jk

How this works out will depend on who's on the roster next fall, which we should have an idea of soon. It is reminiscent of 2001-2, which saw only three freshmen defensemen, but they were leaned on pretty heavily. Schneider, Fuher, and Jones would be part of a core group that would contend for titles. But not that year - it was a struggle. Comparing that year to this, obviously there will be more new faces on defense now. But another difference is the forwards that year were also young and just getting going, while this year's seem ready to go.

They've had to make hard decisions every off-season, always in the interest of improving the team, but some disagree with their choices.

Someone will be getting a nice energetic player in Portz.

Cherry picking is choosing a smaller subset of data to make a point. He actually chose the data in its entirety, which is the opposite of cherry picking. Now, if he had chosen one year's data, for instance, while ignoring surrounding information, to make his point, that would be cherry picking.

Although the exact circumstances probably vary widely, to me there are three general flows in the portal. 1. Fifth line forwards or fourth pair defenders from big schools who want to play more. They generally go to "lesser" schools. Think Blaisdell to UNH. 2. First or second year studs at lesser schools, who became more than their recruiting profile suggested, who want the big school contending experience. 3. Guys near the end of their eligibility, sometimes from lesser schools, but not necessarily, who want to contend or just want a change of pace. Sidorski and Farmer both fit that profile. I don't really think we want much of (1) above. Budy might kind of fit that. (2) is promising, but comes at the expense of your pipeline. Could be good if you have a hole in the pipeline. (3) seems to be where we're shopping.

Just have to hope the batch of defensemen coming next year can get up to speed by then. If so, they could be really good. If not, there'd be a lot of 5-4 games.

Boy the board is crabby.

If Blake could still be here when Panzer arrives, all would be right with the world.

Looking at next year's opponents, after my one day of being an SCSU fan, fifth year decisions will have a huge impact on them next year. Of their 14 top scorers, five are graduates and five are seniors. If they all left, it would be time to start over. On the other hand, of their top eight scorers, only one is a graduate and four are seniors, so they could bring almost all their best players back if they choose to stay. I have no idea what the prospects are for their return.

It felt like SC played the same game against UND, Mankato and MN - got outplayed pretty good in the first period and then got better as the game went on. SC was definitely in today's game and could have easily won. Just before it went 3-1, a SC guy somehow missed putting a rebound into an open net. The overwhelming superiority of the big 10 that I expected to witness based on everything I've read here wasn't there. It was two good teams going toe to toe. I don't think the NCHC, including UND, will be down long.

Started watching with five minutes left in the first and it has been pretty even. SC seems like they at least belong on the ice.

I wonder if some of yesterday's big scoring teams will be wishing they had saved a few goals for the next game. We've all been there before. I guess we'll see in the next 28 hours or so.

This seems a little hysterical, and brings forth hypotheticals that a coach is not likely to experience more than a few times in a career. If my team is up by seven in the third against a team that is clearly overmatched, I'm skating out the game. There's still a place for decency.

But they do seem to reload every year with the U18 team.

We've never seen a first round like this before. The closest game was 2-0. This is usually one of the best hockey weekends of the year, with plenty of drama, including a fair share of OT games. Not sure what has happened. Hopefully the next two days have some good ones.

You have to imagine Mich St and Notre Dame at PWR 16 and 17 might have done some damage had they snuck in.

What would you have suggested instead?

For me, that's potentially way too many games for your top two teams to play right before the NCAA tournament. They'd be on fumes when they should be fresh.

Disagree. I'm pretty excited for next year. Some excellent talent coming in and four sophomore-to-be forwards who could take steps and be the heart of this team for the next few years. While DeRidder was not the whole problem and was strong down the stretch, it'll be hard for goaltending overall to be much worse than this year. On D some of the new guys are young and higher end, and some have paid their dues. A nice mix. Again, it may not be pretty, but they can't give the puck away too much more than last year's group did. I am truly anticipating a fun bounceback year.

Schlossman's story on the portal says the D next year will be Moore plus 5 freshmen plus Portal plus Frisch/Portal (twin of the other Portal). I suppose on the slight chance Kleven returned he would take a portal slot.

To paraphrase Lou Nanne talking about UND, playing physical is a talent. I disagree the lineup would be less talented with 13 than with some of the other options.

Not to put you on the spot, but curious, since the numbers are pretty squared away otherwise, would you send Caulfield on to bring in the savage?

Sounds like how Blake was treated.

I mean, look at the tape.

I generally defer to the coaches' judgement on their lineup decisions, as I feel they are more qualified to make them. However, if there was one I could ask them privately about to understand their thinking, it would be sitting DeRidder for a few weeks in early January. I didn't understand it then, and it was costly.