don't you? Blais: Yes, I do. Caller: Well, if he sucked, you wouldn't be recruiting him, would you? Blais: I can't say. I certainly don't know this, but is it possible that the University of Minnesota holds its coaches to a more stringent standard about what they should and shouldn't say publicly about a recruit? Perhaps they use a "better safe than sorry" approach. If that's the case, Blais obviously is not bound by that standard. Edit: Oops. Left out a very important word.