Fire Hockey Al Borges Comment Count

Brian

1/10/2013 – Michigan 2, Wisconsin 5 – 10-5-2, 2-1 Big Ten
1/11/2013 – Michigan 1, Wisconsin 3 – 10-6-2, 2-2 Big Ten

9601820[1]

Well… I suppose we have to talk about what is going on with the hockey team. On December 11th they had a fun, uptempo game with a very good Ferris State outfit that ended in a 2-2 tie. They were 10-2-2 on the season, and while it was obvious they'd been the beneficiary of some good fortune they seemed like a pretty good team.

Fast forward… wow, over a month, and Michigan has lost four straight games in extraordinarily difficult to watch fashion.

  • In the opener of the GLI they failed to cover about a dozen WMU players plunging into the slot and were lucky to even be in the game when Josh Pitt went right through four Michigan players to score with 19 seconds left.
  • The next night Michigan made a pathetic Michigan State outfit look like the Spartans of old, allowing 40 shots in a 3-0 loss and barely mustering a scoring chance until the third period.
  • Michigan did not score until there were five minutes remaining in Friday's game at Wisconsin, and when they pulled to within 3-2 it took 40 seconds for them to give up an empty-netter.
  • Michigan got one goal on Saturday, that on the power play from Copp, in a 3-1 loss that featured a huge scrum with 30 seconds left. At least they're mad, I guess?

nFvS1Pj[1]

the only entertaining thing about the last four games

Since the Ferris game, Michigan's gotten two even-strength goals, one from Copp, one from Travis Lynch. Compher added a shorthander and Moffatt is credited with two power play goals on College Hockey Stats, thought one of them should be Copp's. That's it. If, say, you turned off the Friday Wisconsin game with six minutes left like I did the only even strength goal you've seen in a month and a half was Travis Lynch firing a shot from the top of the circles that hit the square inch necessary for it to go in the net.

Problems. Michigan has them. We knew that they weren't the 10-2-2 outfit their record said they were, but this correction is brutal.

The problems are twofold. One was obvious to everyone from the moment Trouba and Merrill both announced departures: the defense is miserable. I've seen Kevin Clare try to make a neutral zone pinch this year; I've seen Downing blown through in overtime like he was playing in a never-ever league; I've seen converted forward Andrew Sinelli step into a regular shift and thought "well, at least he's not several other options". While it's disappointing that the only veteran who's developed one iota over his time at Michigan is Mac Bennett, anyone staring at this year's line chart on D knew it was going to be a problem. It is.

The secondary scoring was not supposed to be, but we're 18 games into this season and Moffatt, Guptill, Di Giuseppe, and Nieves have 9 even strength goals between them. I guess you could throw Compher in there, but Compher carries so much weight and is a freshman so I'm inclined to give him a pass. Those four guys are supposed to be the team's skill players and at even strength they're scoring at the same rate as Travis Lynch.

Why? I don't really know. Michigan finds itself reduced to throwing shots at the net through defensemen most of the time because they don't have the skill to get around people, so the bulk of their shots are attempts from outside the circles that have little chance of going in or even causing a rebound. Copp actually drives the net and drives play with his effort level; the other guys are just kind of out there, with the exception of Guptill's ability to flip pucks up high from tight angles. That's acceptable if you're a random fourth-liner, but three of the four scoring types mentioned are high NHL draft picks who've been around the block. When Copp's out and Compher's playing on a broken foot they have to step up; at this point it's obvious they can't.

Michigan has yet another bye week (hooray one-weekend conference tournament) and what should be an easy series against a Michigan State team that can't beat anyone but American International, Princeton, and Michigan to find its footing; if they can't come out firing against MSU, oxygen masks will deploy from the ceiling as the downward acceleration becomes stomach-clenching.

Comments

JeepinBen

January 14th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^

First, how the hell does Wisconsin get away with playing on Olympic Ice? That was definitely to blame for the first goal on Friday. Nagelvoort's angle was off... which happens when you're playing on olympic ice. It'd be like the badgers employing a CFL field for football.

Second, the Michigan Powerplay is just horrific. Michigan is just standing around, there's very little puck movement and absolutely NO movement of players without the puck. They did a pretty good job of establishing zone presence, but didn't do anything once they were there. Powerplays should create 2-on-1 opportuntites that lead to scoring chances. More often than not, Michigan just passed the puck around for a while, then one guy shot it into a defender's shin pads. Michigan was running an umbrella, Wisconsin went to a diamond, and Michigan did nothing against it. (details of the basics here: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/hockey-special-teams-1-powerplay-basics) Hopefully the powerplay will improve with some coaching/practice.

