For CC, we solicited the participation of dedicated Colorado College fan Jeremy Landis. He was kind enough to help out with info on one of the participants in last year's WCHA Frozen Four.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 31-9-3, 19-7-2 WCHA (T-1st). Lost to Denver in NCAA semifinal.
Coach: Scott Owens, seventh season (153-76-18)
Top returnees
Forwards: Marty Sertich, Senior (27-37-64); Brett Sterling, Senior (34-29-63)
Defensemen: Brian Salcido, Junior (7-23-30); Lee Sweatt, Junior (3-25-28)
Goalies: Matt Zaba, Junior (10-5-2, 2.46 GAA, .922 SV%)
Top newcomers: D Cody Lampl; F Andreas Vlassopoulos; C Chad Rau; G Drew O’Connell
Biggest losses: G Curtis McElhinney (21-4-2, 2.24 GAA, .922 SV%); D Mark Stuart (5-14-19, 94 PIM); D Richard Petiot (3-5-8)
ON THE ICE
Assess your team’s 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
After winning a share of the MacNaughton Cup and making it to the Frozen Four, it is hard to say that much went wrong for CC in 04-05. It can be summed up with one name: Denver Goaltender Peter Mannino, who was dominant in his starts against the Tigers.
The goaltending tandem of Curtis McElhinney and Matt Zaba was superb, the D corps was deep and Brett Sterling and Marty Sertich lead a strong offensive attack. This was a team who consistently outworked their opponents, so they could never be counted out of a game. The biggest highlight of the season was beating Michigan near their own home in a dramatic comeback from 3-0 down, to advance to the Frozen Four.
Assess your team’s overall strengths:
Their top 8 scorers from 04-05 return, including Sterling and Sertich who are as good as any two forwards in the nation. (Both were Hobey Baker finalists in 04-05, with Sertich winning.) Goaltender Matt Zaba has shown flashes of brilliance and should be very good. CC should still be strong on defense, even after losing key blue liners Mark Stuart and Richard Petiot. They have good team speed, so they should be as dangerous as ever on the big ice sheet at World Arena.
Assess your team’s overall weaknesses:
There shouldn’t be many weaknesses. CC’s scoring depth after Sterling and Sertich should be better than 04-05, but is still a question mark going into the new season. They may be undersized, especially on defense.
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
This team has the potential to make the Frozen Four again and compete for a championship if they play up to their potential and stay healthy.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
As usual, the WCHA is loaded this season. There are too many “what ifs?” to give an exact prediction on CC. They should finish between second and fifth in the WCHA, depending on how well their young players pan out, how well Zaba handles being the #1 goaltender, and whether Sertich and Sterling can come close to duplicating their performances of last year. Even in the worst case, this team is talented enough for a top 5 finish, but if things fall properly into place for the Tigers and if they work as hard as they did in 04-05, the sky is the limit for how good they can be.
Bruce's analysis:
While the sky may be the limit, there are some issues on this team. There are young players on defense that have to prove themselves, and there is the issue, as Jeremy mentions, of how Zaba will handle the job of being the top goaltender. It's one thing to platoon and then sit on the bench while the team competes in the tournaments. It's another to be the go-to goaltender in all the big games. Zaba unquestionably has the talent. Sertich and Sterling, along with guys like Aaron Slattengren, will do their thing, and the Tigers will score goals-a-plenty. But I think the defense will be a bit leakier than last year, and that will relegate CC to a third-place finish, which should be plenty good enough for an NCAA bid. If Zaba comes into form, the Tigers will threaten another trip to the Frozen Four.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
WCHA Preview - 4. Wisconsin Badgers
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 23-14-4, 16-9-3 WCHA (3rd). Lost to Michigan in NCAA first round.
Coach: Mike Eaves, fourth season at UW (58-50-16), fifth season overall (67-69-16)
Top returnees
Forwards: Robbie Earl, jr (20-24-44); Joe Pavelski, soph (16-29-45); Ryan MacMurchy, sr (11-22-33); Ross Carlson, jr (12-17-29); Jake Dowell, jr (12-14-26)
Defensemen: Kyle Klubertanz, soph (3-15-18); Tom Gilbert, sr (8-9-17); Jeff Likens, jr (3-14-17)
Goalies: Brian Elliott, jr (6-2-1, 1.16, .945)
Top newcomers: Jack Skille, F; Tom Gorowsky, F; Ben Street, F; Shane Connelly, G
Biggest losses: Bernd Brückler, G (17-12-3, 2.40, .914)
ON THE ICE
Assess the team's 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
A lot went right for Bucky a year ago. The Badgers were ranked third at one point, made some progress offensively, and again advanced to the NCAA Tournament. They qualified for the Final Five, beating Alaska-Anchorage after losing a first-round series to the Seawolves a year earlier. There's no question that Wisconsin has made tremendous progress under Eaves, but more was wanted a year ago. The Badgers thought that Brückler was the goalie to lead them to the Frozen Four, but he couldn't do it all himself. The defense broke down a little bit down the stretch, and the Badgers had a ton of problems scoring goals as they stumbled to a 4-8-3 finish. They then went to the NCAAs and got thumped by Michigan 4-1 in the first round. That has to have left a bad taste in the mouths of all these returning players, as Wisconsin brings back just about everyone who played a role in last year's 23-win team.
Assess the team's overall strengths:
Despite Brückler's graduation, the defense and goaltending should again shine. Gilbert is the only senior in the group, and he's a good player on the blue line. Klubertanz and Likens are both good offensive players, though not great goal-scorers. Sophomore Davis Drewiske has some offensive upside. Elliott put up great numbers when called on last year, and he should be just fine as the main goalie this year. The offense needs to improve, and the talent is there to make it happen. Earl is one of the more dynamic players in the league, even if his head isn't always in the game on both ends of the ice. Pavelski, Carlson, and Dowell all have 15-20 goal potential, if not more (especially Pavelski). Skille might only be around for a year or two, but he'll be a huge spark to this team once he adjusts to the WCHA style, which probably won't take long.
Assess the team's overall weaknesses:
The offense faltered down the stretch, but the defense was also somewhat leaky in front of Brückler. Earl isn't always a good two-way player, and his focus has been called into question before. No one can deny his talent, but he's reached the point in his career where sheer talent won't get it done. He needs to grow up a bit and help this team when times are tough. Overall, Eaves needs more consistency from his forwards. The defense looked tired at times late in the season, and that is probably not going to repeat itself. But the Badgers are not particularly deep here, and they know they can't afford a lot of injuries or poor play.
Best-case scenario:
Pucks start flying into opponents' nets on a consistent basis, and the defensemen stay healthy and provide solid play in front of Elliott and Connelly. If all this happens, the Badgers become a serious threat to win the league.
Realistic projection:
The Badgers were fourth in the league in offense a year ago. A similar performance will probably get them pretty far this season. But more is expected from the skill players on this team. If Elliott shows that there is little dropoff after Brückler's departure, the Badgers will make some noise this season. Realistically, I think a fourth-place finish is attainable, with Wisconsin making the Final Five and getting the chance to play their NCAA regional game(s) in Green Bay on the way to a potential Frozen Four berth in Milwaukee.
Last year: 23-14-4, 16-9-3 WCHA (3rd). Lost to Michigan in NCAA first round.
Coach: Mike Eaves, fourth season at UW (58-50-16), fifth season overall (67-69-16)
Top returnees
Forwards: Robbie Earl, jr (20-24-44); Joe Pavelski, soph (16-29-45); Ryan MacMurchy, sr (11-22-33); Ross Carlson, jr (12-17-29); Jake Dowell, jr (12-14-26)
Defensemen: Kyle Klubertanz, soph (3-15-18); Tom Gilbert, sr (8-9-17); Jeff Likens, jr (3-14-17)
Goalies: Brian Elliott, jr (6-2-1, 1.16, .945)
Top newcomers: Jack Skille, F; Tom Gorowsky, F; Ben Street, F; Shane Connelly, G
Biggest losses: Bernd Brückler, G (17-12-3, 2.40, .914)
ON THE ICE
Assess the team's 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
A lot went right for Bucky a year ago. The Badgers were ranked third at one point, made some progress offensively, and again advanced to the NCAA Tournament. They qualified for the Final Five, beating Alaska-Anchorage after losing a first-round series to the Seawolves a year earlier. There's no question that Wisconsin has made tremendous progress under Eaves, but more was wanted a year ago. The Badgers thought that Brückler was the goalie to lead them to the Frozen Four, but he couldn't do it all himself. The defense broke down a little bit down the stretch, and the Badgers had a ton of problems scoring goals as they stumbled to a 4-8-3 finish. They then went to the NCAAs and got thumped by Michigan 4-1 in the first round. That has to have left a bad taste in the mouths of all these returning players, as Wisconsin brings back just about everyone who played a role in last year's 23-win team.
Assess the team's overall strengths:
Despite Brückler's graduation, the defense and goaltending should again shine. Gilbert is the only senior in the group, and he's a good player on the blue line. Klubertanz and Likens are both good offensive players, though not great goal-scorers. Sophomore Davis Drewiske has some offensive upside. Elliott put up great numbers when called on last year, and he should be just fine as the main goalie this year. The offense needs to improve, and the talent is there to make it happen. Earl is one of the more dynamic players in the league, even if his head isn't always in the game on both ends of the ice. Pavelski, Carlson, and Dowell all have 15-20 goal potential, if not more (especially Pavelski). Skille might only be around for a year or two, but he'll be a huge spark to this team once he adjusts to the WCHA style, which probably won't take long.
