Greatest Women's Hockey Team

[soapbox_ranter_211]

Could this years Golden Gopher team be the greatest team of all time in women's college hockey? Who else could compare? Let's discuss!

[brookyone]

Off the top of my head I think a couple of prior UMD teams could compare & I'm thinking most here no the UMD teams / rosters I'm referring to (championships). I'm also thinking (lately) the current Dartmouth team is pretty impressive.

[ClOuD 9]

Late 80's/early 90's UNH and Providence teams, which combined filled most of the rosters from Team USA in that era.

[sec12fan]

I was just telling some co-workers how much I'd like to have seen the current MN team play the 2003 championship UMD team. In terms of depth, speed, goaltending they'd be nearly the same. Those would be the two best teams I've seen.

Just to review who was on the UMD 2003 Championship team: Jenny Potter, Maria Rooth, Erika Holst, Hanne Sikio, Carolyn Ouellette, Nora Tallus, Joanne Eustace and Larissa Luther were/are all offensive threats . . . 6 Olympians total.

Nevada Russell, Julianne Vasichek and Krista McArthur were the top defenders on that team. (I would contend to this day that Russell was one of the best pure defenders ever to play D-1.) Remember they played a torpedo system which has 4 attackers and 1 defender. Patricia Sauter in goal - another Olympian.

[ARM]

There are at least two different ways to evaluate a "greatest" team. One is the most dominant team in their era. The other is in terms of raw ability. For example, if the 2003 UMD team played the UNH team from their glory years, who would win. With the rapid improvement of the sport, the second case becomes hard to do in a hurry. As for dominance, the '98-99 Harvard team only lost once. In '87-88, Northeastern didn't lose; they had one tie. How many of their games were against quality teams, I couldn't say. The UMD team was the most dominant I've seen.

As for the current Gophers team, they have yet to prove they are as good as their team from last season. That team rose to the moment. Who knows what this one will do? IMO, any discussion about their place in history is premature.

[dave1381]

I agree completely with ARM's post.

I don't think there's any question the 2002-03 UMD team is the best in terms of overall talent. I think the 2002-03 Harvard team that beat them and took them to double OT head-to-head and had a better overall record is about as close as you could get. The current Gopher team simply cannot compare to those two teams right now because the Gophers have so much youth on those 2nd and 3rd lines. We'll see where they are in March, but they certainly don't compare right now, and I can't imagine that they'll improve that much.

Those UMD and Harvard teams were both stacked with veterans due to unique circumstances. UMD rolled eight seniors because it was the fourth year of their program. Harvard had five outstanding seniors, and the second line on their 02-03 team that scored two goals in the NCAA final was more or less the first line of their 01-02 team that was one the most prolific scoring in the nation at the time. Of course the timing of Olympics made it possible to preserve Ruggiero and Botterill for that season when they would have graduated after 01-02 on a normal schedule, you obviously you have a more veteran team in that scenario. Ditto for Potter with UMD, and UMD and Harvard were both able to bring in 20+ year old Olympians as freshmen in addition to everything else, which just doesn't happen often.

I'll also add this because I know someone else will bring this up - the 02-03 Harvard team has still among the best all-time in terms of overall consistency of their regular season, going 30-3-1, only catch is they lost two fo their three most important games of the season, the ECAC final and the NCAA final. So obviously that hurt them in any standard of greatness. But given the talent and the overall consitency of their season, which was probably as or more consistent than UMD's last year - their biggest lapse as a team just happened to be in the ECAC final - you still rate them highly.

[ARM]

I believe the highest win total in women's D-I history is Harvard's 33 in the '98-'99 season. Minnesota's highest is 32, both UMN and UNH had 31, and before the national championship era, teams didn't play as many games.

While not the same as greatness, I think Minnesota does have a shot at equalling or surpassing that win total of 33. This is aided by there being an extra round added to the NCAA tourney, a full quarterfinal in the WCHA this year, and a couple more regular season games on their schedule, because of the addition of UND to the conference. They currently have 15 wins. If they duplicate their WCHA results from the 1st semester in the 2nd, they'd win 12 more. Plus they have 2 games with Brown and 6 potential postseason games. Still a long way off, but at least mathematically possible. Of course, it is mathematically possible for teams like UNH and UW as well.

