fightingsioux4life

Still a little bitter about how the Eastern Conference Finals went down? The Penquins and Red Wings are built to succeed in the new, post-lockout NHL. Talented, playmaking forwards, solid defensemen who chip in on offense (especially with the man advantage) and solid goaltending. Other franchises that are following this formula as they build their teams include the Blackhawks, Blues and Canadiens. If I left anyone out, someone please let me know. Your team also has some good, young talent and they will be tough to beat during the regular season next year. But they had trouble skating with the Pens in the playoffs, just as the Dallas (South) Stars had trouble keeping up with the Red Wings. Teams like the Wild (or Mild as some on here like to call them), the Ducks (last year was a fluke) and the Stars are built for the pre-lockout NHL that no longer exists. The Flyers have enough consistent scoring throughout the line-up to be successful playing like this, but their lack of speed and playmaking still caught up with them in the conference finals. In fact, the Flyers are a lot like a certain college hockey team that most of us on this forum follow with a passion, but I will leave that for another discussion at another time. You are right about the salary cap factor, but there are ways of managing it. The Pens should follow the formula the New England Patriots have used to stay on top; lock up your core players (Crosby, Malkin and Fleury) and surround them with solid complementary players who plug holes and do their jobs well. This model might work even better in hockey since hockey isn't the numbers game that football is and keeping just one or two stars on a hockey team will have a much bigger impact on the starting line-up than on a football team. Since hockey hasn't had a Cap for too long of a time, we'll have to just watch and see what happens. GO PENS GO!!!

Nobody is saying Blais was perfect or that his teams were flawless. But for the most part, his teams were prepared (mentally and physically) to play, whether it was against Michigan Tech or Minnesota. And the games you mentioned were not blowout losses like the one we endured last week. The Denver game was a one goal loss in the 1999 Final Five title game. The two regional losses were by one goal to Michigan in 1998 (at Yost Ice Arena) and a two goal loss in 1999 against Boston College (one goal if you discount the empty-netter). Yes, those losses were disappointing, but I don't think it happened as much back then as it does now. This season, I would go to The Ralph on Saturday night after a Friday night win and often wonder if the same team would show up again so we could sweep at home. When that happens as often as it did this season, there is a definite problem with consistency that I think must be addressed.

I only used the Jason Blake incident as one example of how Blais pushed the right buttons with players to get the most out of them. I am not saying it would have worked with this team. And while our longest losing streak in the first half of the year was two games, we also split a bunch of weekends (home and away). That is a sign of inconsistency and players not being ready to play night in and night out. We developed some consistency in the second half, but that didn't hold up for the playoffs. And that is what ultimately caught up with us in Denver. And if we ran out of gas down the stretch, it means that we don't have enough depth (especially up front) right now to finish a playoff run with a championship. That is something that needs to be addressed by the coaching staff in recruiting strategy and philosophy.

I have been thinking the same things since the train wreck last Thursday. Blais and his coaching staff were very good at pushing the right buttons at the right times, which is one of the most important parts of being a coach in any sport at any level. If the team had an off-night on Friday (which didn't happen very often), the team usually came out on Saturday clicking on all cylinders. Blais even sat Jason Blake in 1997 in Colorado Springs for the Saturday game because he didn't like Blake's defensive game (or lack thereof). That was also Karl Goehring's coming out party as a freshman, in case anyone's memory needs some help. Also, this pre-lockout NHL style of hockey has to go. This team looks more like the Minnesota Wild every year that Hakstol is in charge. It might work in the regular season, but once you get into the playoffs, you are not going to shut down every team you play. You have to score goals and you have to have forward depth that can put pressure on the opposing team's defensemen and goaltender. That also increases puck possession time and takes pressure off of your own defensemen and goaltender. Boston College right now looks like the North Dakota teams of 1997-2001. As I recall, those teams hung a lot of banners in the old REA. As Tom Dennis said in the Saturday, April 12th editorial in the Heraldo, 95% of what it takes to win a national title is there. But if the other 5% doesn't fall into place, we will continue to come up short in March or April.

