WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

[montyminny]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Prediction: We will end up around 19-16 and miss the tournament again. We will go 2-8 against NoDak, UMinn, Mich, and Denver.

The way Minnesota and Denver played tonight, you guys will get more than 2 wins in the 10 games. Minnesota played with no heart tonight (as I viewed on tv) and last week Denver underacheived against Vermont and after beating Ohio State Thursday, lays an egg tonight.

 

[Scottyp]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

If it's any consolation for you, the "73" NC team lost their 1st game to CC also. Just saying it's a bit early to jump ship.

You have a bit more optimism than I do. Seriously, does any team dump and chase more than we do? Just once it would be nice to see a team that can routinely put up 4 or 5 goals a game, and have a few players among the point leaders. Watching them play the trap all night and then dump, chase and grind on offense is really boring.

So lets see, we don't make the tournament this year, Eaves gets fired just about the time Mark gets back from coaching the Olympics.... Hmmmm.

 

[umassfan49]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

What did you guys think of Brett Bennett tonight? I watched him a lot during his time at BU, and I never understood why people thought he was bad. BU fans even made creative nicknames for him like Captain Flopsalot, which I never noticed. He is the type of goalie who can certainly win a game for you, but I'm sure there will be times where you will miss Connelly.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

A few random thoughts...

Seems a bit early to draw conclusions about this team don't you think? At least wait until after tomorrow's game. Should have the complete picture by then...

I thought that we started great with lots of hitting and pretty good puck possession. That hit on Testewiede(sp?) was enormous. Problem was that CC didn't seem to back down and after the first period the hitting dropped off dramatically as did our dominance. Give CC credit, they weathered the storm.

They blocked an awful lot of shots too. A lot of very promising scoring chances never made it to the net. Maybe we need to make an extra pass tomorrow night.

Bennett looked okay, but not spectacular. Not saying he played bad, but didn't stand on his head either and his D rescued him by clearing pucks that got behind him at least two times that I can remember. Jury's still out.

Smith blocked a lot of shots, but didn't seem to factor in the offense as much as we'd like.

I'm not one who yells SHOOOOT whenever we're on the power play, but would have like to see a little more urgency on that last one. We had a two man advantage. Put the puck on net and crash, crash, crash!

Bottom line is that we outplayed them for parts of this game, but they never backed down and we just couldn't get that 3rd goal that we needed when the score was 2-0 or 2-1. I think that we'll see a better effort tomorrow.

PS Burish and Kane in attendence.

PPS The poster is awful. I'm a graphic designer by schooling and trade and that thing wouldn't even get a passing grade in one of the intro classes. Some yo-yo did that in about an hour. The tree behind the student section wasn't even erased. It has leaves! In February?

 

[Scottyp]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

The problem is that he can't use the CCHA card again. The fact that MSU and UMI came to the talks with an open mind says all that needs to be said about the CCHA as a desired location.

Maturi's bigger concern is if a 6th B10 team ever actually starts a program because it's clear that the other 5 B10 schools would seriously consider the move and that would force MN's hand. That is why he had to go to the talks, because he has to make sure that MSU and UMI stay in the "no" camp on the BTHC given that OSU is strongly in favor of it (as would be any other new B10 program) and that he can't count on UW's support going forward as long as BA remains the AD.

The biggest issue is that it's easier to accept for non-hockey fans finishing fourth in the conference behind other B10 schools then it is the many D-III, D-II, D-I FCS or D-I non-football schools that comprise ~2/3 of the CCHA and WCHA membership. Hockey is unique in many respects that it isn't dominated by a small cabal of ~80 major programs that control Football and Basketball. It seems Alvarez isn't able to grasp that it is this unique aspect of hockey that is what hockey fans love and what makes them so passionate about the sport. I see this as being very similar as to what the NHL did, the failed to recognize that made the game great and tried to go more mainstream, and this is a major reason they has so many programs in financial difficulty in places that they shouldn't have ever been placed. Trying to take NCAA hockey mainstream with so few teams will be equally as devastating on the sport's future, Maturi realizes this and Alvarez does not. It is up to Maturi to make sure that the AD's at MSU and UMI understand this and can express this to those who will actually make the final decision. [/soapbox]

Actually, I think I would come to the exact opposite conclusion: Alvarez actually sees the problems with College Hockey right now and wants to start addressing them while Maturi does not. The CCHA comment was a shot across the bow to wake him up. As premier programs, it is our responsibility to take a leadership role to address the major problems the sport faces now:

1.) No room to expand. All the leagues are full. It is foolish to imagine other programs will start up and be an independent for 5 years hoping 6 others will also start up a team so they could get in some sort of league. The CCHA's snubbing of UAH was their effort to keep at least one slot open, unfortunately at UAH's expense.

