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.

NCAA Hockey - 2023/24 **Insert Witty Tagline**

Only two surprises so far. One is Kurth leaving, the other is Chesley not signing yet.
Back down to one surprise. Chesley signs.

Kurth shouldn’t have been a surprise, I just wasn’t paying close enough attention.

I don’t think anyone else signs professional contracts at this point. Thomas could, but it will surprise me if he does. Could be some portal losses incoming though.
 
On one hand, it's kind of surprising given the talking heads say the Wings need him so badly, on the other hand, it does take more than a season or two for younger goalies to make it to the big games.
No need to rush him and burn rookie contract years. He'll be shelled in the NHL with our current defense. The plan for next season seems to be Talbot 1A with Mrazek or Lyon 1B, and Sebastian Cossa starting the year in the AHL. He has had another solid year in Grand Rapids, so they're probably still hoping he pans out.
 
No need to rush him and burn rookie contract years. He'll be shelled in the NHL with our current defense. The plan for next season seems to be Talbot 1A with Mrazek or Lyon 1B, and Sebastian Cossa starting the year in the AHL. He has had another solid year in Grand Rapids, so they're probably still hoping he pans out.
I get what you are saying, but does another year in college replace a year in the minors? It's not as if he'll jump up immediately- as I don't remember many goalies jumping really fast from where they came from. So even if he left after this season, it could line up with the timing you point out on D.

As for the other prospect- right now, the Wings need as many goalie prospects as it takes... LOL.
 
So, the Spencer Penrose nominees came out yesterday. Someone said that the nominees are the four coaches that make the Frozen Four and then the coaches that win their conferences Coach of the Year awards. Are there any other opportunities for coaches to get nominated? Is there a cap of nominees? What if all the coaches who made the Frozen Four are also their respective Coaches of the Year in their conferences?
 
Even Ryan Miller still spent three years in the minors after three years at State, and that was after winning the Hobey and setting a million records.
And that's where my question lies- does he spend 3 years in the minors regardless of staying an extra season or not? Given how players can be paid, I'd wager he's not losing all that much money staying. So I was just wondering the time it takes to get real playing time in the NHL.
 
I get what you are saying, but does another year in college replace a year in the minors? It's not as if he'll jump up immediately- as I don't remember many goalies jumping really fast from where they came from. So even if he left after this season, it could line up with the timing you point out on D.

As for the other prospect- right now, the Wings need as many goalie prospects as it takes... LOL.
I'd rather he play another year in the Big Ten than burn a year of his rookie deal to have him start in the ECHL or (probable best case) split AHL time, which would be the likely scenarios for him next season if he had signed.

Goalies almost always take longer to develop, like sfl4 pointed out above with Miller.
 
So, the Spencer Penrose nominees came out yesterday. Someone said that the nominees are the four coaches that make the Frozen Four and then the coaches that win their conferences Coach of the Year awards. Are there any other opportunities for coaches to get nominated? Is there a cap of nominees? What if all the coaches who made the Frozen Four are also their respective Coaches of the Year in their conferences?
I know in Division III, it's ONLY the conference COYs and the coaches of the four finalists. That's it. If there are duplicates, so be it. No substitutions.
 
And that's where my question lies- does he spend 3 years in the minors regardless of staying an extra season or not? Given how players can be paid, I'd wager he's not losing all that much money staying. So I was just wondering the time it takes to get real playing time in the NHL.
He’s also young still. Will only be 21 after next season. So in the grand scheme of things maybe he doesn’t see it as a major setback by staying.
 
Got a question for those who want the first round a best 2 of 3. Or more than one related question...

The goal of that is to replace "randomness" in games, as I understand it.

So that is the goal, why not replace every round like that? Seems odd that you would tolerate it for the 1-4 and 2-3 , matchup, but not the following 1-2 matchups. And I mean that is the actual goal of removing the randomness, right? People get upset when there are upsets by regional host underdogs, and that's what we want to "fix"- but the solution is to give the higher seed a better chance to avoid a single game upset.

I don't understand why eliminating the "randomness" is just applied to the first round- as I see it, it should be replaced all rounds or no rounds. (I personally think the B1G tournament is stupid- especially when the B1G never, ever, ever promoted the tournament anywhere close to what the CCHA did, and I would bet the WCHA did- so that the on campus outcome was decided before the tournament even got going).