I bet he's too busy trying to find dead people to vote in November!

"Unacceptable" is not cashing in on your opportunities when you get them. Your team hasn't won an NCAA title in five years (2003) and hasn't been to the Frozen Four in three (2005). But Minnesota cashed in on it's opportunities in 2002 and 2003 after years of squandering them (the Woog era) and lost in the semis (I won't say to whom! ) in 2005. Two out of three is a very good percentage considering the quality of teams at the Frozen Four. But one out of six with the kind of talent we've had in Grand Forks during that time is just very disappointing. There is just no other way to describe it. Players choose programs like North Dakota and Minnesota because they want to win National Championships and they want to set high standards for themselves. If you ask the players on these teams, they will probably tell you that "just getting there" isn't good enough. I guess that is my definition of "acceptable" and "unacceptable".

You are right about Boston College; they have finished runner-up many, many times. And I think getting to the title game and losing is much worse than losing in the semis. It's just that getting there four consecutive years and coming up empty handed is very disheartening. With the talent we bring in year after year, it's only a matter of time before we pull it off again. It's just frustrating to get close and be denied. And how it happened this year was really hard to swallow. I don't think we hang banners for winning the Final Five and I think we should. That is a hard tournament to get to and win and I love winning it right in the middle of Rodentland!

While I don't think a coaching change is in order, I do think that Hakstol focuses on defense too much. Dean Blais also believed in playing responsible defense (he once benched Jason Blake for not playing defense), but he also allowed his players to be creative and create offense and scoring opportunities. That put pressure on the opposing team and also kept the puck out of the defensive zone, which also helps out your goaltender. The Dave Hakstol version of this program I think sometimes plays too conservatively and almost looks like a pre-NHL lockout style of a team. We could use some more playmaking depth up front throughout the lineup. While this year's team was solid throughout, it helps to have some homerun hitters in the lineup. I do understand the frustration people are having. Because I share it. We used to have a reputation of hanging banners when we had the teams to do it. We always used to rip Minnesota for getting to the Frozen Four and losing in the semis every year (during the 1990's) because our program took advantage of our Frozen Four trips. Boy, have times changed. And not for the better. I hate to say this, but our fan base has changed over the years. It used to be about hanging banners in REA (first the old one, now the new one). Now it's about having a bunch of former players in the NHL and "just getting there". We have been to six of the last nine Frozen Fours and have one championship (2000) to show for it. That used to be unacceptable in our fan base. Now it's just par for the course and no one seems to notice anymore. I'll still support this team no matter what; it's just maddening to have to experience this year after year. The law of averages dictates that you get only X number of chances to win a championship and that's it. We could get back in 2009, but with all the pro defections we will have in the coming weeks, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. No one remembers who loses in the semis or who loses in the title game. And that is the most disappointing aspect of all of this.

But when committees make questionable decisions that look political and biased even if they might not be, it makes people wonder what is really going on. Sorry, but when you are in the public eye like the Hobey Baker committee is, you will have to contend with public perceptions (both good and bad). If there was more consistency in how the criteria was applied, people wouldn't get as worked up as they do.

You don't put up 116 points in 48 games because of the system Gino employed. Gino was there for 16 years and no one else wearing a Sioux uniform (not even Greg Johnson) put up numbers like that in a single season. Even Paul Kariya of Maine (as great as he was) couldn't top what Hrkac did that year. Yes, having good players around you helps and is a factor, but some of the moves he put on that year were just unreal. My dad took me to games when we could get tickets and I marveled at what he did on the ice. Take Hrkac off of that team and they wouldn't have been nearly as dominant. While JPL's numbers aren't quite as impressive as Miller's, they are close. And when you consider the schedule we have played this year and all the penalties we have had to kill off (that has to stop next week or we will come up short again), JPL is just as deserving as Miller, if not more so. So again, where is the consistency? I will maintain forever that if Panzer had played at an East Coast school he would have won the award hands down. You can disagree with that if you want, but I believe it 100%. I don't always disagree with the winner that is chosen. Junior Lessard was a deserving choice in 2004 even though most of us would have loved it if Zach Parise had won it. Brendan Morrison was also a deserving choice in 1997 despite his sour grapes acceptance speech. And I also think that those of us in Denver next Friday should show respect for the finalists. If you are so upset that you don't think you can, then just don't attend the ceremony. Don't blame these kids for the bad decision-making of a committee of so-called experts. Here's to back-to-back shutouts for JPL and the NCAA Tournament's Most Outstanding Player award! Oh, and our eighth NCAA championship as well.

