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.
Minnesota Gophers 2021-2022
- Thread starter FiveHoleFrenzy
- Start date
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
On VT, there seems to be some of that in most of the high-profile fan bases, the Gopher fans definitely included. You're right that there was a loud camp who wanted M.S. to be dumped, even though the roster didn't have another viable option for a starting setter. Some of that is familiarity breeding contempt, so that the most popular quarterback on the roster is the one holding the clipboard on the sidelines. Can't throw costly interceptions or make trap sets if you never get off the bench. VT Gopher fans are always harping on their African American players, at least after Taylor Morgan graduated, for not showing enough emotion. Samedy, Rollins, Landfair -- none of them go all Kendall White, so that becomes a cause for complaint. I'm sure the flip side to that coin would be that, "She be acting all crazy out there; girl, keep your head in the game!"
But it's not Minnesota, or Texas, or Stanford. It seems to be all of them. Grace Loberg got more than her share of heat on VT; she's not on the court to set a new standard for receiving serve, but every shank is taken as a personal insult. And when Nebraska makes a run, they aren't sure what to say about Nicklin Hames; she's been the reason that they couldn't succeed all year, so how are they now finding a way to win and she's still out there?
I'm in a glass house, so I better not throw too many stones. I think VolleyTalk tends to get nastier than we do here, but that is setting a low bar for ourselves. People who have coached females in sports or manage them in the office soon find that it is not exactly the same as coaching or managing males. And yes, I'm generalizing, but I think there is some truth to this. Males are more likely to start out very aware of their strengths and blind to their faults, assuming that they're the solution and others are the problem. Females want to do well, and they are willing to listen to what you tell them. They are painfully aware of their shortcomings, so a coach or boss needs to offer solutions, not just point out flaws. It stands to reason that female athletes will also be more easily hurt by criticism from fans, the people who are supposed to have their backs and support them on their journey.
Personally, I will try to be better moving forward. Feel free to remind me that I said this.
robertearle
Well-known member
Lefts like Loberg are natural targets, for the serve-receive reason you cite, as well as they get the 'bad' sets when the setter has no other option, leading to them frequently either getting stuffed or hitting out-of-bounds. Lexi Sun and Nebraska fans would be the prototypical example.
(If you don't recall it, and you have the 'capability', go back and watch the second set of the national championship match, tied at 27. Loberg shanks a serve-receive *badly* to put UW down 27-28. Lose the next point, you're down two sets, and very likely to lose the match. Everybody in the building knows the next serve is coming at Loberg, but she handles it, and then gets the ball set back to her. She hits *deep* into the cross-court corner, maybe a foot in from both the sideline and backline. And UW goes on to win the set and the match. She misses the serve-receive, they lose. She misses the cross-court shot, they lose. The look on her face when she hits the shot is great. Afterward, Sheffield has described it as his favorite sequence of the match, and maybe of his career. The moment that will define her career.)
"People who have coached females in sports or manage them in the office soon find that it is not exactly the same as coaching or managing males."
Mark Johnson did a podcast with AJ Melesko and Cammy Granato, and he told a story about that. He had gotten a report from a professor that one of his players was skipping class, etc and thinking she'd be able to get away with it because she was on the hockey team, etc. So just before they head off to Duluth, he calls her in and tells her she's not going on the trip. And she's crying, saying that her parents were going to be in Duluth to see her. So he says go call them and tell them why you won't be there. And then he goes out to tell another girl who wasn't going to Duluth that she's now going, and she starts crying. He gets home from that, and his wife tells him that one of their daughters is up in her room crying, so he goes up to ask her why, and she says she doesn't really know, she just felt like crying. And he's thinking to himself "What in the world... how did i get here?!?"
"Personally, I will try to be better moving forward. Feel free to remind me that I said this."
Likewise.
Last edited:
The Gophers scoring 4 in the second Saturday reminded me of scoring 3 in the first period of the 2nd game against Wisconsin a week earlier. Seemed like a significant amount of good fortune involved. On the other hand, maybe it’s a characteristic of the team, as they were generally good plays.
Gophs shouldn’t be too impressed with the new #1 ranking. Just consider it another step down the road with the main work still to be done.
