It stings to lose Harper as he seems like the kind of game changing defender that I think is essential in the NCAAs. Even with that said though, Evan Murr probably is a better fit to come right into that role for next season and perform without the growing pains. I think that's especially true if there is a sense that Harper could be a one and done type player. Regardless, Harper wants to play with his brother over playing at Minnesota. That's hard to fault.
We've seen a lot of chatter about Tarin Smith being another addition to the lineup as well. He's a 20-yr-old Ducks third round pick that outscored DuPont this year in Everett. If Anaheim really wants him to play some college hockey that also probably means the 6' 2" physical two-way blue liner could stick around for a little bit and contribute. The Ducks saw how well that worked with LaCombe.
One thing about this defensive corps for next year is everyone is over 20 years old with really impressive size. Murr is the smallest guy on the roster, but he was an All-American this year. Motzko's plan of finally having an older group is at least coming true. I think Murr was in the works for a while and I heard other names were almost pending options for the second transfer D until Larson was hired to bring Henricks with him.
LD - Whipple - JR - 20 - 6' 2" 205 / RD - Murr - SR -23 - 5' 11" 179
LD - Rombach - SO - 20 - 6' 6" 209 / RD - Henricks - SO - 20 - 6' 4" 205
LD - Smith - FR - 20 - 6' 2" 190 / LD - Loftus - JR - 22 - 6' 1" 185
LD - Lofgren - FR - 21 - 6' 4" 201 / LD - Begley - SR - 22 - 6' 4" 201
Coming in 27-28 you'd hopefully have Mace'o Phillips still committed as a 20-yr-old and then I do wonder if RD Ben Geiger or RD Broden McArthur end up being 28-29 freshman depending on their development. Ot'll be interesting to see how the staff handles that transition. Certianly the plan on grabbing a guy like Murr/Henricks is tempting to count on every season in my book if your recruitng pipeline has holes compared to pulling up guys early. I'm sure the smaller programs will say it's not fair... well Quinn Hughes wanted out of Vancouver and sounds like Brady Tkachuck wants out of Ottawa. It's how it goes.
----
Also standing out to me is that up front it looks like the Gophers will be an older team based on ages they will turn during the season -- I'm cheating a little bit because some guys turn a year older in the second half of the season... but still... The only under 20 guys on here are Mooney, Moe, Kvasnicka and Wyatt Cullen -- all guys that should be WJC camp invites. There was a huge benefit to pushing back Hendrickson, Moore, Nevers, Kvasnicka extra years in juniors. Those borderline guys of bringing in early/letting stay another year are interesting test cases.
SR - Ludtke - 22
JR - Ziemer - 21
JR - Hendrickson - 21
JR - Harris - 23
JR - Burnevik -22
SO - Mooney - 19
SO - Moore - 21
SO - Townsend - 21
SO - Moe - 19
SO - Pritchard - 22
SO - Humphreys - 21
FR - Nevers - 21
FR - Kvasnicka - 19
FR - B. Cullen - 20
FR - W. Cullen - 18
Great perspective here Vegoe. Thank you.
Just listen to Larsons interview with Gaardsy. The days of trying to land every 18 year old star, skilled, potential NHL draft pick recruit are OVER.I know we don't really know the motivations and things happening behind the scenes, but if you're trying to rebuild and convince other players to come here to develop into stars, why wouldn't you want Harper? You can't hope for a year one turnaround at the expense of building the future of the program.
Obviously like I said I don't really understand how all this works, but I just can't imagine kicking a potential star to the curb for one year of a solid player unless you were building to make a run... Maybe I'm overestimating the value of Harper, but again, I am in over my head when it comes to these things--it just seems like potential first-round picks are usually a win.
Spot on. The loss of Harper is a bad loss. Is it the end of the world? Nope. But I don't see any issue with being concerned by the loss of a highly coveted recruit. Going to wait to see how this all shakes out, but I am with your take here as of now.
Larson will endeavor to piece his team together with the “right” components. That means some older players threw the transfer portal to supplement & mix with younger recruits. They’ll still recruit their fair share if young, skilled players, but it won’t be the overall priority.