I am not saying JPL should have won the award, I am saying it's a joke he didn't make it to Denver as a part of the Hobey Hat Trick. Not inviting JPL to Denver is nothing short of an insult after the numbers he has put up and how important he is to our success. However many saves Miller made per game, it must have helped to have a trapping defensive system to limit odd man rushes and scoring chances. I'm sorry, but that is a legitimate factor that should be considered. I know Karl Goehring never had that luxury during his career; Dean Blais favored a more wide-open, agressive attacking style that sometimes left the goaltender in a vulnerable position. But Goehring never got much credit for putting up the numbers he did. And I think that the school he played for had something to do with it. I don't think there is an actual conspiracy against our program, but I DO think there is a definite bias against our program. With all the great players we have had over the past quarter of a century, it is more than curious that there have been only two Hobey Baker winners (Hrkac and Duncan) from the University of North Dakota. Simply put, if Chris Drury can win the award in 1998 with his numbers that year (I think he had better numbers the year before), then Jeff Panzer should have been able to win the award in 2001 with the numbers he put up. If Ryan Miller should be considered a candidate based just on his numbers, then why wasn't Karl Goehring considered a strong candidate based just on his numbers as well? There is no consistency in how the criteria is applied. And that is what makes the Hobey Baker award so subjective and political. It is no better than the Heisman Trophy in college football. The committee has no one to blame but themselves for the conspiracy theories and the public venom they are subjected to because they bring it on themselves most of the time. I think we should get rid of the Hobey Baker and instead have awards for best forward, best defenseman, best goaltender, etc. Name each award after a college hockey legend. Then we can stop trying to compare forwards with goaltenders and trying to determine if a defenseman should be judged on goals and assists or a strong defensive game. But like I said before, winning team championships is way more important than politically-biased individual awards like the Hobey Baker. That is what Gionta and Panzer said in 2001. And I think that is what most players think as well. End Rant.

This ranks right up there with Panzer getting robbed in 2001. That was the year that I stopped caring about the Hobey Baker award. If Panzer had played for an East Coast team or a "big time" program, he would have been handed the award on a silver platter. But since he played for North Dakota, it was given to a goaltender who faced about 15 shots a game with the help of a neutral zone trapping system. To this day, everytime I see Ryan Miller's smiling mug on TV I get mad all over again. Yes, I know Duncan won it last year and I was happy for him. But had there been another credible candidate from a "big time" school, Duncan would have gotten screwed as well. Hrkac won it in 1987 because the numbers he put up just could not be ignored (116 points in 48 games). What were they going to do, say his defense wasn't good enough and then give it to someone else? I don't think so. The bottom line in this sport is winning National Championships and we have seven of those (hopefully eight after next Saturday night). And most players would give up the Hobey Baker award if it meant winning an NCAA title. This snub will only make JPL more lethal, if that is even possible. GO SIOUX, BRING HOME #8!!!

Final Score: Beanpot Spoiled Brats 5 Midwestern Spoiled Brats 2 Hard to pick a team to pull for in this one. I'd like to get another crack at Boston College and it looks like it just might happen.

Still 2-0 Michigan, early third. Clarkson power play sucks.

"Hobey" Porter just scored for Michigan. 2-0 Michigan over Clarkson, very early in the third.

