Isn't he still the CCHA commish? I vaguely recall having a good laugh about tDon criticizing the currently proposed NCAA age-limit. Obviously he has to advocate on behalf of his CCHA members but still. Lol
If there is a single hill in my life I will die on it is that Lucia was right and forcing kids to come in at 20 as freshman is bad for the players.
It is unquestionably good for the quality of play of college hockey to let them develop a couple years. It is unquestionably bad for the purpose of college athletics being in college with their high school cohort. Unfortunately the NCAA decided against the student part of the student athletes, like usual.
Gopher coach version of Don Lucia was absolutely right. It’s better for the kids but will never happen unless the NCAA forces it.
Though I think the right caveat would have been that players past that age could start the 2027-2028 school year with 4 to play 4. Give them a full college experience, adjust after that.
If there is a single hill in my life I will die on it is that Lucia was right and forcing kids to come in at 20 as freshman is bad for the players.
It is unquestionably good for the quality of play of college hockey to let them develop a couple years. It is unquestionably bad for the purpose of college athletics being in college with their high school cohort. Unfortunately the NCAA decided against the student part of the student athletes, like usual.
Gopher coach version of Don Lucia was absolutely right. It’s better for the kids but will never happen unless the NCAA forces it.
Though I think the right caveat would have been that players past that age could start the 2027-2028 school year with 4 to play 4. Give them a full college experience, adjust after that.
couldn't disagree more with your thought that the older players are raising the quality of play in college hockey. It's the exact opposite IMO.
The originally proposed 5 years after graduation would have been the best thing to happen to college hockey in a long time.
Something to keep in mind re: the NHL's strong opposition to proposed NCAA age limits. It's just NHL GMs/owners advocating for their own self-interest, which is to be expected.
Under the CBA, NHL teams lose drafted players who don't sign after 4 years playing in NCAA. This is the key language and it's juniors-agnostic. Every single freshman NCAA player is owned by their NHL draft team for 4 more years, regardless of whether he's an 18y/o NTDP star or a 20y/o USHL journeyman.
So right now with the current setup, NHL teams get to exclusively own many NCAA players' rights for up to 6 years (2 post-draft years in juniors + 4 years in college) at zero cost for NHL teams who draft them.
If NCAA players have to go play college at an earlier age, NHL teams are forced to sign them earlier (or lose them to free agency sooner) because the CBA only cares about "4 years spent in NCAA".
NHL is always going to oppose anything which might eat into those "free" extra years their draft picks are spending in USHL/CHL before college
Re the feeling that having them come in right away would be good, I honestly love the hybrid choice they went with.
Some kids are just not ready at 18, even in a league where the age reduces. Whether that is mentally or physically, some kids have something click in those extra years of jr and would've never been recruited otherwise. Think using 19 is a great blend. It caps the max age coupled with giving that little bit of buffer to someone who is a late bloomer
Additionally, on the whole it would be better for the athlete if they all came in, I can come up with numerous counters why waiting a year before starting college can be good. Would you rather go straight through and you end up done and moving the the ECHL/AHL because you didn't play for 2 years while figuring it out? The goal for middle to top end guys is to play in the NHL. playing Jr against guys closer to your age is going to be better right out of HS than doing it on the back end playing against a mix of those guys and dudes in their 30s physically. Most kids have no idea what they want to do for school immediately on graduating, gives you more time to figure life out a little bit (some of these guys do do that outside of just playing hockey in Jr, know my nephew did). this should also give more runway to kids to stay in HS longer. if you can play 1 year jr post without repercussions to eligibility, that helps. lastly, i don't super love that it's still 5 years, but it should allow those who even go and play 2 years of jr to have 4 years left to try and get their degree while in school.
like i get the whole, just start the clock and put them straight through, but i think this dev model allows for late bloomers, enables kids to stay home longer, and ensures eligibility for getting your degree while still getting rid of 21 year old freshmen and skewing roster ages at least a little younger, which is excellent for NCAA hockey as a whole.
