What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Frozen Four 2023: Three Blue Bloods and and Upstart

I would probably define this as historical success (at least multiple titles) but also the threat to return to that prominence. So just as an example, LSSU not a blue blood. I would say:

Michigan
Denver
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Minnesota
BC
BU

That would be my current list. Of course it really doesn't mean anything. Longest FF drought from above teams is Wisconsin. Last one in 2010 but they just hired Mike Hastings. So ya that's my list.

I agree with this list. Those are also the Top 8 teams at producing NHL players, go figure. Michigan St, btw, ranks 9th. They could earn their way back onto the list pretty quickly, imo.


I wrote a whole ton of words arguing against UMD's being included, but check out these stats from the last 50 years of NCAA tourney play


Total Frozen Fours the last 50 years(tournaments).

19 - Minnesota
16 - North Dakota
15 - Boston College
15 - Boston University
15 - Michigan - this helps keep them considered a blue blood, esp when 2 of them were the last 2 years.
8 - Wisconsin - their winning 6 titles in those 8 trips, with 3 coaches and in 4 decades helps make up for their just having single digit trips to the Frozen Four.
7 - Denver - their winning several titles recently keeps them in this group, because a long period of sucking almost got them booted.

8 - ??? UMD - yep, UMD has more Frozen Four appearances the last 50 years than Denver.


Total Championship game appearances the last 50 years(tournaments).

10 - Minnesota
9 - North Dakota
9 - Boston College
8 - Wisconsin - again, this stat makes up for their lack of total Frozen Four appearances.
7 - Boston University
4 - Denver University - all 4 of those being titles and 3 of them the last 20 years makes them look more impressive than they maybe should be considered? Can't rip on UW but not DU.
4 - Michigan - like Denver, their ancient success over 50 years ago really helps them and their high # of Frozen Four trips recently.

5 - ??? UMD - yep, Duluth has more Title game appearances the last 50 years than BOTH Michigan and Denver, lol.


Total Titles the last 50 years(tournaments)

6 - North Dakota
5 hopefully 6 - Minnesota
5 - Wisconsin - this alone will keep them in the club for many more years.
4 - Boston College
4 - Denver University
3 - Boston University - they won the title 51 tourneys ago, in case anyone is wondering why that doesn't look right.
2 - Michigan - this one has rightfully earned the Wolverines a lot of smack talked at them, lol. Lots of Michigan haters out there, including me ;)

3 - ??? Yep, UMD ranks right up there with the blue bloods. I don't include them as a blue blood yet, same as I don't consider LSSU as a blue blood, but if someone did consider them a blue blood, I wouldn't blame them or object, their success arguably has earned them that status.
 
I forgot UMD if they are allowed to be admitted to the club.

Just make it a Top Ten programs list and UMD could easily be included with little argument. Or limit the criteria to accomplishments achieved in the last 50 tournaments and again UMD could argue for membership.

Michigan St would probably be my 10th team. I wouldn't be offended if people argued against them, either.
 
Winning a national championship in college hockey is so dang hard. So much has to go right beyond just being the best team. It’s a great honor for a program, no doubt, but I have always thought that using national championships as the primary factor in determining program strength is a little misguided.

There are some very good programs that have consistently been contenders over the last 10+ years, but haven’t won a title.

I agree that Titles should not be the only criteria, or even the main criteria. Just making the NCAA tourney has been a tough task for most of College hockey history. Herb Brooks teams started out needing to be one of the Top 4 teams, or one of the Top 2 western teams, which some season was the far more difficult task, other seasons it was the tougher task to be one of the Top 2 eastern teams. Wasn't until the 80s before the field expanded beyond 5 teams, I believe?

In Cbb, some have argued just getting to a Final Four is worthy of a Trophy and/or banner and feeling almost like you've won a Natl Title. I can affirm that the 1997 Final Four cbb run did feel more satisfying than the 1989 Runner up to Harvard in hockey or any of the runner up finishes the Women's Gopher hockey program has achieved.


But since the NHL chose to ramp up their poaching of younger players from the blue bloods, around the same time the field was expanded, getting just to the Frozen Four has become a lot harder to do, and hence feels more like an accomplishment than it did in the 80s or 90s, for example, at least in my opinion.


But then again, people HATE it when I expand the criteria to include sh1t like # of players who went on to play for the US Olympic team and who went on to play in the NHL.
 