2.) Limited, if any, opportunities to expand revenue. Like it or not, this is a factor, especially in the big schools like B10. They literally have a money making machine in the B10 network and they can't touch it without more schools or some B10 conference affiliation.

3.) Limited ability to increase exposure. Sure holding the final four in Florida is a nice idea. See any SEC teams starting hockey programs?

4.) Lack of bargaining clout with the NHL. With the limited footprint, they will never be able to negotiate with NHL to give kids 2 or 3 years in college minimum before they sign professional contracts. That waters down the product, and in my opinion, is leading to a slow but sure decline in the sport.

Why doesn't Maturi see this? Alvarez's comment about jumping to the CCHA forces them to come to the table. Nobody thinks the 5 B10 schools would drop their CCHA/WCHA affiliation to form BTHC. What Alvarez wants is to ultimately get a lower number of conference games to allow more games outside conferences to start building interest and rivalries in different groupings to increase exposure and regional interest. For B10 schools, that means each team scheduling the other B10 schools (all games televised on B10 network) as part of their non conference games to crown a B10 champion. That will start getting Penn State more interested. How about UNO, St. Cloud, MSU-Mankato and UMD crown a champion corresponding to their football league? Or UND, Alaska schools and some Canadian schools start up a Border competition? You get exposure, rivalries, revenue, and some options when we truly get to the point when we HAVE to realign. Alvarez is right, Maturi is wrong.

 

[bigus]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I'm going to have to disagree on the bailing on the season, although I'd like to see the game again on replay to form a solid opinion. We outshot, outworked, and outchanced CC. I'm not sure what the numbers were but I think we outshot by a 33% margin or more and outchanced probably by the same margin. CC finished extremely well and we didn't. The two double-pipes didn't help. Bennett looked weak on the glove but was impressive to me puckhandling. The first two goals were defensive breakdowns. The same effort gets a convincing win tomorrow.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

You have a bit more optimism than I do. Seriously, does any team dump and chase more than we do? Just once it would be nice to see a team that can routinely put up 4 or 5 goals a game, and have a few players among the point leaders. Watching them play the trap all night and then dump, chase and grind on offense is really boring.

So lets see, we don't make the tournament this year, Eaves gets fired just about the time Mark gets back from coaching the Olympics.... Hmmmm.

oh yeah, here we go. I KNEW you had a dumbass agenda here.

A. Mark Johnson BS again? How many times can we iterate, and RE-ITERATE, he had as much to do with the decline of badger hockey in the last few years under Sauer AS Sauer did? For chrissakes his final season recruiting his lazy A (MJ that is) didn't even leave the state to meet with prospective recruits!!!!!! Well that works doesn't it. Just text kids, how bout that.

B. The Trap? For much of the game I felt surprised that I saw so much more individualism, and dare I say, creativity with passing than the last few years.

We obviously saw 2 Vastly different games. You sure you weren't watching Boston U?

 

[GoDanGo]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I'm going to have to disagree on the bailing on the season, although I'd like to see the game again on replay to form a solid opinion. We outshot, outworked, and outchanced CC. I'm not sure what the numbers were but I think we outshot by a 33% margin or more and outchanced probably by the same margin. CC finished extremely well and we didn't. The two double-pipes didn't help. Bennett looked weak on the glove but was impressive to me puckhandling. The first two goals were defensive breakdowns. The same effort gets a convincing win tomorrow.

I'm glad to see that at least a couple of people are taking a bit more of an optimistic view after last night. As much as I would've loved to see a win there, I don't think we played all that badly. I agree with everything here - we created many more chances for ourselves and controlled the flow of the game pretty well, we just need a little work on finishing those chances and getting the goals.

Keep in mind, we were the width of a crossbar away from a third goal on that shot that was reviewed a few minutes before the end of the game. A few other shots were very close and would've been only an inch or two away. Yes, we need to make sure we can improve on this and turn those into goals, but we were awfully close to the third goal more than once.

