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.

Wednesday Women is back!!!!

Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

pgb-ohio said:
Very well put.


These comments are, of course, accurate. And they're certainly backed up by the scoring stats. But I was curious as to what the +/- numbers would look like, so I checked on the UND website. MLam is off the charts at +16; JLam has a very healthy +10. Jakobsen and Karvinen come in at +9. So at first glance, it's the same picture. But going just a little further, we see that UND has 6 forwards in positive territory, and most of the rest close to breaking even. The weakest number on the squad is -4. On D, 4 players are in positive territory. (Note I'm treating MLam as D in these counts.) Again, the very weakest number is a -4 on the year.

What does this mean? Well, the players on the lower part of the roster are carrying their weight for the most part; while the top half numbers are very strong. In a tight game when it's time to shorten the bench, you've got to like the players UND can put out on the ice. And perhaps more directly to the point, UND can put out two strong scoring lines when scoring is needed -- though maybe that means putting MLam up front in that situation. And the rest of time, at least UND isn't being hurt by a lack of depth. Anyhow, it's not as simple as just shutting down the Lams.

The Lammys? Is that nickname actually used by players and coaches?:) No harm in having a little fun, but I hadn't previously heard that one.:cool:


Comparative Results against Minnesota State:
North Dakota = 3 of 6 points at Home.
Wisconsin = 5 of 6 points at Mankato; 6 of 6 points at Home.
Ohio State = 5 of 6 points at Mankato.

Sorry if we aren't winning the beauty contest. But in comparison to our closest competition, I'd say we held serve at Mankato.
Click to expand...

Arlan and Candace continue to diss our Buckeyes. Whatever. As they say, haters gonna hate.
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

osualum86 said:
Arlan and Candace continue to diss our Buckeyes. Whatever. As they say, haters gonna hate.
Click to expand...
The second half will be an opportunity to prove the point...right off the bat in Madison. Of course RIT is first at hand and should be considered crucial to win those I'd think.
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

osualum86 said:
Arlan and Candace continue to diss our Buckeyes. Whatever. As they say, haters gonna hate.
Click to expand...
I detect no hatred. Though I suspect you're using a familiar catch phrase in a literary way, as opposed to a literal way.;)

Disrespect? Maybe a little. But I would describe it as skepticism more than anything else. Quite honestly the skepticism is understandable, given the stranglehold that the Big Three have had on the Women's WCHA. Note that UND is also facing a bit of the attitude that says: If you're not named UW, UMD or U of M, you can't be for real. That's one reason my original post included some words on UND's behalf.

Another issue is the inevitable tendency of media -- any media -- to focus on star players. UND does have star power. But be honest: Do we have any Patty Kaz candidates on our team this year? I'd be thrilled to be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it. This year's edition of the Buckeyes is all about team, scoring by committee, etc. That can be tough to latch onto as a journalist when you're somehow trying to cover the high points of every team in D-1 -- on a shoestring budget to boot.

Last, and perhaps most basically, all of us have only a limited opportunity to see teams other than our own. Arlan was at Ridder when the Buckeyes played the Gophers. Based on the boxscores, those were probably our weakest performances of the season. The two of us have seen all or most of the home schedule, and have had the opportunity to see a Buckeye team that's exceeding expectations night after night. One poor weekend on the road, against the consensus number one team, doesn't seem like a huge problem to us -- especially since we get another shot at the Gophers in February. But from Arlan's vantage point, that's likely his primary source of information on the current Buckeyes.

brookyone said:
The second half will be an opportunity to prove the point...right off the bat in Madison. Of course RIT is first at hand and should be considered crucial to win those I'd think.
Click to expand...
Agreed and Agreed.

And yet that there may be some inherent misunderstanding about just what "point" is at issue. From the perspective of the Big Three, any season that doesn't culminate in an NCAA bid is a failure. Given the track record, that's very understandable in Madison, Duluth and the Twin Cities. But the idea that we should have that attitude is almost laughable. Getting back into the regular season top four in the league after a multi-year absence would be an important accomplishment. Getting back to the Final Face-Off would be nice. Making some serious noise once there would be well appreciated. Given that this was "supposed" to be a rebuilding year, a first-ever NCAA bid would be the icing on the cake; not the one and only way to avoid the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Regardless of what happens in the upcoming UND/UW series, we will finish the first half of the season in 2nd or 3rd place. It has not been a fluke. We've earned our position in the top half and deserve the respect that goes with that, both within the league and nationally. The next challenge is to sustain that level of performance over the second half of the regular season. At this juncture, that's the point at issue. To date, we haven't established that we're a serious contender for the regular season title, and neither has UND or UW. It will be interesting to see if any of us can mount a charge in the second half. But even if not, home ice for the first round of playoffs would be a success, not a failure.
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

Attempting to read the latest women's main page column...now being taken to some heretofore unknown "WordPress" account login page. What's up with that? Anyone else?
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

Just because I'm a pedant . . . Cornell and BU have won the penultimate game of the season. BC, however, has not.
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

TonyTheTiger20 said:
ARM, ARM, ARM...

Isn't this just "everyone not named Minnesota"? Serious question.
Click to expand...
Not everyone; I don't see the layer being that inclusive. Is Northeastern in that layer, or did the Huskies just play a great Beanpot on home ice? We'll find out, but based on their pre-Beanpot resume, it is hard to lump the Huskies in with BC, Cornell, Harvard, Clarkson, North Dakota, etc., until they demonstrate that they can maintain this high level. BU seems to be a team that goes through stretches at varying levels every season, so they are tough for me to quantify as well.

BC is a great team. In many a year, it would be the favorite. The Eagles can still win it all. I just don't think they've necessarily separated themselves from the teams below them. That's all.
 
Re: Wednesday Women is back!!!!

I agree with ARM in the sense that the gap between BC at #2 and the #11 is smaller than it has been ever before. But at the same time, BC is still the clear #2. BC is still winning more games than it loses against the other top 10 teams, and that can't be said for anyone else in the top 10. Harvard is 5-3 vs. TUCs but 2-3 vs. the top 10. BU is 6-4-3 but 3-3-3 vs. the top 10. N. Dakota, Wisconisn, UMD are all .500 excluding Minnesota. BC is 10-4-1 but still 6-3-1 vs the top 10.
 
dave1381 said:
I agree with ARM in the sense that the gap between BC at #2 and the #11 is smaller than it has been ever before. But at the same time, BC is still the clear #2. BC is still winning more games than it loses against the other top 10 teams, and that can't be said for anyone else in the top 10. Harvard is 5-3 vs. TUCs but 2-3 vs. the top 10. BU is 6-4-3 but 3-3-3 vs. the top 10. N. Dakota, Wisconisn, UMD are all .500 excluding Minnesota. BC is 10-4-1 but still 6-3-1 vs the top 10.
Click to expand...
Preach, my brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top