Among eastern teams, the only ones listed here as Blue Bloods in any way are:
BU
BC
Harvard

Really? Hmm......That's interesting for sure. I wonder how everyone feels about Cornell?
 
If I have got it right, the last time Minnesota made it to the finals was in 2014. The tournament was at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia. There Minnesota faced another upstart ECAC team. The four teams (and their student populations) in the tournament that year were Boston College (14,000), North Dakota (14,000), Minnesota (51,000) and Union College (2,000). Two years earlier, Union had made the tournament but lost in the semifinals. The previous year Union lost in the second round of the Regionals. The Wells Fargo Center in Philidelphia back then seated about 20,000.

Union emptied out its 2000-student campus, but that palled in comparison to the vast number of fans from BC, Minnesota and especially North Dakota. BC showed up with its band. Minnesota showed up with hoards of fans, but it was North Dakto that impressed me the most. North Dakota showed up with what felt like most of the State of North Dakota (and some drop-dead absolutely beautiful cheerleaders). The North Dakota Fans were all wearing their "Fighting Souix" green-hockey jerseys. Sitting together, it made for what appeared to be a sea of green.

In the semi's the media was all over our coach, asking him how he could possibly expect to play in the same rink as BC and stop the great BC top line. (I think this was the "Johnny Gaudreau" line). He responded that in the ECAC, the Dutchmen had faced many excellent scoring lines, and he was not worried.

In the first round, we got by BC, and Minnesota defeated North Dakota by a goal in the closing seconds. North Dakota fans were in severe pain.

A BC fan came over to me after the BC game and asked where he could buy a Union sweatshirt. I pointed him to a concession selling paraphernalia for all four teams. I asked him why, and he said that he was going to cheer for Union against Minnesota. "Just one thing," he said in a low, angry, demanding voice ... "beat Minnesota." The BC fans seem to dislike Minnesota, especially since they suffered a 6-1 defeat from them earlier in the year.

Against our game with Minnesota, the North Dakota Fans again showed up in force. The sea of Green occupied what felt like a quarter of the seats. A wave of green stood cheering as we took the ice along with fans from BC and Union. Even the announcers noticed and commented.

After every goal we scored, the Wells Fargo center shook and erupted in cheers. It was clear that many BC and North Dakota Fans disliked Minnesota intensly. You could hear the North Dakota fans go crazy every time we scored and especially as we pulled ahead. They we jumping up and down, hugging each other.

I will never again, I am sure, experience 14,000+ rabid fans cheering their guts out for us at a hockey game. I know they were not cheering for us as much as they were cheering against Minnesota, but it sure felt good just the same.
 
Last edited:
Among eastern teams, the only ones listed here as Blue Bloods in any way are:
BU
BC
Harvard

Really? Hmm......That's interesting for sure. I wonder how everyone feels about Cornell?


I mentioned how Maine and New Hampshire used to be blue bloods.

And going back further, absolutely Cornell and Clarkson were both blue bloods, but decades of irrelevance cost those 2 their blue blood status, just as Harvard is only rarely mentioned among blue bloods. Lots of tournament appearances, very few Frozen Four appearances. 1989 was a long time ago. Many in here were not even born yet in 1989.

In the 90s both Maine and New Hampshire were regularly competing for Frozen Fours and Titles. But the 21st Century hasn't been good to either of them.
 
I mentioned how Maine and New Hampshire used to be blue bloods.

And going back further, absolutely Cornell and Clarkson were both blue bloods, but decades of irrelevance cost those 2 their blue blood status, just as Harvard is only rarely mentioned among blue bloods. Lots of tournament appearances, very few Frozen Four appearances. 1989 was a long time ago. Many in here were not even born yet in 1989.

In the 90s both Maine and New Hampshire were regularly competing for Frozen Fours and Titles. But the 21st Century hasn't been good to either of them.

Huh? Maine was in several frozen fours in the 2000s.
 
From an outsider's (but, not necessarily unbiased) perspective, I would give the edge to Minnesota...but it is very close. North Dakota played both these teams earlier this season (on back-to-back weekends in October). 3 of the 4 games went to OT, with North Dakota losing and tying at home to QU, and splitting two OT games against UMN on the road. My impressions back then were that Minnesota was the more talented squad, but the Bobcats were very sneaky good. I didn't see another game from either Quinnipiac or the Gophers until the NCAA Tournament, and both squads had improved quite a bit since back in October (not surprising). Throughout the NCAA Tournament, both teams have been extremely impressive, and I have no doubt they are the top two teams in college hockey this season.