Thoughts on Bennett - I think overall, he played fairly well. At least one goal on him last night was a total defensive breakdown, where he was left hung out to dry. That said, Connelly used to give me heart attacks with playing the puck far out of the goal... and Bennett does it even more. I think he makes sure it's less risky than it looks, but there were a few times I thought for sure he'd get burned doing that. One advantage here - he's good at getting the puck back up the ice quickly when we're on the power play. There were one or two times where, had we been ready, we could've caught CC on a line change and had a real good chance at a goal. (The rest of the team, of course, needs to learn to be ready for that if he's going to do it often.)

Bottom line - disappointing that we couldn't pull out the win, but I think we played well. We made a few mistakes, but they're easier ones to fix - we had good control of the game overall. (Of course, I spent 2004-2008 watching a team that had under a 40% win percentage in a weak league, so I might be more patient than someone who saw a NC three seasons ago.)

 

[terrierhockey]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I'm glad to see that at least a couple of people are taking a bit more of an optimistic view after last night. As much as I would've loved to see a win there, I don't think we played all that badly. I agree with everything here - we created many more chances for ourselves and controlled the flow of the game pretty well, we just need a little work on finishing those chances and getting the goals.

Keep in mind, we were the width of a crossbar away from a third goal on that shot that was reviewed a few minutes before the end of the game. A few other shots were very close and would've been only an inch or two away. Yes, we need to make sure we can improve on this and turn those into goals, but we were awfully close to the third goal more than once.

Thoughts on Bennett - I think overall, he played fairly well. At least one goal on him last night was a total defensive breakdown, where he was left hung out to dry. That said, Connelly used to give me heart attacks with playing the puck far out of the goal... and Bennett does it even more. I think he makes sure it's less risky than it looks, but there were a few times I thought for sure he'd get burned doing that. One advantage here - he's good at getting the puck back up the ice quickly when we're on the power play. There were one or two times where, had we been ready, we could've caught CC on a line change and had a real good chance at a goal. (The rest of the team, of course, needs to learn to be ready for that if he's going to do it often.)

Bottom line - disappointing that we couldn't pull out the win, but I think we played well. We made a few mistakes, but they're easier ones to fix - we had good control of the game overall. (Of course, I spent 2004-2008 watching a team that had under a 40% win percentage in a weak league, so I might be more patient than someone who saw a NC three seasons ago.)

It's interesting to hear you say that Bennett looked quite comfortable handling the puck outside of goal. This was one facet of his game that he couldn't harness during the last third of his season at BU (particularly his last 5-6 games in a BU sweater). Sure it seems like a long time ago, but it sounds like he's improved, and good for him. Still very early to make evaluations, of course...will he be starting in goal going forward?

 

[Almington]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Actually, I think I would come to the exact opposite conclusion: Alvarez actually sees the problems with College Hockey right now and wants to start addressing them while Maturi does not. The CCHA comment was a shot across the bow to wake him up. As premier programs, it is our responsibility to take a leadership role to address the major problems the sport faces now:

1.) No room to expand. All the leagues are full. It is foolish to imagine other programs will start up and be an independent for 5 years hoping 6 others will also start up a team so they could get in some sort of league. The CCHA's snubbing of UAH was their effort to keep at least one slot open, unfortunately at UAH's expense.

2.) Limited, if any, opportunities to expand revenue. Like it or not, this is a factor, especially in the big schools like B10. They literally have a money making machine in the B10 network and they can't touch it without more schools or some B10 conference affiliation.

3.) Limited ability to increase exposure. Sure holding the final four in Florida is a nice idea. See any SEC teams starting hockey programs?

4.) Lack of bargaining clout with the NHL. With the limited footprint, they will never be able to negotiate with NHL to give kids 2 or 3 years in college minimum before they sign professional contracts. That waters down the product, and in my opinion, is leading to a slow but sure decline in the sport.

Why doesn't Maturi see this? Alvarez's comment about jumping to the CCHA forces them to come to the table. Nobody thinks the 5 B10 schools would drop their CCHA/WCHA affiliation to form BTHC. What Alvarez wants is to ultimately get a lower number of conference games to allow more games outside conferences to start building interest and rivalries in different groupings to increase exposure and regional interest. For B10 schools, that means each team scheduling the other B10 schools (all games televised on B10 network) as part of their non conference games to crown a B10 champion. That will start getting Penn State more interested. How about UNO, St. Cloud, MSU-Mankato and UMD crown a champion corresponding to their football league? Or UND, Alaska schools and some Canadian schools start up a Border competition? You get exposure, rivalries, revenue, and some options when we truly get to the point when we HAVE to realign. Alvarez is right, Maturi is wrong.

