4/7/2022 – Denver 3, Michigan 2 (OT) – 31-10-1, Season Over 

They call the sort of overtime that is played in the NCAA Hockey Tournament "sudden death". The moniker makes logical sense- when a goal is scored, the game is suddenly over and the team that loses has died the "sudden death". That is the sort of death that the 2021-22 Michigan Hockey team suffered at the Frozen Four in Boston, losing on a Carter Savoie overtime "sudden death" winner against Denver. It came suddenly indeed, on a play that started as a mistake, with two Wolverines overskating a loose puck waiting to be cleared from the zone, before the Pioneers seized it and quickly turned it into a dangerous pass and then a goal. It was a quick departure from an overtime period that Michigan had largely controlled play in, and that's where the sudden nature is valid. 

But at the same time, the death that this hockey team died was not completely sudden. In some ways, it was slow. The slow death march of sorts began when the team took the ice for the opening puck drop and were completely devoid of energy. Throughout the first period, one could have said Michigan was as flat as the Iowa landscape. They were outplayed by Denver handily in the opening frame and though they had better second and third periods, Michigan was the lesser team in the entire sixty minutes of regulation. They amassed far fewer shots on net and scoring opportunities than Denver, using the magic of Erik Portillo and a pair of fortunate bounces to keep the game even and push it to the extra session. 

That sensation of never leading, frequently being on their heels, and struggling to keep up made it feel like Michigan was dying a slow death. Outside of two good looks in the overtime period, there were few moments where the fan pulse indicated that the Maize & Blue were going to actually come out of the game victorious. As the seconds rolled away, it merely felt like we were getting closer to finding out when the true moment of death would be. The Savoie overtime goal was just the final blow that sealed the slow death known as a lackluster performance in the biggest game of the season. From that view, it wasn't so sudden, but rather the final punctuation that made your author think "yeah, that seems right". 

[David Wilcomes]

Moreover, one, particularly someone with a longer sense of fandom for Michigan Hockey, may be able to argue that the slow death began when Michigan got to overtime in the first place, because NCAA Tournament overtimes have been downright disastrous for the Wolverines over the past two decades. Especially those taking place in the Regional Final or later. Starting with the 2003 season, Michigan is 0-6 in overtime games taking place in that round of the tournament or lataer. They also lost a game to Notre Dame in the Frozen Four in 2018 in the dwindling seconds of regulation, which at that point is essentially overtime, and were also stunningly upset in the first round of the 2010 tournament in overtime by Cornell. The only redeeming moments in that span are a pair of OT wins in the first round in 2011 and 2016. 

Getting to overtime in a round like the Frozen Four meant that to the most snakebitten of fans, the slow death began at that moment. We were doomed the moment the puck dropped on the extra session and the only sudden element of the death was the goal that put us out of our misery. Perhaps this was a particularly cynical view, but for the diehard Michigan Hockey fans, this was a mindset inhabited the moment overtime began. 

That is the nature of a loss with so many doom-related factors: a poor showing in regulation casting an ominous sense of failure, only to be tossed the dual-sided bone of hope and also hopelessness called overtime. The slow death began when we saw the performance the team put on in regulation, then continued when we started to realize the only way for *Michigan* to win the game was *overtime in a Frozen Four*, before a quick mirage of aspiration when Luke Hughes rushed down the ice on a 2 on 1, followed by the dashing of said mirage when the puck wound up in the chest of Magnus Chrona, and finally brought home by the Savoie goal. At that moment, as Erik Portillo stared down into the ice while experiencing the agony of defeat, it was full circle. The slow and sudden nature of this cruel death had converged, and the season was over. The torture of the Frozen Four, and overtime in that round, lives on. 

