COMMITTED UND Recruits

[SJHovey]

Man, I’m not a huge fan of poor mouthing recruits who won’t be here for a year. For what it’s worth, Chris Dilks tweeted that Ness has been really good in the USHL this year. Chris, who is no friend of ours, seems to have a decent eye for hockey talent.

[Tradition]

17 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

Man, I’m not a huge fan of pour mouthing recruits who won’t be here for a year. For what it’s worth, Chris Dilks tweeted that Ness has been really good in the USHL this year. Chris, who is no friend of ours, seems to have a decent eye for hockey talent.

Better change “pour” to “poor” before MafiaMan sees it...

[MafiaMan]

18 minutes ago, Tradition said:

Better change “pour” to “poor” before MafiaMan sees it...

[The Sicatoka]

To my observation we've been getting too many recruits that only emerge at age 19+. That means more than likely they've been playing 3+ years of junior, and they are finally playing against 16 year olds. That's when they start to have even remotely decent numbers. But what when they move up the level? Well, track record says they take a couple years to figure a new level out and during that time, yup, they're starting to age over the competition. 

Folks, Tucker Poolman is a unique exception, not the model. 

Where are the days of the 18 year old recruit that can come in and be an impact player because he's just that good (e.g. Toews, Parise). Where are those recruits? 

[The Sicatoka]

9 hours ago, Tradition said:

Better change “pour” to “poor” before MafiaMan sees it...

You dare not leave any pore open or Mafia will exploit it. 

 

[AJS]

7 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

To my observation we've been getting too many recruits that only emerge at age 19+. That means more than likely they've been playing 3+ years of junior, and they are finally playing against 16 year olds. That's when they start to have even remotely decent numbers. But what when they move up the level? Well, track record says they take a couple years to figure a new level out and during that time, yup, they're starting to age over the competition. 

Folks, Tucker Poolman is a unique exception, not the model. 

Where are the days of the 18 year old recruit that can come in and be an impact player because he's just that good (e.g. Toews, Parise). Where are those recruits? 

Really? You are literally talking about 100% of the 2019 Freshman class. Every single member will be an 18 year old true freshman. Blaisdell, Caulfield, Pinto, Rizzo will be the four incoming forward recruits, Bast / Frisch will be the two incoming defensive recruits.

You are right, the two most recent recruits don't fit that mold, but guess who does? True Freshman (locks) of the 2020 class, Halliday, Bowen, Miller, Kleven (possibility of Reid).

[SJHovey]

9 hours ago, Tradition said:

Better change “pour” to “poor” before MafiaMan sees it...

Haha.  This is why old people should not post on their cellphones.  Damn tough to see. 

[SJHovey]

32 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

To my observation we've been getting too many recruits that only emerge at age 19+. That means more than likely they've been playing 3+ years of junior, and they are finally playing against 16 year olds. That's when they start to have even remotely decent numbers. But what when they move up the level? Well, track record says they take a couple years to figure a new level out and during that time, yup, they're starting to age over the competition. 

Folks, Tucker Poolman is a unique exception, not the model. 

Where are the days of the 18 year old recruit that can come in and be an impact player because he's just that good (e.g. Toews, Parise). Where are those recruits? 

I get why people here are frustrated.  It's always more fun to win championships than to be a middle of the pack team.  But there are a few here who think that identifying and landing great college hockey players, then turning them into a championship team is easy, or something that if the coaches just knew what they were doing or at least tried, they would accomplish.  It is not that easy.

Your question goes to one of the three great myths that I see offered way too frequently on this board.

MYTH #1 - The System

People complain that the coaching staff's "system" is stifling all of these great scorers coming out of juniors and turning them into grinders.  It's the same "system" and core group of coaches and coaching philosophy that's been around UND since at least 2004-05.  It's the identical system and group of coaches who were in place in 2015-16.  Folks, I don't think it's the system, whatever that is.

MYTH #2 - Failure to Develop

College hockey fans of some of the major programs like to brag about how their program "develops" NHL players.  That is largely a myth.  Parise, Boeser, Toews, Oshie, Stecher, et al, were going to be great college hockey players wherever they played, and were going to play in the NHL.  What the college programs can do is round out their games.  They can teach better decision making.  They can teach players to be more responsible in all zones of the ice.  But if you think any staff can take a player out of juniors and "develop" him into a 25 goal scorer in college is just wishful thinking.  To me, the question is do the players who enter as freshmen play the game better when they leave as seniors, juniors or whenever?  That doesn't mean do they score more goals in a season.  I think our coaching staffs over the years have done a good job of this.