I fail to see any of these a problems with college hockey that any move towards a BTHC would help fix in any way.

1.) The fact of the matter is that even when their was room for expansion, teams were not busting down the door to get into the CHA, why would they bust down the door to try to get into a WCHA or CCHA that lacks the name recognition of the B10 schools? Worrying about expansion is the least of your problems when you can't even keep the teams that you do have?

2.) What is to stop the BTN from putting more games from the B10 schools on even when they are not playing other B10 schools, I don't see the BTN having a problem showing NC football and basketball games. The problem is that the only way to grow hockey based revenue is by growing the fan base so that advertising dollars grow. If the money was their to show games on the BTN they would be, period.

3.) Shrinking the number of teams isn't going to increase exposure it is going to DECREASE exposure by decreasing the number of hockey fans, thus their will be even less of a reason to show any college hockey games on TV.

4.) The NCAA will never have any bargaining clout with the NHL, period. Any push to have players be required to stay in school for 3 years would drive all the top talented players to MJ. No way that a 1st or 2nd round (or potential 1st or 2nd) round pick would even consider the NCAA route if they know that they would have to stay for 2 or 3 years.

The fact remains that moving towards fewer conference games help inter-conference rivalries grow, but what it will do is hurt existing intra-conference rivalries. I fail to see how you in any way grow the game by marginalizing 18 programs (~1/3 of all teams) the overnight. Hockey is a regional sport, the NHL failed to realize this and they have a PR and financial disaster on their hands in PHX, and attendance in multiple sunbelt teams that is less than what some college hockey teams draw. You can't treat hockey like you do other nationwide sports such as football and basketball, it's a poor business chaoince and will only hurt the overall health of the game. As it is the the program attrition that has dropped the sport to under 60 total programs, a 16 team NCAA tournament is in jeopardy if more programs as lost.

 

[Scottyp]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Let me try to address your points one at a time. I think we are talking past each other a bit....

I fail to see any of these a problems with college hockey that any move towards a BTHC would help fix in any way.

1.) The fact of the matter is that even when their was room for expansion, teams were not busting down the door to get into the CHA, why would they bust down the door to try to get into a WCHA or CCHA that lacks the name recognition of the B10 schools? Worrying about expansion is the least of your problems when you can't even keep the teams that you do have?

First of all, do you honestly think a school like Penn State would start a program to join what was the CHA? They would not start a program unless they could join a conference like CCHA or WCHA. Their AD was, I believe, quoted saying this. Secondly, I am suggesting that WI and MN would belong to BOTH the WCHA and the BTHC. We would not leave the WCHA. We would reduce the number of conference games to 22. Then, we would use the extra six to schedule series with MI, MSU, and OSU. One of our series with MN would count towards the BTHC standings. THAT is something that Penn State would be interested in joining.

2.) What is to stop the BTN from putting more games from the B10 schools on even when they are not playing other B10 schools, I don't see the BTN having a problem showing NC football and basketball games. The problem is that the only way to grow hockey based revenue is by growing the fan base so that advertising dollars grow. If the money was their to show games on the BTN they would be, period.

Fair points and basically I agree with your comments here. But, BTN isn't necessarily shown in Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota or Alaska, so putting those conference games on BTN isn't a moneymaker. It may also negatively impact schools with their own broadcasting deals like Denver and CC. As for growing the fan base, if the goal is to grow it to bring in other B10 schools, the B10 network is the place to start. The most lucrative markets to grow in are: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. Colorado is up there too, but that should be Denver and CC's job.

3.) Shrinking the number of teams isn't going to increase exposure it is going to DECREASE exposure by decreasing the number of hockey fans, thus their will be even less of a reason to show any college hockey games on TV.

I totally disagree that what is being proposed would shrink the number of teams. While decreasing conference games may be a negative for some, they can't go on forever being dependant on a few B10 programs. They need to be weaned.

4.) The NCAA will never have any bargaining clout with the NHL, period. Any push to have players be required to stay in school for 3 years would drive all the top talented players to MJ. No way that a 1st or 2nd round (or potential 1st or 2nd) round pick would even consider the NCAA route if they know that they would have to stay for 2 or 3 years.