On the CBA discussion, these are the updated rights
Commencing with the 2027 Entry Draft, a Player selected by a Club in the Entry Draft shall be registered on the Reserve List ofthe selecting Club as an "Unsigned Draft Choice" as follows: (i) If a Player is drafted at age 18, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft. (ii) If a Player is drafted at age 19 or older, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the third June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft. Upon the expiration of the applicable exclusive right of negotiation as outlined in subsections (i) and (ii) above, the Player shall be a draft-related Unrestricted Free Agent. (b) Notwithstanding anything set forth in subsections (i) or (ii) above, if a Player drafted is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student during the period during which his Drafting Club holds his rights, and remains a bona fide college student at the time the Club's exclusive negotiating rights would have otherwise expired, such negotiating rights will be extended through and including the thirtieth (30th) day following the date on which the Player or his representative provides notice to NHL Central Registry that the Player will no longer be playing collegiate hockey.
Says nothing about the number of years of college one must play, just that they hold your rights for 4 years or while in college and through the 30th day after you say you're done if drafted at 18. That certainly could roll out to age 23-24 pending when they enroll and if they play 5 years of college, but kind of interesting language in my reading and this is an updated attachment in the CBA before the college rules changed
Thanks for pulling the actual CBA text. Will chew on this a bit and look into that revision history. Just not right now because I don't want to do what's basically my day job on a fine Saturday 😂
Thanks for pulling the actual CBA text. Will chew on this a bit and look into that revision history. Just not right now because I don't want to do what's basically my day job on a fine Saturday 😂
So in this current iteration of the 5 in 5, Carter Casey, who graduated high school this year but won’t turn 19 til December, won’t have his eligibility clock start until the 2027-28 season? Is that correct?
probably a better question for @walker-barely-know-her or someone who does contract law. But I’d assume 3 years if stays enrolled or in theory 2 if he leaves after his jr year based on how it reads
The Colorado Avalanche own the draft rights to Christian Humphreys for four years, holding them until August 15, 2028. Because Humphreys committed to the NCAA, the standard NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rule applies, retaining his rights through August 15 following the conclusion of his four-year college eligibility.
Looking down from my High Horse
Morality Police
Not very objective
I decided to watch the 2005 Frozen Four game where the Gophers lost to North Dakota, mainly because that was before I followed the team and was curious how that game played out despite knowing the outcome. Also partly inspired by the discussion in the opponent recruiting thread. If you don't want to relive that experience (or TLDR) then you should skip this post. Below are some of my thoughts while watching
- As much as I love Gary Thorne and Bill Clement (and Erin Andrews as the bench/tunnel reporter), watching hockey in 480P or whatever it was at the time wasn't ideal
- Hakstol's first year as a coach, later in the game the ESPN crew talks about how he's ok with the team taking penalties as long as the goal was to intimidate 🙄, so glad that guy never won a NCAA championship or anything at the next level
- the game was played at OSU's arena and is probably the only time it's ever been full lol
- I gotta imagine for Gopher fans watching the game on TV, it wasn't a good omen to see ESPN showing that infamous vid of Tyler Hirsch before puck drop, he finally returned to the team after a 3 game absence (due to that incident
- North Dakota immediately got a power play 15 seconds into the game and Briggs came up with 3 huge saves, I don't think North Dakota's goalie had to come up with one like that until 30 minutes into the game (had a big save on Smaagaard's backhand wide open in front of the net). North Dakota was clearly the better team thru 2 periods and they whiffed on a couple wide open nets
- I think the Gophers negated at least one if not multiple power plays by taking dumb penalties, I know the refs love to even out penalties and do stuff like that but good lord
- North Dakota's first goal was due to stripping RJ Anderson and getting a quick shot on net that Briggs clearly wasn't ready for, not a great goal to give up but kinda understandable given how it happened
- Briggs let in kind of a crap goal to make it 2-0 North Dakota, though this was before goalies were being taught to do the reverse VH against the post which probably would've made things easier. A defensive breakdown gave the ND player a free shot from a crap angle that went thru his arm. ND's goalie had just recently came up with the big save on the other end end
- Gophers finally get a full PP with about 7 mins left in the 2nd down 2-0 and fail to even get a shot off, looks like they ran a PP with 2 Dmen
- the vid also contains the commercials going on back then, like the ab lounge chair which... you totally need when you can do crunches and ab workouts for free 🤣
- Gophers negate yet another power play with a dumb penalty late in the 2nd, an ongoing theme in this game, before that they had a decent chance from the slot where Peltier doesn't get much of it and shoots it straight into the goalie's (Parise) chest
- Irmen takes a dumb penalty to give them a brief 2 man advantage, IDK if that was his second or third penalty of the game but not a great game for him, North Dakota scores on the PP to start the 3rd and go up 3-0, not much Briggs could've done differently as he made a good save and they scored off the rebound
- Gophers get a 4 min PP because one of the North Dakota players is stupid, Gophers have zero shot attempts halfway thru and then North Dakota scores short handed on a five hole shot by Zajac after Briggs loses his stick, yikes. Not a good goal to give up by Briggs but also the Gophers PP looked horrible most the game, they had 2 Dmen on it (Goligoski and Harrington), not sure if that's just because teams didn't do the 4 forward PPs as much back then or if this Gopher team just wasn't that stacked in terms of forwards (which kinda seems to be the case watching this game).