Gophs shouldn’t be too impressed with the new #1 ranking. Just consider it another step down the road with the main work still to be done.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
100% true. I was production manager at a factory that had more females than males working on the floor. The most interesting observation I had was in how they react to conflict or disagreement. If a male and I had a heated discussion, the next day we're talking about football and bs-ing around like nothing ever happened. If that same situation happened with a female, she'd be pizzed for weeks and not even talk to me and then throw it in my face a year later. As I learned my craft, I developed different approaches that could reduce or even eliminate the pizzed off period. It was A LOT more work upfront, but it was worth it. These of course are generalizations, you have to learn each person and adapt your approach per individual. There is no cookie cutter plan to successfully communicate with people, but there is a male/female difference.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
I could only think here we go again. Ryhorchuk and Olson in the scorer's box reviewing the tape. These are the same two who recently taught us the rule. They can review a possible major penalty but NOT whether it was a penalty or not, they can only decide if it was a major or no penalty at all. There they stood looking uncertain while offering occasional comments to each other. And just like last time (first of the two home games against Wisconsin) they decided that it was a major penalty on the Gophers. And just like last time the call comes in the back half of the third period in a game with the ultimate victor far from being assured.
Maybe it was a major penalty, I was at the game and have not yet taken the opportunity to myself look at the tape. But clearly this rule needs some review. One of the two guys (Olson) has to decide and he is clearly uncertain while the other guy's (Ryhorchuk) body language seems to indicate that although it is clearly not his call he thinks Olson should call the major. And ultimately, without conviction, that is what Olson does.
It's a bad look, especially with the game on the line and I bet Olson and Ryhorchuk agree with me on that.
Against Wisconsin the Badgers scored almost immediately to tie the game and then had an iffy interference called against them in what smelled a lot like an even up call before Minnesota got a late goal to capture the points. Against Bemidji the Beavers pulled their goalie for the two player advantage and still gave up a double shorthanded empty net clincher as the best player on the ice found herself with the puck and enough open ice to enter the zone and then cut to the middle for an absolute no doubt middle of the net goal.
Gophers were the better team and they won so maybe there isn't any major controversy. But it is a very bad look.
Maybe it was a major penalty, I was at the game and have not yet taken the opportunity to myself look at the tape. But clearly this rule needs some review. One of the two guys (Olson) has to decide and he is clearly uncertain while the other guy's (Ryhorchuk) body language seems to indicate that although it is clearly not his call he thinks Olson should call the major. And ultimately, without conviction, that is what Olson does.
It's a bad look, especially with the game on the line and I bet Olson and Ryhorchuk agree with me on that.
Against Wisconsin the Badgers scored almost immediately to tie the game and then had an iffy interference called against them in what smelled a lot like an even up call before Minnesota got a late goal to capture the points. Against Bemidji the Beavers pulled their goalie for the two player advantage and still gave up a double shorthanded empty net clincher as the best player on the ice found herself with the puck and enough open ice to enter the zone and then cut to the middle for an absolute no doubt middle of the net goal.
Gophers were the better team and they won so maybe there isn't any major controversy. But it is a very bad look.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
I took a look at the game replay and I am okay with the penalty call, including okay with making it a major.
I still think it is a bad look for the referees trying to decide between a major and no penalty at all.
I still think it is a bad look for the referees trying to decide between a major and no penalty at all.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Yeah, not sure what #16 was doing with the stick up that high. On the other hand, that probably wouldn't have happened if the tripping penalty (on #5 as she drove the net) had been called on BSU. That was as obvious a penalty as you well see.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
I don't have any problem with a major being assessed on Saturday. I just hope to see consistency; given that was a major on Saturday, then it should be the next time a player's head/neck is the target of a crosscheck. Back in the days when UM had a dominating PP (no, not this year), it seemed like some refs didn't want to call penalties on opponents because it was too likely to score.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
My guess is he wanted to roll with a number one down the stretch. I was kind of hoping it would be Pahl.
Although she probably won’t be rolling down the stretch after this game.
I predict the first line is going to score a goal this game..lol
That was an acurate prediction...
And a second...Tied at 2 now at the end of the 2nd period.
Last edited:
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
That is something, we as Gopher fans, can all agree on.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
First line strikes again...2nd for Boreen. 3-2 now for Minnesota early in the 3rd.
Maybe Taylor Heise will teach M Wethington how to throw a stretch pass!
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
That was beautiful...
First line strikes again on the power play...Boreen with the Hat Trick. 4-2 Minnesota now.