SJHovey

The other question is whether they pan out. Wisconsin's pipeline is very young. You look at the birth year of kids that have committed to various schools. UND has 5 kids born in 2000 or later. Michigan the same. DU has 4, MN has 6. BC and BU each have 8. Many programs have zero. A lot of good programs, like UMD, UNO, SCSU, etc..., might have one or two. Wisconsin has 13. There are a lot of chances to miss on those guys.

Man, I came to this thread to see if I could learn anything about the Vegas game and all I see is the thread inching towards a reprise of the old "Fire Hak!" threads. Here is the question that I'm trying to find the answer to regarding the Vegas game. Apparently tickets go on sale to the general public next February 10. I also saw that the Champions Club members are going to get first shot at some seats allocated to North Dakota. I think they have the month from January 9 through February 9 to make those purchases. In the same press release I think it said that a "limited" number of seats will be given to the U of M for its fans as well. Does UND, as the apparent "host" school for this game, get access to a larger percentage of seats available to the Champions Club members than Minnesota will get?

Yeah, I've never really understood the argument. To me, the only argument in favor of the current regional format is the upset possibility created by the one and done component. I suppose there is some added excitement in the tournament created by that. But from a pure "fairness" standpoint, there is no question that the on campus set-up is the most fair. It rewards the team that has earned it throughout the season. Most of the time the regionals haven't created an unfair match-up. But situations like Miami playing at UNH and Providence, as a #1 seed, us having to go to Yost in 1998, etc..., should make it worth looking at campus sites, especially with the attendance issues the regionals have experienced. Daniels example of Ferris playing at Mariucci in 2003 is a joke. First, Minnesota was the higher seed that year. Second, I was at that game. I don't care if they played that game at an outdoor rink in Vermont, there is no way Ferris was going to beat that Minnesota team.

I wouldn't exactly describe attendance at the NCHC tournament as "great." It's "not pathetic," certainly, and not at that stage where social media commentators are going to mock it with photos and the like. But let's be candid, it's smaller than attendance at an average UND home game, and the NCHC has dodged major bullets thus far as a result of UND's presence at the event.

I won't be surprised if after the five year deal with Target Center is finished that the NCHC also goes back to on campus playoffs. There is simply more money in it. Three games in front of 10,000 people each at Target/Xcel to find a winner out of the last four teams, or three, best two out of three series played on campus.

Yeah, Adam gets pretty freaked out about the possibility of the NCAA's going back to campus. I expect Adam and others will be trumpeting the Bob Daniels argument that going on campus for conference playoffs will actually help the NCAA neutral site regionals. Fans won't have just finished traveling one weekend, only to have to travel the next to the regionals. Not a great argument, imho, since only one team ultimately gets to stay home for the entirety of the conference playoffs if played on campus. Daniels is basically acknowledging that fans of visiting teams aren't expected to travel to campus sites for the conference playoff games. The real problem regarding regional attendance is the fact that you just don't know where your team is going to play until less than one week before NCAA's start (unless your team is a host). Unless you are BC, you are likely going to be sent to some far flung locale where it costs you $1000 to get a flight just one week in advance. That's the problem Adam refuses to acknowledge.

The other problem the tournament solved for the WCHA was the issue about arena availability. Not a huge deal for some schools, but the uncertainty of perhaps needing, or not needing, an arena for three straight weekends caused issues. I remember in the mid-80's having to go to Williams Arena in Minneapolis for the championship playoffs between UND and UMD. UMD was supposed to host, but the DECC had already been booked for that weekend because, candidly, who would ever think UMD would be playing in the championship round. This was also an important consideration in the switch to the tournament.

The ECAC, I believe, has had a hockey tournament dating back to at least the '60's if not before, iirc. Hockey East started their conference in the mid-80's and immediately used the neutral site format for their tournament, which only made sense because those teams had pretty much all left the ECAC. The CCHA was using a tournament before the WCHA ever went to it. Not sure of the reasons. The WCHA made the switch beginning with the 1987-88 season. This was after I had graduated from UND, but as I recall there were a number of considerations that went into it. First, the eastern conferences and the CCHA seemed to draw nice crowds for their events. This change by the WCHA also matched the expansion to a 12 team field in the NCAA's, and as I recall I think the feeling was that it would expand the opportunity for a team that finished back in the pack in the regular season to qualify for the expanded NCAA field. It also gave fans a chance to see their team play. I remember the difficulty trying to get tickets, on the road, for playoff series before the WCHA tournament was formed. It was no fun sitting in the last row of the balcony at Williams arena where half the ice was obstructed view. I was always a big fan of the neutral site tournament format, but having lived through the on campus playoff system while I was at UND, I was happy with that too, so long as we were hosting.