- Not sure if this was more of a rebuild year for the Gophers or if they were actually expected to win this game but North Dakota had more NHL talent on their roster with Zajac and Stafford as well as good college players like Genoway and Bina, Goligoski is the only NHLer the Gophers had
- Gophers finally break through scoring on a 5 on 3 and then again with 5 seconds left in the 5 on 4. Parise might've misread the first one and got beat five hole, the 2nd one he clearly never saw through a screen, the game ended 4-2 so that was the last goal by either side in this one. Gophers dug too big a hole to get out of and it was too little too late
- Gophers did get one really nice chance they barely missed on after pulling the goalie and then Parise gets rocked (by Hirsch I think) and goes down for 3 minutes, how convenient
- after that the Gophers forgot how to play hockey again, couldn't string together enough passes to get the goalie off the ice for the extra man and even ice the puck
- I feel bad for anyone who went to this game and had to deal with the human cattle wearing green, watching that game on TV would've been bad enough but at least you wouldn't have to deal with those idiots
- The Gophers played more or less like Carolina did for the first two periods of today's game, just bad all around. If I had to guess the score was more or less reflective of how the game played out, if I had to guess what the expected goals were it probably was something like 5-2 North Dakota
That's all I got for that game, definitely never watching that one again but it was kinda fun to go down memory lane and watch some old school Gopher hockey.
I decided to watch the 2005 Frozen Four game where the Gophers lost to North Dakota, mainly because that was before I followed the team and was curious how that game played out despite knowing the outcome. Also partly inspired by the discussion in the opponent recruiting thread. If you don't want to relive that experience (or TLDR) then you should skip this post. Below are some of my thoughts while watching
- As much as I love Gary Thorne and Bill Clement (and Erin Andrews as the bench/tunnel reporter), watching hockey in 480P or whatever it was at the time wasn't ideal
- Hakstol's first year as a coach, later in the game the ESPN crew talks about how he's ok with the team taking penalties as long as the goal was to intimidate 🙄, so glad that guy never won a NCAA championship or anything at the next level
- the game was played at OSU's arena and is probably the only time it's ever been full lol
- I gotta imagine for Gopher fans watching the game on TV, it wasn't a good omen to see ESPN showing that infamous vid of Tyler Hirsch before puck drop, he finally returned to the team after a 3 game absence (due to that incident
- North Dakota immediately got a power play 15 seconds into the game and Briggs came up with 3 huge saves, I don't think North Dakota's goalie had to come up with one like that until 30 minutes into the game (had a big save on Smaagaard's backhand wide open in front of the net). North Dakota was clearly the better team thru 2 periods and they whiffed on a couple wide open nets
- I think the Gophers negated at least one if not multiple power plays by taking dumb penalties, I know the refs love to even out penalties and do stuff like that but good lord
- North Dakota's first goal was due to stripping RJ Anderson and getting a quick shot on net that Briggs clearly wasn't ready for, not a great goal to give up but kinda understandable given how it happened
- Briggs let in kind of a crap goal to make it 2-0 North Dakota, though this was before goalies were being taught to do the reverse VH against the post which probably would've made things easier. A defensive breakdown gave the ND player a free shot from a crap angle that went thru his arm. ND's goalie had just recently came up with the big save on the other end end
- Gophers finally get a full PP with about 7 mins left in the 2nd down 2-0 and fail to even get a shot off, looks like they ran a PP with 2 Dmen
- the vid also contains the commercials going on back then, like the ab lounge chair which... you totally need when you can do crunches and ab workouts for free 🤣