Dartmouth and UMD would figure to have the same chance, but they have less regular season games on their schedule.

[dave1381]

Ivy teams can only play 29 regular season games as opposed to 34, so they're obviously at a disadvantage in any comparison based solely on wins.

[ARM]

Right, and for greatness, we'd be talking winning %. Only Dartmouth can still match Harvard's 33-1. But win total is a significant record in any case.

Edit: Or I guess Dartmouth could surpass it if they ran the table. However, NU's 26-0-1 would still stand as the best winning percentage.

[dave1381]

also note that UNH was undefeated in the late 70s early 80s if you really want to delve into ancient history: http://www.unhwildcats.com/pdf/hockeyw/records.pdf

one other note about Harvard's 98-99 record - the 7-6 Beanpot overtime W vs. Northeastern counted as a tie in the ECAC standings but as a W in the overall record, oddly enough. So there might be some ambiguity on how to count that one.

[ARM]

The current Gopher team simply cannot compare to those two teams right now because the Gophers have so much youth on those 2nd and 3rd lines. We'll see where they are in March, but they certainly don't compare right now, and I can't imagine that they'll improve that much.
Here's another case where a discussion of depth is looking only at scoring potential of the forward lines. Definitely, both UMD and Harvard had more explosive second lines. But the Minnesota 2nd hasn't been lit up by anyone this season. Much of the talk heading into the Dartmouth series was the advantage that the Big Green had with two scoring lines. However, it was on the PP that they made hay, not even up against the Gopher's second. As for the 3rd lines, Harvard hardly skated their's at all in tight games. UMD's was mostly a checking line. I think Minnesota's will reach that caliber by year's end.

As for the rest of the depth, Minnesota goes six deep on D consistantly. Harvard had a very good foursome, but that is about all that they played. It is hard to say about UMD, because with their torpedo system, the personnel on D seemed to change with the score. The Gophers 4th line has a 7th D and a 10th forward that can step in at any time. While this might not matter, it always seems to matter in Minnesota, where players drop like flies after the holidays. Though Brenda Reinen hasn't played much lately, she definitely has more wins against quality opposition on her resume than any backup goalie for UMD or Harvard had at the time. Plus, I'm not conceding any superiority to Horak in goal to either Sautter or Ruddock.

The biggest advantage that the '02-'03 Harvard team would have over this year's Gophers would be the size/strength on D. Still, I think a matchup of the two teams would be a nice game. I think Minnesota would match up better against them than they would agaisnt the overall size of the '02-'03 Bulldogs.

[ARM]

also note that UNH was undefeated in the late 70s early 80s if you really want to delve into ancient history: http://www.unhwildcats.com/pdf/hockeyw/records.pdf

one other note about Harvard's 98-99 record - the 7-6 Beanpot overtime W vs. Northeastern counted as a tie in the ECAC standings but as a W in the overall record, oddly enough. So there might be some ambiguity on how to count that one.
Oops! I didn't look far enough down the page. As for the Beanpot, if a game is played to a conclusion, then I think it counts as a win for this discussion and any compilation of wins. Had they lost, I'd sure make you count it as a loss.

[dave1381]

Here's another case where a discussion of depth is looking only at scoring potential of the forward lines.
I wasn't really considering third lines and third D rotations... I think if your top 10 players are well-conditioned enough, it makes up for the 11th and 12th players not being as good. Harvard did have a 5th D and 7th F step in during the NCAA final late in the game.

Harvard also had a big advantage of Minnesota 04-05 in the scoring of the D. Minnesota D almost never scores at even strength. You might be able to equate Wall with Ruggiero on the PP, but Wall is not the offensive threat Ruggiero was at even strength.

I only brought up the scoring potential of the second lines because that's where the difference is. In evaluating the defense, I think more of the entire team, and the results are fairly similar. (Even both teams have now given up 7 goals in a game to Dartmouth ;) )

[ARM]

I think going forward, teams will need a viable 3rd line and at least 5 D to win a championship. In the space of time from Minnesota's 1st championship to their second, I saw a marked increase in the amount of time 3rd lines skated for all teams. I think that balance is only going to grow. For the short term, that may change in Olympic years.