Minnesota has the ability to absolutely dominate the game. Their top line might be the best group since North Dakota's CBS-line in 2015-2016 (Quinnipiac fans probably don't want to hear that, given how they torched the Bobcats in the '16 title game). Their ability to control the game, and conversely, Quinnipiac's ability to limit such control, will likely decide this game. I've heard a lot of talk about how Close (or, as Gophers fans would call him, an "overage Canadian") is the key. While a subpar game from any goalie can sink a team's chances, I just don't believe that Minnesota will need Close to stand on his head to come out on top. The Gophers' blue line is somewhat overshadowed by the prolific offensive talent on team, but they are an extremely talented group. I don't see QU having the number of offensive chances against Minnesota that they did against UM. That being said, QU has a very strong blue line as well, and Perets has the ability to steal a game. Moreover, while the Bobcats have received some undeserved flak for their graduate transfers, I think it will be the underclassmen (Graf, Lipkin, and Quillen) who will need to show up (they have all season).

Overall, I think this has the potential to be a classic, and I hope we get treated to such a game. I'll take Minnesota 4-2, but if the Gophers hit as many posts as they did against BU (or Perets absolutely stands on his head), the Bobcats could finally lift the hardware.

And I apologize in advance for the NCHC refs. : p
 
If I have got it right, the last time Minnesota made it to the finals was in 2014. The tournament was at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia. There Minnesota faced another upstart ECAC team. The four teams (and their student populations) in the tournament that year were Boston College (14,000), North Dakota (14,000), Minnesota (51,000) and Union College (2,000). Two years earlier, Union had made the tournament but lost in the semifinals. The previous year Union lost in the second round of the Regionals. The Wells Fargo Center in Philidelphia back then seated about 20,000.

Union emptied out its 2000-student campus, but that palled in comparison to the vast number of fans from BC, Minnesota and especially North Dakota. BC showed up with its band. Minnesota showed up with hoards of fans, but it was North Dakto that impressed me the most. North Dakota showed up with what felt like most of the State of North Dakota (and some drop-dead absolutely beautiful cheerleaders). The North Dakota Fans were all wearing their "Fighting Souix" green-hockey jerseys. Sitting together, it made for what appeared to be a sea of green.

In the semi's the media was all over our coach, asking him how he could possibly expect to play in the same rink as BC and stop the great BC top line. (I think this was the "Johnny Gaudreau" line). He responded that in the ECAC, the Dutchmen had faced many excellent scoring lines, and he was not worried.

In the first round, we got by BC, and Minnesota defeated North Dakota by a goal in the closing seconds. North Dakota fans were in severe pain.

A BC fan came over to me after the BC game and asked where he could buy a Union sweatshirt. I pointed him to a concession selling paraphernalia for all four teams. I asked him why, and he said that he was going to cheer for Union against Minnesota. "Just one thing," he said in a low, angry, demanding voice ... "beat Minnesota." The BC fans seem to dislike Minnesota, especially since they suffered a 6-1 defeat from them earlier in the year.

Against our game with Minnesota, the North Dakota Fans again showed up in force. The sea of Green occupied what felt like a quarter of the seats. A wave of green stood cheering as we took the ice along with fans from BC and Union. Even the announcers noticed and commented.

After every goal we scored, the Wells Fargo center shook and erupted in cheers. It was clear that many BC and North Dakota Fans disliked Minnesota intensly. You could hear the North Dakota fans go crazy every time we scored and especially as we pulled ahead. They we jumping up and down, hugging each other.

I will never again, I am sure, experience 14,000+ rabid fans cheering their guts out for us at a hockey game. I know they were not cheering for us as much as they were cheering against Minnesota, but it sure felt good just the same.

Many won't admit to it, but Minnesota is arguably the #1 college hockey program of all time and all other programs fans will argue against this idea vehemently and it's part of why they hate Minnesota SO MUCH. The fact that "some" Minnesota fans, apparently enough of them, believe this and let it be known that they believe as much, earned Gopher fans a reputation as being arrogant, which just adds fuel to the fire that burns within all those who hate the Gophers. They point to the # of titles as proof it's not true, or long title droughts in the 40s, 50s and 60s or the 80s and 90s, or since 2003 as proof it's not true and dismiss any other factor being considered, because they know considering other factors will hurt their argument.