I disagree with this too. I believe the NFL and NBA have some sort of "gentlemens agreement" with the NCAA with regard to underclassmen going pro. Now I do agree hockey is different due to MJ. NCAA would probably have to put some more on the table to make this work, but it could. As for those kids who wouldn't come to NCAA if there were a 2 year agreement, well, they never used to come. Which way are we better off? Having 1/2 of top recruits go pro after one year, or focusing your effort on those kids that want to stay 2 or 3 years at least? That would be an interesting debate for another thread.

The fact remains that moving towards fewer conference games help inter-conference rivalries grow, but what it will do is hurt existing intra-conference rivalries. I fail to see how you in any way grow the game by marginalizing 18 programs (~1/3 of all teams) the overnight. Hockey is a regional sport, the NHL failed to realize this and they have a PR and financial disaster on their hands in PHX, and attendance in multiple sunbelt teams that is less than what some college hockey teams draw. You can't treat hockey like you do other nationwide sports such as football and basketball, it's a poor business chaoince and will only hurt the overall health of the game. As it is the the program attrition that has dropped the sport to under 60 total programs, a 16 team NCAA tournament is in jeopardy if more programs as lost.[/QUOTE]

I think we both agree hockey has some problems. The solutions are not simple and I agree can be somewhat risky. But doing nothing is riskier. What will we do when 1/2 of the CCHA folds in 5 years? There are all sorts of rumors that a number of programs are in trouble now. Better to deal with it proactively and in a way which targets growth than to be in a situation where UMD, Mich Tech and St. Cloud have to switch to CCHA just to keep it a viable conference.

 

[CCtig]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Let me try to address your points one at a time. I think we are talking past each other a bit....

I fail to see any of these a problems with college hockey that any move towards a BTHC would help fix in any way.

1.) The fact of the matter is that even when their was room for expansion, teams were not busting down the door to get into the CHA, why would they bust down the door to try to get into a WCHA or CCHA that lacks the name recognition of the B10 schools? Worrying about expansion is the least of your problems when you can't even keep the teams that you do have?

First of all, do you honestly think a school like Penn State would start a program to join what was the CHA? They would not start a program unless they could join a conference like CCHA or WCHA. Their AD was, I believe, quoted saying this. Secondly, I am suggesting that WI and MN would belong to BOTH the WCHA and the BTHC. We would not leave the WCHA. We would reduce the number of conference games to 22. Then, we would use the extra six to schedule series with MI, MSU, and OSU. One of our series with MN would count towards the BTHC standings. THAT is something that Penn State would be interested in joining.

2.) What is to stop the BTN from putting more games from the B10 schools on even when they are not playing other B10 schools, I don't see the BTN having a problem showing NC football and basketball games. The problem is that the only way to grow hockey based revenue is by growing the fan base so that advertising dollars grow. If the money was their to show games on the BTN they would be, period.

Fair points and basically I agree with your comments here. But, BTN isn't necessarily shown in Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota or Alaska, so putting those conference games on BTN isn't a moneymaker. It may also negatively impact schools with their own broadcasting deals like Denver and CC. As for growing the fan base, if the goal is to grow it to bring in other B10 schools, the B10 network is the place to start. The most lucrative markets to grow in are: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa. Colorado is up there too, but that should be Denver and CC's job.

3.) Shrinking the number of teams isn't going to increase exposure it is going to DECREASE exposure by decreasing the number of hockey fans, thus their will be even less of a reason to show any college hockey games on TV.

I totally disagree that what is being proposed would shrink the number of teams. While decreasing conference games may be a negative for some, they can't go on forever being dependant on a few B10 programs. They need to be weaned.

4.) The NCAA will never have any bargaining clout with the NHL, period. Any push to have players be required to stay in school for 3 years would drive all the top talented players to MJ. No way that a 1st or 2nd round (or potential 1st or 2nd) round pick would even consider the NCAA route if they know that they would have to stay for 2 or 3 years.

I disagree with this too. I believe the NFL and NBA have some sort of "gentlemens agreement" with the NCAA with regard to underclassmen going pro. Now I do agree hockey is different due to MJ. NCAA would probably have to put some more on the table to make this work, but it could. As for those kids who wouldn't come to NCAA if there were a 2 year agreement, well, they never used to come. Which way are we better off? Having 1/2 of top recruits go pro after one year, or focusing your effort on those kids that want to stay 2 or 3 years at least? That would be an interesting debate for another thread.