The offense from the D advantage for Harvard is confined to Ruggiero alone. Yes, Minnesota doesn't have a player to match her. Has any team ever had her equal as an offensive force on D? After her, I'd give Minnesota's supporting cast on defense an advantage over Harvard's other D, as far as scoring potential. They don't put up numbers now, because those numbers aren't needed. I think you'll see their roles change next year. But I agree, Angela gives Harvard the advantage in blueline scoring. She played more of a rover, like Wendell did in HS, than a true defender. As a full defensive corps, I think Harvard's advantage would be more in front of their own net than at the other end of the ice.

[dave1381]

I think going forward, teams will need a viable 3rd line and at least 5 D to win a championship. In the space of time from Minnesota's 1st championship to their second, I saw a marked increase in the amount of time 3rd lines skated for all teams. I think that balance is only going to grow. For the short term, that may change in Olympic years.
I agree... but I stand by what I said. I think only the 2002-03 UMD and Harvard teams could say their top two lines were good enough to get the minutes they did and be better than the rested third lines on the top teams today. I do think that'll change in the near future - and maybe it already has.

[sec12fan]

I agree... but I stand by what I said. I think only the 2002-03 UMD and Harvard teams could say their top two lines were good enough to get the minutes they did and be better than the rested third lines on the top teams today. I do think that'll change in the near future - and maybe it already has.

I still don't see many teams rotating 3rd lines for a full game . . . I think we're still some time away from 3 good lines even for the best teams.

I also like what ARM said about the "dominant" team . . . that kind of great team may be offensive OR defensive depending on what else is out there. Most would agree that UMD had a dominant offensive team who's D was good enough to keep other dominant offenses from scoring more. Of course, then the goalie also takes on added significance. Harvard had Ruddock and UMD Sauttter - both excellent D-1 goalies.

I'd guess we're ten years away from having several teams with 3 viable lines AND great D to go with it. Then there also has to be chemistry . . . which is that magic ingredient that can turn a very, very good team into a "great one".

[ARM]

Hockey is still a team game. Suppose team A and team B are similar in talent on their first two lines. If team A rolls 2 lines, and team B skates 3, Dave is right that team A's top 2 lines might be better than team B's third throughout. But as the game goes on, team B starts to have the advantage when their top two lines are out, as team A tires. The third line of many teams thinks D first. So when they are on the ice, it is often just to buy time for the other lines to rest. Once team B falls behind, or if it is even in the third period, then you see them shorten their rotation.

[Hux]

Could this years Golden Gopher team be the greatest team of all time in women's college hockey? Who else could compare? Let's discuss!

Yes, but how would they fare against the 302-1 Preston Rivulettes? ;)

[dartfan]

I still don't see many teams rotating 3rd lines for a full game . . . I think we're still some time away from 3 good lines even for the best teams.

Just to throw my 2cents in. Dartmouth currently plays all 3 lines in a full rotation. Yes the first two lines get more play, but even last weekend against Minnesota Dartmouth was playing their 3rd line against Minnesota's 2nd quite regularly.

[dave1381]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Minnesota more or less double shifting the top line while giving the 2nd and 3rd lines fairly comparable playing time? See, I think Dartmouth's 3rd line was getting more ice for the first two periods, because Minnesota's top line ate up so much of their ice time, and Dartmouth's 3rd line could match up with either Minnesota's 2nd or 3rd line as you would expect. But in crunch time, Dartmouth shortened up to two, while Minnesota really didn't have any benefit in doing so because there's not as much a differene between their 2nd and 3rd lines as there is on Dartmouth. Ultimately, that worked for Dartmouth in game one, as Weatherston scored the game-winner on what was mostly Minnesota's third line. In game two, Dartmouth needed to shorten up to get the scoring to come from behind for the majority of that period, and Dartmouth didn't have as much left for the overtime, especially since so much of it was spent on special teams.