SJHovey

Congrats Zane! Well deserved! I'm with those who expect him to be gone, but I did like reading that he wants to speak to his extended family, basically everyone who matters to him, before making a decision. http://www.uscho.com/2015/04/10/mike-richter-award-winner-mcintyre-credits-family-coaches-for-development/

67 years.

Hak isn't going anywhere. Rational minds realize it would crazy to fire a coach who has taken his team to the tournament every year, and to the Frozen Four 7 times. The only way he gets fired is if the team goes in the tank for 3-4 years, missing the tournament, missing the conference tournament, etc... You guys might as well get used to it, or start complaining about the weather.

It is kind of funny. The odds are much better that UND moves its home games to Purpur Arena than they are that they get rid of Hak in the foreseeable future. He keeps sending teams to the Frozen Four, regardless of the outcome, he's going nowhere. The "common denominator" crowd can whine all they want. Them's the facts.

So at what point during these next two weeks do we get the Lambert story which reveals CORSI numbers that not only are 61.9% of all BU goals scored when Jack Eichel is on the ice, but 53.3% of all goals in all hockey games, everywhere, are scored when Jack Eichel is on the ice for BU, and we've actually already lost this game, mathematically?

Lot of tall buildings with ledges in Minneapolis. Feel free to jump, people.

MN can't lose two. I agree there are a lot of scenarios where they get in. But there are some quirky ones where they'll have to sweat, including what Jim Dahl pointed out this morning.

My wife and I stayed there last year, (when I think it was the Graves) and we're doing so again this year. Great rooms. Spectacular location for the Target Center. Skyway right to the arena from the hotel across the street. Never even wore a jacket. A bit pricey.

People complained about the so-called "Minnesota rule" (as an aside, the exact same rule was implemented the couple of years the tournament was held in Wisconsin and Wisconsin got the night game), for years. I was not one of them. First, there is no question the league and tv wanted that rule to allow local fans to come to the game after work, or watch Minnesota play in the evening. But people forget what a huge advantage that was for some other programs, namely UND, DU and a few others. I can't tell you how many times I got to watch UND play an afternoon semi-final against a team that had just played the play-in game the night before. It didn't always work that way. If MN was the #1 seed the play-in winner got to mercifully wait until Friday night. But many a time I got to see a tired UMD or CC or other team show up at the rink just a few hours after a tough fought win in the play in game, and we almost never lost those games.

In his earlier article discounting UND he also floated the notion that UND's success so far is a mirage, fueled in part by Zane's play at times, and in larger part by the fact that we apparently never left REA this year. But here's the thing. First, when we did leave REA we were as good as any team in the country. UND's winning % on the road was, by my eye, 3rd best. Lambert's darlings, DU and Miami, didn't exactly kill it on the road. DU was under .500, and Miami was barely over. I'm sure he'd say, or has said, that we didn't play anyone of consequence on the road. But again, if you look at strictly conference play, I think we were 8-4 on the road. UMD who was supposedly a great road team this year was 7-5. Miami 6-5-1, DU 5-6-1 and UNO 4-5-3. You'd think for a guy who claims he's a "numbers" guy he'd actually look at the numbers. Those who point out he likes to try to aggravate our fan base are correct. What's funny is that in the comments to his article, it's apparent he has aggravated just about every other fan base.

3rd in conference play, 24th nationally. http://www.uscho.com/stats/conference/nchc/2014-2015/ http://www.uscho.com/stats/overall/division-i-men/2014-2015/

I saw that article too. I was surprised, but not outraged, that Zane received as little acknowledgement as he did. I thought it was the perception of most college hockey commentators that Zane was the reason for this season's success. I'll say this. I would really like to get all these college hockey sportswriters, bloggers, etc..., into the same room and ask them exactly how they think UND is doing it this year. Smoke and mirrors? They are #1 in the PWR. Tied for best winning % in the country, and won the regular season title in the conference most feel is strongest top to bottom, at least this year. But apparently our Corsi numbers suck. We don't have anyone even sniffing the top 50 in scoring. Our penalty kill is average, at best. Our power play is ok, but not in the top 10 nationally. And apparently it isn't our goaltender. Maybe it is all just smoke and mirrors.

FWIW, here is CHN's take on each team's probabilities of making the tournament, it appears based upon KRACH. http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/probabilityMatrix.php

Personally I think the regular season champ should receive some reward. It's hard to win a regular season championship, and I was all in favor of giving the regular season champs an auto bid. But I also like having the tournament auto bid that we have now. It gives everyone a chance, which is kind of what the tournament is about. It's what made the basketball tournament what it is. The problem is that if we give both auto bids (the ideal), we're basically down to four at large bids. That's a little dicey. Maybe boost it to 20 teams with 4 play in games? Don't know that there is a good answer.

The numbers you are looking at are just a list of all of the scenarios, and the percentages of time they occur. That's why teams like RMU, UNH, St. Lawrence, etc..., that have to win two games to get in are all 25%. Half the scenarios they win game one, and then half of those they win game 2. They are not weighted for what is likely to happen. I think Jim is actually working on some sort of weighted analysis, probably using KRACH.