Just listen to Larsons interview with Gaardsy. The days of trying to land every 18 year old star, skilled, potential NHL draft pick recruit are OVER.I know we don't really know the motivations and things happening behind the scenes, but if you're trying to rebuild and convince other players to come here to develop into stars, why wouldn't you want Harper? You can't hope for a year one turnaround at the expense of building the future of the program.
Obviously like I said I don't really understand how all this works, but I just can't imagine kicking a potential star to the curb for one year of a solid player unless you were building to make a run... Maybe I'm overestimating the value of Harper, but again, I am in over my head when it comes to these things--it just seems like potential first-round picks are usually a win.
Spot on. The loss of Harper is a bad loss. Is it the end of the world? Nope. But I don't see any issue with being concerned by the loss of a highly coveted recruit. Going to wait to see how this all shakes out, but I am with your take here as of now.
I did listen to that it. And that's not what he said. He said you need to have the courage to tell some of them no. He didn't say that you shouldn't recruit them all together. In fact, he said quite the opposite. He said you need those high-end guys, but you can't have a whole team of them. I 100% agree with that. I was referring to not striking out on the guys he does target, which Motzko did near the end (especially in one recruiting cycle).
@mnstate0fhockey I tried to explain it in more detail in my second paragraph, but yeah, you got it right, that’s what Larson stated.
My read is the new staff wanted Harper. Any program would have interest in him. They just also wanted to compete immediately and were up front with Harper about his role, possibly even wanting him to arrive in 2027-2028. The roster Motzko had lined up would have allowed Harper to come in and run the power play, even if he did not lead the defensive unit in minutes. The retool raised more questions regarding his role, leading to his decomittment.
Murr (and Smith if it materalizes) are better equipped to help this fall. Harper's long-term potential is absolutely elite, so you are weighing it against immediate impact. I absolutely wanted to keep him, but can see where the disconnect came into play.
If we do land Smith, I can buy into this a lot more. But if we don't land Smith and we lost Harper because we brought in Murr, I start to question the wisdom in that. We all want to win now, but it's tough to stomach sacrificing a prospect like Harper unless you have serious title contention aspirations.
that's the kicker. it all kind of depends doesn't it? if he turns into a 2x all american, even if the guy you replace him with is fine, people are still upset.
Lots of people got upset about Eiserman decommitting late but he finished his career with 64 points in 71 games and then left. Ditto on UND losing Boisvert last year and he was mediocre at BU.
If he wants to play next year in the NCAA, it's going to all be about fit and Larson doesn't strike me as exactly trying to fit square pegs into round holes or making promises he can't keep (unlike some other coaches may).
Don't blame Harper if it's what he wants or Larson. In the end, it also may all come down to that he just wants to play with his bro and is going to end up at Michigan not this year but the next
Just listen to Larsons interview with Gaardsy. The days of trying to land EVERY 18 year old star, skilled, potential NHL draft pick recruit are OVER.I know we don't really know the motivations and things happening behind the scenes, but if you're trying to rebuild and convince other players to come here to develop into stars, why wouldn't you want Harper? You can't hope for a year one turnaround at the expense of building the future of the program.
Obviously like I said I don't really understand how all this works, but I just can't imagine kicking a potential star to the curb for one year of a solid player unless you were building to make a run... Maybe I'm overestimating the value of Harper, but again, I am in over my head when it comes to these things--it just seems like potential first-round picks are usually a win.
Spot on. The loss of Harper is a bad loss. Is it the end of the world? Nope. But I don't see any issue with being concerned by the loss of a highly coveted recruit. Going to wait to see how this all shakes out, but I am with your take here as of now.
To Clarify 😉
@mnstate0fhockey I tried to explain it in more detail in my second paragraph, but yeah, you got it right, that’s what Larson stated.
I see your distinction now. I think we are aligned.