Assess the team's overall weaknesses:
The offense faltered down the stretch, but the defense was also somewhat leaky in front of Brückler. Earl isn't always a good two-way player, and his focus has been called into question before. No one can deny his talent, but he's reached the point in his career where sheer talent won't get it done. He needs to grow up a bit and help this team when times are tough. Overall, Eaves needs more consistency from his forwards. The defense looked tired at times late in the season, and that is probably not going to repeat itself. But the Badgers are not particularly deep here, and they know they can't afford a lot of injuries or poor play.
Best-case scenario:
Pucks start flying into opponents' nets on a consistent basis, and the defensemen stay healthy and provide solid play in front of Elliott and Connelly. If all this happens, the Badgers become a serious threat to win the league.
Realistic projection:
The Badgers were fourth in the league in offense a year ago. A similar performance will probably get them pretty far this season. But more is expected from the skill players on this team. If Elliott shows that there is little dropoff after Brückler's departure, the Badgers will make some noise this season. Realistically, I think a fourth-place finish is attainable, with Wisconsin making the Final Five and getting the chance to play their NCAA regional game(s) in Green Bay on the way to a potential Frozen Four berth in Milwaukee.
WCHA Preview - 5. North Dakota Fighting Sioux
For the Sioux entry, we've called upon USCHO Arena Reporter and Fighting Sioux fan Patrick C. Miller. We thank him kindly, and we invite you to check out his fine work at USCHO.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 25-15-5, 13-12-3 WCHA (5th). Lost to Denver in NCAA final.
Coach: Dave Hakstol, second season (25-15-5)
Top returnees
Forwards: Drew Stafford, junior (13-25-38); Travis Zajac, sophomore (20-19-39); Rastislav Spirko, sophomore, (16-21-37)
Defensemen: Matt Smaby, junior (1-2-3); Kyle Radke, sophomore (1-2-3)
Goalies: Jordan Parise, junior (2.13 GAA, .917 SV%, 17-7-3); Philippe Lamoureux, sophomore (2.19 GAA, .914 SV%, 7-8-2)
Top newcomers: T.J. Oshie, F (selected first round by St. Louis); Jonathan Toews, F; Brian Lee, D (selected first round by Ottawa); Joe Finley, D (selected first round by Washington)
Biggest losses: Matt Greene, D; Matt Jones, D; Colby Genoway, F; Rory McMahon, F
ON THE ICE
Assess your team’s 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
What a strange season that was. The Sioux were picked to finish high in the WCHA. They started off hot, then were hit with injury after injury. The offense disappeared and trips to the penalty box became far too frequent. By mid-February, practically everyone had written off the Sioux as a playoff team. Many questioned whether Dave Hakstol was the right person to replace Dean Blais. But then came March and the team suddenly came together and the offense caught fire. Jordan Parise emerged as the No. 1 goalie and played fantastic down the stretch. UND came up one game short, losing 4-1 to Denver in the national championship game. Lack of scoring in critical games has hurt the Sioux the past three seasons. Overall, it probably took too long for the players to buy into Hakstol’s system.
Assess your team’s overall strengths:
Jordan Parise has established himself as one of the best playoff goalies in college hockey and gives the Sioux the most solid goaltending they’ve had since Karl Goehring graduated in 2001. His backup, Philippe Lamoureux, put up solid numbers as a freshman and will challenge Parise for the starting job. The Sioux are in excellent shape here.
The team is talent-laden with no fewer than five NHL first-round draft picks (Drew Stafford, Travis Zajac, T.J. Oshie, Brian Lee and Joe Finley), six other NHL draftees and Jonathan Toews, considered a potential 2006 first rounder. The raw materials are there. The only question is: Can Hakstol and his staff put all the pieces together?
At the end of last season, the line of Spirko, Zajac and Stafford was one of the best in the country. If they can pickup where they left off, they’ll be formidable. Chris Porter and Erik Fabian, both juniors, are big, physical forwards who can grind and hit with the WCHA’s best. There’s plenty of young talent at the forward position that should make this year’s Sioux a faster, more exciting and higher scoring team.
The defense will be far different from that which Sioux fans have become accustomed the past three seasons. Brian Lee, Taylor Chorney and Kyle Radke give the Sioux more offensive talent at the blue line than they’ve had for several years. But Matt Smaby, Joe Finley and Zach Jones (Matt’s younger brother) can still bring the physical presence that’s characterized recent Sioux teams.
Dave Hakstol now has a year under his belt and has proven himself under the most trying of circumstances. He has the trust and respect of his players, which should make it easier for this year’s team to accept and learn his system.
Assess your team’s overall weaknesses:
Youth, youth and more youth – especially in the defensive corps. It’s likely that on any given night, half or more of UND’s roster will be freshmen. Smaby is a rock on defense, but he can’t do it alone. With junior Robbie Bina taking a medical redshirt year because of last season’s neck injury, the next most experienced defensemen are senior Lee Marvin, who’s seen little ice time the past three seasons, and sophomore Kyle Radke, who dressed for 29 games last season but saw limited playing time. The defensive corps will have to learn quickly under fire if UND is to have any hope of returning to the Frozen Four.
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Strong goaltending and an improved offense should help mask the growing pains that the young Sioux defensive corps are likely to experience early on, especially against WCHA competition. A high-scoring offense can make up for many defensive deficiencies. If UND can stay at .500 or above in the first half of the season and avoid injuries, experience and maturity will make them a very tough team to beat come playoff time.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Probably fourth, but a third place finish is within the realm of possibility if the team matures quickly and the talent plays up to its potential. I think Minnesota, Denver and Wisconsin will likely finish ahead of the Sioux. Once again, there are so many good teams in the WCHA that all predictions are a crap shoot.
Bruce's analysis:
Tough call. I think UND overachieved a bit down the stretch a year ago, but they rode the two most important things in hockey - quality defense and goaltending - to the Frozen Four. What hurts the most is that Greene and Jones are gone. They might have infuriated opposing players and fans, but the reality is that they were two of the best in the league. Replacing their defense, physicality, and leadership won't be easy. Zajac, Spirko, and Stafford are the keys offensively, and the goaltending will need to be just as good as it was last year, if not better. The Sioux have a chance to prove me wrong, but I don't see them cracking the upper tier of teams in the league. They'll finish with home ice for the first round, and probably make the NCAA Tournament.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 25-15-5, 13-12-3 WCHA (5th). Lost to Denver in NCAA final.
Coach: Dave Hakstol, second season (25-15-5)
Top returnees
Forwards: Drew Stafford, junior (13-25-38); Travis Zajac, sophomore (20-19-39); Rastislav Spirko, sophomore, (16-21-37)
Defensemen: Matt Smaby, junior (1-2-3); Kyle Radke, sophomore (1-2-3)
Goalies: Jordan Parise, junior (2.13 GAA, .917 SV%, 17-7-3); Philippe Lamoureux, sophomore (2.19 GAA, .914 SV%, 7-8-2)
Top newcomers: T.J. Oshie, F (selected first round by St. Louis); Jonathan Toews, F; Brian Lee, D (selected first round by Ottawa); Joe Finley, D (selected first round by Washington)
Biggest losses: Matt Greene, D; Matt Jones, D; Colby Genoway, F; Rory McMahon, F
ON THE ICE
Assess your team’s 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
What a strange season that was. The Sioux were picked to finish high in the WCHA. They started off hot, then were hit with injury after injury. The offense disappeared and trips to the penalty box became far too frequent. By mid-February, practically everyone had written off the Sioux as a playoff team. Many questioned whether Dave Hakstol was the right person to replace Dean Blais. But then came March and the team suddenly came together and the offense caught fire. Jordan Parise emerged as the No. 1 goalie and played fantastic down the stretch. UND came up one game short, losing 4-1 to Denver in the national championship game. Lack of scoring in critical games has hurt the Sioux the past three seasons. Overall, it probably took too long for the players to buy into Hakstol’s system.
Assess your team’s overall strengths:
Jordan Parise has established himself as one of the best playoff goalies in college hockey and gives the Sioux the most solid goaltending they’ve had since Karl Goehring graduated in 2001. His backup, Philippe Lamoureux, put up solid numbers as a freshman and will challenge Parise for the starting job. The Sioux are in excellent shape here.
The team is talent-laden with no fewer than five NHL first-round draft picks (Drew Stafford, Travis Zajac, T.J. Oshie, Brian Lee and Joe Finley), six other NHL draftees and Jonathan Toews, considered a potential 2006 first rounder. The raw materials are there. The only question is: Can Hakstol and his staff put all the pieces together?
At the end of last season, the line of Spirko, Zajac and Stafford was one of the best in the country. If they can pickup where they left off, they’ll be formidable. Chris Porter and Erik Fabian, both juniors, are big, physical forwards who can grind and hit with the WCHA’s best. There’s plenty of young talent at the forward position that should make this year’s Sioux a faster, more exciting and higher scoring team.
The defense will be far different from that which Sioux fans have become accustomed the past three seasons. Brian Lee, Taylor Chorney and Kyle Radke give the Sioux more offensive talent at the blue line than they’ve had for several years. But Matt Smaby, Joe Finley and Zach Jones (Matt’s younger brother) can still bring the physical presence that’s characterized recent Sioux teams.
Dave Hakstol now has a year under his belt and has proven himself under the most trying of circumstances. He has the trust and respect of his players, which should make it easier for this year’s team to accept and learn his system.