The VAST majority of Gopher sports fans are very humble, even self deprecating sometimes. That includes myself, when discussing non-hockey sports.


Minnesota Nice is a real thing, and it influences Minnesota sports fans, to a degree.


A vocal minority often grumble and whine and cry and belly ache about how hard it is to be a Gopher sports fan or a Minnesota sports fan sometimes, while others try to stay positive and argue with the grumblers. In many ways they are similar to all other fan bases, but when it comes to the idea of being humble, in general, Minnesota fans are different than most. While most fan bases have their share of arrogant and rude or obnoxious fans at games or in bars or online, when their team wins or even when they lose as well, and the Gophers have their share of these types of fans, Gopher fans generally are not as bad and are more humble, in general.

And this is why the fans of Gopher hockey only or primarily, having a vocal minority among them that are arrogant or have been, sticks out to me, and yes, I am one of the most vocal and most arrogant of all Gopher hockey fans, if not the most, so much so that I kind of enjoy a status of being hated by the vast majority of Gopher hockey fans, or if not hated, barely tolerated. Years back, here at this site, I was accused of being someone else with an alt moniker, I can't remember his name now but he was famous here for being very arrogant regarding Gopher hockey. They often come in after me and felt obligated to explain that most Gopher fans are not assholes like me, lol. It's funny. They often argue with me, maybe as a way of trying to prove to their non-Gopher fan friends in places like this one, that they are not like me, or maybe because they genuinely don't believe as I do? It's possible, like I said, Gopher sports fans are a pretty humble and/or negative bunch, overall. At least when they are sober, and that also includes the Gopher hockey fans.



Please don't hate on them because of me, or give them grief. OR, if the Gophers lose today, please concentrate all of your negative focus/comments on me/towards me, as I've earned it, they haven't, I've watched them all, for the most part, be very nice and generous with their praise and acknowledgement of other teams. I try, but my efforts are probably forgotten or not noticed because of my pro-Mn and pro-B1G rhetoric drowning them out, and I can take it. I feel a little bad because if the Gophers lose today, some people, not many but a few, will actually believe it was my fault, lol. Others will feel that any or all negative comments directed at them or in their general direction, were because of me.

If the Gophers win, they will almost all be very gracious and kind in their words. I'll also try to be as well, and it's much easier when your team wins.



See, for me, having most of the fans of a particular sport hate your team and it's fans, as a whole, or at least the arrogant ones among them, to me is a sign that my team HAS earned it. If the Gophers weren't any good, no one or few would bother with them or their fans. But that is not the case. The fact that fans of one team would ever buy another team's tshirts or sweatshirts or whatever, says alot. Or that an entire fan base would go to a game that their team wasn't playing in just to cheer against a rival, well, it says a lot, to me at least. The vast majority of Gopher fans don't like it when fans of other teams hate on them or the Gophers in response to someone like me. Do they think the Gophers will play better if they are seen as the lovable underdog? That would be my guess. Maybe they dream of being seen as America's team? Blame that on Herb Brooks maybe? lol That would be nice, but I just don't see it ever happening. Minnesota is America's version of Siberia. It's mascot is a friggin Gopher. So in hockey, we'll always be expected to be near the top, and anything but Frozen Fours is considered disappointing, so how can we ever become "America's team"? Especially now that pro all-star lineups make up the olympic teams, so there will never again be a Herb Brooks taking a young bunch of Minnesota boys with a spattering of Bostonians to a Miracle on Ice type thing again. In hockey, the best thing we can hope for, imo, is to be the big bad dominant team that wins too often and everyone hates. And Gopher players and fans should, again imo, revel in everyone's hating them. Soak it up, relish it, know it's because they are the best. Why was the Miracle on Ice in 1980 so incredibly significant and monumental and now so cherished? It's because of who they beat. They beat the unbeatable team, the feared and hated Russians. I want the Gophers to get beat by Quinipiac in 2041, FINALLY, after 4 failed attempts, 2023 being the first, and it being seen as the 21st Century version of the miracle on ice. It would be funny if the 2041 Q lineup was made up 80% of Russians, too. I mean, why not? It would be interesting.