My read is the new staff wanted Harper. Any program would have interest in him. They just also wanted to compete immediately and were up front with Harper about his role, possibly even wanting him to arrive in 2027-2028. The roster Motzko had lined up would have allowed Harper to come in and run the power play, even if he did not lead the defensive unit in minutes. The retool raised more questions regarding his role, leading to his decomittment.
Murr (and Smith if it materalizes) are better equipped to help this fall. Harper's long-term potential is absolutely elite, so you are weighing it against immediate impact. I absolutely wanted to keep him, but can see where the disconnect came into play.
If we do land Smith, I can buy into this a lot more. But if we don't land Smith and we lost Harper because we brought in Murr, I start to question the wisdom in that. We all want to win now, but it's tough to stomach sacrificing a prospect like Harper unless you have serious title contention aspirations.
that's the kicker. it all kind of depends doesn't it? if he turns into a 2x all american, even if the guy you replace him with is fine, people are still upset.
Lots of people got upset about Eiserman decommitting late but he finished his career with 64 points in 71 games and then left. Ditto on UND losing Boisvert last year and he was mediocre at BU.
If he wants to play next year in the NCAA, it's going to all be about fit and Larson doesn't strike me as exactly trying to fit square pegs into round holes or making promises he can't keep (unlike some other coaches may).
Don't blame Harper if it's what he wants or Larson. In the end, it also may all come down to that he just wants to play with his bro and is going to end up at Michigan not this year but the next
Fair enough. Very solid points. I am definitely going to wait and see how things play out. I am sure there is far more to this than any of us know. It just sucks to lose a guy that I am pretty confident is going to be a high-end puck-moving defenseman.
Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
Yep, I agree with you that I don't think Larson turned him down. He could have offered him a lower role this year while stating he felt it better for Harper to get another year of top minutes in juniors to come in with a major role in 2027.
Not worried one bit that the staff will find someone as good or better for 2027.
I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
Not worried one bit that the staff will find someone as good or better for 2027.
And they will rightfully be judged harshly if they do not.
im not sure it makes a ton of sense to be looking long term when it comes to roster building.I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
im not sure it makes a ton of sense to be looking long term when it comes to roster building.I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
I think some level of projection is only logical. Otherwise, you end up in a situation like we were in this season. Got to balance classes, need to balance players in the right roles. It's part of what makes the job so difficult at the college level. My overall point is that losing Harper is a big deal. Not saying the coaching staff didn't make the right decisions, that it is the coaching staff's fault, that there aren't other moves pending, or that they won't be able to make up for it. But people should rightfully be disappointed. You can trust the staff and think this was a bad development at the same time. There is a likelihood, and we can debate HOW likely, losing Harper is a net loss when all is said and done. I just don't agree with the minimizing of the recruiting loss. He is a highly talented player.
It's certainly fair to ask and my reaction when we lost Harper was similar to yours. That said it seems like a reasonable gamble that Murr can play top pairing minutes or at least top 4 minutes right away as a 23 year old senior coming off a very good season better than an 18 year old freshman. Unless Levi Harper is Cale Makar 2.0 that seems likely and who even knows how long he intends to stay in college (maybe he's also a one and done?). I could see how it might have been better to have Harper on the PP but far more minutes are played at 5v5 and it seems likely that Murr would be better equipped to play top pairing minutes. Maybe I'm wrong but it's pretty rare that an 18 year old comes in and is significantly better than seniors who have already proven themselves to be well above average/elite at this level.I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
The other thing is, as others mentioned, NCAA athletics doesn't really revolve around 4 year cycles anymore at least not for the blue chip programs. Teams like Michigan basketball just poached a bunch of guys who proved themselves elsewhere and constructed a dominant championship caliber roster. Indiana football did something similar. It seems like for hockey that Michigan and UND are making similar moves. Maybe Harper goes elsewhere and sticks around for 3 years and proves me wrong but unless Larson and co struggle in terms of recruiting similar talent in the next year or two then this probably isn't the end of the world and we'll have forgotten about this one missed recruit. Harper's potential impact 2-3 years from now could be a huge loss if the Gopher coaching staff is terrible at their job but that's a ways off.