MYTH #3 - Failure to Recruit

This touches upon your question.  Where are the great 18 year olds who come in and dominate the college game, and why isn't our staff landing all of them?  It is extraordinarily difficult to look at a player, especially when you project out 2, 3 or 4 years, and determine whether their great talent at the current level will translate over to the next level.  In fact, if you believe you possess that ability, then you are wasting your time and semi-trailers full of cash posting here.  You need to contact an NHL front office.  Just think about some things we've seen with our own program.  Brock Boeser and Chris Wilkie both came to our program the same year, out of the same junior league.  They were coached by the same coaches, using the same "system."  They had tied for the goal scoring title in the USHL the year before.  So, why is one of them a budding star in the NHL and the other playing in what seems like his 14th college season?  Think back to 2010-11.  Who here would have predicted that Carter Rowney, having been declared a flop after just 4 goals in his first two seasons here, would likely have a better NHL career than Matt Frattin?

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  The days of a Michigan, North Dakota, BC, Minnesota, Wisconsin or other schools loading up on all the talent is long since gone, and even if they happen to have a spectacular year recruiting (seemingly), it doesn't necessarily translate into team success (see BU).

[The Sicatoka]

10 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  

I accept your analysis. But now I beg a question based on the above part of your statement:

If college hockey is a different game than 15 or 30 years ago, is UND adapting to the change? 

On defense, I'd say yes. The corps has gotten faster (and smaller) and is much more skilled with the puck than even 5 years ago. 

But at forward we seem to think we need a true fourth line grind line, and a third line "match" line*. Is that even relevant in today's game? And a grind line is not the same as 2016's Heavy line. They could still score and generate offense. Closest to that I've seen since is Hain-Smith-Senden. And a match line is not generating offense much less scoring opportunity. 

Has our offensive play and group of forwards kept up with the times? 

I see some are claiming next years group will. Tick. Tock. 

 

*A match line is a line that can go "+/- zero" against the other team's top line. They don't let their top guys score, but can't generate any offense. 

[tnt]

39 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I get why people here are frustrated.  It's always more fun to win championships than to be a middle of the pack team.  But there are a few here who think that identifying and landing great college hockey players, then turning them into a championship team is easy, or something that if the coaches just knew what they were doing or at least tried, they would accomplish.  It is not that easy.

Your question goes to one of the three great myths that I see offered way too frequently on this board.

MYTH #1 - The System

People complain that the coaching staff's "system" is stifling all of these great scorers coming out of juniors and turning them into grinders.  It's the same "system" and core group of coaches and coaching philosophy that's been around UND since at least 2004-05.  It's the identical system and group of coaches who were in place in 2015-16.  Folks, I don't think it's the system, whatever that is.

MYTH #2 - Failure to Develop

College hockey fans of some of the major programs like to brag about how their program "develops" NHL players.  That is largely a myth.  Parise, Boeser, Toews, Oshie, Stecher, et al, were going to be great college hockey players wherever they played, and were going to play in the NHL.  What the college programs can do is round out their games.  They can teach better decision making.  They can teach players to be more responsible in all zones of the ice.  But if you think any staff can take a player out of juniors and "develop" him into a 25 goal scorer in college is just wishful thinking.  To me, the question is do the players who enter as freshmen play the game better when they leave as seniors, juniors or whenever?  That doesn't mean do they score more goals in a season.  I think our coaching staffs over the years have done a good job of this.

MYTH #3 - Failure to Recruit

This touches upon your question.  Where are the great 18 year olds who come in and dominate the college game, and why isn't our staff landing all of them?  It is extraordinarily difficult to look at a player, especially when you project out 2, 3 or 4 years, and determine whether their great talent at the current level will translate over to the next level.  In fact, if you believe you possess that ability, then you are wasting your time and semi-trailers full of cash posting here.  You need to contact an NHL front office.  Just think about some things we've seen with our own program.  Brock Boeser and Chris Wilkie both came to our program the same year, out of the same junior league.  They were coached by the same coaches, using the same "system."  They had tied for the goal scoring title in the USHL the year before.  So, why is one of them a budding star in the NHL and the other playing in what seems like his 14th college season?  Think back to 2010-11.  Who here would have predicted that Carter Rowney, having been declared a flop after just 4 goals in his first two seasons here, would likely have a better NHL career than Matt Frattin?

