Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

[srkbadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

Well said.

I'll add that even Penn State won 11 games against D1 teams in its first year of existence and 8 in its second. I'm struggling to project Wisconsin ending up with more than 5 wins this season. Strength of schedules may not align, but you get my point. What a joke this season has been.

If that doesn't provide some perspective for the apologists, then nothing will. A program with decades of history will not muster up enough wins to match a team that was new to D1 hockey. You might say that they may have been taken lightly by opponents and that's why Penn St. won 11, but at this point who's not taking us lightly. Being underestimated (if that's possible) might be the only chance we get (see first night of the Minnesota series). When our opponent is at least partially focused, we get BLOWN OUT (BU, MN, MI,...).

It was clear when Sauer was done, and few took pleasure in it, but it was necessary. When he left the program, it wasn't on the greatest of footing, but it looked better than it does now. It's even clearer now that Eaves is done. Richter did what needed to be done. Alvarez?

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

A couple observations from Sat's game. I really liked the flag over the student section for the Anthem. I also liked all the cool images projected on the ice pregame.

Mr. Soleway is going to be a beast. He has that rare ability to be both very physical and finish around the net. That goal Friday was sweet. He was looking for contact all night Saturday and made plenty of it (hopefully his skating can continue to get better). I also thing Hughes for being smallish did some nice things with his body out there. Rockwood had some flashy moves, though a few times I wish he would have shot instead of pass.

[Almington]

You'll have to excuse me, but I'm going to call BS on this point.

By the very nature of college athletics, you can expect an average of 25% turnover EVERY YEAR!!!

Based on the fact that you are guaranteed to have at most a 4 year playing career, the simple math says that you will have on average a 25% turn-over rate. Add in a few highly talented guys who jump early to the pros and you will get up to 30-35% per year.

Yes, the Badgers have had unbalanced classes and have had some years with little loss (the 11-12 class), and likewise some years where there is a big group of guys (13-14's Seniors).

But you can't honestly say that a turn-over rate of 25-40% is a problem, it is something that is inherent to the game.

It was late, apparently I wasn't clear enough. My point/question was that the 25-40% annual turnover (which IS expected at the college level) is possibly to high to succeed with Eaves current system particularly when coupled to the inexperienced nature of most 18-20 year olds playing in an NHL system.

Because it seems that Eaves is only able to put an above average team on the ice when nearly everyone has 2+ years in his system. I wonder if Eaves believes that he NEEDS the unbalanced classes to make his system work?

[bucky15]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

Eaves has his team playing Possum right now. They will awake in the B1G playoffs. It is all part of the big scheme. The man is truly brilliant.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

I don't care about other programs and if they meet my standards for UW. My experience is that most Gopher and Soiux fans consider any season they don't win 20 games and make the NCAA tournament an absolute failure. Why shouldn't Badger fans expect the same?

UW should win 20+ games in 10 of 12 seasons and should NEVER under ANY circumstances have a season where they finish with fewer than 10 wins, PERIOD. In fact, failure to win 10 games should be grounds for an automatic dismissal of the HC.

I somewhat disagree with the idea that picking an arbitrary number of wins is a good way to judge success over time. There is greater parity over the last several years and parity means that top teams will necessarily have fewer wins. For exampleover the last five years only 14 teams have entered the tournament with greater than 25 wins. From '96-'00, 34 teams entered the tournament with greater than 25 wins. By this type of measure half those teams that were "good" then are just average now. How does that make sense?

I'm not saying that you have to have lower standards than other programs. You can even have higher ones, that's ok by me. But if no one is meeting your standards than perhaps it is worthwhile to look a little closer at the criteria as times change. Lucia is working on failing the test in 5 of 7 years yet several Badger fans continue to point (not unfairly)to MN as a comparative standard. UW has polled in March in the top 20 in 9 of the last 10 years. Top 10 in 6 of 10. MN has been in the top 20 in 7 of 10 years. Not that polls are a standard either but they are probably slightly less arbitrary, especially by March.


I also take some exception to the idea that a team has to win the RS title to be judged better than just good. By that criteria UW has had 3 teams in 50 years meet that standard. Perhaps it's just semantics... But to me then you're talking about changing the whole philosophy of Wisconsin Hockey, which is to strive to be the best at the end. And that is the philosophy that has led to 6 titles vs. 5. It's important to me because I don't believe over time UW has, or will, realistically be able to recruit as many consistently high end players as MN, BC, or MI and there are players UND gets that can't go to UW for example. Don't get me wrong, UW has a lot of advantages, but when it comes to the very top and the thin margin there, UW has had to do more with slightly less over time, I think that is a fact of life, and I feel this philosophy has served UW well.

