What's new
By:
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.

SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gurtholfin
  • Start date Start date
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Whether or not a conference game should be played outdoors is different argument - I'm rebutting the crying about the ice being the cause for the loss. It wasn't.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Slap Shot said:
Whether or not a conference game should be played outdoors is different argument - I'm rebutting the crying about the ice being the cause for the loss. It wasn't.
Click to expand...

The ice made the winner (whoever it might have been) a coin toss.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Brenthoven said:
The ice made the winner (whoever it might have been) a coin toss.
Click to expand...

The ice had nothing to do with UW's goals, nor with UM failing to convert on their chances - that's not a coin toss.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Slap Shot said:
The ice had nothing to do with UW's goals, nor with UM failing to convert on their chances - that's not a coin toss.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Everyone seems to only concentrate on the shots that scored the goals. What led up to the shots is another matter.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

HarleyMC said:
What I saw was the Gophers came out strong and controlled play...difficulty in passing the puck didn't seem to be a problem for either team. As is true in ALL outdoor games, the ice degrades somewhat as the game goes on and anyone that has played hockey outdoors for years understands you naturally compensate for that factor as a part of your game. I didn't think the ice conditions were that bad at all to affect the outcome of the game...a little chippy in areas but you compensate for that. It's a different game outdoors. I didn't see any of the basic skills of the game drastically hindered for either team. Goals scored by the Badgers were NOT due to poor ice conditions. Very simply...the Badgers adjusted better. All Gopher players know how to do this outdoors and they didn't get it done today...period.
Click to expand...
That first bolded section is an observation I'd agree with, but I'd take it a little further. The Gophers controlled play at the beginning of each period, and as each period wore on, things evened out. Which I think can be strongly attributed to the second bolded section.

As for the third bolded section, basic skills aren't the issue. It's the more highly tuned skills and abilities. The kind of stuff that separates great teams from average ones (at least in the college game as it is typically played...indoors). The ability to carry the puck at pace from zone to zone. The ability to play a fast and precise passing game in tight spaces. The ability to clear a defender's reach in your first 2-4 strides. The ability to stick-handle your way out of tight spaces. The ability to change directions on a dime. The speed at which you can close people down. If you think the ice didn't affect any of those things today, you're nucking futs.

Would MN have won today if they had played at Kohl Center? I don't know. Maybe Rumpel stands on his head and Wisconsin still get a couple fluky goals. But it would have allowed them to utilize their talents and the skills they have spent years developing and honing (and practicing together all season) to the level that they are able to utilize them every other day of the season.
 
Last edited:
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Brenthoven said:
I disagree. Everyone seems to only concentrate on the shots that scored the goals. What led up to the shots is another matter.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't favor your argument. There were very few moments in this game where I thought the ice screwed the Gophers, and bad bounces often turn into counter-attacks the other way and yet that didn't happen to any significant degree. The Gophers were the faster team and more chances - they didn't convert enough to win.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Stauber1 said:
Would MN have won today if they had played at Kohl Center? I don't know. Maybe Rumpel stands on his head and Wisconsin still get a couple fluky goals. But it would have allowed them to utilize their talents and the skills they have spent years developing and honing (and practicing together all season) to the level that they are able to utilize them every other day of the season.
Click to expand...

Said much better than I and that goes for both teams.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Slap Shot said:
Still doesn't favor your argument. There were very few moments in this game where I thought the ice screwed the Gophers, and bad bounces often turn into counter-attacks the other way and yet that didn't happen to any significant degree. The Gophers were the faster team and more chances - they didn't convert enough to win.
Click to expand...

See my previous post. I want a "level" playing field. One that allows both teams to show off their strengths. Tonight? It wasn't close. It was a crapshoot.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Brenthoven said:
I disagree. Everyone seems to only concentrate on the shots that scored the goals. What led up to the shots is another matter.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about how bumpy ice makes your eyes jiggle?
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Brenthoven said:
See my previous post. I want a "level" playing field. One that allows both teams to show off their strengths. Tonight? It wasn't close. It was a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

Is it not a level playing field when a team that plays outdoors comes to the Metrodome? That doesn't even make sense and clearly isn't representative of the game that was played. The Gophers did show their strengths. They were faster, had more chances and got more pucks to the net. Guess what, they didn't go in enough to win.

btw - the Gophers don't typically allow 3 goals which they did today. 3 goals again that were not created because of the ice surface. How in heck does that mean it wasn't a level playing field? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Slap Shot said:
Is it not a level playing field when a team that plays outdoors comes to the Metrodome? That doesn't even make sense and clearly isn't representative of the game that was played. The Gophers did show their strengths. They were faster, had more chances and got more pucks to the net. Guess what, they didn't go in enough to win.

btw - the Gophers don't typically allow 3 goals which they did today. 3 goals again that were not created because of the ice surface. How in heck does that mean it wasn't a level playing field? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree. Normal variations occur (different ice sizes, indoor/outdoor, sure). IMO tonight's variables were so outrageous that it hindered both teams to the point of it hindering the actual sport it represented. I normally don't fly off the handle for this long, unless it's something I truly believe. That is the case tonight. :)
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

This is so wonderful. *snicker*
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

solovsfett said:
interesting take. UW played as well as they could but to be honest, time of possession, SOG, they were manhandled. for me it was great to see UW win but the constant harping on "defensive" style of play by the BTN crew has to be considered in the recruiting game. if I'm 15 and I'm a forward thinking of going the D1 route I'm choosing to play the wide open run n' gun style. You have to think any kids at this game could see the clear disparity between these two teams. UW played their game, MN didn't and that's why UW won but let's not kid ourselves if they play this another 10x I guarantee MN wins handily in about 7-8 of them.

so in a nutshell UW got lucky. Kudos to Rumple, but gd this is going to be a long 2 years until they get some effing forward talent in madison. I can only hope Kerdiles is still around at that point
Click to expand...