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  The days of a Michigan, North Dakota, BC, Minnesota, Wisconsin or other schools loading up on all the talent is long since gone, and even if they happen to have a spectacular year recruiting (seemingly), it doesn't necessarily translate into team success (see BU).

So, no problem, it is what it is, despite having major advantages in recruiting.  So this all happened just within the last 3 or 4 years, because last I remembered we had a run of NCAA tournaments going, a run of top half league finishes, and a run of making the Frozen Faceoff/WCHA Final Five.  We'll see how the rest of this year goes in those regards, but I don't think the coaches can be totally absolved in all of this.  If mediocre is just the way things are going in college hockey, with all the budget problems we have been having, you might as well hire Grant Paranica and let him choose a cheap staff.  My guess is the power play would not be any worse, and with the recruiting advantages they should still be able to finish in the middle of the NCHC.  That said, I think things change next year and the subsequent years, which proves the point that they had some bad recruiting years by focusing too much on grinders and role players.  

[90siouxfan]

Perhaps UND is late to the party in recruiting at the 12 yo level?

[The Sicatoka]

19 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

Perhaps UND is late to the party in recruiting at the 12 yo level?

The very latest in recruiting tools ... 

[scpa0305]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

To my observation we've been getting too many recruits that only emerge at age 19+. That means more than likely they've been playing 3+ years of junior, and they are finally playing against 16 year olds. That's when they start to have even remotely decent numbers. But what when they move up the level? Well, track record says they take a couple years to figure a new level out and during that time, yup, they're starting to age over the competition. 

Folks, Tucker Poolman is a unique exception, not the model. 

Where are the days of the 18 year old recruit that can come in and be an impact player because he's just that good (e.g. Toews, Parise). Where are those recruits? 

I agree with most of what you're saying here...as far as older players dominating against younger competition.  But I would like to know how many 16 YOs there are in the USHL; I would doubt there are more than 3-5.  That league is so tough now.  If you put up big points in the USHL you will be good in college hockey...now matter what your age is.  That league has even changed from 5 years ago with all the new Euro influx. 

I have heard this Ness kid is kind of a later bloomer.  Hopefully he picks it up (production wise) during the stretch run and has a good year next year when some of the older kids move on.

As far as your last comment, I assume you mean first round talent.  They are going elsewhere.

[scpa0305]

1 hour ago, SJHovey said:

I get why people here are frustrated.  It's always more fun to win championships than to be a middle of the pack team.  But there are a few here who think that identifying and landing great college hockey players, then turning them into a championship team is easy, or something that if the coaches just knew what they were doing or at least tried, they would accomplish.  It is not that easy.

Your question goes to one of the three great myths that I see offered way too frequently on this board.

MYTH #1 - The System

People complain that the coaching staff's "system" is stifling all of these great scorers coming out of juniors and turning them into grinders.  It's the same "system" and core group of coaches and coaching philosophy that's been around UND since at least 2004-05.  It's the identical system and group of coaches who were in place in 2015-16.  Folks, I don't think it's the system, whatever that is.

MYTH #2 - Failure to Develop

College hockey fans of some of the major programs like to brag about how their program "develops" NHL players.  That is largely a myth.  Parise, Boeser, Toews, Oshie, Stecher, et al, were going to be great college hockey players wherever they played, and were going to play in the NHL.  What the college programs can do is round out their games.  They can teach better decision making.  They can teach players to be more responsible in all zones of the ice.  But if you think any staff can take a player out of juniors and "develop" him into a 25 goal scorer in college is just wishful thinking.  To me, the question is do the players who enter as freshmen play the game better when they leave as seniors, juniors or whenever?  That doesn't mean do they score more goals in a season.  I think our coaching staffs over the years have done a good job of this.