Third, Nagelvoort is good. He was absolutely hung out to dry regularly and while there was one goal that was his fault Friday (see above, as a goalie I still blame the rink) in general he's making the stops he should and then some. As Brian said above, he got zero help in the GLI.

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^

Most of the old WCHA teams play on Olympic or near-Olympic sized ice. Watch Minnesota sometime when they're at Mariucci, it looks like the ice is twice as large as Yost. I grabbed a somewhat random list of sheet sizes from CHN below:

Team Arena Sheet
Alaska Carlson Center 200x100
Alaska-Anchorage Sullivan Arena 200x100
Bowling Green BGSU Ice Arena 200x85
Colorado College Colorado Springs World Arena 200x100
Denver Magness Arena 200x85
Ferris State Ewigleben Ice Arena 200x85
Harvard Bright Hockey Center 204x87
Lake Superior Taffy Abel Arena 200x85
Miami Goggin Ice Center (Steve Cady Rink) 200x85
Michigan Yost Ice Arena 200x85
Michigan State Munn Ice Arena 200x85
Michigan Tech MacInnes Student Ice Arena 200x85
Minnesota Mariucci Arena 200x100
North Dakota Ralph Engelstad Arena 200x85
Northern Michigan Berry Events Center 200x100
Notre Dame Compton Family Ice Arena 200x95
Ohio State Value City Arena 200x85
RIT Frank Ritter Memorial Arena 185x85
Wisconsin Kohl Center 200x97

NHL is 200x85, Olympic is roughly 200x100 so you can see there's a smattering of NHL rinks (Michigan), basically Olympic rinks (Minnesota, Wisconsin) and people who just don't give a bleep (Harvard, RIT)

kevin holt

January 14th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^

At first I was going to argue that Olympic ice is fine to use and that a rink is a lot harder to change than a field and that Olympic ice actually opens the game up more yada yada. I also would say there's probably leeway in the rules, etc. But I just looked it up, and the ncaa rule says that "as nearly as possible," the rink shall be 200 by 85 feet. The "as nearly as possible" might give leeway but definitely seems like cause for complaint if it really does matter. My guess is that teams don't mind playing on it that much and it might even have advantages so they don't complain. Also seems a little whiny if they do. But maybe if they anonymously complained to the B1G, they would do something about it? Who knows.

AriGold

January 14th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

gives an advantage to the teams who have the Olympic sized sinks...they know the ins-and-outs better, the feel for passes off the boards and how long they take to get to another skater...maybe it would seem whiny for a team to complain about it, but there is no reason they all shouldn't be the same size at 200x85

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^

This is just the nature of college hockey. Teams have been playing on variations sheets that are 200x100, 200x85 and all sorts above and in between for years and years and years. Minnesota and Wisconsin could also make the argument that playing on the small rinks of Munn and Yost unfairly cramp their playing style.

And complaining will do absolutely nothing at all. No one is going to change their rink size because they either have to build a brand new arena or modify their own arena which wildly screws up the sightlines and seating arrangements. Never going to happen.

Total Teams 59
200x100 8
200x85 39
Something Else 12

So it's less common for teams to have Olympic sheets but it's certainly not rare. Most of the "Something Else"s are somewhere in between or awfully close to Olympic (like Wisconsin's 200x97). Playing on a different sized sheet every weekend is just the nature of playing college hockey.

JeepinBen

January 14th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

"Playing on a different sized sheet every weekend is just the nature of playing college hockey" and the above posters are right too, that for teams it won't matter a ton, but as a goalie, it DOES matter! All of your reference points (blue lines, red lines, faceoff dots) aren't in their normal spot. It's a relatively common prank idea to move all of someone's furniture 3" to the left to mess with them, it's disconcerting and the room is a little different - that's what happens to goalies on Olympic ice without enough time to adjust.

 - and there is a long history of not-quite regulation rinks in hockey (Chicago Stadium's famous 188' long ice comes to mind)... as a goalie my response is "But Still!"

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^

Yeah I hear you on that one. The Big Ten teams will just have to get used to it I guess as PSU, MSU, Michigan, and OSU all have 200x85, Wisconsin has 200x97, and Minnesota has 200x100.