Well said.

I'll add that even Penn State won 11 games against D1 teams in its first year of existence and 8 in its second. I'm struggling to project Wisconsin ending up with more than 5 wins this season. Strength of schedules may not align, but you get my point. What a joke this season has been.

I think this is a ridiculous comparison. Perhaps even irresponsible. We know PSU won a game against UW. Their 10 other wins (and most of their losses) came against teams with a combined .342 win %, and exactly zero of them ended with a winning record. 5 against the bottom of Atlantic hockey and 2 against 3-21 UAH.

Consider that the current average opponent PWR ranking/game of #1 in RPI SOS, UMD, is 16.7. ; MN's opponent's average is 22.9 ; #1 in PWR, Purple Moos is 26.4; PSU's is 31.4 this year.

The average PWR rank for UW opponents/game is 16.3. I don't know if there's a legitimately tougher schedule in hockey this year. Certainly it's close to the toughest. There was a remark in MN's thread about how they haven't beat anybody above the top 35 since November. Heck, UW hasn't played anyone out of the top 24 since November. Right after a pair against #2.

Anyway the point is there is no basis at all for comparing these two seasons, yet because you posted it, somebody like srk here picks it up as gospel and I'll be hearing about it for a year. Thanks Andy.

[Almington]

I somewhat disagree with the idea that picking an arbitrary number of wins is a good way to judge success over time. There is greater parity over the last several years and parity means that top teams will necessarily have fewer wins. For exampleover the last five years only 14 teams have entered the tournament with greater than 25 wins. From '96-'00, 34 teams entered the tournament with greater than 25 wins. By this type of measure half those teams that were "good" then are just average now. How does that make sense?

I'm not saying that you have to have lower standards than other programs. You can even have higher ones, that's ok by me. But if no one is meeting your standards than perhaps it is worthwhile to look a little closer at the criteria as times change. Lucia is working on failing the test in 5 of 7 years yet several Badger fans continue to point (not unfairly)to MN as a comparative standard. UW has polled in March in the top 20 in 9 of the last 10 years. Top 10 in 6 of 10. MN has been in the top 20 in 7 of 10 years. Not that polls are a standard either but they are probably slightly less arbitrary, especially by March.


I also take some exception to the idea that a team has to win the RS title to be judged better than just good. By that criteria UW has had 3 teams in 50 years meet that standard. Perhaps it's just semantics... But to me then you're talking about changing the whole philosophy of Wisconsin Hockey, which is to strive to be the best at the end. And that is the philosophy that has led to 6 titles vs. 5. It's important to me because I don't believe over time UW has, or will, realistically be able to recruit as many consistently high end players as MN, BC, or MI and there are players UND gets that can't go to UW for example. Don't get me wrong, UW has a lot of advantages, but when it comes to the very top and the thin margin there, UW has had to do more with slightly less over time, I think that is a fact of life, and I feel this philosophy has served UW well.

If UW can't recruit as well as either UMI or BC, the program just need to be folded. Seriously just forfit the rest of the season and release all the players tomorrow.

Many Gopher fans are calling for a change in HC because of the teams struggles over the past few years. I things it's safe to say that gopher fans don't find ~0.500 seasons acceptable on a regular basis.

This is the part you don't seem to understand: an average season for UW= a good season for most other teams. An average season (a 0.500 season for most teams) = a down year for UW (or MN or UND).

UW has had many good and even very good teams over they years, but in the last 20 to 25 years but at best two (99-00 and 05-06) would even be in the argument for great teams and they even have significantly holes in their resumes. To me, neither are great but both were very good.

That's the best thing about great teams, they are rare. How can you argue that a team is great when they were not even the best team in the conference over the whole season. Winning the NC is a great achievement but it does not automatically make that team great.

[Bertogliat]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

I'm not saying that you have to have lower standards than other programs. You can even have higher ones, that's ok by me. But if no one is meeting your standards than perhaps it is worthwhile to look a little closer at the criteria as times change. Lucia is working on failing the test in 5 of 7 years yet several Badger fans continue to point (not unfairly)to MN as a comparative standard. UW has polled in March in the top 20 in 9 of the last 10 years. Top 10 in 6 of 10. MN has been in the top 20 in 7 of 10 years. Not that polls are a standard either but they are probably slightly less arbitrary, especially by March.

Remember though that Lucia went through a combination of significant health problems and John Hill as the defensive coach. These are the down years, or dark years. The worst of which, Hill, was put in place after Mike Guentzel left the team following a reported falling out with Lucia. That problem was corrected (Hill was fired and replaced by Guentzel) and the Gopher teams have since regained steam.

