Canuck

Hmm, funny. Seems to me we won a national championship in 2000 while wearing said black unies for much of the stretch run. Anything else we can blame not being in first place on?

I couldn't agree more, Old Barn Guy. In fact, for a couple of months now I've been telling anybody who'll listen that this year's team will have to change its identity/style/philosophy for at least this year. Whether we as Sioux fans like it or not, this team does not have the components to be a run and gun squad. However, that does not mean this team does not have the components to win. I think the comparison to last year's Denver team is an excellent one. We have two (maybe three?) goalies who have the ability to get hot at any time and carry the team. We've shown flashes of being a strong defensive team, not only on the blueline, but with several defensive-minded forwards (McMahon, Zajac, Prpich, Fylling, etc.). I don't think there is any shame in trying to win ugly and many Sioux fans may have to accept this, at least in the short term. Yes, many of Dean Blais' teams played firewagon hockey. But let's not forget that on his two NCAA title teams, his hardest-working players were also his best players (1997: Blake, Hoogsteens, Murphy, etc...2000: Goren, Ulmer, Bayda, Panzer, etc.). I would prefer Sioux fans reserve judgment on this team until we have our full lineup intact for a lengthy stretch of time. With Murray and McMahon back in the lineup, suddenly other (role) players aren't so miscast. Suddenly your top six forwards (top two lines) include Stafford, Murray, Spirko, Genoway, Porter and Zajac. That's as much talent as any Top Six in the nation. You have excellent shut-down forwards like McMahon and Prpich. And you have experienced role players like Fylling and Massen. Suddenly that lineup doesn't look to shabby, does it?

What a concept. Actual insight into the game of hockey. Now be prepared to be ripped apart by many of the resident "experts."

Thank you. I'm here all week.

Funny you should mention that PCM. Did you also know the (Regina) Pats are the oldest junior hockey franchise in the world? Not that I'm implying anything.

Considering how things went in college and how they're starting at the pro level, I'm beginning to wonder if the careers of Parise, Bochenski and Vanek will somehow be forever linked or intertwined. Seems like there can never be one mentioned without mentioning the others.

As a WCHA fan, it's also a little satisfying to see that the top four rookie scorers in the AHL are WCHA alums. Although I'm still in absolute shock that Rene freaking Borque is one of them.

I also read yesterday that Travis Roche has been selected to play in the AHL all-star game. Not a bad bounce-back season.

Hradek's article is certainly interesting, and even more interesting to me after some things I overheard just outside the press conference after the gold medal game. I overheard U.S. Director of Player Personnel Lew Mongelluzzo talking with two gentlemen whose faces I couldn't place, but he was cleary disappointed with the entire process and hierarchy. I can't remember what he said verbatim, but the gist of it was that they have to re-think how they go about selecting players and who exactly should be selecting players. I'm almost positive I heard him remark that "Sandy (Sandelin) said before the tournament, 'Lew, I'm not familiar with a lot of these players.'" And he said it in a way that sounded like a lot of the selection burden fell on Sandelin's shoulders and it wasn't a burden Sandelin himself wasn't comfortable with.

Since Ovechkin is barely 19 years old, he would have a hard time qualifying as a pre-madonna. Now, Debbie Harry? Pre-madonna. Terri Nunn? Definitely pre-madonna. Laura Brannigan? As pre-madonna as it gets. Hell, even PCM is a pre-madonna.

Thank you. I also do not condone either...I just want people to call a spade a spade, regardless of the teams involved.

This may shock you, but I agree. Actually, all I could think while he laid there and the crowd booed was, Gawd I hope he isn't bleeding because I'm gonna hear about it As for whatever verbal assaults were thrown at Ovechkin, if you say it crossed the line, than that's a shame. HOWEVER, if it was simple taunting...it's only what he had coming to him. When you run your mouth all week and then don't answer the bell in the biggest game of the tournament, you're going to hear about it.

Well, as a matter of fact, since it was a game NOT involving Canada...yes, I CAN look at the game objectively. Well, since I AM one of the hockey fans of Grand Forks, I believe I have the right to make such an observation. I just wanted to provide a viewpoint from BOTH sides. You can't condemn lowly actions of one side without doing the same for the other. Tell me where this was implied. As a matter of fact, I posted that I was disgusted that Winnipeg fans would boo the Star Spangled Banner at a Jets game. The fact of the matter is I was reading a thread were the U.S. players were being complimented for not taking cheap shots at the taunting Russian players. I simply saw the same game differently and tried to bring my point of view to the topic. Don't see the harm in that. As a matter of fact, I also came right out and said the antics of the Russian team were deplorable.