Assess your team’s overall weaknesses:
Youth, youth and more youth – especially in the defensive corps. It’s likely that on any given night, half or more of UND’s roster will be freshmen. Smaby is a rock on defense, but he can’t do it alone. With junior Robbie Bina taking a medical redshirt year because of last season’s neck injury, the next most experienced defensemen are senior Lee Marvin, who’s seen little ice time the past three seasons, and sophomore Kyle Radke, who dressed for 29 games last season but saw limited playing time. The defensive corps will have to learn quickly under fire if UND is to have any hope of returning to the Frozen Four.
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Strong goaltending and an improved offense should help mask the growing pains that the young Sioux defensive corps are likely to experience early on, especially against WCHA competition. A high-scoring offense can make up for many defensive deficiencies. If UND can stay at .500 or above in the first half of the season and avoid injuries, experience and maturity will make them a very tough team to beat come playoff time.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Probably fourth, but a third place finish is within the realm of possibility if the team matures quickly and the talent plays up to its potential. I think Minnesota, Denver and Wisconsin will likely finish ahead of the Sioux. Once again, there are so many good teams in the WCHA that all predictions are a crap shoot.
Bruce's analysis:
Tough call. I think UND overachieved a bit down the stretch a year ago, but they rode the two most important things in hockey - quality defense and goaltending - to the Frozen Four. What hurts the most is that Greene and Jones are gone. They might have infuriated opposing players and fans, but the reality is that they were two of the best in the league. Replacing their defense, physicality, and leadership won't be easy. Zajac, Spirko, and Stafford are the keys offensively, and the goaltending will need to be just as good as it was last year, if not better. The Sioux have a chance to prove me wrong, but I don't see them cracking the upper tier of teams in the league. They'll finish with home ice for the first round, and probably make the NCAA Tournament.
WCHA Preview - 6. Minnesota State-Mankato Mavericks
Our guest blogger for Mankato is the author of the fine Western College Hockey blog, Chris "MaizeRage" Dilks. Chris was kind enough to fill us in on the Mavericks and their chances for improvement in 2005-2006.
MINNESOTA STATE-MANKATO MAVERICKS
Last year: 13-19-6, 8-16-4 WCHA (8th). Lost to Minnesota in WCHA first round.
Coach: Troy Jutting, sixth season (78-92-24)
Top returnees
Forwards: David Backes, junior (17-23-40), Travis Morin, junior (12-19-31), Brock Becker, senior (8-6-14), Ryan Carter, sophomore( 15-8-23).
Defensemen: Kyle Peto, senior (3-24-27), Chad Brownlee, junior (1-1-2), Jon Dubel, senior (3-6-9).
Goalies: Chris Clark, junior (6-6-4, 3.42 GAA, .897).
Top newcomers: Brian Kilburg, defenseman; Dan Tormey, goalie; Mike Zacharias, goalie; Mick Berge, forward; Blake Friesen, defenseman.
Biggest losses: Brad Thompson, forward (13-11-24), Adam Gerlach, forward (11-11-22), Jake Brenk, forward (6-13-19), Steven Johns, defenseman (2-13-15).
Assess your team's 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Last season for the Mavericks was a bit of a rebuilding year. They showed flashes of brilliance throughout the season, including going 5-0-1 in the month of November, a tight OT loss to Minnesota, a thrilling OT win at Wisconsin, and a dominating win against national champion Denver at home. The season also had it's fair share of disappointments though, as the young Maverick team wasn't quite talented enough to compete with the best in the WCHA.
The forwards for Minnesota State proved that they had the ability to score goals last season, as they scored 4 or more goals in 14 games last season. The defense also performed adequately for the Mavericks. Though there were no superstars on the blueline, the Maverick defense was often very good at keeping things simple and just doing their job.
In goal, senior Jon Volp started the year as the starting goalie, but eventually lost time to sophomore Chris Clark, who started the season as the team's third string goalie. Clark received the majority of starts in the second half of the season to gain more experience for the future.
Overall, it was a rather forgettable season for Maverick fans. Probably the biggest joy was looking at the players that would be coming back for this season and thinking about the potential that this team had.
Assess your team's overall strengths:
When discussing the strengths of the Mavericks, it's impossible to start anywhere but with junior David Backes. Backes very could be the best player in college hockey this year. Backes excels in every aspect of the game, averaging exactly one point per game in his first two years at Mankato, and also using his 6'3" 210 lbs. frame to be a physical presence on the ice. If Mankato plays well enough as a team to garner some of the national spotlight, Backes could be a Hobey Baker candidate.
Even more important than what Backes provides on the ice, is the leadership he provides off the ice. While other college players around the country were going after big money, Backes chose to stay in school. His teammates matched his commitment by staying in Mankato this summer and working out every day. The extra work put in this offseason, combined with the boost in team chemistry could help Mankato bridge the gap in talent between themselves and the top teams in the WCHA.
Complementing Backes on the Mavericks first line will be junior Travis Morin and senior Brock Becker. Morin is a tall, lanky center that specializes in passing the puck and making plays. Becker is an extremely fast skater that suffered some injuries in the second half of last season. If he stays healthy, he will be an extremely dangerous player that will create opportunities with his skating ability. Though the Mavericks are known more as a blue-collar team, they have a first line that can rivals just about anybody in the WCHA in terms of talent.
The second line for the Mavericks will be led by David Backes-clone Ryan Carter. Carter is another big forward that does just about everything for the Mavericks. He's called upon to score goals, take key face-offs, lead the top penalty killing unit, and quarterback the second line powerplay. He seemed to get better as the season went on last year, and if that development continues, he could be a dominate player in the WCHA.
All this talent up front means that the Mavericks should once again have a pretty good powerplay. The top powerplay unit relies on Travis Morin controlling the puck at the point, and either finding one of his wings down low for a quick shot, or firing a strong, low wrist on goal through traffic. Morin is the perfect quarterback for this type of powerplay. Ryan Carter has the same job on the second unit of the powerplay.
Assess your team's overall weaknesses:
It may be too early to call it a weakness, but Minnesota State's goaltending situation certainly has more question marks than Matthew Lesko's closet. Chris Clark will return as the starter. Last season, Clark made enough highlight reel saves to win over the average fan, but also let in enough weak goals to leave more educated fans tearing their hair out. Clark's play has been too inconsistent for the Mavericks to rely on him every night. In fact, Clark has yet to win two consecutive games in his two years at Mankato. Clark is a serviceable back-up goalie, but he’s not consistent enough to be an every-night starter in the WCHA.
That means Mankato will have to rely on two wild cards in net this season in freshmen Dan Tormey and Mike Zacharias. Zacharias was signed early by Mankato, with the intent of taking over for departed senior Jon Volp. Last season in the USHL, Zacharias put up so-so numbers on a bad team, while Tormey put up very good numbers on a very good team, earning second team all-USHL.
The three goalies will more than likely battle it out to see who earns the most playing time, and I’m guessing the battle won’t be decided until well into the season. The competition should make each goalie better, which is good, because if Mankato receives solid goaltending every night, there’s almost no limit to how far they could go.
The other major problem for the Mavericks last season was penalties. Mankato spent way too much time a man down last year, and in a league where every team has snipers on their power play, it’s a recipe for disaster. The reasons for all the penalties were threefold. Part of the reason for the penalties was that the Mavericks were often playing faster, more skilled opponents. Part of it was because Don Adam was constantly checking out the inner workings of his own large intestine. And part of it was just plain undisciplined play. The first two parts are going to be tough to correct, but there’s definitely room for improvement in part three. Perhaps it’s just a side effect of relying on fiery players that give their all on the ice that the Mavericks will have to live with, but being a better hockey teams means cutting down on mistakes, and taking dumb penalties is a mistake that the Mavericks can’t afford to make.
A final, minor point that I feel needs to be made is with the other incoming freshmen. Mankato didn’t suffer a lot of losses in the offseason, but I think those losses hit the Mavericks a little harder than the rest of the WCHA. Though they can bring in the occasional star like Backes, coach Troy Jutting has to rely on older, less talented players to fill out the roster. He can’t reload the way a North Dakota or Minnesota would. Because of that, I’d expect very little from the freshmen for Minnesota State this season. With the exception of Brian Kilburg, who should be a very good defenseman, I don’t think Mankato has any players that are going to make a serious impact until they are juniors or seniors.
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Finishing among the top of the WCHA and making the NCAA tournament seems a little far-fetched, but it probably also seemed far-fetched three years ago when the Mavericks surprised everybody by doing just that. If things go the Mavericks way, I would not be surprised if they ended up having a great season and found a way into the NCAA tournament.
There’s a couple things I think need to go their way for that to happen:
1. Somebody emerges as the starting goalie and plays great throughout the year, stealing a few games along the way.
2. No major injuries. This is an X factor any team, but Mankato doesn’t have the depth to withstand the loss of a good player for a significant period of time.
3. The defense keeps things simple. Sometimes the best thing for a defenseman is to know he’s in over his head. He’ll keep things simple and not make as many mistakes.
4. Emotional players like Ryan McKelvie and Brock Becker can stay out of the box.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Everything about this team makes me want to say at least 4th in the WCHA and an NCAA bid, but I’ll chicken out and go with conventional wisdom and predict a 6th place finish and right on the border of an NCAA tournament bid. There is so much potential on this year’s Maverick team, but there is always the problem that the WCHA has about as much potential for upward mobility as society in India. It’s going to be difficult to crack the top 5 with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado College, Denver, and North Dakota all having very strong teams.
I do think at the very least, Mankato will finish as the “best of the rest” in the WCHA, and face the distinct possibility of being ranked in the top 15 in the country and traveling on the road for the first round of the playoffs.