Ok.

I prefer the whole 4 pm start time thing. Not enough free time before the game to write long ass crazy posts like this one. Instead it's 5 pm, I'm already buzzed and the game is hours away from starting. Only thing worse than losing a Championship game is the time between the semifinal game and the title game, where you just don't know what's going to happen. You hope your team will win, but you also know your team could lose. The anticipation can be torture. Doesn't help that I am always on vacation all of March and half of April every year, so work can't help distract me.







Here's hoping for a basically penalty free game, no fights, with ZERO injuries, with the best team winning, hopefully in a tight close entertaining game.
 
From an outsider's (but, not necessarily unbiased) perspective, I would give the edge to Minnesota...but it is very close. North Dakota played both these teams earlier this season (on back-to-back weekends in October). 3 of the 4 games went to OT, with North Dakota losing and tying at home to QU, and splitting two OT games against UMN on the road. My impressions back then were that Minnesota was the more talented squad, but the Bobcats were very sneaky good. I didn't see another game from either Quinnipiac or the Gophers until the NCAA Tournament, and both squads had improved quite a bit since back in October (not surprising). Throughout the NCAA Tournament, both teams have been extremely impressive, and I have no doubt they are the top two teams in college hockey this season.

Minnesota has the ability to absolutely dominate the game. Their top line might be the best group since North Dakota's CBS-line in 2015-2016 (Quinnipiac fans probably don't want to hear that, given how they torched the Bobcats in the '16 title game). Their ability to control the game, and conversely, Quinnipiac's ability to limit such control, will likely decide this game. I've heard a lot of talk about how Close (or, as Gophers fans would call him, an "overage Canadian") is the key. While a subpar game from any goalie can sink a team's chances, I just don't believe that Minnesota will need Close to stand on his head to come out on top. The Gophers' blue line is somewhat overshadowed by the prolific offensive talent on team, but they are an extremely talented group. I don't see QU having the number of offensive chances against Minnesota that they did against UM. That being said, QU has a very strong blue line as well, and Perets has the ability to steal a game. Moreover, while the Bobcats have received some undeserved flak for their graduate transfers, I think it will be the underclassmen (Graf, Lipkin, and Quillen) who will need to show up (they have all season).

Overall, I think this has the potential to be a classic, and I hope we get treated to such a game. I'll take Minnesota 4-2, but if the Gophers hit as many posts as they did against BU (or Perets absolutely stands on his head), the Bobcats could finally lift the hardware.

And I apologize in advance for the NCHC refs. : p


Very well said. Agree almost 100% with all you said. Look forward to UND righting their ship and getting back to the Frozen Four soon.
 
Yeah, you are right I believe. I think I remember the Back to Back Title winning Lucia teams playing Maine? But it's been awhile. No disrespect meant, I miss seeing Maine among the top teams in the country.

Correct. First year title game: Minnesota 4, Maine 3.....Grant Potulny in OT
Second year title game: Minnesota 5, New Hampshire 1....Vanek among others scoring
 
Fighting Sioux 23 has ranked every DI team all-time. While they have never posted the formula they used, they did post the criteria used to rank the teams:

First lets discuss the criteria used. There were a ton of options that I had when picking out what would be used:

National Championships - This was the easiest and most obvious piece of criteria to use. While many of us would agree that the National Champion isn't necessarily the best team that season, it shows two very important things within any one season. First, it shows that team was good throughout the year. Outside the AQs, you can't be good for only a few weekends to make the tournament, you have to be good all year long. Second, the National Champion has to win 2-4 games against other very good teams in order hoist a national trophy. Finally, it's the most pressure packed stage in our game. Given those three things, it was a no brainer that National Championships would be used, and would have some significant weight behind it.

Conference Titles (Regular Season/Tournament) - This was a tricky one. If Conference Titles were to be used, what title would be weighted more heavily, or should they be weighted the same. The Regular Season Conference Title is obviously more difficult to win. It requires strong, consistent play throughout an entire regular season. Saying that, it doesn't have the pressure of the Tournament Title. Also, in conferences that are not as strong as the CCHA, Hockey East, WCHA and ECAC, usually only the Tournament champion advances to the NCAA Tournament. There is also sectional differences here. In the East, the Tournament title is generally seen as more important, while in the West, especially the WCHA, the Regular Season title is seen as the top dog. So, two questions came out of this, 1) Do we count Conference Titles, and 2) How do we weigh Conference Titles. I ultimately decided to count Conference Titles. They are an important piece of a program's history, and honestly, we spend far more time playing for Conference Titles than anything else. As for how to weigh Conference Titles, this was actually aided by my formula strategy (which I will discuss later). In the end, Conference Titles were weighed relatively similar, with Regular Season Conference Titles having a slight edge.