Skateshattrick, Just to reiterate that my view of the game was not seen through Maple Leaf-colored glasses, here is an excerpt from a column by ESPN.com's E.J. Hradek: "If Team USA is going to win this bronze medal, they'll have to play a smarter game -- starting with staying out of the penalty box. While many players grumbled about the officiating after the semifinal loss to Russia, most of the calls weren't unwarranted. In fact, during the game's final minutes, the Americans embarrassed themselves by taking several unnecessary runs at Team Russia players." Which brings me back to my original response to these posts claiming the U.S. players did an exemplary job of turning the other cheek when it came to the actions of the Russian players. It will be no different in the gold medal game. The Russians will not suddenly change their ways and the Canadians' ability or inability to turn the other cheek will be an absolutely critical factor in the outcome of the game.

I was just talking with a couple of friends today that despite all of the negative ink surrounding Al Montoya throughout the tournament, my vote for Most Disappointing Player would go to Ryan Suter. Yes, he had some nice offensive "numbers," but he really seemed to struggle defensively and never seemed to display the kind of discipline needed in a captain. Really, Drew Stafford was the only consistent U.S. player throughout the tournament; the rest just showed flashes. I think Kessel's actual tournament-long performance is getting a bit exaggerated because of the one outstanding game he played. But we also must remember he, like Crosby, is still just 17 years old. Heading into Tuesday night, I would have to say Dion Phaneuf has been far and away the best defenseman in the tournament. As of right now I see him and Belle or Weber on the all-tournament team, along with Bergeron, Ovechkin and either Richards or Malkin up front. However, it would not surprise me if Suter somehow ended up on the team alongside Phaneuf. His offensive numbers might cloud the judgement of some of the voters.

If I was an opposing player, I would also have some of those hot dogs on my short list. However, you have to pick the proper time and place. Say what you will about the antics of the Russians, but said antics were able to completely get the Americans off their game. They became so preoccupied with going out of their way to settle individual scores that they allowed a 3-2 and, at that point, winnable game to deteriorate into a laugher in a matter of half a period. I've seen this all too often before with Canadian teams during international hockey. Because North American players thrive so much playing with passion and energy, sometimes those emotions get out of control. I've seen countless Canadian teams cost themselves games in the past because they became rattled by international officiating, which I'm sure we'd all agree is lousy at best. The fine line in international hockey is channeling that energy toward winning the game, rather than turning the game into a three-ring circus. Thankfully this year's team doesn't appear to lack the maturity of some of our other teams over the years. And I do agree, the Russian coach or official or whoever that was getting involved in the B.S. was bush league. It's one thing for a bunch of teenaged kids not being able to control their emtions; it's another story when a grown man is talking s#!^ with said teenaged player.

I am not justifying any diving or any of that other garbage pulled by the Russians. Both players were bleeding while they lay on the ice. I was on the opposite end of both of them and could see blood in both cases and durng that time, the booing was still going on. Incidental high-sticking incidents still warrant high-sticking penalties. Often times, when blood is drawn, a double-minor may sometimes be handed down. Please remember, I never once tried to justify the actions of the Russians; I was trying to provide a neutral perspective to the discussion. And I still don't equate a good-natured Belarus jab with a lack of class. I also don't know what a past experience from a Jets game would have to do with this discussion, although I'm absolutely appalled something like that would happen.

Hey, if you'd rather root for a classless team like Russia just because Canadians fans had the gall to cheer against the team that beat them in the gold medal game the previous year, that's your perogative. Believe me, Canadians aren't asking for support from the U.S. fans, but it would certainly be a nice gesture and would certainly be accepted. It would make the Ralph a true home ice for one game for Team Canada. As Sioux fans, you should all know how much fun it is as a visiting fan to try and get under the skin of the fans of the home team. As long as it's done in a tasteful and respectful way - and I believe it has been - you should take it as nothing more than good-natured ribbing. I, for one, was kind of hoping the REA production crew would throw the ol' Family Guy Peter Griffin "Canada Sucks" clip on the video screen. I would have laughed my ass off. Maybe even the Canadian Bacon "And their beer sucks" scene.

We must not have been watching the same game, because from my completely neutral (at least for that game) perspective, that is exactly what happened. The U.S. players - particularly Suter, Dowell and O'Sullivan - became so preoccupied with settling personal scores that they forgot about the one score that mattered. Their were countless "behind the play" incidents that seemingly went unnoticed by fans and referees alike, especially during the final 10 minutes or so. Are the Russians unbearably cocky? Absolutely. But, in my opinion, it was that kind of emotional unravelling, selfishness and shocking lack of discipline that plagued the U.S. throughout the tournament, and it came to a head in the semi-final. If U.S. fans and players were so bent out of shape by the actions of the Russians, maybe the team shouldn't have let it get to that point. Perhaps they would've been better served channeling that energy into settling the score where it is best settled: the scoreboard. And bitch all you want about the big, bad Canadian fans (damn bullies!!!) making light of the U.S. loss to Belarus, but I was appalled at the lack of class shown by the so-called great hockey fans of Grand Forks who took it upon themselves to boo two Russian players while they laid on the ice BLEEDING. Then, on one of those occasions, booing the penalty call when the pool of blood on the ice clearly indicated it was the right call. Was there an embarrasing amount of diving being conducted by the Russians? Yup. Believe me, that drives me as insane as anybody, but this was clearly not the case in these two instances. I can understand some getting annoyed at this point by exuberant Canadian fans. I guess it would be kind of like that group of friends you invite to your house to party for the weekend and by the end of the weekend you're tired of their s&!t and you're just ready for them to go home already. But don't forget, they were still invited in the first place. I find it hard to believe that had Canada lost to Belarus, we as Canadians would not be reminded about it in a constant, ableit good-natured way.