[AFTER THE JUMP: Making peace with the end] 

-----

[David Wilcomes]

In nine or so months working full-time for MGoBlog, I've had to write eulogies of sorts for teams a few times. For football and women's basketball, they were straight forward narratives: exceptionally successful seasons that portend happy days for the future and are performances to be proud of, but also endings that highlighted the large talent gaps between Michigan and the top notch programs in those respective sports. For men's basketball it was also rather tidy, a story of a wildly inconsistent team that was good enough to shock Tennessee and make the Sweet 16, but was never, for a single second during the whole season, good enough to pull off a second upset and actually make a run. 

Hockey is a different sort of tale, in part because (as I have discussed before) the NCAA Hockey Tournament doesn't do much in the way of crowning a "best team". It pits excellent teams against each other, and then you flip a coin to find out who wins. Is the team who wins the coin toss the better team? Sometimes! But it's very hard to know from just one hockey game. If this were an NHL series, the Frozen Four game we just witnessed would merely have been game one, the "feel each other out" game one. I'd expect in a hypothetical game two we'd see Michigan adjust its strategy to devote more to the rush offense to exploit the speed advantage, and to pick up the urgency level. We'd also probably see several games over the course of a seven game series where Michigan would get to go on the power play.  

But that's not what happens in the NCAA Hockey Tournament. We get one look at two teams and that's it. There is no point in the AHL, ECHL, NHL, CHL, or KHL seasons where coaches are responsible for making a one-game game plan, with no previous head-to-head games to work off of, that will determine the entire season. David Nasternak and I were talking about the game on Thursday night and were discussing if Michigan had the wrong game plan and I said "maybe", but also that this isn't how hockey works in any other context. We can put Ryan Day through the wringer for the poor game plan that Ohio State showed up to The Game with in November 2021, because that's how football works. It's always just a single game and you only get one crack at it.

[David Wilcomes]

Hockey is the opposite in all other leagues of note, with international tournaments being the only parallel of sorts. The greatness of the playoffs in the leagues I mentioned in the preceding paragraphs is that each seven game series is an episodic battle. Each game is its own story, but yet they all sum up to one grand narrative about the two teams. Last season the Colorado Avalanche bombed the Vegas Golden Knights in game one of their marquee second round series and much of the hockey world felt Vegas held no shot. Then the adjustments came into play, and the suspension to Nazem Kadri, and the Knights were able to better counter Colorado's top offensive guns. Because of that, they stormed back from 2-0 down to win the series. Similar tale with Montreal coming from 3-1 down to beat Toronto in seven last playoffs. That happens all the time and it's how hockey is always played out in a league. Except for the NCAA Tournament. 

When one team beats another in a seven game series, we can say with confidence that X team was better than Y team. And even if that is still murky, we can conclude that X team won because of Z reason (often a goalie). A seven game series is enough evidence to begin to build definitive takeaways about it all. But just one game? I'm not sure we can say much of anything, save for specific observations about the game. Denver played more confident than Michigan, and pushed the Wolverines out of their comfort zone. The Pioneers defended the slot better than Michigan did and pushed play to the perimeter in a more effective manner. Does that mean Denver was better defensively? I wouldn't go that far. They very well may have been! But one game is not enough evidence to say something that sweeping. 

What we can say is that Denver deserved to win. They had a better effort from start to finish, had a more effective plan of how to neuter the opposition, and executed it better. But were they the better team overall? I'm not so sure, especially when, in this one volatile game, we didn't get to see both teams on the power play, something that's pretty uncommon in a sport where the natural instinct is to "balance" power play opportunities. Denver played two good hockey games to beat two great teams in Boston and deserved to win the national title, but also because of the nature of this tournament, it's hard to speak in a conclusive manner. 

----

For the same reasons as why it's hard to talk about where Denver is definitely better than Michigan based on one game, it's also difficult to build the narrative needed to write a proper eulogy. One could say that Michigan's losses often had poor defensive performances and that was the weak spot that coaching should be held accountable for. But that was only so true about the Denver loss. You could make the case that Michigan struggled when facing teams that took away the center of the ice well and forced them to play off the cycle, as Denver did (and Notre Dame does), and their continued struggles with that for the second straight year is an indictment of Mel Pearson.