- Gophers negate yet another power play with a dumb penalty late in the 2nd, an ongoing theme in this game, before that they had a decent chance from the slot where Peltier doesn't get much of it and shoots it straight into the goalie's (Parise) chest
- Irmen takes a dumb penalty to give them a brief 2 man advantage, IDK if that was his second or third penalty of the game but not a great game for him, North Dakota scores on the PP to start the 3rd and go up 3-0, not much Briggs could've done differently as he made a good save and they scored off the rebound
- Gophers get a 4 min PP because one of the North Dakota players is stupid, Gophers have zero shot attempts halfway thru and then North Dakota scores short handed on a five hole shot by Zajac after Briggs loses his stick, yikes. Not a good goal to give up by Briggs but also the Gophers PP looked horrible most the game, they had 2 Dmen on it (Goligoski and Harrington), not sure if that's just because teams didn't do the 4 forward PPs as much back then or if this Gopher team just wasn't that stacked in terms of forwards (which kinda seems to be the case watching this game).
- Not sure if this was more of a rebuild year for the Gophers or if they were actually expected to win this game but North Dakota had more NHL talent on their roster with Zajac and Stafford as well as good college players like Genoway and Bina, Goligoski is the only NHLer the Gophers had
- Gophers finally break through scoring on a 5 on 3 and then again with 5 seconds left in the 5 on 4. Parise might've misread the first one and got beat five hole, the 2nd one he clearly never saw through a screen, the game ended 4-2 so that was the last goal by either side in this one. Gophers dug too big a hole to get out of and it was too little too late
- Gophers did get one really nice chance they barely missed on after pulling the goalie and then Parise gets rocked (by Hirsch I think) and goes down for 3 minutes, how convenient
- after that the Gophers forgot how to play hockey again, couldn't string together enough passes to get the goalie off the ice for the extra man and even ice the puck
- I feel bad for anyone who went to this game and had to deal with the human cattle wearing green, watching that game on TV would've been bad enough but at least you wouldn't have to deal with those idiots
- The Gophers played more or less like Carolina did for the first two periods of today's game, just bad all around. If I had to guess the score was more or less reflective of how the game played out, if I had to guess what the expected goals were it probably was something like 5-2 North Dakota
That's all I got for that game, definitely never watching that one again but it was kinda fun to go down memory lane and watch some old school Gopher hockey.
1. where'd you find this game, send me the link
2. apparently, (I've pieced together from reading old-ass USCHO forum threads) the difference between our 2004 and 2005 teams was like night and day. 2004 Gophers had a red hot explosive offense that just got goalied in the regional. Idk if there was much talk of us three-peating back then but man wouldn't that have been something lol
So in this current iteration of the 5 in 5, Carter Casey, who graduated high school this year but won’t turn 19 til December, won’t have his eligibility clock start until the 2027-28 season? Is that correct?
I like watching old games. I’m a sucker for nostalgia. Blackheart posts a lot of old games but he only posts North Dakota wins so that gets old after a while😂.
I like watching old games. I’m a sucker for nostalgia. Blackheart posts a lot of old games but he only posts North Dakota wins so that gets old after a while😂.
Dan Woog has quite a few on YouTube of games from the 90s. Some videos are just parts of multiple different games and some are games in their entirety. But more often than not the result is more fun to watch than the ones posted by Blackheart.
The U posted a couple archived games during the pandemic: the 2012 Schmidt goal MacNaughton Cup game vs Wisconsin, the 0.6 game, and the 2015 Big 10 championship game.