It's certainly fair to ask and my reaction when we lost Harper was similar to yours. That said it seems like a reasonable gamble that Murr can play top pairing minutes or at least top 4 minutes right away as a 23 year old senior coming off a very good season better than an 18 year old freshman. Unless Levi Harper is Cale Makar 2.0 that seems likely and who even knows how long he intends to stay in college (maybe he's also a one and done?). I could see how it might have been better to have Harper on the PP but far more minutes are played at 5v5 and it seems likely that Murr would be better equipped to play top pairing minutes. Maybe I'm wrong but it's pretty rare that an 18 year old comes in and is significantly better than seniors who have already proven themselves to be well above average/elite at this level.I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
The other thing is, as others mentioned, NCAA athletics doesn't really revolve around 4 year cycles anymore at least not for the blue chip programs. Teams like Michigan basketball just poached a bunch of guys who proved themselves elsewhere and constructed a dominant championship caliber roster. Indiana football did something similar. It seems like for hockey that Michigan and UND are making similar moves. Maybe Harper goes elsewhere and sticks around for 3 years and proves me wrong but unless Larson and co struggle in terms of recruiting similar talent in the next year or two then this probably isn't the end of the world and we'll have forgotten about this one missed recruit. Harper's potential impact 2-3 years from now could be a huge loss if the Gopher coaching staff is terrible at their job but that's a ways off.
Can't disagree with anything you said. Well said.
It stings to lose Harper as he seems like the kind of game changing defender that I think is essential in the NCAAs. Even with that said though, Evan Murr probably is a better fit to come right into that role for next season and perform without the growing pains. I think that's especially true if there is a sense that Harper could be a one and done type player. Regardless, Harper wants to play with his brother over playing at Minnesota. That's hard to fault.
We've seen a lot of chatter about Tarin Smith being another addition to the lineup as well. He's a 20-yr-old Ducks third round pick that outscored DuPont this year in Everett. If Anaheim really wants him to play some college hockey that also probably means the 6' 2" physical two-way blue liner could stick around for a little bit and contribute. The Ducks saw how well that worked with LaCombe.
One thing about this defensive corps for next year is everyone is over 20 years old with really impressive size. Murr is the smallest guy on the roster, but he was an All-American this year. Motzko's plan of finally having an older group is at least coming true. I think Murr was in the works for a while and I heard other names were almost pending options for the second transfer D until Larson was hired to bring Henricks with him.
LD - Whipple - JR - 20 - 6' 2" 205 / RD - Murr - SR -23 - 5' 11" 179
LD - Rombach - SO - 20 - 6' 6" 209 / RD - Henricks - SO - 20 - 6' 4" 205
LD - Smith - FR - 20 - 6' 2" 190 / LD - Loftus - JR - 22 - 6' 1" 185
LD - Lofgren - FR - 21 - 6' 4" 201 / LD - Begley - SR - 22 - 6' 4" 201
Coming in 27-28 you'd hopefully have Mace'o Phillips still committed as a 20-yr-old and then I do wonder if RD Ben Geiger or RD Broden McArthur end up being 28-29 freshman depending on their development. Ot'll be interesting to see how the staff handles that transition. Certianly the plan on grabbing a guy like Murr/Henricks is tempting to count on every season in my book if your recruitng pipeline has holes compared to pulling up guys early. I'm sure the smaller programs will say it's not fair... well Quinn Hughes wanted out of Vancouver and sounds like Brady Tkachuck wants out of Ottawa. It's how it goes.
----
Also standing out to me is that up front it looks like the Gophers will be an older team based on ages they will turn during the season -- I'm cheating a little bit because some guys turn a year older in the second half of the season... but still... The only under 20 guys on here are Mooney, Moe, Kvasnicka and Wyatt Cullen -- all guys that should be WJC camp invites. There was a huge benefit to pushing back Hendrickson, Moore, Nevers, Kvasnicka extra years in juniors. Those borderline guys of bringing in early/letting stay another year are interesting test cases.