Time of possession and shots on goal are good indicators of "control of the game," but we all know that isn't the whole story. With shots on goal, obviously quality matters. Quality can be created by quantity (i.e. a flurry of 5 shots in a row will yield more goals than 5 shots spread out), and with more skilled goal scorers making plays. You know that Badgers power play we always complain about? When they aren't dumping and chasing, we as fans still get frustrated from the slow passing along the side without working the puck to someone in position for a good scoring chance.

I'm not saying that's what Minnesota's attack looked like at all, but let's give credit to defense and goaltending doing just enough to pull through, even if they weren't close to being dominant. And yes, Minnesota would win more games than Wisconsin if these same teams played over and over, even on that same rink. (And they did win the season series.) Basically, Minnesota is the better team overall, but it's not fair to say UW got lucky. They earned this win in this specific game. It makes me nervous that they'll have to pull off more upsets like this against UNO and SCSU to finish in the top 6.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

WiscDC said:
Minnesota is the better team overall, but it's not fair to say UW got lucky.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

WiscDC said:
Basically, Minnesota is the better team overall, but it's not fair to say UW got lucky. They earned this win in this specific game.
Click to expand...


Yep. UW handled the environment better and when they had chances, converted (just) enough of them.

Rumpel had a really good game, but he didn't exactly stand on his head. Most were fairly routine saves.

Nothing "lucky" at all about that.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Gurtholfin said:
Yep. UW handled the environment better and when they had chances, converted (just) enough of them.

Rumpel had a really good game, but he didn't exactly stand on his head. Most were fairly routine saves.

Nothing "lucky" at all about that.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it would be an exaggeration to say that WI won because they got lucky, I also think it is an exaggeration to say that WI won because they "handled the environment better."
My impression was that the environment diminished the the advantage in skill that MN has, and so (given the environment) you had two pretty evenly matched teams.

EDIT: point being, when you have evenly matched teams, the outcome can turn on very small occurrences.
 
Last edited:
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

The Badgers and Gophers have played 3 games this season on "normal" ice and the cumulative score of those games is 8-5 Gophers. Not a big enough gap to blame the ice for the 4th game's result, IMO.

I had a great time at Soldier field tonight. Outdoor hockey events are among my favorite and it was great to see the Minnesota fans go home crying about the ice. Hopefully Badger fans look at this series as a turning point and it springboards them onto a nice late season run.
 
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Brenthoven said:
We will have to agree to disagree. Normal variations occur (different ice sizes, indoor/outdoor, sure). IMO tonight's variables were so outrageous that it hindered both teams to the point of it hindering the actual sport it represented. I normally don't fly off the handle for this long, unless it's something I truly believe. That is the case tonight. :)
Click to expand...

Ah-oh...do realize what you just did? You wrote "VARIABLES" and I just got a woody. Variables are not outrageous unless proven to be disruptive within a valid quantitative research design Brent...in case they're just different. Sorry, and I assume there may be some on here rolling their eyes and ready to rip on me for being too wordy or whatever, but this is the only way to explain this accurately. There are covariates and confounds for D1 NCAA outdoor hockey that are not efficacious for the same group under different conditions indoors. In other words, both independent (IVs) and dependent (DVs) are fundamentally different, and the regression controls for covariates may involve a completely different multivariate equation (e.g. MANOVA). It is under these NEW quantitative and qualitative conditions that the game is EFFECTIVELY played. It's not wrong, just different. Ok, rip away.;)
 
Last edited:
Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

Re: SOLDIER FIELD 2013 • Wisconsin vs. Minnesota & Miami vs. Notre Dame

HarleyMC said:
Ah-oh...do realize what you just did? You wrote "VARIABLES" and I just got a woody. Variables are not outrageous unless proven to be disruptive within a valid quantitative research design Brent...in case they're just different. Sorry, and I assume there may be some on here rolling their eyes and ready to rip on me for being too wordy or whatever, but this is the only way to explain this accurately. There are covariates and confounds for D1 NCAA outdoor hockey that are not efficacious for the same group under different conditions indoors. In other words, both independent (IVs) and dependent (DVs) are fundamentally different, and the regression controls for covariates may involve a completely different multivariate equation (e.g. MANOVA). It is under these NEW quantitative and qualitative conditions that the game is EFFECTIVELY played. It's not wrong, just different. Ok, rip away.;)
Click to expand...
I appreciate your restraint, I really do :D

The difference is what I take umbrage with. This wasn't the same game as is played every other game of the year. And I don't like that teams that are built a certain way, trained a certain way, end up having a championship possibly jeopardized because they take the ice in a game that mitigates what they do so well in a typical environment. And I really HATE it when it is my team.

And just to reiterate, that in my humble opinion, what we saw today in no way resembles what we grew up playing at the park.


There is so much I could write about this topic. I'm trying to keep my criticisms as short and succinct as possible, and I realize I'm probably not doing the best job of that. I thought my analogy of the basketball game with the midgets and the 3ft baskets was pretty darn good, but apparently the point was missed by a few people.
The obvious retort to my complaints is that "well, MN should have just done more in their other conference games so that today wouldn't have been so important...not lose against Mankato either game, or sweep Tech..." and as a player or a coach, I think that's the right answer. But as an observer, fan, analyst...?

Lucia had a great quote a few years ago about the implementation of shoot-outs to determine winners in tie games, something to the effect of "when NCAA Tournament games are decided by shoot-outs, we should start using them in the regular season."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top