In Canada, watching the World Junior Tournament as part of your Christmas Day (and beyond) is every bit the tradition as watching college football Bowl Games on New Year's Day is in the U.S.

Stu (Grimson) occasionally scored goals?!?!?!? That HAS TO qualify as the most laughable thing I've read in a long time. The man's career-high was three for crying out loud. But I suppose, in the spirit of semantics, that does qualify as occasionally scoring goals.

The resentment wasn't personal; it was a result of hearing this "theory" ad nauseum for the past two years. Actually, I never implied the latter. Just gets old hearing the paranoia of Sioux fans coming up with laughable reasons why their players are "overlooked." Hey, I'm as big a Sioux fan as anybody, but God forbid there are sometimes better players available.

As a follow up to my first response, I thought I'd provide some facts before this "Canadian conspiracy against U.S. collegians" gets out of hand again. Please note, that I first posted these numbers last Jan. 5 (after the World Jr. tournament) when Sioux fans were insisting there was a Canadian bias against college players. I must say, as far as conspiracies go, this is quite unimpressive: For the sake of reference, my unofficial count has 40 NCAA players representing Canada at the World Juniors since 1982 (list below). That's roughly two per season, despite the fact that most of the elite Canadian hockey players choose Canadian major junior hockey over the U.S. college ranks. 2004: Jeff Tambellini (Michigan) 2003: David LeNeveu (Cornell) 2002: Mike Cammalleri (Michigan) 2001: Mike Cammalleri (Michigan), Dany Heatley (Wisconsin) 2000: Dany Heatley (Wisconsin), Matt Pettinger (Denver) 1999: Mike Van Ryn (Michigan) 1998: Mike Van Ryn (Michigan) 1996: Jason Botterill (Michigan), Mike Watt (Michigan State) 1995: Jason Botterill (Michigan) 1994: Jason Botterill (Michigan), Anson Carter (Michigan State) 1993: Paul Kariya (Maine), Adrian Aucoin (Boston University) 1992: Brad Bombardir (UND), Paul Kariya (Maine), Ryan Hughes (Cornell) 1991: Greg Johnson (UND), David Harlock (Michigan) 1990: Dwayne Norris (Michigan State), Dan Ratushny (Cornell), Scot Pellerin (Maine), Adrien Plavsic (New Hampshire), Jason Herter (UND) 1989: Rod Brind'Amour (Michigan State), Geoff Smith (UND) 1986: Joe Murphy (Michigan State), Joe Nieuwendyk (Cornell), Scott Mellanby (Wisconsin), Peter Douris (New Hampshire) 1985: Brad Berry (UND), Norm Foster (Michigan State) 1983: Pat Flatley (Wisconsin), Gord Sherven (UND), James Patrick (UND) 1982: Troy Murray (UND), Carey Wilson (Dartmouth), James Patrick (UND)...

Oh gawwwd. Here we go again. So let me get this straight (again). It's the biggest event in the biggest sport (in Canada). Canada, which takes more pride in its hockey than anything else, is hellbent on avenging its gold medal loss one year ago. Yet Hockey Canada is intentionally icing less-than-their-best to prove some sort of political "junior vs. U.S. college" principle? Someone hold my hair while I puke.

I agree with you to a certain extent, although I'm not sure the right word is manners, even though I think refusing to sit is a complete lack of disrespect to the people around you. It's more of a cultural difference. Hockey, in a general sense, is more ingrained into the Canadian culture, so when a fan goes to the game, the game is the event. When an American - again, generally speaking - goes to a hockey game, the game is part of the event. That's why in Canada you see fans sitting in their seats, responding only after certain types of plays and generally spending more time analyzing and watching than screaming and yelling. That's also why when you go to a game in the U.S., at REA for example, you get not only the hockey game, but laser light shows, video clips, Noise Meters, T-shirt cannons, Katie O'Keefe, that Mitch fella (whose show, BTW, is pretty good), cheerleaders, a band, a dance team, a mascot (oops, scratch that one)...you get the idea. That's not to say one is right and one is wrong; it just depends on what you prefer to be surrounded by. Me? I've experienced both and I enjoy both, although I still tend to lean to the Canadian way of watching the game and reacting when I'm excited, rather than being told when to be excited and what to be excited about. But again, I don't care either way as long as people are being entertained. Unless they're standing.