I’ve also found the 2007 WCHA Final Five championship (Wheeler game) and the 2021 Big 10 championship posted by other accounts.
What other games would be nice to see? 2016 senior night comes to mind. Tied 1-1 going into the third, Gophers score 3 to beat Wisconsin and win the B10.
You guys are breaking my heart here! That was my first and last time in the new 🤮; and yes the whioux fans still hate us more than they care about their own team.
Hoping this season erases some of the heavy hearts we still carry…
The best game I ever attended (besides the 2002 FF final) was the 2004 WCHA final vs ND that the Gophers won 5-4. There was a ridiculous # of NHL picks on both teams and the skill level across was off the charts. Just a tremendous hockey game. Unfortunately I've never found more than a 2-minute summary of that one.
Very interesting comments on DuPont... Sure seems like the door isn't 100% closed.
I think in the future the Gophers will be in on guys like DuPont, but this year it doesn't make sense to burn the NIL money that they'd have to raise to pay him with how the roster looks going into the year.
Evan Murr is going to be the No. 1 PP defenseman on this team. He's an All-American who will turn 24 during the season, the kind of experienced player the Gophers have rarely had in their program. Tanner Henricks and Tarin Smith are going to be 20-year-old defensemen that will proably get a good chance to be on the second power play unit and provide plenty of skill back there. T
hen the Gophers will have juniors John Whipple and Finn Loftus playing strong supporting roles 15-18 minutes each night.Time will tell how much Jacob Rombach pushes his way into this group for playing time, he's got a lot of tools and how he performs will determine his role. I think Axel Löfgren is likely your seventh defenseman to start the year and Begley is a glue guy.
Very interesting comments on DuPont... Sure seems like the door isn't 100% closed.
I think in the future the Gophers will be in on guys like DuPont, but this year it doesn't make sense to burn the NIL money that they'd have to raise to pay him with how the roster looks going into the year.
Evan Murr is going to be the No. 1 PP defenseman on this team. He's an All-American who will turn 24 during the season, the kind of experienced player the Gophers have rarely had in their program. Tanner Henricks and Tarin Smith are going to be 20-year-old defensemen that will proably get a good chance to be on the second power play unit and provide plenty of skill back there. T
hen the Gophers will have juniors John Whipple and Finn Loftus playing strong supporting roles 15-18 minutes each night.Time will tell how much Jacob Rombach pushes his way into this group for playing time, he's got a lot of tools and how he performs will determine his role. I think Axel Löfgren is likely your seventh defenseman to start the year and Begley is a glue guy.
I dunno Veegs, any time you can sign the projected #1 pick in a draft, you do whatever it takes (outside of blowing up your team, etc.). Add to it the windfall of signing a giant player out of Canada and it changes the aura of where guys want to go and feeds forward. It's part of why PSU paid McKenna is it now puts them on the radar going forward at a place with zero history.
I get what you're saying from a team comp standpoint, but there have been 5 ever number one picks to play college hockey (likely soon to be 6).
I really like Murr, Smith, and Henricks, but this is almost exactly the same situation as what we saw UND do with Verhoeff this year and Dupont is being talked about as a generational talent who paired super well with Smith. If you're going to build it from the back with a bunch of balanced scoring like it seems Larson is aiming to do, a 2 way gamebreaker type talent like Dupont always makes sense. If the dollar amount is not achievable, I get it, but unless you're signing someone else, what are you saving it for? If you win, that is going to feed forward in increased donations, revenue, ticket sales, etc.
If the dollar amount is not achievable, I get it, but unless you're signing someone else, what are you saving it for? If you win, that is going to feed forward in increased donations, revenue, ticket sales, etc.
Using money to retain guys like Ziemer and Mooney is always going to be money well spent. Using it on a one and done player is not only a risk for the return, but the long term impact on a program. If you have an unlimited budget, then you don't have to make decisions like that one.
The teams that get it done at the end of the year are usually led by top tier juniors, very rarely by freshman. We've seen year after year where talented freshman make mistakes during the playoffs or can't create like they were used to during the regular season.