But on the flip side, it would be pretty easy to make the case that Michigan appeared to neuter their own rush offense out of the effort to prevent odd-man rushes against. In other words, the game may have just been a game-plan gamble that didn't pay off, trading a focus on stamping out rush chances against for an approach that sacrificed too much offense. You could point to the vanishing act by Michigan's vaunted top line of Brendan Brisson, Matty Beniers, and Kent Johnson, but on the other hand, they were dominant just two weeks prior in the regional. One game is just not enough evidence, especially when it is decided by one goal. 

That's what is so messy about wrapping up a season like the one Michigan Hockey just experienced. A great team that had some frustrating losses, its share of mighty triumphs, and then met its coin-flip-induced doom thanks to a stylistic tweak that didn't pay dividends and an uncharacteristically poor night from its star forwards. It doesn't create a neat and tidy story, and it certainly isn't the material for a future screenplay of a sports movie. The sky high expectations for this team weren't completely met, but many of the goals were fulfilled. 

[David Wilcomes]

Despite the historic talent (based on draft position), we can't sit here and say that this team coming up short means a national championship will never happen for Michigan Hockey again. If anything, I think it shows that if the current regime stays in place moving forward, that the odds of it eventually happening are decent. In a highly random, chance-based exercise like this tournament, the best way to win a national title is to consistently run top five to eight teams out there and hope one year the coin flips your way. Michigan's chances of winning the Frozen Four game this year, with this crazy roster, were 62%. Their chance of winning the Frozen Four game in 2018, with that hodgepodge roster of some Mel guys, some Red hold-overs, and not all that much NHL talent, was 35.7%. That's a gap, but not as big of one as the rosters would suggest... and both were decided by one goal in sudden death-like situations. 

If you run out a stacked roster and it doesn't happen for you in a tournament like the Stanley Cup playoffs, then that feels like the day will never come. If you run out a stacked roster and it doesn't happen for you in the NCAA Hockey Tournament, then it feels like you had an off night and the marginally tilted dice didn't quite roll your way. That's what happened in this tournament and it's what happened to this team. Denver won the strategy and execution battle on Thursday night and that's all that was necessary to win the "series". Brutal for the players, but they chose to play college hockey with its deeply cruel playoff system. And so it goes. 

The best Michigan can do is to keep building good rosters and to keep rolling the dice. They may never have a roster with this many first rounders again, but programs like Denver show that there's a pretty sustainable model of balancing NHL draft picks from across the different rounds in order to compete year after year. Michigan was the 8th overall seed in last year's NCAA Tournament and the 1st overall seed this year. Just keep doing that each season for five more seasons, and maybe it'll happen. Or maybe it won't. Perhaps that's why it's necessary to find satisfaction in clearing the smaller hurdles along the way (like say, going 9-1 combined against Michigan State and Ohio State... or winning the B1G Tournament... or making the Frozen Four). 

----

[David Wilcomes]

HockeyBullets

One last thank you to the program guys. The Michigan roster is going to have a considerable amount of turnover and some of that will consist of names who have been mainstays at Michigan over the past four or five seasons, including Garrett Van Wyhe, Nolan Moyle, Luke Morgan, Jimmy Lambert, and Michael Pastujov on offense. I imagine one of Lambert/GVW/Moyle could be back on a COVID-shirt, but Morgan and Pastujov are out of options.

This group was not the flashiest, lacking the big time talent of much of this roster, but they had a lot of heart and hustle, helping drag Michigan to mediocrity in 2018-19 and 2019-20, and then accenting the more skilled players the last two seasons. Pastujov's 11-15-26 line in 42 games this year was quietly very good when combined with his defensive contributions from the wing, while the fourth line came up big in scoring Michigan's opening goal in all three tournament games. They should all be applauded for their service to the program. 