Tournament Appearances - This was an obvious choice as well. Making the NCAA Tournament is a goal for every program at the beginning of each and every season. This criteria also theoretically adds to the weighting of a Conference Tournament Title (at least if you subscribe to the theory that a Tournament Title is more important because it gets you into the NCAA Tournament). Realistically, most teams that win their Conference are going to make the NCAA Tournament, but not always. So, if you were upset that I weighed Regular Season titles slightly over Tournament titles, this criteria basically makes up for that difference.

Tournament Record (W-L-T) - This particular criteria I debated about for awhile. At the end of the day, I felt it was important to include how well a program does in the most pressure packed situations. Once I decided it was in, I debated about whether points should be awarded for Losses in the NCAA Tournament. This was a difficult decision. On one hand, we are already awarding teams for making the tournament, why should they be rewarded for losing in the tournament. On the other hand, playing in the NCAA Tournament is the most pressure packed stage and even playing, and losing, is still very prestigious for most programs. It also further adds weight to making the NCAA Tournament. Ultimately, I decided that losses would get a very small amount of points.

Tournament Winning % - I decided to include this as well. I felt that if I'm going to include points for ties or losses that it should be countered by a winning percentage factor. It also shows which teams did the best in their trips to the NCAA Tournament, along with how well they do when they are in the most pressure packed stage that we have in our game.

Frozen Four Appearances - This was another no doubter.
Frozen Four Record (W-L-T) - See Tournament Record.
Frozen Four Winning % - See Tournament Winning %.

Program Winning % - I definitely debated about whether or not to include winning %. There is the obvious con to using this, in that teams play very different schedules. It's not very fair to compare Minnesota's SOS to say Bentley's. Saying that, I felt that winning games is the base of what every program tries to do on a regular basis. At the end of the day, I felt I had to include Program Winning %. I also felt that I needed another criteria that would best account for SOS. After looking through a variety of different ways (including trying to come up with some sort of all-time RPI) I decided I would include Winning Percentage vs NCAA Champions. After all, if you were able to consistently beat the best, that speaks volumes for the difficulty of a program's schedule. If you've never played an NCAA Champion...that also shows what kind of schedule you typically have.

The last set of criteria I looked at was individual excellence. I debated for awhile whether I should include this at all, but I ultimately felt that having top notch individuals on your team/program helps show how quality that program is. There were several criteria here:

All-Americans - This was the most obvious choice to use. All-Americans have been awarded since 1954, it is done by a consistent body (AHCA) and it looks at all of the programs. It also shows which players were "the best" that particular year across the nation.

Hobey Baker Finalists - At first I thought this was a no brainer if I was going to include All-Americans, but after debating about it, the main thing that was drawing me away from it was that it only applies to 1981-present. Ultimately I decided to include it. It is a more exclusive group than All-Americans (10 chosen compared to 24 All-Americans) and the winner of the award brings a tremendous amount of attention to the program. That is why I also included Hobey Baker winners as a piece of criteria.


Also, IIRC, the criteria is weighted so more recent events are worth more points than older events. I think the list does an excellent job of showing what teams are the bluebloods. The question is at what point do you have the cutoff? For me it is between #7 Wisconsin and #8 Michigan State, as there is a 120 point gap between those two teams. So, based on that, I consider these 6 teams the college hockey bluebloods:

1. North Dakota
2. Michigan
3. Denver
4. Minnesota
5. Boston College
6. Boston University
7. Wisconsin

Based on this season it will be interesting to see by how much MSU will close the gap on Wisconsin. You can see the top 20 through last season or you can read the the thread from the start.

Sean
 
This matchup sort of reminds me of last year’s. A very talented team versus an older team capable of shutting you down with an all world goalie. I picked MN to beat QU in the USCHO bracket challenge so no sense changing now.
 
Back
Top