PDA

View Full Version : 2014-2015 Minnesota Women's Hockey: The Maroon & Gold Strike Back II



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

brookyone
03-16-2015, 05:12 PM
For to carry on.

KTDC
03-16-2015, 05:16 PM
Nice game on Saturday, Kate! Keep it going on Friday and help bring down those Badgers!

Eeyore
03-16-2015, 06:07 PM
Going back to the previous thread, I never liked the Minnesotan-only policy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it improved the chances of winning a title. An insular policy like that is the antithesis of what a university should be encouraging. I came up here from Michigan to go to school at the U and what the locals think of as pride really just came off as unwelcoming. I don't care what the rationale was, it was a bad policy. It would have been perfectly possible to support and boost in-state hockey programs while still having some players that were from other places.

pokechecker
03-16-2015, 06:51 PM
Going back to the previous thread, I never liked the Minnesotan-only policy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it improved the chances of winning a title. It would have been perfectly possible to support and boost in-state hockey programs while still having some players that were from other places.

true, it was about developing hockey in MN

the problem is that some people took what he said too literally, after all, Mariucci had Canadians on his team and even as captains, and he also had a fair number of guys from North Dakota and elsewhere

and keep in mind the guy that replaced him was a Canadian

it was more hyperbole, to make a point and get peoples attention, I don't think he intended for it to be a strict rule, if he did, he broke hos own rule
Brooks, Buetow & Woog followed it, only Brooks won championships by it but even he had a few out of state guys on, including at least one Canadian

Brooks didn't win because he had all/mostly Minnesotans, either in college or Olympics, he won because he was a good coach
that's the downside to what he accomplished, people expected those that followed to win with MN only

D2D
03-17-2015, 12:28 AM
This could be a first: the Gophers women's hockey team being the subject (along with Gopher Women's BB) of a Star Tribune editorial piece:

Hats off to U women's hockey and basketball teams
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/296498491.html

ne7minder
03-17-2015, 05:30 AM
This could be a first: the Gophers women's hockey team being the subject (along with Gopher Women's BB) of a Star Tribune editorial piece:

Hats off to U women's hockey and basketball teams
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/296498491.html

The wife watches the Kare bears for news & they managed to not mention the hockey seeding for the #1 hockey team in the country but they did had the resident *** -hat at the barn SCREAMING into a bad microphone last night for many minutes in anticipation of a #8 seed in a region. SIGH

ne7minder
03-17-2015, 05:36 AM
Going back to the previous thread, I never liked the Minnesotan-only policy. It has nothing to do with whether or not it improved the chances of winning a title. An insular policy like that is the antithesis of what a university should be encouraging. I came up here from Michigan to go to school at the U and what the locals think of as pride really just came off as unwelcoming. I don't care what the rationale was, it was a bad policy. It would have been perfectly possible to support and boost in-state hockey programs while still having some players that were from other places.

Obviously it was not a bad policy as it produced the desired result, the best development of American hockey players is evidence by the sheer number of Minnesotans playing hockey at an elite level. Look at states that COULD have programs like MNs, Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts come to mind; between them they might be able to field one decent team. That you somehow felt put off by the policy does not make it a bad one. It was a rarity in college athletics, an attempt to do something for the community and the sport he loved instead of winning at all costs. Had he not done it college hockey would be 99% Canadian players & even less watched than currently.

And, as stated previously, it was not "Minnesota only" as the team has had many players from outside MN, but they had to want to come here. It ws just recruiting that was limited. So they did have players from other places.

Eeyore
03-17-2015, 09:06 AM
Obviously it was not a bad policy as it produced the desired result, the best development of American hockey players is evidence by the sheer number of Minnesotans playing hockey at an elite level. Look at states that COULD have programs like MNs, Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts come to mind; between them they might be able to field one decent team. That you somehow felt put off by the policy does not make it a bad one. It was a rarity in college athletics, an attempt to do something for the community and the sport he loved instead of winning at all costs. Had he not done it college hockey would be 99% Canadian players & even less watched than currently.

I think you grossly exaggerate the effectiveness of the program in building youth hockey in Minnesota. It was far more about putting resources into youth programs directly rather than the availability of all 20 roster spots at the University of Minnesota (most of which would have gone to Minnesotans anyway) that made the difference. It would have been perfectly possible to have put all of those resources into it without exclusively recruiting Minnesotans. This is very much a case of correlation not equaling causation.


And, as stated previously, it was not "Minnesota only" as the team has had many players from outside MN, but they had to want to come here. It ws just recruiting that was limited. So they did have players from other places.

