jk

Let's all fly off the handle when we don't know the story behind the lineup changes. We can guess and make stuff up and pretty soon there's a problem in the room and maybe eventually nobody has a heart.

I personally like the smaller conference schedule and the greater variety of opponents from year to year. As for home opponents, I really don't care who is on the other bench; I just want to see UND win.

You just can't compare eras. The most glaring thing you see when watching old highlights is how terrible the goalies were. For that reason, Frattin's 36 goals were to me a bigger accomplishment than Joyce's 52. I also think if you transplanted yesterday's stars onto today's teams, they wouldn't be able to keep up, as guys are much faster and stronger. That said, the only fair comparison is how they looked compared to their peers at the time, and by that measure the names posted here deserve to be considered all-time greats. Hrkac certainly made people look sillier than anyone else I can think of.

I missed the pre-1984 guys, but since then three guys that to me towered over college hockey in their last seasons were: Hrkac Jeff Panzer Frattin Each was the best player in college hockey by a pretty fair stretch. That's who I would start with. Other thoughts: Toews was silky smooth in a way I haven't seen before or since. Odd that Steve Johnson hasn't gotten much love, as he did lead the nation in scoring his senior year. Although I didn't see them play, I have to think Taylor, Smail and Murray probably belong on these lists.

Dell was far, far better than "average at best." He was the best Sioux goalie since Karl and I thank him for his contributions to two memorable teams, teams which wouldn't have gone as far as they did without him.

I can see your points, and at the same time, I can see things changing as well. Sometimes scoring can be so hard, and other times the puck just goes in. I get the feeling it's going to start going in. They may trot out different lines on Friday and I'll be wrong again, but to me there are two scoring lines to work with now, and I'd ride those for a while. It doesn't really matter to me who populates lines three and four; there are about nine guys to pick from, they can all play, and they just need to play hard, not make dumb mistakes and stay out of the box. I'm going to be a contrarian again and note that SC, a very good offensive team, didn't manage many good offensive chances on Saturday. Maybe it was just an off night for them, or perhaps it's possible that UND's defense isn't as terrible as I've heard lately, a hundred times, and all because of that darn Berry.

Although it has gotten bad from time to time over the years, the current group of witch-hunting posters seems to have reached new levels of moronic behavior. With the exception of national titles (which is "the" big one, but not the only one), no non-BC program in the country measures up to UND in terms of results over Hak's tenure. Denver, MN and Wisconsin, Western stars, have all missed multiple NCAA tourneys. And now they've taken to ripping the press coverage that is, hands down, the best in the college game. Sioux fans get NHL-caliber coverage that every other die-hard longs for. Compounding the stupidity is that the current complaint is over supposed selective coverage of a story that was heavily covered when it was news. You can't make this ridiculous idiocy up. When this assinine group eventually leaves the forum, I can hope next round is at least a touch brighter.

One point sucks, but they'll win most games they play this well. Big step forward for Parks tonight, and that entire line, which finally showed some of what we saw last year. That will be important down the stretch. These recent results have probably doomed a regular season title, but the season is not over, and based on what I saw tonight, this team can still accomplish things this year.

It's a long season, filled with ups and downs. This is a pretty low "down." The coaches are proven winners, as evidenced by the last eight years of consistent success. As professionals near the top of their field, they are the ones with the best chance of figuring out how to get back to success this year. Berry, in particular, has coached some of the best defensive units in recent Sioux history. Individuals and teams get better under his coaching. The coaches and players care about the team and its success more than anyone posting on the board. These are their lives, professions, and future professions, and they have put countless hours into them. It's not a hobby or interest like it is for fans. Last year's team had a ton of heart. Unless you think the "heart" resided in just one of two players, then the players on last year's team had heart. Almost all of the players from last year's team returned this year. I conclude they are the same high-character guys who won the hearts of Sioux fans last year, temporarily struggling. Not suddenly heartless. Heartless is a character conclusion, and not one you can just reverse with the next good game. Poor effort and execution should be criticized, and last night provided ample opportunities for both. I laugh at silly juvenile overreactions suggesting that players and coaches don't care and have no heart.

I would be completely happy to get in as a 3 or 4 seed. The league schedule down the stretch is a bear, and it really doesn't matter what seed you are or who you play. You have to play well and get good goaltending no matter who you play.

These forward lines are pretty much spot on for me. Based on Rocco's play for most of the year, getting back on the development curve after a year off, I felt that he didn't belong on the top line and would have been a liability there. If he's going to play like he did last night, I'd give him a shot there. That was, to me, his best game for UND to date, and better than he looked in the WJC. I like to keep the second line together, and I like reuniting the true fourth-liners. I'm not as down on Schmaltz as many. He's a freshman and he doesn't make many mistakes with the puck. I'd have Panzarella in on the small sheet for his physicality, but I'm not sure who would come out. Based just on last night, it would be Mattson for me. The Sioux are short on hitters, which is a good reason to keep that fourth line together. In a few years, when all the big committed defensemen show up, the Sioux D will probably be back to long on size and physicality, and short on puck-movers. Then we can recycle the board whines from eight years ago about the lack of skilled D.