MYTH #3 - Failure to Recruit

This touches upon your question.  Where are the great 18 year olds who come in and dominate the college game, and why isn't our staff landing all of them?  It is extraordinarily difficult to look at a player, especially when you project out 2, 3 or 4 years, and determine whether their great talent at the current level will translate over to the next level.  In fact, if you believe you possess that ability, then you are wasting your time and semi-trailers full of cash posting here.  You need to contact an NHL front office.  Just think about some things we've seen with our own program.  Brock Boeser and Chris Wilkie both came to our program the same year, out of the same junior league.  They were coached by the same coaches, using the same "system."  They had tied for the goal scoring title in the USHL the year before.  So, why is one of them a budding star in the NHL and the other playing in what seems like his 14th college season?  Think back to 2010-11.  Who here would have predicted that Carter Rowney, having been declared a flop after just 4 goals in his first two seasons here, would likely have a better NHL career than Matt Frattin?

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  The days of a Michigan, North Dakota, BC, Minnesota, Wisconsin or other schools loading up on all the talent is long since gone, and even if they happen to have a spectacular year recruiting (seemingly), it doesn't necessarily translate into team success (see BU).

Bingo, a lot of this is factual.  But...we did miss out on high end talent, specifically at the F position, the past few recruiting classes.  One here or there and then they leave a year early.  What happens is you are left with solid 5x5 guys and we hope they turn into high point producers (i.e. Gardner).  Many times Ive noticed that we get (or used to get) the high end guy and backfill it with tough to play against guys.  When the high end guys leave, you're left with solid 5x5 guys....which is where we are today.  I do like next year's recruiting class and I do think some of our FR and Soph players will take that jump next year.  We simply don't have strong upperclassmen....from a point production standpoint.

[SJHovey]

1 hour ago, tnt said:

So, no problem, it is what it is, despite having major advantages in recruiting.  So this all happened just within the last 3 or 4 years, because last I remembered we had a run of NCAA tournaments going, a run of top half league finishes, and a run of making the Frozen Faceoff/WCHA Final Five.  We'll see how the rest of this year goes in those regards, but I don't think the coaches can be totally absolved in all of this.  If mediocre is just the way things are going in college hockey, with all the budget problems we have been having, you might as well hire Grant Paranica and let him choose a cheap staff.  My guess is the power play would not be any worse, and with the recruiting advantages they should still be able to finish in the middle of the NCHC.  That said, I think things change next year and the subsequent years, which proves the point that they had some bad recruiting years by focusing too much on grinders and role players.  

We have advantages over many schools in terms of recruiting, but most of those schools we're really not competing with on a recruit by recruit basis.  But if you list the top 15 college hockey programs out there, do we really have that much of an advantage?

We have facilities and tradition and a quality staff (although on this board we seem to spend a lot of time trying to dispel that advantage).  But there are a lot of schools located in geographically more pleasing areas, in larger metropolitan areas, in locations with more media exposure, with quality coaching and training staffs, etc...

[Irish]

1 hour ago, SJHovey said:

I get why people here are frustrated.  It's always more fun to win championships than to be a middle of the pack team.  But there are a few here who think that identifying and landing great college hockey players, then turning them into a championship team is easy, or something that if the coaches just knew what they were doing or at least tried, they would accomplish.  It is not that easy.

Your question goes to one of the three great myths that I see offered way too frequently on this board.

MYTH #1 - The System

People complain that the coaching staff's "system" is stifling all of these great scorers coming out of juniors and turning them into grinders.  It's the same "system" and core group of coaches and coaching philosophy that's been around UND since at least 2004-05.  It's the identical system and group of coaches who were in place in 2015-16.  Folks, I don't think it's the system, whatever that is.

MYTH #2 - Failure to Develop

College hockey fans of some of the major programs like to brag about how their program "develops" NHL players.  That is largely a myth.  Parise, Boeser, Toews, Oshie, Stecher, et al, were going to be great college hockey players wherever they played, and were going to play in the NHL.  What the college programs can do is round out their games.  They can teach better decision making.  They can teach players to be more responsible in all zones of the ice.  But if you think any staff can take a player out of juniors and "develop" him into a 25 goal scorer in college is just wishful thinking.  To me, the question is do the players who enter as freshmen play the game better when they leave as seniors, juniors or whenever?  That doesn't mean do they score more goals in a season.  I think our coaching staffs over the years have done a good job of this.