SR - Ludtke - 22
JR - Ziemer - 21
JR - Hendrickson - 21
JR - Harris - 23
JR - Burnevik -22
SO - Mooney - 19
SO - Moore - 21
SO - Townsend - 21
SO - Moe - 19
SO - Pritchard - 22
SO - Humphreys - 21
FR - Nevers - 21
FR - Kvasnicka - 19
FR - B. Cullen - 20
FR - W. Cullen - 18
I’ve been assuming Geiger and McArthur are 2028-29 for a while now. The days of 18 year old freshmen are waning. 2 yrs NTDP + 1 yr juniors will become commonplace.
I also assume they’ll drop Phillips and add Laylin. I’d take that trade in a heartbeat.
I do believe recruiting remains a pivotal piece within a strong program. Michigan basketball was referenced - and for good reason - but basketball is the one sport where I believe you can have a "portal team", for the obvious reason of having so few roster spots and starters. Also worth noting Michigan's best player transferred in from UAB. There is not much value in worrying about which school a player played at previously. There are good players everywhere.
Indiana football is interesting. They wisely used the portal...I think the quarterback position is where the portal really makes an impact there. Mendoza was a great find and fit, though worth noting he was not seen as a Heisman winner/first overall pick type when he committed. Conversely, Florida State has essentially built their teams through the portal annually and have one good season to show for it. It is not easy to do.
More succinctly since this is a hockey board and not my own sports radio podcast, I do think recruiting remains pivotal in a niche and fairly regional sport like hockey. The portal will be supplemental though critical, and an opportunity to add players who can make an immediate impact or fill a specific role.
Well yeah I agree that recruiting is important and that'll remain the case. With Larson and co we haven't even begun to see what they're capable of yet and I don't think losing Harper is the end of the world given the context of who was brought through the portal etc.
Well yeah I agree that recruiting is important and that'll remain the case. With Larson and co we haven't even begun to see what they're capable of yet and I don't think losing Harper is the end of the world given the context of who was brought through the portal etc.
I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you...just kind of expanding by thinking out loud. It is a different world and staffs will have to blend all aspects to stave off decline.
No I know, you make a lot of good points. You're right that it's hard to compare across sports and hockey is quite a bit different but it does seem like part of the current meta is to poach good players from smaller schools if possible.Well yeah I agree that recruiting is important and that'll remain the case. With Larson and co we haven't even begun to see what they're capable of yet and I don't think losing Harper is the end of the world given the context of who was brought through the portal etc.
I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you...just kind of expanding by thinking out loud. It is a different world and staffs will have to blend all aspects to stave off decline.
I’ll GUARANTEE one thing…they won’t be delaying Joey Cullen who will be a junior in high school next season. He will be on campus Fall of 2028, but he’s the 18 year old exception! 😉 lolIt's certainly fair to ask and my reaction when we lost Harper was similar to yours. That said it seems like a reasonable gamble that Murr can play top pairing minutes or at least top 4 minutes right away as a 23 year old senior coming off a very good season better than an 18 year old freshman. Unless Levi Harper is Cale Makar 2.0 that seems likely and who even knows how long he intends to stay in college (maybe he's also a one and done?). I could see how it might have been better to have Harper on the PP but far more minutes are played at 5v5 and it seems likely that Murr would be better equipped to play top pairing minutes. Maybe I'm wrong but it's pretty rare that an 18 year old comes in and is significantly better than seniors who have already proven themselves to be well above average/elite at this level.I think Larson was honest with Harper and told him that he would likely be on the 3rd pair and 2nd PP unit. That's not a smart move for Harper in his draft year.Build a top 5 PP out of Murr, Mooney, Ziemer, Burnevik, and Cullen and you will have a handful of Harper level players calling you looking to come in and fill Murr's spot for 27/28.
NCAA hockey is no longer a development league. You don't have to play decent to average guys now in hopes that they will become great in a year or two. Let that happen with the lower level teams and then pay them to come in when they are impact players.