Now there are rumors that Lucia and Guentzel have had another falling out and the team is again in disarray with some Gopher fans wondering if Lucia is due for the hook. Given the option of choosing either Lucia only or Guentzel only as coach, I think Gopher Fans are split. This is considering we have good player and a solid recriting pipeline.

Eaves is has had trouble getting recruits, keeping recruits, and keeping coaches. His style of play has turned away many fans, and the Badgers are having an historically miserable year, one that you could see coming. Yet some Badger fans want to keep him around. I wonder how much that contract extension Alvarez gave Eaves is factoring in.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

I think this is a ridiculous comparison. Perhaps even irresponsible. We know PSU won a game against UW. Their 10 other wins (and most of their losses) came against teams with a combined .342 win %, and exactly zero of them ended with a winning record. 5 against the bottom of Atlantic hockey and 2 against 3-21 UAH.

Consider that the current average opponent PWR ranking/game of #1 in RPI SOS, UMD, is 16.7. ; MN's opponent's average is 22.9 ; #1 in PWR, Purple Moos is 26.4; PSU's is 31.4 this year.

The average PWR rank for UW opponents/game is 16.3. I don't know if there's a legitimately tougher schedule in hockey this year. Certainly it's close to the toughest. There was a remark in MN's thread about how they haven't beat anybody above the top 35 since November. Heck, UW hasn't played anyone out of the top 24 since November. Right after a pair against #2.

Anyway the point is there is no basis at all for comparing these two seasons, yet because you posted it, somebody like srk here picks it up as gospel and I'll be hearing about it for a year. Thanks Andy.

Let's pump the breaks on the theatrics, I said right in the post the strength of schedules don't exactly align. Regardless, Wisconsin couldn't beat a Division III team this season or a group of glorified high school kids. Do you really believe they would have won 11 games playing Penn State's schedule? I sure as hell don't.

[burd]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

I'm not saying that you have to have lower standards than other programs. You can even have higher ones, that's ok by me. But if no one is meeting your standards than perhaps it is worthwhile to look a little closer at the criteria as times change. Lucia is working on failing the test in 5 of 7 years yet several Badger fans continue to point (not unfairly)to MN as a comparative standard. UW has polled in March in the top 20 in 9 of the last 10 years. Top 10 in 6 of 10. MN has been in the top 20 in 7 of 10 years. Not that polls are a standard either but they are probably slightly less arbitrary, especially by March.

But you tell me over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction

[srkbadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

Let's pump the breaks on the theatrics, I said right in the post the strength of schedules don't exactly align. Regardless, Wisconsin couldn't beat a Division III team this season or a group of glorified high school kids. Do you really believe they would have won 11 games playing Penn State's schedule? I sure as hell don't.

Wisco, please answer the above question. It will tell me what I need to know about your judgment. This isn't about cold hard stats, but a judgment call of what you've seen this year. I agree with Chuck, there is no way this team would pull 11 wins playing a similar schedule.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

Let's pump the breaks on the theatrics, I said right in the post the strength of schedules don't exactly align. Regardless, Wisconsin couldn't beat a Division III team this season or a group of glorified high school kids. Do you really believe they would have won 11 games playing Penn State's schedule? I sure as hell don't.

With 20 plus games against the very worst teams? Accomplishments like splitting AIC and beating a couple of 7 win AHC teams and a couple 3 win teams? Splitting with Buffalo State? Of course I do. Conversely you're also intimating that PSU could have won 11 playing UW's schedule. I disagree both ways. But you're the expert, I guess.

[srkbadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

No more expert than you. I disagree with you on this, and on the state of this program.

I, like some others here, was on this board during Sauer's final year, and a lot of the same arguments were made then. Many saw the need for change (as I did), and I wrote AD Richter about it. A few did not see a problem. I supported the change to Eaves even before Sauer's departure as it was clear to me Jeff's time had passed. Eaves brought what was needed back then, discipline to the program. Here we are in the midst of an historically bad season (there can be no disagreement on this point), and a longer term underachievement in general (it's clear you disagree with this point). 2006 was Eaves' crowning achievement, and if you saw that run you know the Cornell game was a toss up, and BC came within an eyelash on that last shot to tying it up in the Final. It went our way, and thanks to Mike for the banner. Without that win, his resume as the Wisconsin coach is pedestrian at best. I again see a need for a change. The reasons aren't altogether the same this time around, but this program is bad shape and I want a change in the leadership. This is the last I will discuss this particular topic with you.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

With 20 plus games against the very worst teams? Accomplishments like splitting AIC and beating a couple of 7 win AHC teams and a couple 3 win teams? Splitting with Buffalo State? Of course I do. Conversely you're also intimating that PSU could have won 11 playing UW's schedule. I disagree both ways. But you're the expert, I guess.

