jk

Word on USCHO a while ago was that it was due to a DUI from a number of years earlier. I don't vouch for the info, but that is what the talk was.

I've been kicking around a PP theory, although I haven't researched it. It starts with the premise that UND has underperformed on the PP since Blais was the coach. That may not be true, according to the numbers, but it feels that way. UND pretty much perennially has top 10 talent, and I think it's fairly often in the top 10 in goal scoring, but I feel like it's not often in the top 10 in PP success. If that's not true, then the rest of this is pointless. I recall wishing the great teams of the late 1990s could decline PPs, because they just seemed to rob the teams of their momentum. They were on their toes a lot, heavy forecheck, lots of energy. That style of play has carried over through two coaching changes, and you saw it on full display against BU. UND gave BU little time to get anything going, and were very aggressive. The Sioux had the puck most of the game. I think UND recruits guys who fit that style, and I'm not sure that is well suited to the standing-still game that is the PP. Think of guys like Gardner, Poganski, JJ, Hoff, Bowen, Yon, Smith. I think of them on the move, hounding opposing defenses. Then think of SCSU's PP, which I have to think is usually top 10; those guys are deadly. They ping the puck around, rarely giving you the chance to attack a bobble. If there's anything to this, we may not have the guys for an elite PP, not because they're bad, or the coaching is bad, but because they're better at other things.

Without looking I was thinking goals from the defense may go up. You lose Tucker but everyone else, none of whom are defense-only mashers, matures. Then I looked and the numbers aren't as encouraging. Goals from the defense last year: 19 Goals from the defense in 2015-16: 26 Hard to see doing much better than that group a few years ago.

It's early.

I'm a big fan of both Hakstol and Berry, but you're joking, right? Numerous times they needed to go on a huge winning streak to get in.

Surprised by the one-and-done (pretty unusual here), but have to thank him and wish him well. Now the four incoming forwards make more sense.

A fancy line: Adams Kawaguchi Gersich A heavy line: Gardner Olsen Mismash In your face forecheck line: Janatuinen Hoff Bowen Simonson, Gornall, Smith, Jones, Yon, Wilkie

Maybe I'm too far away from it, or maybe you guys are too close to it. To people not there, it looks like a Mickey mouse operation. Just completely embarrassing. Und is a hockey school, it should have both programs. Almost all college sports programs are money losers. Track, swimming, etc. Everything but select football, basketball and a few hockey programs. But schools still have them because it's part of being a major university. Especially in their headline sports. Like hockey at UND.

Judging by the unanimity of the comments here, I guess I'm in the minority. I'm not close to the details, but from a distance, the state appears to be incredibly poorly managed. In the 10 years since the oil revolution began, the state is unquestionably massively more wealthy than it had been. How they managed to turn that into a higher education funding crisis is beyond me. Hockey is the school's flagship sport. It should have men's and women's teams. In addition, the school is the state's flagship university, and should have a full roster of sports. That they are not investing in the education system after having a mountain of money dropped on their heads is embarrassing.

I'm bitter, I admit it. The UND team that I saw beat Denver 12 days ago could very easily have repeated. They were in prime playoff form. A rematch with Denver would have been an epic game. Fast forward 24 hours and UMD had taken out the Sioux's top defenseman, the quarterback on UND's PP and it's top penalty killer, on a questionable hit. For good measure, they blatantly ran UND's goalie. Does anyone doubt Poolman would have made a difference against BU? Put your PP QB back in, and it makes both the first and second units more effective. So the last thing I want to see is UMD winning. Which means of course they will.

I've seen a few questions about Cam in the game, not moving side-to-side well enough. Just my opinion, but no one's getting over on those two back door plays. Really the only one Cam had a chance on was the breakaway, and just reading that tells you all you need to know. The one in tight in the third, there were five Sioux players packed down low, but no one picked up the guy in front of the net. I guess they were maybe out of practice playing defense, since BU hadn't touched the puck much in the game to that point. About those cross-ice back door plays. The winner didn't look dissimilar to the Schmaltz/Caggiula title game goal. Schmaltz was looping in the other direction, but the pass got sent from a similar spot. I believe it was Simpson in the FF game against MN who sniffed out several of those plays, especially when MN was on a PP. Just got his stick in the passing lane at the last minute. It reminded me of how Leopold was able to break that play up a lot of years earlier. Anyway, that play is made by a savvy defenseman reading it, not by athleticism (though it doesn't hurt of course). It makes me wonder if UND's best defenseman, with the longest reach, might have seen those coming and gotten a stick in the way. I still think the most amazing thing about that game is the absence of garbage goals. Not one. After 145+67 shot attempts. (Bowen's would have been.)

