jk

I don't see much difference in the talent level of the forwards between the two years. If you line up the guys, there are a few better on each side. I'll agree that the top end may have been a touch better two years ago, with the depth better this year. Rocco is growing as a player. The aspects people criticize are real, but they are diminishing. He has a motor and forechecking work ethic that reminds of Parise. I think I will like the defensemen on this team, at the end of the year, better than two years ago. Schmatlz is going to be really good, in a future NHL player way. Stecher is going to be really good eventually, in a college star way.

I don't really care, but just from a presentation standpoint, if I were arguing for him to be let go, I would bring out this table. To me it clearly shows waning performance. Almost all his best years were in the first half of his tenure, with almost all his poor years in the second half. The average performance has also gone on long enough now that it's not just an anomaly.

It's also unusual to have a year like the last one where no one is lost to injury for an extended time. Usually "too many players" resolves itself due to misfortune for one or two.

To each his own, but I'm taking Tony Hrkac.

We're pencilling guys in the top two lines that most of us have never seen play? I'll admit, I'm an internet scout from way back, but I try to actually see them before giving them the plum spots.

Schmaltz got worked in his own end, but physical maturity will help with that. On offense, I thought he was terrific, and far ahead of the usual freshman defensemen. He handled the puck at the blueline a lot, and rarely fumbled it or had it go the other way odd-man. I think he's going to grow into a very good college defenseman offensively, and I hope he's able to get there in his own zone.

The only one I thought actually clicked was Mark, just before Christmas. Kristo was feeding him gimmes, and he was putting them away. Getting into space to receive those is a skill, and he seemed on the same page with them. I think they wanted Mark centering a line, and maybe they wanted him to get someone else going (Mitch or at times Rowney). Although Parks had a good first game up top, I never felt like he got it going up there.

I think this one didn't hurt as bad because this wasn't as good a team, for whatever reason, and the result, the better team that day winning, seemed just. It reminded me of 1999 in that BC that day was just better; a very good Sioux team couldn't get anything going all day. Looking back at the "outs", the ones that kill me are the ones where UND outplays the other team and leaves the ice having played their last game. Looking back, 1998: Karl gets injured in practice and UND goes down in flames, giving Yost probably its most fantastic moment. The Sioux played hard and well, but goaltending was a problem. 1999: BC stifled a great team, and pretty much deserved to win. 2001: An unbelievable performance by Jeff Panzer led a great Sioux effort, one that should have probably led to the first back-to-back in a long time. Scott Clemmenson said otherwise. 2002: No NCAA game. 2003: The Sioux played hard and had the puck a lot, but Ferris Wheel State flew around and converted a number of high energy plays in a blowout. 2004: Tied for the worst result ever, UND has the puck the whole game, and Denver scores on a deflection on their first shot of the period with 3+ minutes left in the game. This one would take a long time to get over. 2005: A Sioux team, a mash unit, whatever. Immediately post-Bina, this team went on a run, won the beanpot and left a trail of terrified forwards in its wake. Another game where the final score didn't reward the team that had the better of the play and chances. DU goaltended their way to another. 2006: The kiddie-corps of forwards was brilliant, but the defensive group of four young freshmen plus Smaby was in over its head. Even so, this team was doing everything right except scoring, while BC was picking corners on odd-man rushes. The bad angle goal JP gave up in the second put the brakes on the comeback until it was too late. 2007: DOT played well but Brian Boyle's long reach kept breaking plays up. If not for some extremely unfortunate plays/calls late in the third, this could have gone UND's way. 2008: Neither 2006 nor 2007 were embarrasments, but this one was. You could see this coming when Princeton skated circles around UND in the regionals only to suffer their unjust loss. 2009: Shaking my head at how UNH had no answer for a brutish top line (created for that game) of VV, Frattin and Malone, then 0.01. It felt like UND was the better team but had trouble keeping UNH at bay in the third. The 0.01 made this one linger ... and linger. 2010: Yale hadn't played in two weeks and looked like they were shot out of a cannon, and UND was tired and looked every bit of it. They were game and made it close, but this was not one where Yale lucked into the win. 2011: See 2004. Not really over it yet. 2012: Worn out, overmatched, used up their miracle, but this was a hell of an effort by everyone involved.. 2013: No excuses like fatigue, just outplayed by a team that deserved their win. Had a few bounces gone differently, the result could have been different. I wonder if the Frozen Four might have gone like 2008. The best teams here? 1998, 1999, 2004, 2011. Maybe 2006/2007 a notch lower. Soul crushing defeats (played great and deserved better): 2001, 2004, 2005, 2011. Played even at best, or outplayed. Not an unfair result: 1999, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013.

Really had nothing to do with this weekend, though, as the goaltending was the best part of the weekend.

The question is whether you dump it or try to carry it. You carry it if you can, otherwise you dump it. At all advanced levels of hockey. Including teams like BC and Lowell.