Minnesota isn't going to be that bad offensively, with or without Mittlestadt and Pitlick. Between Kloos, Bristedt, Novak, Sheehy and the transfer Szmatula, they'll be able to put together two solid lines of offense. The two freshman D they have coming in should provide some much improved puck moving skills by the time the second half of the season rolls around. Their problem is going to be like last year. No defense. If they can figure that out, they should be a solid tournament team.

I think if you had just posted, "At the Frozen Four last year a UMD fan, college student age, came up to us and ....," we would have gotten the picture.

I would think they will be a heavy favorite to win the B1G regular season title again this year. I don't think Minnesota is going to be that bad next year. Their goaltending is fine. Between guys like Novak, Kloos, Bristedt and Sheehy, they can probably put together two decent scoring lines. Have some upperclassmen. Big question will again be their defensemen and the willingness of their third and fourth lines to play with a lot of energy and not just serve as pylons for the other team

Exactly. I'm not saying Caggiula needed to score 250 points to be Johnson's equal. But when you look at their accomplishments, in the era in which they played, I don't think there is any question that Johnson, for one, had a better career at UND than did Drake. Johnson was a three-time first team all-WCHA player. A three time All-American. A three time finalist for the Hobey, finishing runner-up his last year. I don't think anyone was talking about Drake as a top 10 player in the country his sophomore year. Drake had a terrific career at UND. He had a great senior season, and an epic NCAA tournament run, this year. I'll just leave it at that.

Even if you want to base your opinion on "big game" performance, look no further than Phil Sykes. Caggiula played in 4 Frozen Four games and had 5 total points. Sykes played in the same number and had 13 points. Not sure if it's still the case but as of about five years ago that was still the highest total for Frozen Four points of any player since the 1950's. Phil also had 9 of those 13 points in the two championship games in which he played, including a hat trick against Wisconsin.

I think Ryan was a very good player for UND. I kind of look at him in the same light as a Chris Jensen or Brian Williams type of player. Just real solid four year players who could snipe the puck.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Drake play at UND. But I'm not sure he's even in my top 5 all-time UND players who stuck around four years. Yes, he won a championship. But so did guys like Taylor, Sykes, and Panzer, just to list a couple. I would take Mark Taylor, Greg Johnson, Phil Sykes, Dixon Ward and Jeff Panzer over Drake. That's no disrespect to him. Those were some great players. Greg Johnson was a three time Hobey finalist. Think about that. Phil Sykes was named one of the fifty greatest NCAA tournament players of all time. Taylor, Johnson, Ward and the rest put up numbers that dwarfed Drake's numbers. Drake scored 16 points and 24 points his first two seasons. Johnson more than tripled that in each of his first two season. Go ahead and try to name three players from Johnson's teams (that haven't coached at UND in the past two years) without looking at a media guide. Drake was fun to watch. I wish him well in his pro career. But we need to be realistic here.

Greg Johnson. Not even close.

And I assume Hammy will say "no big loss?"

People forget that Jeremy Bracco left BC early this past season, and ended up having a pretty nice year at Kitchener. You always wonder what teams could have accomplished if those players had stuck around.

The only thing I've ever seen on the subject is from this guy, who blogs about the B1G. https://frankthetank.me/2013/06/03/b1g-east-coast-expansion-big-ten-adds-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-and-the-pinstripe-bowl/ He doesn't provide any direct link to his information that Hopkins did not receive money, but his version makes sense in light of the fact that Hopkins wanted to continue with its ESPN contract. This, by the way, is very similar to the affiliate deal with Notre Dame hockey who also wanted to continue with their own television deal with NBC. Next, the B1G doesn't seem to be in the habit of just throwing Big Ten Network revenue around. Even Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland don't yet receive profits, and they are full-fledged B1G members. http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2015/07/16/btn-profits-increase-big-ten-revenue/30226149/ I've said it before and I'll say it again. UND to the B1G is an idea that only a fan would dream up. University presidents and ADs, no chance.

Adams turned 18 a week ago. I'm sure all things being equal the staff hopes he can play another year in the USHL.

Five forwards. Bowen will do that if Evers comes in.

If Bast doesn't come, then we need a third defenseman. Do they go with Bowen, as Schloss was hinting last week, or do they go with one of the '97's? And if they go with Bowen at D, then they need another forward, and they only have one 97 forward (Keane). If Schmaltz goes, they'll need two more out of that 97 age group.

Exactly. Ask Wisconsin fans how much fun they've had since ending their own sixteen year "natty" drought in 2006.

I'm not sure he necessarily hates UND or its hockey team. Now, I'm pretty sure he isn't real fond of us, the fans.

Wait a minute. There is a watch party listed at some pub in Tampa, FL????? What is wrong with people?