They keep score based on goals, I know. Shot attempts were 145-67, so UND attempted 78 more shots. Midway through the second OT, BU seemed to find their legs and the Sioux hit a wall. It may have been the hockey rope-a-dope, as the Sioux wore themselves out shooting the puck. Oddly, none of the 212 shot attempts resulted in a garbage goal, as all seven goals were on nice plays. (The OT winner that wasn't would have been the only one.)

This one might have to be at the top of the list. I'll always think of 2011 as that type of game, but the 2011 team didn't play its best game that night. They were a better team than Michigan by a lot more than the 2016 Sioux were better than BU, but the 2016 team was absolutely at the top of its game, and outplayed BU much more than the 2011 team did Michigan. Which makes it that much harder to take. 2004 and 2005 also come to mind. In 2004, Parise and co. outclassed Denver badly, with Denver scoring on its first shot of the third period with about three minutes left. 2005 might feel more like last night, with a shorthanded, banged up squad outplaying what might have been a more talented Denver team. The Sioux had the puck a lot, but Denver got the bounces. I guess they're all different. I can't recall any other hockey games with so great a disparity between lopsided play and result as last night.

It would seem to me that the guys deserve the benefit of the doubt. Especially this one, who had so much to do with a national title, and could have gone last year.

OK, it was bad, but it's probably time to get over it. It was a meaningless game, and UND did end up on the PP for what seemed like half the game. At this point, it's time to look to Friday, for me. Pionk may experience renewed interest in the topic when the teams first meet in the regular season next year. For this weekend, if both NCHC teams are fortunate enough to advance, I doubt you'll see more than about six PPs in the game. They both will know what's on the line.

I really disliked Denver for a long time, almost enough to move them past MN. That's how I feel about UMD at the moment. We had so many good UMD fans around us at the Final Five, and this time, along with the antics on the ice, I had one try to tell me the guy ran the UND goalie because UND was so cheap, referencing the Travis Roy injury, among other things. Seriously. I actually wouldn't mind DU winning, because they're really good, because Monty has been so fair-minded, and because it's good for the league. I wouldn't feel that way if 2016 hadn't happened, but I'm more charitable now. Monty tweeted this when Caggiula scored in the third period of the title game: There it is! Boom @TheNCHC @UNDmhockey. This may be just a passing interlude, but it feels like this could be similar to UND/Wisconsin in the early 80s, where we hated each other but there was a ton of mutual respect.

Tough call for me. If you could put the x in mpls, it would be ideal. It's so much easier to get to, to park near, with many more eating options.

UND: Sr 1, Jr 5 Duluth: Sr 8, Jr 4 Just hope for improvement. But beware the Duluth, MN, Denver, SC schedule run. Swept, split, swept, split?

Air Force, on the other hand, typically has no problems flying to games.

Something is different in Beantown ... Agganis Arena.

I'm less optimistic. The team loses two of the best D we've had in a long time in LaDue and Stecher, and two of the best forwards we've had in Caggiula and Schmaltz, plus other important players. Replacing them requires everyone down the line to step up a notch, and we won't know if they are capable of it until it happens. I think some will, and some won't, just because that's usually how it works. Can they be there at the end? No doubt, although you can say that about perhaps 25 teams each year. I'll enjoy "good" or "very good" anyway, and I'll be thrilled to be wrong if "great" shows up again.

Agree with everything here. Honest question: If Denver finishes the comeback on its late PP, does this thread even exist?

I don't know if some of you have ever actually watched the NCAA hockey tournament, but it's hard to win. Strange things happen to good teams. Not only that, but it might be hard to even get into it. There's a lot of potential on next year's team, but it will be missing half the regular defensemen from last year's team, including arguably the top two. Also subtract five forwards from last year. There's no way to know if they'll be able to generate the kind of chemistry this group had. I shudder to think what this forum might look like if they struggle.

Veering off topic here, you've hit on one of the keys to the effectiveness of this outstanding defensive corps: their age. Give me a well-seasoned Ladue or Poolman over a green Thompson, Forbort, Lee or Chorney any day. Those guys eventually developed into fine players (some are works in progress), but they were not as ready to play college hockey at an elite level. And I mean that more mentally than physically.

The bolded part above is very true, thanks for noting it. Credit for #8 needs to be spread far and wide, including all the way out to Philadelphia. Congrats to everyone who had a hand in it.