The TV production looks and sounds like the PBN (Princeton Broadcasting Network). Oh well, we are used to that crap anyway. This team had better wake up and start moving their feet. If this was Denver or Wisconsin, the season would be over. If we hold on and get to play tomorrow and play like this, the season will be over.

Last Friday's Sioux team has shown up for the second period. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly. This could get real dicey in a hurry.

Princeton's goalie seems to give up a lot of big, juicy rebounds. We have to take advantage of that in the 2nd and 3rd periods and put this team away. If you let them hang around too long, it could get hairy in the third.

We dominated parts of that period, but there also were stretches that we got careless in the defensive zone and made some poor choices with the puck. The last minute of the period almost cost us. Thank goodness for JPL (take THAT Puffy!). I think we have more talent and depth and we can wear them down as the game goes on. But if we keep giving it away like that, Princeton will take advantage.

Added to your post! If the Saturday Final Five verison of our team shows up tomorrow, we'll be fine. If the Friday Final Five version of our team shows up, that is another story.

I understand the issues involved with this (I am a news junkie, after all). That doesn't mean I have to like it. And I won't shut up about it. Because at it's core, it IS about media consolidation. If you have more competitors in the marketplace, consumers would have more choices and these suits couldn't get away with this garbage. But with fewer choices, consumers have less power. As a result, it is always the consumer that gets the swift kick in the arse. So much for this being a consumer-driven economy. The cable companies will not cave in anytime soon. Time Warner, Comcast, Cable One and even Midcontinent have lots of leverage and will use it. They are not going to let anyone tell them what to do or how to run their companies. Once you open up that Pandora's box, you won't be able to close it ever again. That is why FSN-North refused to cave in on the Victory Sports issue. Carl "Tightwad" Pohlad hasn't tried anything since. I have always believed that to get anywhere in life or business or whatever, you have to bargain in good faith and reach a solution that both sides can live with and profit from. Apparently, ESPN and the NFL have forgotten about that. And it will cost them viewers eventually.

And a lot of us can't watch it because of the suits at the Elitist Sports Programming Network. Sorry, but I am seriously ticked off about the lack of TV coverage. Thanks to everyone for the updates.

Don't forget, we used to get regional games on cable in past years. I used to sit in the Memorial Union and at home on regional weekend and watch game after game (this was during the late 1990's). And I think you could make the argument that College Hockey has more exposure and media attention now than it did back then. This isn't about market size, it's about media consolidation and lack of competition. If it were all about market size, stuff like spelling bees and lawnmower racing wouldn't be on any channel except community access. And it isn't just College Hockey, the NFL is pulling the same crap with NFL Network (which only about 40% of people have access to). Mark my words, this is going to get worse and worse. In all sports.

Thanks for the insight into this. Personally, I don't care who is at fault, I am just sick of the consumer getting the short end of the stick on stuff like this. Putting the games on obscure networks that very few people can get is stupid and bad for both consumers and the networks' bottom lines. I think it's time that fans start calling and/or e-mailing the big shots who come up with this crap and tell them what they think (respectfully, but firmly). Or else the Frozen Four will be next.

I have Midcontinent Classic Cable (not digital) and you would think that the FSSN Channel (23 in Grand Forks) would have some games on like they have in past years. But no. All they have is that stupid TV Guide crap on over and over again! And this afternoon, instead of showing some regional games (like they have in the past), FSN North had the award-winning line-up of Twins pre-season insomnia-cure programming, Poker and some NASCAR stuff (I didn't bother to watch it long enough to figure out what it was called). I know they have the Wild on this evening and I don't expect them to preempt that with the Wild in the playoff chase, but this afternoon would have been a great time to put some NCAA playoff puck on. But no, that would make too much sense! I am sick and tired of the consumer getting a swift kick in the arse by the big media empires. This is what happens with media consolidation and lack of competition. It won't be long before the Frozen Four is available ONLY on ESPNU or ESPN360 or some other obscure cable outfit that is available to only 10% of the United States (CSTV perhaps). And it is only a matter of time before the Super Bowl is available ONLY on NFL Network. But that is another discussion for another time. End Rant.