This will probably be the best chance the Mavericks are going to have at making a run at the big time. This is more than likely the last year for David Backes before he joins the St. Louis Blues. With all the effort the Mavericks have put into getting ready for this season, I think anything less than 6th place would be a disappointment.
Bruce's analysis:
I tend to agree with Chris. I think MSUM has as good a chance as anyone of finishing sixth, though I think anything higher than that might be overly optimistic. In choosing Mankato for sixth over UMD, I'm basically taking the proven talent MSUM possesses over the upside of UMD. At the end of the season, UMD might be the better team, but I expect the Mavericks to be a bit more consistent from start to finish. If Jutting can find someone to play goal well for his team, the Mavs could surprise a lot of people. One thing is certain: If David Backes doesn't have a season worthy of a Hobey Baker candidate, this team is sunk.
MINNESOTA STATE-MANKATO MAVERICKS
Last year: 13-19-6, 8-16-4 WCHA (8th). Lost to Minnesota in WCHA first round.
Coach: Troy Jutting, sixth season (78-92-24)
Top returnees
Forwards: David Backes, junior (17-23-40), Travis Morin, junior (12-19-31), Brock Becker, senior (8-6-14), Ryan Carter, sophomore( 15-8-23).
Defensemen: Kyle Peto, senior (3-24-27), Chad Brownlee, junior (1-1-2), Jon Dubel, senior (3-6-9).
Goalies: Chris Clark, junior (6-6-4, 3.42 GAA, .897).
Top newcomers: Brian Kilburg, defenseman; Dan Tormey, goalie; Mike Zacharias, goalie; Mick Berge, forward; Blake Friesen, defenseman.
Biggest losses: Brad Thompson, forward (13-11-24), Adam Gerlach, forward (11-11-22), Jake Brenk, forward (6-13-19), Steven Johns, defenseman (2-13-15).
Assess your team's 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Last season for the Mavericks was a bit of a rebuilding year. They showed flashes of brilliance throughout the season, including going 5-0-1 in the month of November, a tight OT loss to Minnesota, a thrilling OT win at Wisconsin, and a dominating win against national champion Denver at home. The season also had it's fair share of disappointments though, as the young Maverick team wasn't quite talented enough to compete with the best in the WCHA.
The forwards for Minnesota State proved that they had the ability to score goals last season, as they scored 4 or more goals in 14 games last season. The defense also performed adequately for the Mavericks. Though there were no superstars on the blueline, the Maverick defense was often very good at keeping things simple and just doing their job.
In goal, senior Jon Volp started the year as the starting goalie, but eventually lost time to sophomore Chris Clark, who started the season as the team's third string goalie. Clark received the majority of starts in the second half of the season to gain more experience for the future.
Overall, it was a rather forgettable season for Maverick fans. Probably the biggest joy was looking at the players that would be coming back for this season and thinking about the potential that this team had.
Assess your team's overall strengths:
When discussing the strengths of the Mavericks, it's impossible to start anywhere but with junior David Backes. Backes very could be the best player in college hockey this year. Backes excels in every aspect of the game, averaging exactly one point per game in his first two years at Mankato, and also using his 6'3" 210 lbs. frame to be a physical presence on the ice. If Mankato plays well enough as a team to garner some of the national spotlight, Backes could be a Hobey Baker candidate.
Even more important than what Backes provides on the ice, is the leadership he provides off the ice. While other college players around the country were going after big money, Backes chose to stay in school. His teammates matched his commitment by staying in Mankato this summer and working out every day. The extra work put in this offseason, combined with the boost in team chemistry could help Mankato bridge the gap in talent between themselves and the top teams in the WCHA.
Complementing Backes on the Mavericks first line will be junior Travis Morin and senior Brock Becker. Morin is a tall, lanky center that specializes in passing the puck and making plays. Becker is an extremely fast skater that suffered some injuries in the second half of last season. If he stays healthy, he will be an extremely dangerous player that will create opportunities with his skating ability. Though the Mavericks are known more as a blue-collar team, they have a first line that can rivals just about anybody in the WCHA in terms of talent.
The second line for the Mavericks will be led by David Backes-clone Ryan Carter. Carter is another big forward that does just about everything for the Mavericks. He's called upon to score goals, take key face-offs, lead the top penalty killing unit, and quarterback the second line powerplay. He seemed to get better as the season went on last year, and if that development continues, he could be a dominate player in the WCHA.
All this talent up front means that the Mavericks should once again have a pretty good powerplay. The top powerplay unit relies on Travis Morin controlling the puck at the point, and either finding one of his wings down low for a quick shot, or firing a strong, low wrist on goal through traffic. Morin is the perfect quarterback for this type of powerplay. Ryan Carter has the same job on the second unit of the powerplay.
Assess your team's overall weaknesses:
It may be too early to call it a weakness, but Minnesota State's goaltending situation certainly has more question marks than Matthew Lesko's closet. Chris Clark will return as the starter. Last season, Clark made enough highlight reel saves to win over the average fan, but also let in enough weak goals to leave more educated fans tearing their hair out. Clark's play has been too inconsistent for the Mavericks to rely on him every night. In fact, Clark has yet to win two consecutive games in his two years at Mankato. Clark is a serviceable back-up goalie, but he’s not consistent enough to be an every-night starter in the WCHA.
That means Mankato will have to rely on two wild cards in net this season in freshmen Dan Tormey and Mike Zacharias. Zacharias was signed early by Mankato, with the intent of taking over for departed senior Jon Volp. Last season in the USHL, Zacharias put up so-so numbers on a bad team, while Tormey put up very good numbers on a very good team, earning second team all-USHL.
The three goalies will more than likely battle it out to see who earns the most playing time, and I’m guessing the battle won’t be decided until well into the season. The competition should make each goalie better, which is good, because if Mankato receives solid goaltending every night, there’s almost no limit to how far they could go.
The other major problem for the Mavericks last season was penalties. Mankato spent way too much time a man down last year, and in a league where every team has snipers on their power play, it’s a recipe for disaster. The reasons for all the penalties were threefold. Part of the reason for the penalties was that the Mavericks were often playing faster, more skilled opponents. Part of it was because Don Adam was constantly checking out the inner workings of his own large intestine. And part of it was just plain undisciplined play. The first two parts are going to be tough to correct, but there’s definitely room for improvement in part three. Perhaps it’s just a side effect of relying on fiery players that give their all on the ice that the Mavericks will have to live with, but being a better hockey teams means cutting down on mistakes, and taking dumb penalties is a mistake that the Mavericks can’t afford to make.
A final, minor point that I feel needs to be made is with the other incoming freshmen. Mankato didn’t suffer a lot of losses in the offseason, but I think those losses hit the Mavericks a little harder than the rest of the WCHA. Though they can bring in the occasional star like Backes, coach Troy Jutting has to rely on older, less talented players to fill out the roster. He can’t reload the way a North Dakota or Minnesota would. Because of that, I’d expect very little from the freshmen for Minnesota State this season. With the exception of Brian Kilburg, who should be a very good defenseman, I don’t think Mankato has any players that are going to make a serious impact until they are juniors or seniors.
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Finishing among the top of the WCHA and making the NCAA tournament seems a little far-fetched, but it probably also seemed far-fetched three years ago when the Mavericks surprised everybody by doing just that. If things go the Mavericks way, I would not be surprised if they ended up having a great season and found a way into the NCAA tournament.
There’s a couple things I think need to go their way for that to happen:
1. Somebody emerges as the starting goalie and plays great throughout the year, stealing a few games along the way.
2. No major injuries. This is an X factor any team, but Mankato doesn’t have the depth to withstand the loss of a good player for a significant period of time.
3. The defense keeps things simple. Sometimes the best thing for a defenseman is to know he’s in over his head. He’ll keep things simple and not make as many mistakes.
4. Emotional players like Ryan McKelvie and Brock Becker can stay out of the box.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Everything about this team makes me want to say at least 4th in the WCHA and an NCAA bid, but I’ll chicken out and go with conventional wisdom and predict a 6th place finish and right on the border of an NCAA tournament bid. There is so much potential on this year’s Maverick team, but there is always the problem that the WCHA has about as much potential for upward mobility as society in India. It’s going to be difficult to crack the top 5 with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado College, Denver, and North Dakota all having very strong teams.
I do think at the very least, Mankato will finish as the “best of the rest” in the WCHA, and face the distinct possibility of being ranked in the top 15 in the country and traveling on the road for the first round of the playoffs.
This will probably be the best chance the Mavericks are going to have at making a run at the big time. This is more than likely the last year for David Backes before he joins the St. Louis Blues. With all the effort the Mavericks have put into getting ready for this season, I think anything less than 6th place would be a disappointment.
Bruce's analysis:
I tend to agree with Chris. I think MSUM has as good a chance as anyone of finishing sixth, though I think anything higher than that might be overly optimistic. In choosing Mankato for sixth over UMD, I'm basically taking the proven talent MSUM possesses over the upside of UMD. At the end of the season, UMD might be the better team, but I expect the Mavericks to be a bit more consistent from start to finish. If Jutting can find someone to play goal well for his team, the Mavs could surprise a lot of people. One thing is certain: If David Backes doesn't have a season worthy of a Hobey Baker candidate, this team is sunk.
WCHA Preview - 7. Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 15-17-6, 11-13-4 WCHA (6th). Lost to North Dakota in WCHA first round.