Well said. If Larson didn't feel like Harper was ready then at this point I think have to trust his evaluation (no evidence not to). We have a full year to replace Harper and I expect we will have many options as I think this staff will do really well on the recruiting trail in short order. Just look at how much better the roster is in just a couple weeks.
I would be really surprised if it was Larson who turned Harper down.
I don't think anyone believes Larson turned Harper down. And I 100% believe your scenario is correct. I think the debate is whether it was wise long-term to bring in Murr to fill that role next year and likely have a bigger impact than Harper would have had his first year, knowing that Murr has only one year of eligibility left. As many have said, there are likely other pieces to this puzzle that we don't know yet. However, I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the question as to whether this will come back to bite Larson. We will have to wait and see.
The other thing is, as others mentioned, NCAA athletics doesn't really revolve around 4 year cycles anymore at least not for the blue chip programs. Teams like Michigan basketball just poached a bunch of guys who proved themselves elsewhere and constructed a dominant championship caliber roster. Indiana football did something similar. It seems like for hockey that Michigan and UND are making similar moves. Maybe Harper goes elsewhere and sticks around for 3 years and proves me wrong but unless Larson and co struggle in terms of recruiting similar talent in the next year or two then this probably isn't the end of the world and we'll have forgotten about this one missed recruit. Harper's potential impact 2-3 years from now could be a huge loss if the Gopher coaching staff is terrible at their job but that's a ways off.
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
Cullen at the bottom as FYI (DND)
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
Cullen at the bottom as FYI (DND)
Was going to say, we do have possibly the best forward on that team.
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
How many of those did we "miss" on though? Trottier? Lutner? Nelson or Francisco or Plante would never come here. Fitzhenry would be a miss, but we don't know yet. The non Minnesota guys I can't really say we missed on them
Right, Plante was never going here, neither was Nelson. BU has a stacked pipeline from the U18
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
Cullen at the bottom as FYI (DND)
Was going to say, we do have possibly the best forward on that team.
Yes, oversight on my part. Can’t believe I overlooked Wyatt. I just look at that roster and see the names I know Bob had targeted and missed on and it depresses me.
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
How many of those did we "miss" on though? Trottier? Lutner? Nelson or Francisco or Plante would never come here. Fitzhenry would be a miss, but we don't know yet. The non Minnesota guys I can't really say we missed on them
Berchild is the one that REALLY stings. Nelson and Lutner to a lesser extent. Again, not saying we can or even should land every kid. It’s just nauseating to see Michigan/Notre Dame/ and Denver especially best us so often in our own back yard.
The only miss from the U18s forwards imo is Berchild, who is missing from the line chart. Wonder if he is injured and didn’t make the trip.
we just are never going to have much success with east coast kids so I don’t consider those misses.
As stated, if we miss on all of Fitzhenry, Schneider and Willis it gets a little concerning.
The incoming U17s should see a good amount of commits for us. Matt Cullen has spent a lot of time around that age group. Huge issues if we miss on a lot of those.
All to say, this U18 class just wasn’t setup well for us. It will just be a one year issue I think.
BU, BC, and Michigan have kind of always had the pipeline with the DT. It is interesting to see Notre Dame having multiple guys on the team with no surprise that Nightingale has some players there.
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
The only miss from the U18s forwards imo is Berchild, who is missing from the line chart. Wonder if he is injured and didn’t make the trip.
we just are never going to have much success with east coast kids so I don’t consider those misses.
As stated, if we miss on all of Fitzhenry, Schneider and Willis it gets a little concerning.
The incoming U17s should see a good amount of commits for us. Matt Cullen has spent a lot of time around that age group. Huge issues if we miss on a lot of those.
All to say, this U18 class just wasn’t setup well for us. It will just be a one year issue I think.
I tend to agree with everything you said. If it’s a one year blip, that’s fine. But also shows why this program shouldn’t have such tunnel vision on MN kids at times. They don’t all want to be Gophers.
We should have at least as much success recruiting out East as BU and BC does here. And as much success recruiting out of Michigan as the Michigan schools do here.