I do know from his body of work that Berry is a very good coach and recruiter. He built probably the best defense we have seen in the post-Gino era with the group referenced in my signature. Those guys, Greene, Smaby, all got a lot better while at UND as well. In fact, It seemed to me that Forbort, Simpson and Schmaltz were all quite a bit better players at the end of the year than the start. Goaltending, what most worried about, was very solid all weekend. I think the pressure of winning one for the program is weighing on them, and it shows in their tourney performance. I'm not sure what gets you out of that trap, a special group of players I guess. Hak runs a heck of a program, that much I know. Even the very best programs, like Mn,DU and Wisconsin have missed the tourney multiple times recently. He recruits well, has a good culture (the guys care), players get better, teams improve and usually peak late in the year. Really everything but the titles. At the very least then he's a fine GM. Thanks to the seniors.

The situation determines whether its carried or dumped. Parise and koivu basically said the same last week. Plenty of things to complain about, but this isn't one of them.

I am totally hosed as well. No idea if it will be back. Not happy.

Ditto. This tourney is a lot different than 10 years ago.

Maybe it was the fact that they generated one even-strength goal in the five games before he split them up. Whatever the reason, I'll let the experts do their job, and trust that they know it far, far better than I do. I'm pretty sure Hak couldn't do my job, and it would be pretty funny if really anyone here thought they could.

The colorado games were in nov., and the bc game was during the Wjc. Yale got beat 8-0 by union and q. this weekend. It will be a two line game for mn in the third period, their third and fourth lines. That said, drawing Niagara is o.k. Too. I was pulling for mich all the way today, so whoever survived would at least have been in a battle.

Weird. USCHO and CHN produce different results based on the same inputs (Michigan winning).

Just wondering about the order here. I'm probably doing something wrong, but when I run the YATC on CHN, I get this: 1. Quinnipiac 2. Minnesota 3. Lowell 4. Miami 5. BC 6 UNH 7. NDame 8. Sioux 9. WI 10. DU 11. Mankato 12. Niagara 13. Union 14. SC 15. MI 16. Canisius What am I doing wrong?

Interestingly, based on Jim's mid-Saturday update, MN is locked into #2 overall, and UNH is locked into #7. Bracket integrity would have them in the same regional, but MN will be in a Western regional, while UNH hosts an Eastern regional. Also according to Jim's post, UND will either be #6 or #8 overall. The need to resolve the 2/7 dilemma will give the committee the cover it needs to move teams wherever they'd like. It looks like UND's seed is dependent on Notre Dame. If the other ND loses, they will be 8 and the Sioux will be 6. If the Irish win, the Sioux are 8, and 6 will be either BC or Lowell. It seems possible that it will simply not matter whether UND is 6 or 8, as they are both equally switchable with UNH at 7.

Oh the drama. I wasn't disgusted at all. The team showed up and played well, but below average goaltending isn't going to cut it. As for the defense, their job is to limit quality scoring chances. Mistakes will be made and the other teams actually take actions on the ice as well, so stuff is going to happen. But did they limit chances? Yes. CC scored their third goal on their 12th shot, and I think they probably had about two good scoring chances at that point in the game. Overall, the defense was fine, and the effort, possession and chances were tilted to the Sioux, and that will win most games. Provided the goaltending is roughly on par with the other guy. I'll take the days off and take my chances next weekend, whatever the draw is.

MN and UND will each get either Tech or BSU, and neither one looks like it will be a picnic. I've seen enough of Bemidji the last three games to respect them and realize they're not only not horrible, but not bad and in fact even a good solid team. One that could well win that series against either MN or UND, if they get a few bounces and some loose officiating. Tech has had their ups and downs this season, but they're obviously playing well now, having thrashed SCSU last week and now shutting out CC last night. Aside from UAA, any of the league's teams could be in St. Paul in two weeks.

Of course that was right after he slew-footed Kidd, who then went on a mission for vengeance.

Without reaching a conclusion that it is right or wrong, I will say that the Sioux teams of the middle of the last decade, those anchored by the wicked physical defensemen referenced in my signature, were built to win Stanley Cup style playoff series. Those are wars of attrition, and I understand that later in the playoffs, lockerrooms look like medical wards. In that format, those Sioux teams would have worn out the opponent in series after series, and I'm quite convinced they would have won multiple titles. As it was, UND's very physical style left them battered as well, only to move on to the next opponent, which hadn't been in a physical battle. That may partially explain why BC sometimes looked so much fresher than UND. (Although to be fair, the group of defensemen I referenced above didn't get to see BC in the tournament, except when they beat them to win the Beanpot.) I've wondered if UND's shift to more puck-movers or two-way defensemen, and fewer mashers, has been partly by design to move away from building a playoff-series style team. Although I've wondered it, I doubt it has been planned; it might just be that the certain top defensemen UND has been able to land have been more that style. Also on this topic, the Frattin team combined those horses on the first line with Blood and Mac on defense. That was a team definitely built to wear out a team over a week.

I can't fault the guys. Bemidji had the puck for about 10% of the game. Sometimes it just won't go in.

He was nicked up.