Between when I arrived here in 1986 and when Grant Potulny arrived in 2000, there were exactly zero non-Minnesotans on the roster, except that one last season for John Blue. That's not just recruiting that's limited; that means that Doug Woog simply wouldn't take non-Minnesotans.

I also find the, "Oh, we wouldn't want to recruit really big, older Canadians," sanctimony pretty hard to take. For one, even back then, hockey players came from more places than just Minnesota and Canada. Two, just about every 22-year old Canadian was 18 at some point earlier in their lives and some of them would have come to play hockey at that age. Three, I don't really care where the players come from or how old they are when they get here. All I really care about is that they want to go to school and do they want to come here. That's it.

The only reason I would object to older players is if there's some indication that they aren't really interested in the educational side of things and are just using it as a way point between juniors and the pros. And over the years, I've never noticed that older Canadian players were any more inclined to skip out on school after a year or two than are the sainted Minnesota kids. There were certainly a bunch of kids that won national championships with the Gophers in the 1970s that didn't finish their eligibility.

5mn_Major
03-17-2015, 09:16 AM
One could make the argument that a MN only policy at the U helps development in the state. I don't know if it moves the needle in a stellar current MN girls hockey environment. But even then, I believe yet another championship at the U does at least as much for MN, even if its in large part due to Amanda Kessel.

Hux
03-17-2015, 09:51 AM
One could make the argument that a MN only policy at the U helps development in the state. I don't know if it moves the needle in a stellar current MN girls hockey environment. But even then, I believe yet another championship at the U does at least as much for MN, even if its in large part due to Amanda Kessel.

I disagree. Jack Blatherwick, CODP, the OS spinoff of CODP, and more recently the Fall Elite league are what have propelled Minnesota's development of players over the past decade.

pokechecker
03-17-2015, 11:23 AM
And, as stated previously, it was not "Minnesota only" as the team has had many players from outside MN, but they had to want to come here. It ws just recruiting that was limited. So they did have players from other places.

thanks for pointing that out, I was going to
problem is that the general public thinks otherwise
and some kids that might want to come here and play, don't even consider it


That you somehow felt put off by the policy does not make it a bad one..

I think you are mistaking me for eeyore, I don't think it was bad policy, just policy that eventually outlived it's usefullness (by about 30 years)


Obviously it was not a bad policy as it produced the desired result, .

You are putting the cart before the horse, you cannot have a team of all MN kids until you first develop them. Northern MN, Minneapolis & St. Paul had been producing quality hockey players long before his hyperbole. It is what allowed him to make the statement, and have a team of nearly all MN kids. If you look at his teams there were usually only one or two Canadians on it, usually with a kid from ND (and almost always Grand Forks) and occasionally one from another state.

Why “The State of Hockey” has gotten to where it is involves a number of factors:
The televising of the boys hockey tournament increased interest in playing hockey in the 60’s.
The arrival of the No Stars & NHL increased interest in the late 60’s.
That Brooks won national championships ( I believe ’76 was the only year he did it with 100% MN) increased interest in the late 70’s.
The success of the ’80 Olympic team increased interest in the 80’s.
It was a perfect storm.
These are just some of the major ones, there are smaller ones as well, ( for example the migration of all those people from Northern MN to the TC area, including my family, that brought their interest in hockey with them).

You can see the effect on attendance at the U of MN. Some time during the Sonmor years attendance increased dramatically. Prior to that the place was half full or less. Was it due to his winning the WCHA championship in 1970? Going to the NCAA final in 1972? Spillover interest from pro hockey? Spillover from HS boys? Likely, a bit of all of it. It really went nuts after 1980.
You see somewhat the same thing today with girls/womens hockey. Attendance has doubled since before the Perfect Season, although fallen a bit perhaps since The Streak ended. I suspect it may have gone up if the Olympic team had won. I suspect it will go up if thye win the NCAA this year.

pokechecker
03-17-2015, 11:30 AM
This could be a first: the Gophers women's hockey team being the subject (along with Gopher Women's BB) of a Star Tribune editorial piece:

Hats off to U women's hockey and basketball teams
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/296498491.html

ugh!

notice they cannot refrain from the "made in MN" here too, even though it isn't
let's face it, we are a state of rubes
"Minnesota Nice" and all that, we suck it up

ne7minder
03-17-2015, 07:04 PM
I think you are mistaking me for eeyore,
In fact that is exactly what I did, I thought it was eeyore I was responding to!