Might just be my perception, but it seems like we put most of our eggs in the MN basket too often and then when that doesn’t pan out we’re left scrambling. And then perception builds and it seems to snowball.
The only miss from the U18s forwards imo is Berchild, who is missing from the line chart. Wonder if he is injured and didn’t make the trip.
we just are never going to have much success with east coast kids so I don’t consider those misses.
As stated, if we miss on all of Fitzhenry, Schneider and Willis it gets a little concerning.
The incoming U17s should see a good amount of commits for us. Matt Cullen has spent a lot of time around that age group. Huge issues if we miss on a lot of those.
All to say, this U18 class just wasn’t setup well for us. It will just be a one year issue I think.
Have to open the tweet to see the top line, Berchild is on there.
The only miss from the U18s forwards imo is Berchild, who is missing from the line chart. Wonder if he is injured and didn’t make the trip.
we just are never going to have much success with east coast kids so I don’t consider those misses.
As stated, if we miss on all of Fitzhenry, Schneider and Willis it gets a little concerning.
The incoming U17s should see a good amount of commits for us. Matt Cullen has spent a lot of time around that age group. Huge issues if we miss on a lot of those.
All to say, this U18 class just wasn’t setup well for us. It will just be a one year issue I think.
Have to open the tweet to see the top line, Berchild is on there.
ha my bad.
When I am talking about missing on recruiting cycles, this can’t happen again. Now that we don’t have a commitment from Harper, we have ZERO commitments on the U18 team. We don’t need to land every elite player. But it is hard to argue this is ok.
https://twitter.com/usahockey/status/2044733008314265779?s=46
Cullen at the bottom as FYI (DND)
Was going to say, we do have possibly the best forward on that team.
I was never bothered too much about missing on this class of NDTP because it really isn’t that good of one. And yes, we just so happen to still pick up the best player from it.
The only miss from the U18s forwards imo is Berchild, who is missing from the line chart. Wonder if he is injured and didn’t make the trip.
we just are never going to have much success with east coast kids so I don’t consider those misses.
As stated, if we miss on all of Fitzhenry, Schneider and Willis it gets a little concerning.
The incoming U17s should see a good amount of commits for us. Matt Cullen has spent a lot of time around that age group. Huge issues if we miss on a lot of those.
All to say, this U18 class just wasn’t setup well for us. It will just be a one year issue I think.
I tend to agree with everything you said. If it’s a one year blip, that’s fine. But also shows why this program shouldn’t have such tunnel vision on MN kids at times. They don’t all want to be Gophers.
We should have at least as much success recruiting out East as BU and BC does here. And as much success recruiting out of Michigan as the Michigan schools do here.
Might just be my perception, but it seems like we put most of our eggs in the MN basket too often and then when that doesn’t pan out we’re left scrambling. And then perception builds and it seems to snowball.
Agreed. I think you need to start taking a few kids from out East and MI/IL so younger players see it as an option. Having Eiserman could have helped but everyone accepts that situation. Just like we now hope Knies gives us an advantage with Willis.
We have Wyatt Cullen on that roster. Outside of him and Berchild, I really don't care that much. We'd have Harper on it too if it weren't for the current influx of ready to go players coming in, and him jumping to college next year could blow up in his face for all we know, there's been plenty of rushed kids in the past that end up fizzling.
We have Wyatt Cullen on that roster. Outside of him and Berchild, I really don't care that much. We'd have Harper on it too if it weren't for the current influx of ready to go players coming in, and him jumping to college next year could blow up in his face for all we know, there's been plenty of rushed kids in the past that end up fizzling.
This is especially true of defenseman. Only rarely do they contribute significantly as an 18-year-old incoming freshman.
More and more, college recruiting is as much about how old a player is than how skilled he is. That is definitely not my preference but everying has changed. Lucia tried to limit the age of incoming freshmen and that didn't work. Add in the portal, NIL, and players showing little to no loyalty to their teams, and it's become the wild west of roster building.
Indiana won a national championship in college football. Nobody would have believed that even a few years ago.
