tho0505

That's why it's interesting. Do we have the scholarship available, if that spot was a walk-on? I agree that Senden makes sense to bring in, but if he is a scholarship player and we don't have room in that aspect, we may be reaching back to juniors.

It should be interesting to see who they bring in... I thought it was under the assumption that this position was a walk-on replacing Gornall.

Read between the lines, it's vague because it's a personal situation. None of our business. Stand up kid, hope the best for him and his family.

Yes currently if you are over 21 you lose a year of eligibility in NCAA hockey. A couple years ago Don Lucia and the Big Ten were pushing for the age to get pushed down to 20 years old... Basically making college hockey less competitive. Although I wouldn't be totally opposed to this, having a potential 24 year old playing with a 17 year old/ 18 year old is frustrating.

Although 2019/20 class is loaded now, Senden is a defensive forward, so the numbers don't shine like some other recruits. He's a winner and has now captained a HS championship and USHL championship. Coming in a little later won't hurt at all. Reminds me of Connor Gaarder.

He is smaller, but that's like saying Johnny hockey doesn't handle physicality well. At that size (5.7) he's going need to use skill and speed. He's playing great so far in the USHL, including the playoff run when he wasn't a top 6 forward. Nearly averaging a point per game. Not a bad start for limited action.

I actually really like the ratings. I have found them decently accurate from a prospecting tool (obviously it's just one perspective from scouting standpoint). It gives us some Benchmark similar to a ESPN or 247 in football/basketball. It's also helpful to lay the blue chipper argument aside. To realistically see where North Dakota is at in recruiting when compared to other schools. Only hurdle that I see is the fact that a lot of times ratings are given when a player is young before they truly mature. A player rated a 4-star at age 15 might be a borderline 3-star at 18. Luckily they do update and change their ratings and evaluations. And they also don't rate a player they haven't seen in person play which is huge.

I wasn't referring to his 100+ point season; I was referring to the season prior when he would have been a similar age and used similarly. That's what TNT was posting to compare apples to apples.

Good comparison. Curious to see what line Jost played on that year. Rizzo was on the third line as a 16 year old this year. Makes sense why his production is a little less than 1 point-per-game.

ONLY if he gets drafted in the first round?!!! Right?? If he goes 32nd overall just a "good" prospect?

Head scratching... Again, Rocco Grimaldi was not a blue-chip because he was taken 33rd overall? There's more at work than just a draft position. Kieffer bellows went first round at bu and had very little impact. According to your definition of blue Chip the six to eight players eligible in the first round, typically UND gets at least one. That being said, many years there are even less than that available. Case in point, Roccos draft season only one player play college hockey out of that first round. Thus the definition is flawed.

Exactly! Rocco Grimaldi goes in the first round in his draft year, had he had an "NHL type size." Instead he fell to the second round. Still a top college recruit. He was the 2nd college bound player taken! 33rd overall and according to some at Sioux Sports.com he's not a blue chippers! Zero logic in evaluating NCAA players strictly by a draft position.

How is that watered down? It's being realistic and evaluating players on more than a draft position. You need to when the majority of top players DON'T play NCAA. The definition defined here isn't how it's defined in other sports recruiting.

When fanbases evaluate recruiting classes and players for college, you have to remove players who are international or playing in the CHL (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) . They aren't eligible to play college at that point (especially in CHL case), thus, leaving the NCAA with 6-8 players in the first round. That's why soley basing a definition on the first round is way too specific.

The top 12-14 players that are NCAA eligble pushes into the second round easily. Again, the narrow minded definition of "blue chippers" that they aren't second rounders is short sighted. Our program IS there. We land nearly every year top 12-14 NCAA bound players. Ranging from the first and second round.

? Says who? No recruiting site that I've seen define s them like this. Like that gives perfect validation based SOLELY on being one of the first 31 players taken. Again, only 6-8 players that are college eligible get taken in the first round. Typically UND gets their hands on one or two. This year we have two that could go in the first to early second. To not call them "big chip" would be ridiculous if they went 32 or 40th overall. Zero logic in that.

Agreed. Quinn was by far the best recruiting head coach in the country. Fans are now readjusting the "norm." That being said, his teams were short sighted and not built for multiple year runs. In a normal year the first round only has 6-8 college eligible recruits. To say thats the only blue chippers in college is ridiculous. First to second round = 5 to 4.5 * "Blue Chip" Third to seventh = 4.5 to 3.5 *

I would disagree with your blue Chip comment. Any player going in the first two rounds are top end players. 5/4 star players. A good site is neutral zone they have professional Scouts that rate players. Most of the guys that we have coming in are easily four stars. When fanbases look at team building and scouting you need to look at College eligible players only. In the first round probably 70% of the first round isn't even College eligible! Thus, this notion that a player needs to be a first-rounder and everyone else bug spit, it's just flawed. Players like second rounders like Mismash, Grimaldi, Kristo. They were all top end College eligible players with offers from all the major programs. Therefore Blue Chip players. Absolutely, we want our players to be drafted high but that's not the only thing that they should be measured on. Weatherby's a great example. Has a bunch of offers got injured and now is exploding into an amazing player. He's been passed in the draft in previous years. Of the 10 projected college players to go in the first two rounds, we have two. Two are already in college (Hughes and Tkch).

I assume this is tongue and cheek... We already have two "blue chippers" signed for 2018 on defense coming in... On forward we have Hain that will be a late round draft pick and Weatherby is one of the top players in the BCHL... Other depth players on forward, who'll be 4 year players. In team building, you need top end players plus four year guys.. Every year we're in the top 5 to 7 in recruiting according to numerous sources. Walstrom isn't a miss, he was committed else where years earlier.

I was told Illinois.......

His ability was never the issue...It was off the ice issues that got his offer pulled. Adam Scheel from Penticton is now to recruit that was Keegans spot... Scheels is a solid goalie and should compete for time with Thome.

With the way Weatherby has dominated and his size, not sure why a team wouldn't draft him. I know he had injury issues early on I believe last year. I get when they're overagers and small. But the NHL draft in years past seems to put a lot of weight on size, pun intended..

Love this... Solid incoming recruiting class. Neutral zone doesn't have us in the top ten, but doesn't consider JBD a '18 recruit. They also have heavy weights towards quantity, not as much on quality.