Coach: Scott Sandelin, sixth season (85-97-22)
Top returnees
Forwards: Tim Stapleton, sr (19-20-39); Matt McKnight, soph (6-13-19); Justin Williams, sr (5-10-15); Brian McGregor, jr (3-7-10)
Defensemen: Steve Czech, sr (3-10-13); Travis Gawryletz, soph (4-1-5)
Goalies: Issac Reichmuth, sr (9-12-4, 3.05, .896); Josh Johnson, jr (6-5-2, 2.98, .900)
Top newcomers: Michael Gergen, F; Andrew Carroll, F; Mason Raymond, F; Nick Kemp, F; MacGregor Sharp, F; Matt Niskanen, D; Josh Meyers, D; Jason Garrison, D; Nate Ziegelmann, G (transfer/North Dakota)
Biggest losses: Evan Schwabe, F (19-26-45); Marco Peluso, F (19-19-38); Brett Hammond, F (7-17-24); Tim Hambly, D (5-15-20); Neil Petruic, D (1-8-9); Jay Rosehill, D (0-5-5)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Perhaps no team struggled under the weight of high expectations like UMD did. The Bulldogs returned almost everyone from their Frozen Four team, but the team never came together like it had the year before. The offense sputtered at times, and the coaches had a terrible time finding the right line combinations. Even with a ton of experience on hand, the Dogs' defense struggled, especially against the top teams in the league. And when the defense did play well, the goalies didn't, as both Reichmuth and Johnson were plagued by soft goals throughout the season. Those soft goals came at the worst possible times, as they were often momentum-killers for UMD. The team didn't respond well to adversity for most of the season, culminating in two embarrassing losses to North Dakota that mercifully ended the season.
Assess the team's overall strengths:
It's a fresh start for UMD. Their strength lies in the youth. The coaching staff has brought in one of the best recruiting classes in school history. But they are not void of experience on this team. Seniors Stapleton and Williams will lead up front, and team captain Czech anchors the blue line. The Bulldogs will rely on Stapleton for a huge season. He has the potential to be one of the top scorers in the WCHA. Niskanen, Gergen, and Raymond were all selected in the first two rounds of this year's NHL Draft. Niskanen was one of the top high-school defensemen in Minnesota a year ago, as he led his team (Virginia/MIB) to its first-ever state tournament appearance. He is a steady defender who has dynamic offensive skills. Gergen and Raymond are tremendous offensive talents, as is Carroll. Garrison is a big defenseman who has some skills, but can also knock people around. Reichmuth should have a good season - he wasn't the 2004 Midwest Regional MVP by accident. If he doesn't play well, Ziegelmann and Johnson will get chances to claim the job.
Assess the team's overall weaknesses:
Inexperience. While these young players are certainly highly-touted, none of them have ever been through a WCHA season. The defensive group is especially young, with Czech and Gawryletz the only returning regulars now that Rosehill has moved on to the pros. With how shaky the goaltending was a year ago, Sandelin will need these guys to grow up in a hurry. After last season's disappointing run, the pressure is on this team to show that the fluke was last season and not the Frozen Four run. And that's a lot of pressure on a young team that will spend a lot of time, especially before Christmas, trying to find themselves.
Best-case scenario:
The young guys are as good (or better) than advertised. Stapleton finally breaks out and becomes the go-to guy. Czech continues to be the steady hand on defense, providing leadership and mentoring the young players. Reichmuth returns to 2003-2004 form. If all this happens, UMD could very easily finish in the top four or five in the WCHA. Just don't ask me which one of those teams would fall back to allow it to happen.
Realistic projection:
I've heard nothing but good things about these new players. But they've played as many games in the WCHA as I have. That's not a good thing. Asking them to play key roles on this team might be too much. You need consistency to win in this league, and I don't see all these young players being able to do that. UMD will be hurt by a slow start in league play, but will improve as the season goes on. If the young guys gel, and the coaches find the right line combos, UMD could be the most dangerous road team in the first round of the playoffs. But an NCAA trip appears out of reach.
Last year: 15-17-6, 11-13-4 WCHA (6th). Lost to North Dakota in WCHA first round.
Coach: Scott Sandelin, sixth season (85-97-22)
Top returnees
Forwards: Tim Stapleton, sr (19-20-39); Matt McKnight, soph (6-13-19); Justin Williams, sr (5-10-15); Brian McGregor, jr (3-7-10)
Defensemen: Steve Czech, sr (3-10-13); Travis Gawryletz, soph (4-1-5)
Goalies: Issac Reichmuth, sr (9-12-4, 3.05, .896); Josh Johnson, jr (6-5-2, 2.98, .900)
Top newcomers: Michael Gergen, F; Andrew Carroll, F; Mason Raymond, F; Nick Kemp, F; MacGregor Sharp, F; Matt Niskanen, D; Josh Meyers, D; Jason Garrison, D; Nate Ziegelmann, G (transfer/North Dakota)
Biggest losses: Evan Schwabe, F (19-26-45); Marco Peluso, F (19-19-38); Brett Hammond, F (7-17-24); Tim Hambly, D (5-15-20); Neil Petruic, D (1-8-9); Jay Rosehill, D (0-5-5)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Perhaps no team struggled under the weight of high expectations like UMD did. The Bulldogs returned almost everyone from their Frozen Four team, but the team never came together like it had the year before. The offense sputtered at times, and the coaches had a terrible time finding the right line combinations. Even with a ton of experience on hand, the Dogs' defense struggled, especially against the top teams in the league. And when the defense did play well, the goalies didn't, as both Reichmuth and Johnson were plagued by soft goals throughout the season. Those soft goals came at the worst possible times, as they were often momentum-killers for UMD. The team didn't respond well to adversity for most of the season, culminating in two embarrassing losses to North Dakota that mercifully ended the season.
Assess the team's overall strengths:
It's a fresh start for UMD. Their strength lies in the youth. The coaching staff has brought in one of the best recruiting classes in school history. But they are not void of experience on this team. Seniors Stapleton and Williams will lead up front, and team captain Czech anchors the blue line. The Bulldogs will rely on Stapleton for a huge season. He has the potential to be one of the top scorers in the WCHA. Niskanen, Gergen, and Raymond were all selected in the first two rounds of this year's NHL Draft. Niskanen was one of the top high-school defensemen in Minnesota a year ago, as he led his team (Virginia/MIB) to its first-ever state tournament appearance. He is a steady defender who has dynamic offensive skills. Gergen and Raymond are tremendous offensive talents, as is Carroll. Garrison is a big defenseman who has some skills, but can also knock people around. Reichmuth should have a good season - he wasn't the 2004 Midwest Regional MVP by accident. If he doesn't play well, Ziegelmann and Johnson will get chances to claim the job.
Assess the team's overall weaknesses:
Inexperience. While these young players are certainly highly-touted, none of them have ever been through a WCHA season. The defensive group is especially young, with Czech and Gawryletz the only returning regulars now that Rosehill has moved on to the pros. With how shaky the goaltending was a year ago, Sandelin will need these guys to grow up in a hurry. After last season's disappointing run, the pressure is on this team to show that the fluke was last season and not the Frozen Four run. And that's a lot of pressure on a young team that will spend a lot of time, especially before Christmas, trying to find themselves.
Best-case scenario:
The young guys are as good (or better) than advertised. Stapleton finally breaks out and becomes the go-to guy. Czech continues to be the steady hand on defense, providing leadership and mentoring the young players. Reichmuth returns to 2003-2004 form. If all this happens, UMD could very easily finish in the top four or five in the WCHA. Just don't ask me which one of those teams would fall back to allow it to happen.
Realistic projection:
I've heard nothing but good things about these new players. But they've played as many games in the WCHA as I have. That's not a good thing. Asking them to play key roles on this team might be too much. You need consistency to win in this league, and I don't see all these young players being able to do that. UMD will be hurt by a slow start in league play, but will improve as the season goes on. If the young guys gel, and the coaches find the right line combos, UMD could be the most dangerous road team in the first round of the playoffs. But an NCAA trip appears out of reach.
WCHA Preview - 8. Alaska-Anchorage Seawolves
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 12-19-6, 9-15-4 WCHA (7th). Lost to Wisconsin in WCHA first round.
Coach: Dave Shyiak, first season
Top returnees
Forwards: Justin Bourne, jr (12-11-23); Charlie Kronschnabel, jr (9-12-21); Ales Parez, sr (5-10-15); Shea Hamilton, soph (7-4-11)
Defensemen: Chad Anderson, jr (4-11-15); Brandon Segal, jr (2-9-11)
Goalies: Nathan Lawson, soph (7-15-3, 3.32, .914); John DeCaro, sr (5-4-3, 3.56, .906)
Top newcomers: Adam Corrin, F; Jay Beagle, F; Billy Smith, F; Shane Lovdahl, D
Biggest losses: Martin Stuchlik, F (12-13-25); Brandon Segal, D (2-9-11); Lee Green, D (2-4-6)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
The Seawolves continued to play well at times, and perplex fans with poor play at times. They upset Minnesota at home to win the Nye Frontier Classic. They followed that up by going to Mariucci in January and taking three points, even though starting goalie Lawson was hurt. They played well in Duluth, as Lawson led the way to a three-point weekend against the Bulldogs. But the team was hurt by a lack of experience up front. They never found a go-to guy on offense. And, in the end, the result was familiar for UAA fans a year ago, as they watched their team post a 12th straight losing season.
What are the overall strengths of the team?:
Lawson and DeCaro form a strong tandem in goal. Ignore those goals against averages. Both posted solid save percentages, suggesting that the defense was simply allowing too many shots to get through. Bourne improved as the season wore on, finishing as the team's leading returning scorer. Parez is back from a broken leg, and he is being looked at for some leadership on a team that has lacked some of that over the last couple years. Anderson is a good blueliner, and sophomore Luke Beaverson, the only UAA player to appear in every game a year ago, is only going to get stronger.