Final central scouting rankings are out
Cullen highest NTDP kid at 13
Plante is next MN kid at 42 (apologies if I missed someone)
Some other notable names
- Jayden Kurtz at 61
- Michael Berchild at 77
- Parker Trottier at 79
- K.J. Sauer at 92
- Kade Stengrim at 93
- Bode Laylin at 131
- A.J. Francisco at 132
- Brock Souch at 158
This is especially true of defenseman. Only rarely do they contribute significantly as an 18-year-old incoming freshman.
Bingo. You have to be a special player to come in and really splash as a defenseman. Hell, look at a guy like Verhoeff, as good as he was in the regular season, he was abysmal when it mattered most. That happens to young defensemen every year, all across the league.
Granted, when those same defensemen are Juniors or Seniors? Yeah, they can become the types that can take over games. But those early struggles can often linger and hinder their time in college.
This is especially true of defenseman. Only rarely do they contribute significantly as an 18-year-old incoming freshman.
Bingo. You have to be a special player to come in and really splash as a defenseman. Hell, look at a guy like Verhoeff, as good as he was in the regular season, he was abysmal when it mattered most. That happens to young defensemen every year, all across the league.
Granted, when those same defensemen are Juniors or Seniors? Yeah, they can become the types that can take over games. But those early struggles can often linger and hinder their time in college.
This is why it's surprising to me that Harper's camp seems to be pushing for him to play NCAA next year. Verhoeff was more highly regarded and much more physically mature, but his ice time and effectiveness went down over the course of the year, and the discourse around him went from challenging McKenna at 1OA to whether he's still the top defenseman. Meanwhile other defensemen from the CHL saw their draft stock rise. Not so much a knock on him or UND, more so just recognizing that it's hard to play D in big time college hockey at 17
If Harper doesn't end up playing NCAA next year, obviously this all changes and it would make the de-commitment more curious... but reading between the lines it seems like he was coming here so long as he was promised the playing time he was after for next year
This is especially true of defenseman. Only rarely do they contribute significantly as an 18-year-old incoming freshman.
Bingo. You have to be a special player to come in and really splash as a defenseman. Hell, look at a guy like Verhoeff, as good as he was in the regular season, he was abysmal when it mattered most. That happens to young defensemen every year, all across the league.
Granted, when those same defensemen are Juniors or Seniors? Yeah, they can become the types that can take over games. But those early struggles can often linger and hinder their time in college.
This is why it's surprising to me that Harper's camp seems to be pushing for him to play NCAA next year. Verhoeff was more highly regarded and much more physically mature, but his ice time and effectiveness went down over the course of the year, and the discourse around him went from challenging McKenna at 1OA to whether he's still the top defenseman. Meanwhile other defensemen from the CHL saw their draft stock rise. Not so much a knock on him or UND, more so just recognizing that it's hard to play D in big time college hockey at 17
If Harper doesn't end up playing NCAA next year, obviously this all changes and it would make the de-commitment more curious... but reading between the lines it seems like he was coming here so long as he was promised the playing time he was after for next year
I think it's assumed that this is why he decommitted. And honestly, it's a logical assumption based on the timing of the decommittment. But you're right, if he does land somewhere else and not play college hockey next season, it looks a whole lot more questionable for this coaching staff.
it looks a whole lot more questionable for this coaching staff.
Well he could run out of options for where to go if no one wants to bring him in right now, and find his next year is better spent in juniors. I mean, I'm sure a CCHA squad or something would guarantee him, but the B1G, HE, NCHC teams of the world may very well not.
Somebody mentioned earlier that Levi's older brother, Brandt is playing for Michigan next year. I assume he's leaving to play at Michigan with his brother.
@bertogliat Which would make sense, however I don't know that they have a spot for him right now. Maybe Michigan is more willing to budge on the topic than Minnesota if it means just getting him in the door.
@bertogliat Which would make sense, however I don't know that they have a spot for him right now. Maybe Michigan is more willing to budge on the topic than Minnesota if it means just getting him in the door.
they certainly do not have room for both of them for next year