The funny thing about needing to get lines set and stick with them ... Blais changes lines five times a game to find the right mix. (This isn't a Blais-love thing, just noting that maybe lines don't need to be set in stone.)

The best thing in this whole thread. They actually know what they're doing, unlike everyone posting here.

I've just read the last few posts, but I think I get the general idea. I attended, and I'll just say I disagree with the general tone. Through most of the game, it looked like two teams that were so good they just didn't give the other team much of a chance to get anything going. I thought the Sioux defense was quite composed in their own end for much of the game, making smart D to D passes to take advantage of the extra room and get the puck to safety. MN rarely set up in the offensive zone for extended time 5-on-5, and it's not like Saunders stood on his head to make miraculous saves throughout the game. This would be in contrast, for instance, with the Final Five semi last year, when Dell kept that game at 3-0 through the first two periods rather than twice that, when UND couldn't even touch the puck. That team was overmatched badly, despite the wondrous comeback. Last night was not such a mismatch; it was two teams that played pretty close to equally well, and one got things to go in the net. UND made mistakes and can obviously be better, but they weren't terrible and I still like their potential to accomplish good things this year.

Thanks for all that. I agree with it, but hadn't found the time to type it up. (I have a project at work I need to put to paper as well, can you type that up also?) Also, I think Gleason plays both nights, maybe at forward. We've seen the big ice really open things us for his skating, and I think he and Rocco especially will have moments this weekend where their speed stands out. Also, Gleason at forward gives them some insurance in case they lose a defenseman to injury or DQ. Leaving Mitch up top still opens up the RPM line, which I've waited nine months for as well. Rowney had a way of getting open, and Mark had a way of getting him the puck. That leaves a Rocco, Caggiula, St. Clair third line as a possibility, which worked well earlier, including at CC, I think. Which was on the big ice.

Most importantly for us here, I'll watch with interest to see if the terms change in a way that makes it more or less likely for players to leave college early.

That Knight behind the net to Kristo for the open net play looked a lot like 21 to 20 in 1987. Not that the players are similar, but the play looked familiar. For you oldtimers.

OD was in the BCHL one year, and Mitch was already gone. (I think)

Pattyn took a penalty right after a goal earlier in the second period as well. I believe that resulted in the SHG, but it was still not a good move for the fourth line.

Old Barn Guy: Thank you. It was getting a little silly.

I think they need to take the body a lot more, which is why I don't mind one bit Pattyn choosing a check over the puck. It's also why I won't complain about MacWilliam taking penalties. They're almost always for hits, and I can take that. Rodwell was supposed to add that physical element as well, but I haven't seen it much this year. Subtracting Blood and Mario (and also Parks, who throws his body around some) is something this team hasn't adjusted to yet physically. Panzarella and Jim might help in that department as well. Not sure who you take out, but I'm sure they can find someone who wasn't going full speed. It was disappointing to see the all-senior top line bottled up in their own end in the third by a line with two freshmen.

I'm happy with Saunders as well, but Dell gets too little respect. When it counted most, he allowed 2 goals in 3 NCAA tournament games. He faced 67 shots, with a save pct. of .970 and GAA of about .667. Some of the earlier years may be attrbutable to faltering goaltending on the big stage, but not 2011. He was also outstanding in the Spring of 2012; although the numbers aren't as strong, he carried an overmatched team to the Final Five title. Among the many reasons the 2011 failure is a shame is that Dell won't go down in UND history as one of the best to play the position. Which he was.

They did lose eight games, including one to US International, from San Diego (I think). If there had been an internet, this group would have melted down after each and every one of them.

Loved Grimaldi trying to go soccer and deflect the flying puck in with his chest. Had he not been checked I'll bet it would have worked, and that would have been one for the highlight reel. It takes some real presence to not try to knock it in with a stick or hand, which are the instinctive moves.

Dell was a great college goalie, my favorite at UND since Goehring, and really only Goehring and Belfour are in the discussion since I started watching in the 1980s. His success was not a product of a good team in front of him; he was in fact a huge reason the teams in front of him were good. He had some easier playoff games and did his job, but he also had difficult ones and did an exceptional job keeping the team in those games. Memorably, the team had no legs left in OT in the 2011 Final Five title game against Denver, but he held on while the team recovered. One year later, UND was completely outclassed for 35 minutes against MN, and should have trailed by much more than 3-0; only Dell made it possible for UND to mount that historic comeback. I doubted him when he first took over for Eidness. His first appearance that year was shaky, and I remembered subpar efforts from the year before. But he won me over with his play (not numbers). No overcommitment, very quick recovery and most of all, he didn't spend a lot of time laying in the crease hoping the puck didn't find the wrong stick. With his size and sound positioning, he blocked a lot of shots just by being there. I personally think he will play in the NHL eventually. His route out of college might seem a bit unorthodox, but I think he'll succeed in time. I thank him for his huge contributions the last two years and wish him nothing but the best.