What are the overall weaknesses of the team?:
The Seawolves allowed a league-high 1,432 shots on goal last year. Even with Lawson and DeCaro in goal, that number has to come down for UAA to be successful. Shyiak needs to be patient, as the defensemen will come around, but he needs some immediate results from them to keep the pressure off his goaltenders. Bourne and Kronschnabel are going to have to increase their production up front for UAA. The Seawolves were seventh in the league in goal-scoring, and offense has not been a strength of this team in recent years. For UAA to contend, that has to change.
Best-case scenario:
Lawson stays healthy and gets better. The defense tightens up a little bit. Bourne and company start to score more goals. If the young players come together under Shyiak's leadership, things will start to look up in a hurry. With a few breaks, it's not inconceivable that this team could crack the top half of the league.
Realistic projection:
Despite the solid goaltending, the Seawolves will still struggle at times. They won't score enough goals to put away opponents, and the defense will still allow too many shots, which will eventually mean that the goalies will let a few in. While I think UAA has a shot at a better finish, there is too much talent ahead of them, and the Seawolves will settle into eighth place. However, it should be noted that this team will absolutely not be a pushover in the WCHA, and improvement will be obvious, especially in the second half of the season.
Last year: 12-19-6, 9-15-4 WCHA (7th). Lost to Wisconsin in WCHA first round.
Coach: Dave Shyiak, first season
Top returnees
Forwards: Justin Bourne, jr (12-11-23); Charlie Kronschnabel, jr (9-12-21); Ales Parez, sr (5-10-15); Shea Hamilton, soph (7-4-11)
Defensemen: Chad Anderson, jr (4-11-15); Brandon Segal, jr (2-9-11)
Goalies: Nathan Lawson, soph (7-15-3, 3.32, .914); John DeCaro, sr (5-4-3, 3.56, .906)
Top newcomers: Adam Corrin, F; Jay Beagle, F; Billy Smith, F; Shane Lovdahl, D
Biggest losses: Martin Stuchlik, F (12-13-25); Brandon Segal, D (2-9-11); Lee Green, D (2-4-6)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
The Seawolves continued to play well at times, and perplex fans with poor play at times. They upset Minnesota at home to win the Nye Frontier Classic. They followed that up by going to Mariucci in January and taking three points, even though starting goalie Lawson was hurt. They played well in Duluth, as Lawson led the way to a three-point weekend against the Bulldogs. But the team was hurt by a lack of experience up front. They never found a go-to guy on offense. And, in the end, the result was familiar for UAA fans a year ago, as they watched their team post a 12th straight losing season.
What are the overall strengths of the team?:
Lawson and DeCaro form a strong tandem in goal. Ignore those goals against averages. Both posted solid save percentages, suggesting that the defense was simply allowing too many shots to get through. Bourne improved as the season wore on, finishing as the team's leading returning scorer. Parez is back from a broken leg, and he is being looked at for some leadership on a team that has lacked some of that over the last couple years. Anderson is a good blueliner, and sophomore Luke Beaverson, the only UAA player to appear in every game a year ago, is only going to get stronger.
What are the overall weaknesses of the team?:
The Seawolves allowed a league-high 1,432 shots on goal last year. Even with Lawson and DeCaro in goal, that number has to come down for UAA to be successful. Shyiak needs to be patient, as the defensemen will come around, but he needs some immediate results from them to keep the pressure off his goaltenders. Bourne and Kronschnabel are going to have to increase their production up front for UAA. The Seawolves were seventh in the league in goal-scoring, and offense has not been a strength of this team in recent years. For UAA to contend, that has to change.
Best-case scenario:
Lawson stays healthy and gets better. The defense tightens up a little bit. Bourne and company start to score more goals. If the young players come together under Shyiak's leadership, things will start to look up in a hurry. With a few breaks, it's not inconceivable that this team could crack the top half of the league.
Realistic projection:
Despite the solid goaltending, the Seawolves will still struggle at times. They won't score enough goals to put away opponents, and the defense will still allow too many shots, which will eventually mean that the goalies will let a few in. While I think UAA has a shot at a better finish, there is too much talent ahead of them, and the Seawolves will settle into eighth place. However, it should be noted that this team will absolutely not be a pushover in the WCHA, and improvement will be obvious, especially in the second half of the season.
WCHA Preview - 9. St. Cloud State Huskies
Thanks to Zach Landwehr, St. Cloud State fan and overall good person, for submitting the information for this entry. It was a bit late, but I'd rather have it a little late than not have it at all.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 14-23-3, 8-19-1 WCHA (9th). Lost to Colorado College in WCHA first round.
Coach: Bob Motzko, first season (interim coach)
Top returnees
Forwards: Joe Jensen, sr (12-14-26); Billy Hengen, sr (7-15-22); Andrew Gordon, soph (9-8-17); Matt Hartman, sr (6-8-14)
Defensemen: Justin Fletcher, jr (8-14-22); Grant Clafton, jr (8-9-17)
Goalies: Tim Boron, jr (10-18-3, 3.00, .904); Jason Montgomery, sr (4-5-0, 2.92, .886)
Top newcomers: Bobby Goepfert, G (transfer/Providence); Michael Olson, F; David Carlisle, D
Biggest losses: Dave Iannazzo, F (16-16-32); Peter Szabo, F (5-15-20); Matt Gens, D (3-14-17)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Another dismal year in St. Cloud. There’s a joke amongst WCHA fans that the Huskies tend to “swoon” around Christmas break. That wasn’t the case last year, as SCSU swooned right out of the gate. Also, goaltending was hurting for the first time in several years. Tim Boron struggled, and when Craig Dahl brought in Jason Montgomery to replace him, Monty hadn’t played in so long that he had what I call “rink rust.” St. Cloud would give up goals early and have to play catch-up the rest of the game.
What are the overall strengths of the team?:
A young core of players. Freshmen got a lot of playing time last year, which should help their on-ice maturity. This, along with the infusion of new blood in SCSU alum and former Gophers assistant coach Bob Motzko, makes it seem as if there may be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow instead of a leprechaun to kick the Husky faithful in the shins.
What are the overall weaknesses of the team?:
Questionable defense. Husky defensemen being out of position as well as failure to keep the opposition out of the slot create too many scoring chances. Without high-powered offensive players like Mark Hartigan, Joe Motzko, and Tyler Arnason around, the Huskies need to rely on their defense and goaltending…or else it will be a long season.
Special teams also had their problems. Craig Dahl would parade out the same systems game after game, even though it would fail basically every time and SCSU ended the season with a PP percentage of 12.2, a far cry from the year with Hartigan where the Huskies led the nation in powerplay percentage.
Best-case scenario:
Top 5 finish in the WCHA along with a trip to the Final Five. I would accept an upset win in the first round.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Seventh. I see St. Cloud finishing ahead of Michigan Tech, Minnesota State Mankato, and Alaska Anchorage. Will the Huskies live up to the hype? There have been many players in the WCHA who came in highly touted. Some panned out. Others fizzled. It’s put up or shut up time in St. Cloud. A few players need to prove that they deserved that Division 1 scholarship.
Bruce's analysis:
Denver has veterans. CC has veterans. Even the Gophers have veterans. In a league like this, I just can't see a young team like St. Cloud accomplishing much, though a fresh start with Motzko might help down the road. In the end, the Huskies are too leaky on defense and not strong enough on offense to make an immediate improvement, though they'll avoid last place in the league.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 14-23-3, 8-19-1 WCHA (9th). Lost to Colorado College in WCHA first round.
Coach: Bob Motzko, first season (interim coach)
Top returnees
Forwards: Joe Jensen, sr (12-14-26); Billy Hengen, sr (7-15-22); Andrew Gordon, soph (9-8-17); Matt Hartman, sr (6-8-14)
Defensemen: Justin Fletcher, jr (8-14-22); Grant Clafton, jr (8-9-17)
Goalies: Tim Boron, jr (10-18-3, 3.00, .904); Jason Montgomery, sr (4-5-0, 2.92, .886)
Top newcomers: Bobby Goepfert, G (transfer/Providence); Michael Olson, F; David Carlisle, D
Biggest losses: Dave Iannazzo, F (16-16-32); Peter Szabo, F (5-15-20); Matt Gens, D (3-14-17)
ON THE ICE
Assess the 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Another dismal year in St. Cloud. There’s a joke amongst WCHA fans that the Huskies tend to “swoon” around Christmas break. That wasn’t the case last year, as SCSU swooned right out of the gate. Also, goaltending was hurting for the first time in several years. Tim Boron struggled, and when Craig Dahl brought in Jason Montgomery to replace him, Monty hadn’t played in so long that he had what I call “rink rust.” St. Cloud would give up goals early and have to play catch-up the rest of the game.
What are the overall strengths of the team?:
A young core of players. Freshmen got a lot of playing time last year, which should help their on-ice maturity. This, along with the infusion of new blood in SCSU alum and former Gophers assistant coach Bob Motzko, makes it seem as if there may be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow instead of a leprechaun to kick the Husky faithful in the shins.
What are the overall weaknesses of the team?:
Questionable defense. Husky defensemen being out of position as well as failure to keep the opposition out of the slot create too many scoring chances. Without high-powered offensive players like Mark Hartigan, Joe Motzko, and Tyler Arnason around, the Huskies need to rely on their defense and goaltending…or else it will be a long season.
Special teams also had their problems. Craig Dahl would parade out the same systems game after game, even though it would fail basically every time and SCSU ended the season with a PP percentage of 12.2, a far cry from the year with Hartigan where the Huskies led the nation in powerplay percentage.
