jk

New: Boeser Gersich Wilkie Janatuinen Gardner Wolanin Shaw Chartrand Bast Tomek Out early: Schmaltz LaDue McIntyre

"OK guys, first, I want you to allow at least 50 shots against."

<Emphasis added.> The bolded part is a great description of this year's UND team.

That felt like part of the problem in 2011, but not a bit in the last two years. They were on their toes both games, and they made a habit of the most simple straightforward hockey play: Get the puck and bodies to the net. It just didn't result in the deflection, rebound type goal enough, but they tried it a bunch.

I don't like to quote long posts, but I'll make an exception for this one. **Thank you** for putting into words what so many of us feel. We should trot this out whenever it's needed. The amazing thing about the run of success is that times have indeed changed, and those slow to adapt have been punished. When even MN, Wisconsin, Michigan, BU and Maine have suffered significant down periods, you know something has happened to player development and recruiting. Only two schools have not dipped in this period, UND and BC, and while BC has certainly been king for a while, even they missed the NCAAs once. In addition, BU's resurgence has put a dent in BC's recruiting pipeline, so we'll see if they keep the magic run going. My point is that as much as UND's coaches get accused of being wedded to their systems, they've actually changed a ton. Much like ten years ago, this team was driven by a great defensive corps. Utterly unlike ten years ago, this group of defensemen skate, move the puck, and don't destroy guys. Both teams were built for their era and succeeded. News flash: the other NCAA hockey teams are led by motivated guys near the top of their field who hate to lose, and are filled with exceptional athletes who want to win more than anything. To consistently beat those other teams requires innovation and a willingness to change. Witness UND's offense, with defensemen involved not only in rushes and from the point, but actively joining a cycle to keep possession. That just didn't happen ten years ago. What's most amazing is they've managed to maintain UND's trademark grit and aggressive forecheck as they've transitioned to a less physical team taking fewer penalties. Looking forward to upcoming years.

A memorable group. It's perhaps fitting that the last goal scored by UND in each of the last two seasons was put in by Gaarder, a real gamer.

I agree that goaltending has been the problem in a few of the elimination games. Parise had a bad one, Lammy, and now Zane. I thought Zane last year was very good, and Dell was also rock solid against Michigan (and in fact great that whole postseason).

I agree wholeheartedly. This was a really great team, and for me, this elimination game will sit alongside the title game against Denver and last year against MN as games where they deserved a better fate. They carried the play, they got pucks and bodies to the net. They really did everything they could have hoped for going in except outscore the other guys. And about half the guys posting on this thread are ****ing dirtbags.

This team has shown up. A few things haven't gone their way, but they tilted the ice back as the period went on. The Sioux PP looked great, but no goal. Then BU's last PP, no zone time, harmless shot goes in. I am keeping the faith. Also, the team won't quit.

As a fan, I hope they all decide it's in their own best interests to stay and develop for another year. It would be a shame to have this exceptional group of sophomores together for only two years.

It did some good for Hak, who pulled Adams out of the state of Michigan. I'm guessing it also does good for Anastos, Pearson, and a number of other coaches in that region.

I'm not saying anyone should leave, but I fully expect to be without J. Schmaltz, Zane, probably LaDue and maybe Stecher next year. There's just a lot of buzz out there.

I don't have much of a problem with anything Red said.

I didn't love their chances this weekend, because usually when you need to flip the switch back to on, it's just not that easy. I understand Yale from two years ago, but there are plenty of examples the other way too. Very glad they were one of the teams able to do it. If the rumors of widespread sickness are true, this is truly a weekend for the ages.

There's really no point in cross-posting GPL content over here. Focus on the Sioux.

Considering who won and who lost today, it should be all happiness, but I have this nagging sadness for Tech, who really deserved better. All that time lost in the wilderness, then it ends like that. As for the Sioux, they did what they did all year, find a way to win. It wasn't pretty though, and if you swap goalies it may go the other way. They played really hard though. Stay outta the box tomorrow.

The comparable part of it is the coaches actually do know what they're doing. Guarantee you can go back and find plenty of posts, probably from some of the same names, questioning why O'Donnell was in the lineup, or on a particular line. Hak could not do my job without years of experience, and I can't do his. He probably wouldn't question my professional decisions, knowing how foolish that would seem.

Ferris had a real nice squad last year and played their guts out in the regional final until they got Gaarder'ed. They probably deserved better that game.

The team is deep with athletic guys who can generate good chances through hard work and straight-up hockey plays, like shots from the point through traffic, etc. The only line I felt could have been "loaded up" this year, and one I expected to see in the NCAA tournament, was Mac-Parks-Caggiula. Mac's gone, and I really think Caggiula is not 100%, so I don't think there's any loading up to do. Just roll lines and tell them to play hard. And get dynamic offensive contributions from that slick defense. And turn opposing Grade A chances into Grade B chances, as they did all year long until last weekend, when they gave out Grade A's like candy at a parade.

There are times when I've thought the team was too tight. The Frattin Michigan game for example. I don't really feel like that was the problem last weekend -- they were just "off" for some reason. They weren't good enough this weekend to be tight. As to whether tightness is a result of a coaching philosophy, I'd just point to last year, when the team played both the Wisconsin and Minnesota games like they wanted to win (!).

With respect to the dedicated fans of other teams, the old WCHA Final Five was an exercise to distribute money from two fan bases to the rest of the league. Now, the Frozen Faceoff exists to spread UND fans' money across the NCHC. While it would be nice from an atmosphere and fan and player experience standpoint, I can't see NCHC schools being willing to share their portion of the UND fanbase gold with WCHA teams, unless they somehow got a sweet deal. You can debate whether UND has the best team or the best program, but there's no doubt that UND's massive cult following, and the money they spend, is unmatched in college hockey.

I'm not sure on these, but wasn't UND/Michigan in the super regional days, where everyone was in one Western regional? In that case, they had no choice. Also, UND/MN wasn't a first round #1/#4 matchup, it was a second round. Which is different.

Apparently people think Providence won't be there because it would be unfair to the #1 seed to have to play a #4 in their territory.

Thanks to both you and SiouxScore for clarifying.

CHN (Wodon) prediction: Midwest Region, South Bend, Ind. 1. Minnesota State vs. 16. RIT 8. UNO vs. 10. Minnesota West Region, Fargo, N.D. 2. North Dakota vs. 15. Providence 7. Michigan Tech vs. 12. St. Cloud State Northeast Region, Manchester, N.H. 3. Boston University vs. 14. Quinnipiac 6. Duluth vs. 11. Boston College East Region, Providence, R.I. 4. Miami vs. 13. Yale 5. Denver vs. 9. Harvard