The fact remains that moving towards fewer conference games help inter-conference rivalries grow, but what it will do is hurt existing intra-conference rivalries. I fail to see how you in any way grow the game by marginalizing 18 programs (~1/3 of all teams) the overnight. Hockey is a regional sport, the NHL failed to realize this and they have a PR and financial disaster on their hands in PHX, and attendance in multiple sunbelt teams that is less than what some college hockey teams draw. You can't treat hockey like you do other nationwide sports such as football and basketball, it's a poor business chaoince and will only hurt the overall health of the game. As it is the the program attrition that has dropped the sport to under 60 total programs, a 16 team NCAA tournament is in jeopardy if more programs as lost.

I think we both agree hockey has some problems. The solutions are not simple and I agree can be somewhat risky. But doing nothing is riskier. What will we do when 1/2 of the CCHA folds in 5 years? There are all sorts of rumors that a number of programs are in trouble now. Better to deal with it proactively and in a way which targets growth than to be in a situation where UMD, Mich Tech and St. Cloud have to switch to CCHA just to keep it a viable conference.[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile your team just lost 3 of 4 points (playing at home).

 

[drury192]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Went to Saturday's game. Same things happened as last year, couldnt put the puck in the net, and they looked pretty flat to me... I hope this is just an early season thing - because the Badgers looked very Average to me and I'm very sick of Average.

 

[Fired]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

What does everybody think of Eaves benching what could have been two different playmakers ? Davies again, and Brendan Smith ? Smith most likely because he looked like goat last night, but the continuation of Davies for the entire weekend has me to believe the coach doesn't like things he has seen from him in practice, or Davies made some sort of egregious error that he somehow had to pay for, sitting the entire weekend.

I know a lot of Badger fans are tired of Brendan Smith's lack of defense in his own end, but he came in as one of the most highly touted freshman in his class. How much longer do we wait for him to turn it around ? Or does risking an offensive conversion count-balance his apparent shortcomings on defense ? I would say at this point, that if the rest of the team were able to CAPITALIZE and put away the scoring chances he creates, there would be more acceptance for his gaffes on defense.

From what I saw this weekend, we really need to learn how to take chances into conversions. To be able to do what CC did, at least on Friday, and capitalize on those few chances the other team allows, is something I think so far lacks in this team. Yeah, it was the first series of the year, so I'm not being too down about it. But I hope this team is able to turn it around, and if they can bury those chances, they could make a bit of noise this year.

 

[bigus]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Despite the nominally better result, tonight's effort worried me more than last night's. Friday's effort wins most games; tonight's doesn't. We need a better effort all around and better discipline to keep us out of the box. Sitting next to a couple of big time Mark Johnson shills reminded me that 1) I'm watching Eaves this year and I expect better efforts and better results to continue my support and 2) regardless of the outcome, Johnson isn't the answer. Not every bad decision by a player is Eaves' fault. But this weekend's result is unacceptable.

 

[The Hallucination]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Mixed feelings on the weekend for me. Friday showed good initial effort and then with a couple of defensive breakdowns and a lack of finishing/hitting pipes they ended up losing. Then they looked a little more tired and less put together last night, only managing a tie. Overall, I expected more than one point out of this weekend; it may be the first two games this team has played, but it's still a home conference series and you still need to get some more points out of it.

Nonetheless, I think we saw some talent and some bright spots. Both the goaltenders looked fine; Bennett does handle the puck nicely though he made me a little nervous once or twice there, and Goody was solid on Saturday. Our freshman really don't look that freshman-like; I was extremely impressed with the two freshmen D as there was not nearly the number of errors I might have expected given just that freshmen D tend to be scary.

They've got to start putting together some wins, though, and soon; I have higher expectations for this team than the one-point weekend we ultimately got.

 

[uwbadgers14]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

Mixed feelings on the weekend for me. Friday showed good initial effort and then with a couple of defensive breakdowns and a lack of finishing/hitting pipes they ended up losing. Then they looked a little more tired and less put together last night, only managing a tie. Overall, I expected more than one point out of this weekend; it may be the first two games this team has played, but it's still a home conference series and you still need to get some more points out of it.