Best-case scenario:
Top 5 finish in the WCHA along with a trip to the Final Five. I would accept an upset win in the first round.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
Seventh. I see St. Cloud finishing ahead of Michigan Tech, Minnesota State Mankato, and Alaska Anchorage. Will the Huskies live up to the hype? There have been many players in the WCHA who came in highly touted. Some panned out. Others fizzled. It’s put up or shut up time in St. Cloud. A few players need to prove that they deserved that Division 1 scholarship.
Bruce's analysis:
Denver has veterans. CC has veterans. Even the Gophers have veterans. In a league like this, I just can't see a young team like St. Cloud accomplishing much, though a fresh start with Motzko might help down the road. In the end, the Huskies are too leaky on defense and not strong enough on offense to make an immediate improvement, though they'll avoid last place in the league.
WCHA Preview - 10. Michigan Tech Huskies
I was lucky enough to get some dedicated WCHA fans to volunteer their knowledge for this preview. Tim Braun is a Michigan Tech fan. Braun is known as the guy who founded Mitch's Misfits, a group of Tech students/hockey fans who are trying to follow in the footsteps of the UMD Penalty Box, a rowdy group that got their name by drinking fellow fans under the table while also traveling to the ends of the earth to see their team play. The Misfits organized a trip to Duluth last year to watch Tech sweep UMD, and one has to think more is on the horizon, as the group tries to inject some atmosphere into the Macinnes Student Ice Arena. Anyway, here is the Michigan Tech preview, with some serious assistance from Tim Braun.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 8-25-4 overall, 7-19-2 WCHA (10th). Lost to Denver in WCHA first round.
Coach: Jamie Russell, third season (16-50-9)
Top returnees
Forwards: Brandon Schwartz (10-16-26), Chris Conner (14-10-24), Tyler Shelast (11-8-19)
Defensemen: Lars Helminen (8-24-32)
Goalies: None (Kevin Hachey [0-1-0, 5.88 GAA, .714 in 41 minutes])
Top newcomers: Rob Nolan, G (Runner up for Canadian Junior POY, 27-13-4, 1.75 GAA, .929); Mike Teslak , G (21-9-0, 2.47 GAA, .931); Justin St. Louis F (31-28-59); Ryan Angelow F (46-26-72); Alex Lord F
Biggest losses: Colin Murphy, F (Hobey Baker Finalist, 11-42-53); Cam Ellsworth G (7-18-3, 3.23 GAA, .916)
ON THE ICE
Assess your team’s 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Michigan Tech had a dismal first half in 2004. The offense scored goals and the team had 2 goal leads late in games but the goalies didn’t play a full 60 minutes. As quoted by Head Coach Jamie Russell, “Our goalies couldn’t stop a beach ball.” After Cam Ellsworth stepped up and started playing stellar between the pipes, the rest of the team became more confident and had a great second half. They held the National Champs (Denver) to one goal in two games to start the second half in Denver and also swept Minnesota and Minnesota Duluth on the road. Home success was rare and disappointing.
Assess your team’s overall strengths:
The powerplay has been a strength of this team since Jamie Russell arrived and even with the loss of pointman Colin Murphy, I don’t expect that to change much this season. Tyler Shelast is scrappy around the net and finding those rebounds and putting them home, Brandon Schwartz is put in a great position to use is Slap Shot on the onetimer and Helminen will take over as quarterback this year.
Assess your team’s overall weaknesses:
Michigan Tech will be very young behind the blueline. Their 3 goalies have 41 total minutes between the pipes at the college level. On Defense, Helminen will be expected to play 30+ minutes a game. 5 of the other 6 defensemen that will suit up for the first 14 games will be sophomores or freshmen (Senior Defensemen, John Scott, was suspended by the team for 14 games)
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Best case scenario finds all of the seniors stepping up and having career years (that hasn’t happened to an entire class since 1998) while the freshmen goalies find their feet quickly. Pipe dreams find the team fighting for home ice but I don’t really see them doing better than 7th this year. This team is full of “Jamie Russell guys.” Not all of them were recruited by Russell but everyone on this roster has bought into his systems. Last year and this offseason saw many faces leave the program early, but those guys didn’t fit and actually probably hurt the team. That should make for better team chemistry and translate into more Wins this year.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
The team lost one of the best players in the history of MTU in Colin Murphy so it is hard to expect things to be better than last year but MTU was very close to getting out of the basement and I think the team is more similar to their second half of last year than their first half. The key to everything is how well the offense controls the game while the young defense and goalies get comfortable in the WCHA. As objective as I can be, I predict MTU to get out of the basement and finish 9th.
Bruce's analysis:
Tech was better in the second half a year ago, and it wasn't all about Murphy and Ellsworth. The young talent on this team finally started to pull together, which has to make Russell optimistic, even though this is largely an uncertain time that he is about to begin. The Huskies have 18 underclassmen and 10 freshmen on the roster, and Ellsworth's departure, along with Bryce Luker leaving the program, leaves a huge hole in goal. Scott's suspension would normally invite jokes about Tech having one less traffic cone on the blue line, but Scott played well at times a year ago, and now the Huskies have Helminen on defense and not much else. I may be in the minority (actually, based on the previews I'm reading, I am), but I think Tech's youth all over and inexperience in goal (as Tim mentions, three goalies on the MTU roster have combined for 41 minutes of collegiate goaltending) relegates them to a last-place finish, though the reality is that Russell has the program heading in the right direction.
NUTS AND BOLTS
Last year: 8-25-4 overall, 7-19-2 WCHA (10th). Lost to Denver in WCHA first round.
Coach: Jamie Russell, third season (16-50-9)
Top returnees
Forwards: Brandon Schwartz (10-16-26), Chris Conner (14-10-24), Tyler Shelast (11-8-19)
Defensemen: Lars Helminen (8-24-32)
Goalies: None (Kevin Hachey [0-1-0, 5.88 GAA, .714 in 41 minutes])
Top newcomers: Rob Nolan, G (Runner up for Canadian Junior POY, 27-13-4, 1.75 GAA, .929); Mike Teslak , G (21-9-0, 2.47 GAA, .931); Justin St. Louis F (31-28-59); Ryan Angelow F (46-26-72); Alex Lord F
Biggest losses: Colin Murphy, F (Hobey Baker Finalist, 11-42-53); Cam Ellsworth G (7-18-3, 3.23 GAA, .916)
ON THE ICE
Assess your team’s 2004-2005 season. What went right and what went wrong?:
Michigan Tech had a dismal first half in 2004. The offense scored goals and the team had 2 goal leads late in games but the goalies didn’t play a full 60 minutes. As quoted by Head Coach Jamie Russell, “Our goalies couldn’t stop a beach ball.” After Cam Ellsworth stepped up and started playing stellar between the pipes, the rest of the team became more confident and had a great second half. They held the National Champs (Denver) to one goal in two games to start the second half in Denver and also swept Minnesota and Minnesota Duluth on the road. Home success was rare and disappointing.
Assess your team’s overall strengths:
The powerplay has been a strength of this team since Jamie Russell arrived and even with the loss of pointman Colin Murphy, I don’t expect that to change much this season. Tyler Shelast is scrappy around the net and finding those rebounds and putting them home, Brandon Schwartz is put in a great position to use is Slap Shot on the onetimer and Helminen will take over as quarterback this year.
Assess your team’s overall weaknesses:
Michigan Tech will be very young behind the blueline. Their 3 goalies have 41 total minutes between the pipes at the college level. On Defense, Helminen will be expected to play 30+ minutes a game. 5 of the other 6 defensemen that will suit up for the first 14 games will be sophomores or freshmen (Senior Defensemen, John Scott, was suspended by the team for 14 games)
What is the best-case scenario for your team this year?:
Best case scenario finds all of the seniors stepping up and having career years (that hasn’t happened to an entire class since 1998) while the freshmen goalies find their feet quickly. Pipe dreams find the team fighting for home ice but I don’t really see them doing better than 7th this year. This team is full of “Jamie Russell guys.” Not all of them were recruited by Russell but everyone on this roster has bought into his systems. Last year and this offseason saw many faces leave the program early, but those guys didn’t fit and actually probably hurt the team. That should make for better team chemistry and translate into more Wins this year.
Put your cowbell down and stop yelling at that poor goalie. Be as objective as you can possibly stand to be. Where will your team finish in the WCHA and why?:
The team lost one of the best players in the history of MTU in Colin Murphy so it is hard to expect things to be better than last year but MTU was very close to getting out of the basement and I think the team is more similar to their second half of last year than their first half. The key to everything is how well the offense controls the game while the young defense and goalies get comfortable in the WCHA. As objective as I can be, I predict MTU to get out of the basement and finish 9th.
Bruce's analysis:
Tech was better in the second half a year ago, and it wasn't all about Murphy and Ellsworth. The young talent on this team finally started to pull together, which has to make Russell optimistic, even though this is largely an uncertain time that he is about to begin. The Huskies have 18 underclassmen and 10 freshmen on the roster, and Ellsworth's departure, along with Bryce Luker leaving the program, leaves a huge hole in goal. Scott's suspension would normally invite jokes about Tech having one less traffic cone on the blue line, but Scott played well at times a year ago, and now the Huskies have Helminen on defense and not much else. I may be in the minority (actually, based on the previews I'm reading, I am), but I think Tech's youth all over and inexperience in goal (as Tim mentions, three goalies on the MTU roster have combined for 41 minutes of collegiate goaltending) relegates them to a last-place finish, though the reality is that Russell has the program heading in the right direction.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
BlogPoll: Week Six
Dropped out
17 Iowa State--> Robbed or not, a loss is a loss. And Nebraska wasn't exactly looking sharp in the weeks leading up to this matchup. Bad conference opening loss for ISU.