I'm not sure that's true. Most of the scenarios with the favorites winning would result in MN making the field, many in instances where they even lose the first game. I do think it would be kind of funny for them to win the B1G regular season title but then miss out on an at large bid. First, doesn't say a lot about the B1G, but second, it would be a Daily Double of sorts for Lucia. He did the same thing back in 1993-94 when his CC team won the WCHA regular season title, only to miss the tournament.

I think you're going to be wrong on this. Here is why. If you look at the handful of teams bunched ahead of and behind MN at this point, they're pretty much all HE and ECAC teams. That means success of one comes at the detriment of the other. If Harvard and Vermont want to climb past MN, they do so at the expense of Yale and BC, immediately ahead of MN. If Colgate is to make a run, it will ultimately come at the expense of Yale and Quinn. For MN to miss, it's going to take a very specific outcome. I think it has to be Mass-Lowell or SCSU that goes past them. Quinn, Yale, BG and BC all have to have enough success to stay ahead of MN, Lowell and SCSU most certainly need to win this weekend, then probably one win in the semi's. Just my two cents, obviously without running Jim Dahl type scenarios.

FWIW Andy Johnson is reporting the Badgers are in the mix for Auston Matthews. Seems like a good news, bad news situation. Good news the kid is seriously considering the NCAA route when many think he's destined for Canada. Bad news for us in that he's adding another college program to his candidates, which at last count numbered around 5 already.

That definitely has to get done.

Another couple of things that Lambert seemed to have overlooked. Our penalty kill has been occasionally maligned. But if you look at our "net" on the penalty kill, we are down 13 goals on a 138 pp opportunities. This compares very favorably with some of the better penalty kill teams in the country, like Bowling Green and others. Second, I remember a few years ago reading somewhere about a key stat that is often overlooked is the goal differential for each team. If you go through the stats at the end of the year, the handful of teams that lead the country in the difference between goals scored and goals allowed are always the ones contending for the title, which only makes sense. But so may teams in the tournament have less than a one goal per game differential, but the elite teams each year hit that 1.2 to 1.5 range. For example, last year the teams with the best differential were BC, Union, Quinnipiac and Minnesota. This year we compare very favorably. Of the top 16 PWR teams right now, it looks like this: 1. MTU +1.8 2. Mankato 1.61 3. BU 1.4 4. UND 1.3 5. Yale 1.14 6. Michigan 1.1 7-8. Minnesota .91 7-8. Providence .91 9. DU .84 10. Mass-Lowell .79 11. Miami .69 12. UMD .62 13. Quinnipiac .61 14. BC .59 15. Bowling Green .56 16. UNO .37

That's the thing. Someone has to have the top PWR number and be ranked number 1. Right now it's us. But I don't think anyone has been saying UND is a clear favorite or unquestionably the best team in the country. They are one of probably 10 teams right now with a legitimate shot to win the tournament. A couple of things to note about Lambert's comments, though. He basically claims Miami, UMD and DU are all better teams than UND. May or may not be true. But UND is 4-3-1 against those teams. Miami is 5-5, UMD is 5-5 and DU is 5-6-1, so there is that. With respect to the out of conference record, we have played some weak teams. But we have beaten those weak teams as well. 13-0 against teams ranked from 24-59 in the PWR (BSU is 23, which is why I took that as the cutoff). If you look at all the other top teams in the PWR, they have had some clunkers against that same group of teams. BU has lost 3 and tied 5 against PWR teams from 24-59. Mankato, Miami, UMD, all have dropped a game or two against those teams. This UND team is not a run and gun and put up 40 shots a game type of team. It's built from the goal out, and has been a very tough team to beat. Will they win it all? Hard to say. Would have liked to gone into the tournament with all hands on deck, but we'll see.

Maybe Kelley concluded it was a hill that shouldn't be climbed. He is paid, in part, to make those types of decisions. I loved the name as much as anyone. But candidly, I'm glad its gone. I'm tired of the nonsense. Its the world we live in. The Washington Redskins are going to be able to hold on for awhile. The FSU Seminoles are going to be able to hold on for awhile. But the world is not moving towards use of american indian names as mascots/team nicknames. Its moving against them, and you have as much a chance to stop it as you do stopping the tide. It's a frigging nickname. Every program that has switched, voluntarily or otherwise, has survived quite nicely. Trust me, those standing in a public forum petulantly crying about the loss of their dear indian nickname will not be judge kindly by history. The students can voice their displeasure by making and displaying the sign, which they did. And they can rightfully have the sign confiscated, and even be asked to leave the premises.

One thing that was funny. I think when talk first started about Boeser walking away from Wisconsin, Hammy posted something about having to eat his words. He apparently was pretty confident that wouldn't happen, and all of a sudden it appeared likely. A couple of months later he is posting pretty confidently that MN has Boeser all but wrapped up. Looks like he had to go back for seconds with respect to eating those words.

The guys must have been tough on Hammy. I see he's locked it down.

I will throw out a prediction. With our schedule, I think we will probably be no better than a 2 seed. I think with Minnesota's schedule, they will have no problem getting in, and will probably be a 3 seed. I think we will see in Fargo this bracket: Mankato v. AHA champ UND v. Minnesota It'll be too much fun to throw 3 old WCHA rivals into the same bracket for the committee to resist, and the seeds will be close enough to permit it.