Looking down the line, I'd much rather use the limited funds that Minnesota has to spend (they are not a leader in this space, they're just competitive enough right now) to retain guys like Ziemer, Mooney, and when it comes time Wyatt Cullen.
The team buiilt for next year has all the pieces in place except an elite center -- they're going to be very good.
If the dollar amount is not achievable, I get it, but unless you're signing someone else, what are you saving it for? If you win, that is going to feed forward in increased donations, revenue, ticket sales, etc.
The team buiilt for next year has all the pieces in place except an elite center -- they're going to be very good.
Is there a chance they are still looking for another center then?
I go back and forth on wanting someone like DuPont. As I fan, I want us to be in on the elite of the elite, but I understand if Larson is choosing not to get into a bidding war.
As I’ve said before, I’m ready to trust his judgement on roster construction as there is no reason not to with a new coach. If this was a couple years down the line and he’s made a handful of missteps then that’s a different story.
If the dollar amount is not achievable, I get it, but unless you're signing someone else, what are you saving it for? If you win, that is going to feed forward in increased donations, revenue, ticket sales, etc.
Using money to retain guys like Ziemer and Mooney is always going to be money well spent. Using it on a one and done player is not only a risk for the return, but the long term impact on a program. If you have an unlimited budget, then you don't have to make decisions like that one.
The teams that get it done at the end of the year are usually led by top tier juniors, very rarely by freshman. We've seen year after year where talented freshman make mistakes during the playoffs or can't create like they were used to during the regular season.
Looking down the line, I'd much rather use the limited funds that Minnesota has to spend (they are not a leader in this space, they're just competitive enough right now) to retain guys like Ziemer, Mooney, and when it comes time Wyatt Cullen.
The team buiilt for next year has all the pieces in place except an elite center -- they're going to be very good.
i think we agree on the bold above. if the dollar amount is just purely not achievable, that's fine and think we also completely agree there. It doesn't seem like that has been the indication from Dupont to this point from what I've heard/seen, but you may know better than I if he's given them a number that has to be met. Has seemed more like yes you need to be in the ballpark, but is not just going to the highest bidder unless something has changed (and this is overall a more theoretical discussion re talent; not advocating we just throw a PSU type dollar amount at someone and chase those players). Coyle has said they sit down with the teams getting distribution money every year and allocate based on need and what they view as the financial pro of investment. If Larson doesn't think Dupont raises the floor (or ceiling) of this team meaningfully this year for the dollar it costs, that's his call. No argument there. But fear we might not be able to have money in the future in a landscape that seemingly changes by the minute, I think we're going to end up putting ourselves behind in perpetuity when MN Hockey, with its inherent advantages and alumni base, should be amongst those leading the charge and want a NIL heavy landscape from a talent standpoint
As far as the "teams that get it done" comment, it's both, no? NIL and the CHL has changed it in terms of the lens we view it, but yes you need a mix. I wouldn't say it's any more one than the other, but I agree you can't go full on recruit just a bunch of highly talented guys with no upperclassmen talent. I don't think MSU lost last year because of Martone or Lee nor PSU because of McKenna and Smith, but because winning is hard and it's 1 and done. Ditto on BU and Eiserman/Hutson running into WMU in the final. Buium won one his Fr year and who knows what his dollar amount would've been in the current landscape
I agree this Gopher teams looks very solid and I think the style Larson wants to play will make them be competitive.
I don't think MSU lost last year because of Martone or Lee nor PSU because of McKenna and Smith, but because winning is hard and it's 1 and done.
A very spicy Nightengale discussion is becoming more real with every March that passes by.
At some point those March failures while supposedly shoveling boat loads of $$ into the roster are going to catch up. He's running the complete opposite direction from the rest of the game right now outside of Michigan, and it's yet to pay off in any meaningful fashion.
I also don't think looking at Denver's results in a one and done and trying to replicate that is necessarily the best way to approach things going forward. Other than maybe allocating more for a high end goalie if possible.
I also don't think looking at Denver's results in a one and done and trying to replicate that is necessarily the best way to approach things going forward.