20 Purdue--> Last week: "Couldn't stop the run. Tiller had better hope no one sees the tape." Well, it appears that Charlie Weis saw the tape. That was a beatdown.
22 Toledo--> Ouch. I know Gradkowski was hurt (again), but Toledo looked horrible in pretty much every facet of the game at Fresno last Tuesday.
The new Top 25
1. Southern Cal (1 last week). For next week's trick, USC will fall behind 42-0 entering the fourth quarter.
2. Texas (2). Wow. I thought it would be close in Missouri.
3. Virginia Tech (3). I didn't think this would be very close, and I was right.
4. Georgia (5). Bye. Moved up because Florida failed to score a touchdown. And Florida actually played a game.
5. Ohio State (6). I'm still not sold. Probably won't be until the Michigan game, but I am stubborn and still think tOSU will lose once before they go to Ann Arbor.
6. Florida State (7). Serious threat to move up now that Weatherford seems to have found himself. The defense is frighteningly good.
7. Alabama (16). See Florida State, only replace "Weatherford seems to have found himself" with "Croyle seems to be healthy".
8. Tennessee (8). Finally started Clausen. Too bad Ainge had to throw away one game (Florida) and half of another (LSU) before Fulmer figured this out.
9. Miami (9). I don't think they're as good as Virginia Tech, but they're improving and will be a threat in the conference.
10. LSU (10). Good rebound from the UT loss, even though it was against a bad team.
11. Notre Dame (12). I think I have this team right around where they belong for now. The USC game will be interesting.
12. Cal (15). Haven't played anybody yet.
13. Florida (4). Blown out at 'Bama, which proves that Meyer's offense is not without fault when you pit it against more athletic defenses. This might qualify as jumping the gun, however.
14. Wisconsin (21). Won big, just as they were supposed to. The game at Northwestern will be tougher than many people think. Bucky has had some serious struggles there.
15. Michigan State (11). Got punished by the football gods for running it up on Illinois, as MSU found a way to lose a very winnable game against Michigan.
16. Arizona State (14). Even though they blew a big lead, there really isn't anything wrong with losing a close game to USC.
17. Texas A&M (18). The true tests are yet to come.
18. Oregon (19). Won, but didn't look particularly strong.
19. Auburn (NR). I had to list 25 teams.
20. Penn State (NR). Michael Robinson was 13-32 passing against the Gophers. Let's not kid ourselves about this team. 7-4 would still be an achievement.
21. Michigan (24). Impressive rebound after the tough loss in Madison. The Gophers will test the Wolverines' interior defense, but we all know the history between these two teams.
22. Minnesota (13). Apparently, they're not for real.
23. UCLA (23). Had trouble beating a bad Washington team.
24. Texas Tech (NR). And you thought Cal hadn't played anyone yet.
25. Louisville (25). Holding their ground in the poll. Barely.
The Watch List
Boston College
Fresno State
Iowa State
Nebraska
Purdue
17 Iowa State--> Robbed or not, a loss is a loss. And Nebraska wasn't exactly looking sharp in the weeks leading up to this matchup. Bad conference opening loss for ISU.
20 Purdue--> Last week: "Couldn't stop the run. Tiller had better hope no one sees the tape." Well, it appears that Charlie Weis saw the tape. That was a beatdown.
22 Toledo--> Ouch. I know Gradkowski was hurt (again), but Toledo looked horrible in pretty much every facet of the game at Fresno last Tuesday.
The new Top 25
1. Southern Cal (1 last week). For next week's trick, USC will fall behind 42-0 entering the fourth quarter.
2. Texas (2). Wow. I thought it would be close in Missouri.
3. Virginia Tech (3). I didn't think this would be very close, and I was right.
4. Georgia (5). Bye. Moved up because Florida failed to score a touchdown. And Florida actually played a game.
5. Ohio State (6). I'm still not sold. Probably won't be until the Michigan game, but I am stubborn and still think tOSU will lose once before they go to Ann Arbor.
6. Florida State (7). Serious threat to move up now that Weatherford seems to have found himself. The defense is frighteningly good.
7. Alabama (16). See Florida State, only replace "Weatherford seems to have found himself" with "Croyle seems to be healthy".
8. Tennessee (8). Finally started Clausen. Too bad Ainge had to throw away one game (Florida) and half of another (LSU) before Fulmer figured this out.
9. Miami (9). I don't think they're as good as Virginia Tech, but they're improving and will be a threat in the conference.
10. LSU (10). Good rebound from the UT loss, even though it was against a bad team.
11. Notre Dame (12). I think I have this team right around where they belong for now. The USC game will be interesting.
12. Cal (15). Haven't played anybody yet.
13. Florida (4). Blown out at 'Bama, which proves that Meyer's offense is not without fault when you pit it against more athletic defenses. This might qualify as jumping the gun, however.
14. Wisconsin (21). Won big, just as they were supposed to. The game at Northwestern will be tougher than many people think. Bucky has had some serious struggles there.
15. Michigan State (11). Got punished by the football gods for running it up on Illinois, as MSU found a way to lose a very winnable game against Michigan.
16. Arizona State (14). Even though they blew a big lead, there really isn't anything wrong with losing a close game to USC.
17. Texas A&M (18). The true tests are yet to come.
18. Oregon (19). Won, but didn't look particularly strong.
19. Auburn (NR). I had to list 25 teams.
20. Penn State (NR). Michael Robinson was 13-32 passing against the Gophers. Let's not kid ourselves about this team. 7-4 would still be an achievement.
21. Michigan (24). Impressive rebound after the tough loss in Madison. The Gophers will test the Wolverines' interior defense, but we all know the history between these two teams.
22. Minnesota (13). Apparently, they're not for real.
23. UCLA (23). Had trouble beating a bad Washington team.
24. Texas Tech (NR). And you thought Cal hadn't played anyone yet.
25. Louisville (25). Holding their ground in the poll. Barely.
The Watch List
Boston College
Fresno State
Iowa State
Nebraska
Purdue
College football - Week Five review
Full disclosure
In a performance that was even worse than last week, I think my wife watched more college football this weekend than I did.
--> Air Force at Colorado State
--> Pittsburgh at Rutgers
UMD Travel Note
When you go to Mankato, make sure to call what is now known as Minnesota State-Mankato "Mankato State". Do it repeatedly.
Thank you.
Impressions
Not much to talk about here, as I didn't see much. With home games the next two weeks, enjoy this while it lasts.
Pittsburgh at Rutgers--> Has Dave Wannstedt been fired yet? Horrifying first-half performance from a team that had to know what was on the line.
Michigan at Michigan State--> Good for Michigan. I was surprised that Hart ran as well as he did, but in the end, I wasn't surprised to see Michigan State making enough mistakes to keep Michigan in the game. That's a trademark of Sparty. They tend to do that a couple times per season, and it's why they're not a legitimate title contender.
Minnesota at Penn State--> Speaking of teams that do the same thing every year, how about the Gophers? Start hot. Play a good team. Get whacked. Go in the crapper. We'll see if the Gophers rebound or if they fall off the planet as usual now that they've been exposed.
Florida at Alabama--> Damn. Maybe 'Bama's for real. We'll find out, as their schedule isn't exactly easy. Meanwhile, Florida really needs to regroup in a hurry. They still have a chance to get to the SEC title game if they can put it behind them.
USC at Arizona State--> I'm starting to think they'll never lose. Ever.
Middle Tennessee at Vanderbilt--> What?
Notre Dame at Purdue--> I don't think I could have predicted such a decisive victory, but I am not at all surprised that the Irish found a way to beat Purdue. The Boilers are severely overrated, and their defense was exposed for all to see in Minnesota.
In a performance that was even worse than last week, I think my wife watched more college football this weekend than I did.
--> Air Force at Colorado State
--> Pittsburgh at Rutgers
UMD Travel Note
When you go to Mankato, make sure to call what is now known as Minnesota State-Mankato "Mankato State". Do it repeatedly.
Thank you.
Impressions
Not much to talk about here, as I didn't see much. With home games the next two weeks, enjoy this while it lasts.
Pittsburgh at Rutgers--> Has Dave Wannstedt been fired yet? Horrifying first-half performance from a team that had to know what was on the line.
Michigan at Michigan State--> Good for Michigan. I was surprised that Hart ran as well as he did, but in the end, I wasn't surprised to see Michigan State making enough mistakes to keep Michigan in the game. That's a trademark of Sparty. They tend to do that a couple times per season, and it's why they're not a legitimate title contender.
Minnesota at Penn State--> Speaking of teams that do the same thing every year, how about the Gophers? Start hot. Play a good team. Get whacked. Go in the crapper. We'll see if the Gophers rebound or if they fall off the planet as usual now that they've been exposed.
Florida at Alabama--> Damn. Maybe 'Bama's for real. We'll find out, as their schedule isn't exactly easy. Meanwhile, Florida really needs to regroup in a hurry. They still have a chance to get to the SEC title game if they can put it behind them.
USC at Arizona State--> I'm starting to think they'll never lose. Ever.
Middle Tennessee at Vanderbilt--> What?
Notre Dame at Purdue--> I don't think I could have predicted such a decisive victory, but I am not at all surprised that the Irish found a way to beat Purdue. The Boilers are severely overrated, and their defense was exposed for all to see in Minnesota.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)