[David Wilcomes]

A bit about those stylistic/coaching decisions. We came into the Denver game expecting a run-and-gun firewagon contest but got something that was very much not that. What went wrong in our expectations? On Denver's end, the Pioneers were quite capable of playing a structured game, displaying that in the Regional Final against Duluth. I don't think that was a surprise. What was a surprise was the manner in which Michigan altered their approach to go away from what they did most of the year to prevent rush chances against. 

Michigan got 21 total shots on net in nearly 75 minutes of hockey, which is very different than the rest of the season and until overtime, shot attempts were down considerably as well. The Wolverines opted for a possession-and-control based style over a shoot-and-retrieve one and the implications are obvious: when you shoot and retrieve, you run the risk of a rebound kicking out in a way that creates a rush against. I warned about the passing of Denver's defensemen to set up rush chances in the preview, and that seemed to factor into Michigan's thought process.

The problem I have with this approach is that while the Wolverines did well to limit odd-man rushes against, they also didn't generate many of their own in regulation whatsoever, and they also didn't take many shots on net. It's pretty hard to win a hockey game when you're not shooting much and not getting any rush offense! Moreover, if you take away rush offense, then you're asking the team to produce off the cycle, something Michigan has rarely done well with when they go up against teams who know how to take away the center of the ice. The Pioneers did their best Notre Dame impression in that regard and so Michigan seemed to sacrifice their offense in the name of being more responsible defensively.

Not just was that the gamble that didn't pay off that I spoke about in the narrative section, but it was also an example of a team going away from its identity when everything is on the line, which I hate. It's like asking a side-arm pitcher to stop throwing side-arm because the batter at the plate hits side-armers well. You don't do that. Live or die with who you are, don't try and cosplay as a team or player you're not when the season is on the line. Make adjustments within the mold, but it felt like halfway through the game, with the offense being bottled up, Pearson should've told the team to pinch a little harder at the points, and try to skate out in transition more to coax Denver into playing Michigan's game. Michigan played Denver's game too much, and it cost them their season. 

[David Wilcomes]

Denver came ready to play. On the other hand, give Denver credit for being able to dictate the game. Michigan had 57 shot attempts at even strength, and only 21 found their way on net. Some of that was shot blocking (15 were blocked), but it was also the result of forcing the Wolverines to the outside and making them take tough shots that had low percentages (21 missed the net entirely). Michigan had 57 shot attempts, but just 15 were from the spot between the faceoff dots and below. That's a masterful defensive performance, and they were able to do it while still pressuring on the forecheck and creating chances for themselves offensively. David Carle can coach, gang. 

For all the talk of Denver as this great offensive team, they won the national title by allowing 2 goals, 1 goal, 2 goals, and 1 goal in the four tournament games they played. The latter two efforts came against two of the three best offensive teams in the nation in Michigan and Minnesota State. This Denver team was well prepared and well coached, and Carle deserves plenty of credit for that feat. Their mix of experience and talent pushed them over the finish line and they were a worthy national champion. Welcome to the nine titles club, Pioneers. 

The NHL decisions begin. Kent Johnson, Owen Power, and Matty Beniers have all signed their NHL deals, as expected. Nick Blankenburg scored an NHL deal with Columbus, which I was a tiny bit surprised by but am very happy about. Erik Portillo is returning to school, which is massive, while it sounds like Johnny Beecher may be on his way out the door. Expect Brendan Brisson to sign, and probably Thomas Bordeleau. Luke Hughes is expected to return. I don't foresee any other names leaving for the NHL beyond the ones just mentioned, but you never know. 

A most fascinating offseason. Beyond the NHL decisions, we still have questions about the roster makeup and the transfer portal. How many guys will bail? Michigan has a huge recruiting class signed, and there's a big gray area in hashing out NHL decisions, in addition to supplanting pieces that head to the portal. Oh, and that investigation is still going on and whenever the report is published, the athletic department will make its final decision on Mel Pearson, whose contract is expiring. I would assume that the administration wants to keep him in place, but is respecting the nature of the investigation. Things will look different next fall no matter what happens.