MYTH #3 - Failure to Recruit

This touches upon your question.  Where are the great 18 year olds who come in and dominate the college game, and why isn't our staff landing all of them?  It is extraordinarily difficult to look at a player, especially when you project out 2, 3 or 4 years, and determine whether their great talent at the current level will translate over to the next level.  In fact, if you believe you possess that ability, then you are wasting your time and semi-trailers full of cash posting here.  You need to contact an NHL front office.  Just think about some things we've seen with our own program.  Brock Boeser and Chris Wilkie both came to our program the same year, out of the same junior league.  They were coached by the same coaches, using the same "system."  They had tied for the goal scoring title in the USHL the year before.  So, why is one of them a budding star in the NHL and the other playing in what seems like his 14th college season?  Think back to 2010-11.  Who here would have predicted that Carter Rowney, having been declared a flop after just 4 goals in his first two seasons here, would likely have a better NHL career than Matt Frattin?

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  The days of a Michigan, North Dakota, BC, Minnesota, Wisconsin or other schools loading up on all the talent is long since gone, and even if they happen to have a spectacular year recruiting (seemingly), it doesn't necessarily translate into team success (see BU).

So ..... if it isn't our system, failure to develop, or failure to recruit how in the wide wide world of sports have we ended up with perhaps the most punchless team in Sioux history.  St. Cloud, Duluth, and Denver don't seem to be having this problem.  Something has to be amiss, and with Berry's continual coachspeak we are left to speculate.  We should have some recruiting advantages here with our facilities, tradition, fans, and history of developing NHL players.  I agree with some who have suggested that Berry is enamored with grinders.  No excuse for our lack of scoring - none. 

[Irish]

21 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

We have advantages over many schools in terms of recruiting, but most of those schools we're really not competing with on a recruit by recruit basis.  But if you list the top 15 college hockey programs out there, do we really have that much of an advantage?

We have facilities and tradition and a quality staff (although on this board we seem to spend a lot of time trying to dispel that advantage).  But there are a lot of schools located in geographically more pleasing areas, in larger metropolitan areas, in locations with more media exposure, with quality coaching and training staffs, etc...

We sure should have an advantage over St. Cloud and Duluth.

[SJHovey]

3 minutes ago, Irish said:

We sure should have an advantage over St. Cloud and Duluth.

We certainly have a much nicer facility than Duluth, and we have a much deeper tradition.  But everyone I ever talked to who went to school at UMD loved the school.  Duluth is a fun town.  It also has the advantage of location in terms of recruiting.  The Duluth high schools and surrounding areas have turned out a lot of good recruits.

Yeah, I agree we have an advantage, but I'm not certain it's as large or distinct as we might like to think.

[Irish]

21 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

We certainly have a much nicer facility than Duluth, and we have a much deeper tradition.  But everyone I ever talked to who went to school at UMD loved the school.  Duluth is a fun town.  It also has the advantage of location in terms of recruiting.  The Duluth high schools and surrounding areas have turned out a lot of good recruits.

Yeah, I agree we have an advantage, but I'm not certain it's as large or distinct as we might like to think.

Point taken - I'm not saying we should win every recruiting battle with them, but in my mind there is no reason those two schools should be skating circles around us.

[franchise]

15 hours ago, tnt said:

I guess if you can't beat the Griffins, you might as well get a Griffin.

[Walsh Hall]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

 

If college hockey is a different game than 15 or 30 years ago, is UND adapting to the change? 

 

It's different in the parity.  Minn, Michigan, Wis, BC, BU, and UND were all outside the top 20.

The elite kids are recruited at an insanely young age.  There's as many misses as hits in recruiting a 14/15 year old.  There also are way more kids to pick from that are essentially equal, and a stagnant number of college teams.  The talent level difference isn't that great anymore.  Add in the misses, and "lower" schools having generally older players, it isn't difficult to see why UMinn isn't dominant every year.

Add to the early recruiting, if the kid becomes a blue chipper, he's gone in a couple years.

Recruiting and striking a balance has to be extremely difficult, and certainly much more difficult than 15-30 years ago.