The answer, as with most things in the sports world, is somewhere in the middle.
What makes me happy is that Larson seems to be trying to find what that "middle" is at Minnesota.
I also don't think looking at Denver's results in a one and done and trying to replicate that is necessarily the best way to approach things going forward.
The answer, as with most things in the sports world, is somewhere in the middle.
What makes me happy is that Larson seems to be trying to find what that "middle" is at Minnesota.
Every Frozen Four team had a high-end freshman goalie with CHL experience. Junior and senior skaters win national titles. But not without a brick wall behind them. Doesn’t matter the age if you can stop a puck when it matters most
I also don't think looking at Denver's results in a one and done and trying to replicate that is necessarily the best way to approach things going forward.
The answer, as with most things in the sports world, is somewhere in the middle.
What makes me happy is that Larson seems to be trying to find what that "middle" is at Minnesota.
Yeah I don't have a problem with anything I've seen so far, if we can get Dupont we should but obviously IDK exactly what's going on behind the scenes there. As good as he is I think the bigger need is center but not trying to beat a dead horse.
If the dollar amount is not achievable, I get it, but unless you're signing someone else, what are you saving it for? If you win, that is going to feed forward in increased donations, revenue, ticket sales, etc.
The team buiilt for next year has all the pieces in place except an elite center -- they're going to be very good.
Is there a chance they are still looking for another center then?
In my opinion, the needing a #1 center talk is spillover from the Wilds thread. In college, it isn't necessary to be loaded at center to be successful. It can help, but it's not necessary. I also wouldn't discount the work that Matt Cullen is going to do. He was a center forever in the NHL. I'm assuming he will be able to bring his expertise into winning draws and how to play the position. That may raise up the potential centers we have to serviceable level at the very least.
Faceoffs are largely a matter of experience and strength. And honestly, a guy like Jimmy Clark winning 47% of his faceoffs isn't why he's no longer with the team, it's because he can't score on his own and isn't particularly good at D-ing up other teams' centers. Not saying Cullen couldn't potentially help there but Mooney is still undersized and (ideally) shouldn't be expected to match up against the Michigan schools' first line centers. And after him you have Moe who was a fourth liner a year ago and nobody else who really played the position consistently other than Ludtke who did for a bit and got moved to wing. We can hope someone can make the transition from wing to center but the NCAA isn't the ideal place to be making that transition.
gopher hockey twitter getting more active recently
looks like team was out at the United Heroes League obstacle course. For those doing Twitter sleuthing, you can probably try and figure out who's who in the video somewhat to see who's on campus
I'd argue the biggest problem last year was breaking the puck out of the Minnesota zone. There was a lack of accelearation, speed strength and poise missing low in the zone. It allowed teams to forecheck the puck aggressively and the Gophers didn't have a lot of answers coming out with clean possession. We saw lots of pucks chipped out and too many turnovers at the blue line.
Moe showed some promise in that spot, but was inexperienced. Ludtke's injury might have played a role in his struggles here, but his biggest strength last year was when possession was already established in the offensive zone.
Minnesota moved on from a bunch of these players and it looks like the options for this year aren't clear yet. Adding some more puck moving defensemen should help breakouts, but a lack of options low in the zone was a huge issue last year.
I'd argue the biggest problem last year was breaking the puck out of the Minnesota zone. There was a lack of accelearation, speed strength and poise missing low in the zone. It allowed teams to forecheck the puck aggressively and the Gophers didn't have a lot of answers coming out with clean possession. We saw lots of pucks chipped out and too many turnovers at the blue line.
Moe showed some promise in that spot, but was inexperienced. Ludtke's injury might have played a role in his struggles here, but his biggest strength last year was when possession was already established in the offensive zone.
Minnesota moved on from a bunch of these players and it looks like the options for this year aren't clear yet. Adding some more puck moving defensemen should help breakouts, but a lack of options low in the zone was a huge issue last year.
So much of that imo falls on the inept blue line last year. But you’re right, it definitely goes both ways with the centers too. Having defensemen with poise will help a ton in that area.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24131129/gallery_image.JPG "Hey_Sioux_Suck")