Nonetheless, I think we saw some talent and some bright spots. Both the goaltenders looked fine; Bennett does handle the puck nicely though he made me a little nervous once or twice there, and Goody was solid on Saturday. Our freshman really don't look that freshman-like; I was extremely impressed with the two freshmen D as there was not nearly the number of errors I might have expected given just that freshmen D tend to be scary.

They've got to start putting together some wins, though, and soon; I have higher expectations for this team than the one-point weekend we ultimately got.

1 word, RUSTY...

had UW played 2 games like CC had i think the results would have been different, Lucky to get a tie on saturday without Smith, Geoffrion and Davies in the lineup.

I thought Podge Turnbull played very well all weekend. Looks like Goody played the best out of the weekend although bennett never really got tested like goody so its difficult to compare.

Our Defense is going to be unreal this year...

 

[GoDanGo]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

I should clarify that my earlier post, expressing some optimism and good feelings about Friday's outcome, was made before Saturday's game. While I still think we can fix the mistakes and that we have a good team overall, Saturday made it look like that'll be a bit tougher. Simply put, we played sloppy hockey - lots of missed passes, a few shots that went nowhere, etc. Seemed like the team just wasn't trying too hard. It may be that we're just a little rusty coming out of the summer, but we have to break out of that awfully fast here.

One bright spot - the freshmen on the team seem do like they're adjusting quickly. (I know I'm not the first one to say this, but I agree with what's been said.) On both Friday and Saturday, the only way I could tell them apart from the upperclassmen was by the names and numbers on the jerseys - nothing made it look like the new guys were playing hesitantly or making "new-guy" sorts of mistakes. That's encouraging.

It's interesting to hear you say that Bennett looked quite comfortable handling the puck outside of goal. This was one facet of his game that he couldn't harness during the last third of his season at BU (particularly his last 5-6 games in a BU sweater). Sure it seems like a long time ago, but it sounds like he's improved, and good for him. Still very early to make evaluations, of course...will he be starting in goal going forward?

Seems to me like he's doing pretty well with that - must've been some improvement in his year in the USHL. I believe he and Gudmandson are alternating for the beginning of the season (Gudmandson played Saturday this weekend), although others here probably know that situation better than I do.

 

[uwbadgers14]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

What does everybody think of Eaves benching what could have been two different playmakers ? Davies again, and Brendan Smith ? Smith most likely because he looked like goat last night, but the continuation of Davies for the entire weekend has me to believe the coach doesn't like things he has seen from him in practice, or Davies made some sort of egregious error that he somehow had to pay for, sitting the entire weekend.

I know a lot of Badger fans are tired of Brendan Smith's lack of defense in his own end, but he came in as one of the most highly touted freshman in his class. How much longer do we wait for him to turn it around ? Or does risking an offensive conversion count-balance his apparent shortcomings on defense ? I would say at this point, that if the rest of the team were able to CAPITALIZE and put away the scoring chances he creates, there would be more acceptance for his gaffes on defense.

From what I saw this weekend, we really need to learn how to take chances into conversions. To be able to do what CC did, at least on Friday, and capitalize on those few chances the other team allows, is something I think so far lacks in this team. Yeah, it was the first series of the year, so I'm not being too down about it. But I hope this team is able to turn it around, and if they can bury those chances, they could make a bit of noise this year.

I will contribute Brendan Smiths benching partly to him not being paired of up with Craig Johnson, A stay at home d-man who knows the system and knows Smiths Tendency's... instead of a freshman in Rammage who even though played well, cannot be as familiar with Smith as Johnson is.
As far as davies out all weekend, i would have liked to see him play at least saturday, you want to talk about how long is it going to take a player to grasp the idea, i think you have to look at davies more in that light then smith. He is a senior and this has happened to him in every season he has been here. I would like to see both him and Turnbull in the lineup on a nightly basis because I thought Podge Turnbull was at times the best UW player on the ice. There was def. not a lack of effort from him but i think our rusty power play could have used Mike Davies this weekend to get more then a point...

 

[uwbadgers14]

Re: WISCONSIN HOCKEY 09-10 - Climbing The Mountain (7th Edition?)

By looking at the Wild schedule, looks like FS Wisconsin will be carrying a fair amount of Wild Games, counted 18 in all so they are at least getting hockey, just not much badger hockey!!!, wonder if they are still doing every bucks game this winter, that would suck. I also noticed instead of doing the badger game on saturday they showed big 12 Football, KU vs UC.. i'm sure wisconsin people just ate it up....