You can see the effect on attendance at the U of MN. Some time during the Sonmor years attendance increased dramatically. Prior to that the place was half full or less. Was it due to his winning the WCHA championship in 1970? Going to the NCAA final in 1972? Spillover interest from pro hockey? Spillover from HS boys? Likely, a bit of all of it. It really went nuts after 1980.
I remember the HS tourney in the mid-60s I bought tickets from a kid scalping student tickets for 50 cents and he had a ton of them. But around that time was when it seemed to go nuts. You could get season tickets pretty quickly but by the 70's, despite moving to a venue with twice the seating it was a minimum of a 5 year wait & now they will not even take your name for the big school sessions. I also remember sitting in the dark & decaying barn when Sonmor first started & then Kenny Yackel. The place was often empty but they were not winning much then. I think Brooks and winning fueled a lot of that growth because it was a matter of MN pride to say we won national championships with local kids.

I too think the policy has outlived the need but it still makes the team something special, like it or not. Given the spectacular failure of this years team to perform up to expectations I think there is going to be more pressure to replace either that policy or the man currently implementing it. The big buck daddies are going to demand a better return on the seat license investment.

5mn_Major
03-17-2015, 07:33 PM
I disagree. Jack Blatherwick, CODP, the OS spinoff of CODP, and more recently the Fall Elite league are what have propelled Minnesota's development of players over the past decade.

Its an interesting comment, but have no idea what you're disagreeing to. If you read my post, I just said that a Gopher championship does at least as much for state girls hockey as a MN only policy (which hardly 'moves the needle').

ARM
03-17-2015, 07:43 PM
I just said that a Gopher championship does at least as much for state girls hockey as a MN only policy (which hardly 'moves the needle').The first part of that might almost be a chicken/egg thing. I think that improved state girls hockey was a huge factor in the recent success for UM. There was a stretch where we weren't seeing anything close to a senior class with Brandt/McMillen/Stecklein all in the same year. While that one is admittedly an outlier, there was good talent in the state on either side of it. And for the record, I'm not saying that you are saying anything contrary to that, I'm just adding a comment.

D2D
03-17-2015, 07:50 PM
Given the spectacular failure of this years team to perform up to expectations I think there is going to be more pressure to replace either that policy or the man currently implementing it.
To say this year's team is a "spectacular failure" is an exaggeration IMO. They've won 21 games and are Big Ten regular season champions. And to the extent this year's team has disappointed it is in no way attributable to their "policy" of recruiting primarily Minnesota kids. The players are pretty much the same as the Minnesota players who lost in last year's NCAA championship game.

If you want a real "spectacular failure" look no further than Wisconsin. They've got six NCAA titles to their credit, yet this year's team has won a total of FOUR GAMES, and only two of twenty in the Big Ten. Out of 59 teams they are #55 in the Pairwise....below traditional powers such as Alabama-Huntsville, Sacred Heart, Bentley and Canisius. :rolleyes: To call them a "spectacular failure" would be 100% correct.
P.S. Want to guess where their top two scorers are from? ;)

5mn_Major
03-18-2015, 12:56 AM
The first part of that might almost be a chicken/egg thing. I think that improved state girls hockey was a huge factor in the recent success for UM. There was a stretch where we weren't seeing anything close to a senior class with Brandt/McMillen/Stecklein all in the same year. While that one is admittedly an outlier, there was good talent in the state on either side of it. And for the record, I'm not saying that you are saying anything contrary to that, I'm just adding a comment.

To your point...much more of a factor in the Gophers success than the other way around. Almost 20% of D1 recruits are coming from MN and as the only D1 school in the state, the Gophers have options.

pokechecker
03-18-2015, 07:57 AM
If you want a real "spectacular failure" look no further than Wisconsin. They've got six NCAA titles to their credit,

probably should have left out the part about 6 NCAA championships
and Gopher fans are supposed to feel good because Wisconsin sucks, that makes up for choking against Union and losing to UMD earlier this year and losing the tournament amongst MN schools? And that SCSU & MSU-M are atop the ratings?

we don't need to argue about it, just look at the two teams, the men & women's
Lucia has won 2 championships with non MN playing key roles, Woog & Buetow none
Halldorson & Frost have won 5 with non MN playing key roles

and the Perfect Team, 3 PattiK's, all non-MN, do we need to say more?

KTDC
03-18-2015, 08:12 AM
Anybody feel like giving some props to Megan Wolfe. I think she has become a solid and steady performer since they moved her back to D earlier in the year. And she did a good job filling in for Pannek at center on Saturday!

FiveHoleFrenzy
03-18-2015, 08:31 AM
Anybody feel like giving some props to Megan Wolfe. I think she has become a solid and steady performer since they moved her back to D earlier in the year. And she did a good job filling in for Pannek at center on Saturday!

Megan Wolfe is to the women's team what Andy Brink was to the men's team.