[fightingsioux4life]

3 hours ago, SJHovey said:

I get why people here are frustrated.  It's always more fun to win championships than to be a middle of the pack team.  But there are a few here who think that identifying and landing great college hockey players, then turning them into a championship team is easy, or something that if the coaches just knew what they were doing or at least tried, they would accomplish.  It is not that easy.

Your question goes to one of the three great myths that I see offered way too frequently on this board.

MYTH #1 - The System

People complain that the coaching staff's "system" is stifling all of these great scorers coming out of juniors and turning them into grinders.  It's the same "system" and core group of coaches and coaching philosophy that's been around UND since at least 2004-05.  It's the identical system and group of coaches who were in place in 2015-16.  Folks, I don't think it's the system, whatever that is.

MYTH #2 - Failure to Develop

College hockey fans of some of the major programs like to brag about how their program "develops" NHL players.  That is largely a myth.  Parise, Boeser, Toews, Oshie, Stecher, et al, were going to be great college hockey players wherever they played, and were going to play in the NHL.  What the college programs can do is round out their games.  They can teach better decision making.  They can teach players to be more responsible in all zones of the ice.  But if you think any staff can take a player out of juniors and "develop" him into a 25 goal scorer in college is just wishful thinking.  To me, the question is do the players who enter as freshmen play the game better when they leave as seniors, juniors or whenever?  That doesn't mean do they score more goals in a season.  I think our coaching staffs over the years have done a good job of this.

MYTH #3 - Failure to Recruit

This touches upon your question.  Where are the great 18 year olds who come in and dominate the college game, and why isn't our staff landing all of them?  It is extraordinarily difficult to look at a player, especially when you project out 2, 3 or 4 years, and determine whether their great talent at the current level will translate over to the next level.  In fact, if you believe you possess that ability, then you are wasting your time and semi-trailers full of cash posting here.  You need to contact an NHL front office.  Just think about some things we've seen with our own program.  Brock Boeser and Chris Wilkie both came to our program the same year, out of the same junior league.  They were coached by the same coaches, using the same "system."  They had tied for the goal scoring title in the USHL the year before.  So, why is one of them a budding star in the NHL and the other playing in what seems like his 14th college season?  Think back to 2010-11.  Who here would have predicted that Carter Rowney, having been declared a flop after just 4 goals in his first two seasons here, would likely have a better NHL career than Matt Frattin?

College hockey is a different game, even more than it was 15 years ago, and light years from the way it was 30 years ago.  The days of a Michigan, North Dakota, BC, Minnesota, Wisconsin or other schools loading up on all the talent is long since gone, and even if they happen to have a spectacular year recruiting (seemingly), it doesn't necessarily translate into team success (see BU).

So essentially, accept being a mid-major as the new reality and get used to it.

Sorry, I will not do that.

[SJHovey]

The only thing I would say about the program that I would like the staff to look at is this.  Since the early 1980's until Eades left a few years ago, we always had a Minnesota high school hockey connection on the coaching staff.  Blais, Eades, Frank Serratore, Jim Scanlan, Sandelin, Osiecki.  We always had someone who was from Minnesota or who played high school hockey in Minnesota or coached high school hockey in Minnesota or something.

Recruiting is very relationship driven and I've always thought that a lot of Dean Blais' success was due to the relationships he had with other Minnesota high school coaches, either through his days at the U or through his high school coaching days.  Eades and Sandelin also had a lot of that.

I don't think we have the connections with the state hockey programs the way we used to, and that perhaps makes recruiting in the state more difficult.  It's harder to find those hidden diamonds without some inside information.

[Sioux1988]

Where do our recruits fit in the lineup next year? I know it's WAY TOO soon but would Pinto or Blaisdell center the first or second line. That's presuming Weatherby is first line, because I can't imagine Dixon Bowen being our 1. Senden 1st line? We're going to have to have some production from these kids if we don't want to see this season repeat itself.

[90siouxfan]

I recall hearing several times in the last few years that making players into 200' players is a program attribute, is this "focus" sending the elite danglers and snipers looking to where their talents are cultivate.  Not saying that is a good thing for a high end talent to do, but do these kids want a highlight reel or a 20 year NHL career?  This kind of goes against UND's record of placing players in the NHL but I had a thought and wanted to share, flame away.