The expert comment is an unnecessary low-blow for no good reason.

While Wisconsin has played a hard schedule (16th in the country, according to the RPI - 8th in KRACH), the Badgers have had plenty of opportunities to win games against very average or weak opponents. Alaska, Anchorage, Colorado College, Northern Michigan (x2) and Ferris State (x2) are all .500 teams or worse this season and UW managed just a single win in those seven games. They also couldn't beat the NTDP or St. Norbert in exhibition games.

Regardless of the Penn State comment or not, this is the worst team in the modern era of Wisconsin hockey and that's simply unacceptable at any time under any circumstances.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

The expert comment is an unnecessary low-blow for no good reason.

While Wisconsin has played a hard schedule (16th in the country, according to the RPI - 8th in KRACH), the Badgers have had plenty of opportunities to win games against very average or weak opponents. Alaska, Anchorage, Colorado College, Northern Michigan (x2) and Ferris State (x2) are all .500 teams or worse this season and UW managed just a single win in those seven games. They also couldn't beat the NTDP or St. Norbert in exhibition games.

Regardless of the Penn State comment or not, this is the worst team in the modern era of Wisconsin hockey and that's simply unacceptable at any time under any circumstances.

I do apologize for the extraneous comments. I've grown quite surly as of late. Probably because the Badgers currently have the worst team in the modern era.

Probably also because I get tired of trying to sort out somewhat hyperbolic statements from actual factual ones. I certainly grant the line between them has grown increasingly thin, though.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXXII: No Where To Go But Up!

If UW can't recruit as well as either UMI or BC, the program just need to be folded. Seriously just forfit the rest of the season and release all the players tomorrow.

Many Gopher fans are calling for a change in HC because of the teams struggles over the past few years. I things it's safe to say that gopher fans don't find ~0.500 seasons acceptable on a regular basis.

This is the part you don't seem to understand: an average season for UW= a good season for most other teams. An average season (a 0.500 season for most teams) = a down year for UW (or MN or UND).

UW has had many good and even very good teams over they years, but in the last 20 to 25 years but at best two (99-00 and 05-06) would even be in the argument for great teams and they even have significantly holes in their resumes. To me, neither are great but both were very good.

That's the best thing about great teams, they are rare. How can you argue that a team is great when they were not even the best team in the conference over the whole season. Winning the NC is a great achievement but it does not automatically make that team great.

I think something can be said for BC being the #1 destination in it's recruiting area. Draw a big circle around BC and you have something like 200,000 people participating in hockey. When we're talking about a few dozens of top players, just the sheer numbers of participants is producing them, let alone the elite prep leagues, quality HS, and U-16 programs in New England. Beyond that they reach into Eastern Canada at need and have no problem recruiting guys like Demko out of CA. York has probably been better than everyone but even without him, like MN, BC has a lot to choose from without even leaving home.

Michigan is in a similar, if slightly lesser situation with Michigan players there and Canadians just across the river, and the USTDP and Honeybaked in the back yard. Hard to deny the locally grown talent on that team. Both BC and Michigan, like MN, can select the majority of their players from home, and then add a few more elites as they can.

Wisconsin isn't in the situation of having dozens of predisposed D-1 players at home to choose from. That is what I mean when I say UW is at some (perhaps small) disadvantage. (Incidentally, as long as I'm on it, when ten MN kids don't go to the U it's no real story because there's ten more that do. When 3 Wisconsin kids don't go to UW it's a coaching disaster. I have a little bit of a hard time with that.) But anyway, this is also why it's so important we are recruiting successfully in Canada again.

On the rest, I do understand. I think we're sort of hung up a bit on the semantics of good or great. You're definition of great is fine. But like you said, it's rare. (It occurs to me that perhaps I should fire my unicorn catcher. The guy hasn't caught one dang unicorn yet!) I think my only point was that measuring success by x number of wins is suspect. With parity it could very well be that today's 18 wins equals yesterday's 21, or today's 24 equals yesterday's 28. Jack Parker referred to it in the opposite way, saying that he believes with so many teams the talent is watered down. Presumably he means less concentrated. That could very well be true. Either way there's much less dominance by a few and there's evidence for that which can't be ignored.

I have said before I have no qualms with firing Eaves for this season. I have said beyond that it's a murkier decision and some of the arguments that have been floated I tend to have some issues with. I assume it would be somewhat of a surprise if he was actually axed regardless. Perhaps not.