Then again, if the goal is to avoid the single game upset, why even have the round? Just go to the frozen four.

This is only brought up when a host low seed wins a regional- it's never when the #1 seed that has the same host benefits looses- people are upset about PSU-UConn but ignore Denver-BC. NoDak has lost their home regional as #1, but people only are upset when Michigan beat NoDak as the host at Yost (going back a really long time). If the regional advantage was that big of a factor, the home #1 seed would not lose as often as they do.
First and foremost, I just want it moved to campus sites. Neutral sites work well in the east, not so much in the west. Because it doesn't make sense to go campus sites with four team pods, as you're left with the same issue as a neutral site if the home team loses, it would be eight head-to-head match-ups in the first round. To me, if you're bringing a team from Ithaca to East Lansing, you might as well play 2 out of 3 than do all the travel for a single game. And as I said before, it's a series-based sport. The next round is the same situation, so it's another 2 out of 3 series at a campus site for the second round.
You have a point about arbitrarily going to single elimination at a certain point in the tournament, but that's just how college hockey has been, going to single elimination for the semifinals and finals. Plus, if you want to keep the Frozen Four, that doesn't really work in a series format. I guess you could just make the championship series the new Frozen Four at an NHL arena, but I don't see anyone going for that, whereas there does seem to be sentiment to go back to campus sites among some of the coaching community.

As for why no one complains when the #1 hosts, why would they? They earned it through their play throughout the season. An argument could be made that the neutral site should be truly neutral and their reward for playing well is getting to play a 4 seed, but since it's nearly impossible to have a true neutral environment, then it makes sense that any advantage should go to the better team.
 
NCAA baseball regionals are hosted by the 16 highest seed. Women's Basketball: Top 16 host first two rounds. It's long been sheer stupidity to not do the same for hockey. Hockey is not men's basketball, as the regionals outside New England routinely show.
 
First and foremost, I just want it moved to campus sites. Neutral sites work well in the east, not so much in the west. Because it doesn't make sense to go campus sites with four team pods, as you're left with the same issue as a neutral site if the home team loses, it would be eight head-to-head match-ups in the first round. To me, if you're bringing a team from Ithaca to East Lansing, you might as well play 2 out of 3 than do all the travel for a single game. And as I said before, it's a series-based sport. The next round is the same situation, so it's another 2 out of 3 series at a campus site for the second round.
You have a point about arbitrarily going to single elimination at a certain point in the tournament, but that's just how college hockey has been, going to single elimination for the semifinals and finals. Plus, if you want to keep the Frozen Four, that doesn't really work in a series format. I guess you could just make the championship series the new Frozen Four at an NHL arena, but I don't see anyone going for that, whereas there does seem to be sentiment to go back to campus sites among some of the coaching community.

As for why no one complains when the #1 hosts, why would they? They earned it through their play throughout the season. An argument could be made that the neutral site should be truly neutral and their reward for playing well is getting to play a 4 seed, but since it's nearly impossible to have a true neutral environment, then it makes sense that any advantage should go to the better team.
A lot want I see posting in other places (mgoblog specifically) think the series should be in place to remove the "randomness" of a one game series. That's why I brought it up- and all that really does is give the higher seed who is supposed to be the better team more of a chance to not have an upset. Which is a huge part of BB's March- and the NBA also does series games- so those upsets would reduce, too. It's what makes the tournament more fun.

So in that thinking, I think just moving the first round to the top 4 seed home ice would deal with it. But that would require serious upgrades at most rinks to deal with 4 teams at once for the first day's games.

But I also think the most realistic idea is to just go back to campus sites when bid on.

As for the complaints- few complain when the top regional seed is host and they lose. People get more upset when the #4 is hosting, and they upset #1. Both have happened. Just like now, more people have complained about PSU over UConn than DU over BC when BC had a much closer advantage than PSU did. Let alone DU's distance disadvantage that UConn didn't even come close to. It's just funny that it's that way to me. Teams just deal with the situation, fans don't.
 
NCAA baseball regionals are hosted by the 16 highest seed. Women's Basketball: Top 16 host first two rounds. It's long been sheer stupidity to not do the same for hockey. Hockey is not men's basketball, as the regionals outside New England routinely show.
The big issue for that, as I see it, is that every school has to be prepared to host 4 teams at the same time.
 
Back
Top