If anything I think it'll screw with Wisconsin and Minnesota's goalies more as with that breakdown they'll be playing 15-20 games a year on Olympic ice and most of the rest on NHL ice. The four B1G teams with NHL ice will benefit by playing all of their home games and most of their conference away games on the same sheet of ice while only playing on Minnesota's and Wisconsin's Olympic ice a total of four times a year (plus non-con games)

JeepinBen

January 14th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^

And it really isn't that big a deal. Personally I hated it, I wouldn't feel comfortable until I was at least a period into a game on olympic ice. I really do think it was an issue on the first goal Friday.

Actually, it shouldn't be as big a deal for college goalies as I remember it being for me. I had a 5 minute warmup (which included all of about 2-3 minutes of seeing actual pucks) to try to get ready. These guys travel out there and have at least the day-of skate, etc. They'd have a lot more time to get used to it.

justingoblue

January 14th, 2014 at 10:22 PM ^

I can only imagine what your posts here would be like if Wisconsin played on Santa's Village or (the old) Crystal Ice House East Rink sized ice, or on "collegiate size" determined by Seven Bridges.

Other than that, the only thing I'd add is that odd sheet sizes are a time honored tradition, and frankly I think it makes for a better game, both on the ice and from the stands. The NHL didn't even require 200*85 until sometime fairly recently (couldn't find it quickly) and everyone playing at this level has plenty of experience playing on the big ice. Michigan played a home game on Olympic ice on 12/11/10, too.

kevin holt

January 14th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^

Actually, I just saw something else.  The rules say: "Note: The rules committee recognizes that some institutions play in off-campus facilities that do not conform to all NCAA rink standards."

So does that mean that the dimension rules are just superfluous?  A team can have an Olympic rink if they play off-campus, but if it's a campus rink it has to be about 200x85?  That's kind of bullshit (if they would hold one party to the rule but not another).  Plus isn't the Kohl Center a campus facility?

Seems like the rule is there, just not enforced and not that steadfast.

Edit: got this from http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/fielddiagrams/IceHockey.pdf

Sac Fly

January 14th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

I was at both games, it reminded me of the Western series from last year. After the first goal Friday night the Wisconsin forwards talked trash and took shots at the Wolverines after every whistle. No one did anything about it, they hung their heads and skated to the bench.

They had no fight. There's a big problem when they're dumping the puck in beating us to it. They won every 50/50 puck. Wisconsin cleared and gained the zone like it was a beer league game.

Don

January 14th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

but it's my belief that no program in the country has been as routinely and regularly savaged by early departures of the most talented players as has Michigan.

Unless and until those guys stick around for at least three and preferably four years, getting back to the truly elite level is going to be difficult.

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

I'm flattered that my screenshot and my hatred of the hockey team's offense both made the front page.

I've been tirading about the offense the last few series because it's just an embarassment. I have to assume it's basically on coaching because for several years now we have had well above average talent that we manage to turn into lifeless garbage. Red will then switch up the lines, it doesn't get better or it gets worse, and then we don't know what to do after that so we just ride it out.

I mean for pete's sake, the guys you mentioned are all NHL draft picks. Moffatt - 7th, PDG - 2nd, Nieves - 2nd, Guptill - 3rd. Why can no one score? (And for people who don't follow college hockey, I'd say that basically equates to a 4* and three 5*s)

The hockey team is basically being Al Borges'd to death because the offense and powerplay have clearly been suffering for 2+ years now and there's just no answer. Frankly, we've been saved by stellar goaltending the last few years and the only year we didn't have great goaltending (last year) ended up a tire fire. Dare I say that if you put last year's goalies onto this team, that this team would be doing even worse than last year's (they'd certainly be sub-.500 at this point)

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 11:03 PM ^

Petersen seems to be the only thing that really changed but it isn't like he went to Houghton and started lighting the world on fire. They're still a fairly mediocre program, though that is vastly better than they were right before he got there (super duper awful).

I'm starting to wonder if Mel isn't a great assistant coach, maybe not an ideal head coach. Maybe Tech is just a hard place to win nowadays? I dunno. Personally, I'm not terribly excited about Mel. He'd be fine, but isn't he just a poor man's Red Berenson? And if the program is starting to be a little flaky in Red's final years, is a poor man's version of the same guy what Michigan Hockey needs? Probably not.

MGlobules

January 14th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

How much longer is Red around? And who are the replacements out there? I guess a guy like that writes his own ticket, but it's sad to see a sport that M should absolutely retain leadership in go el foldo. 

Michigan Arrogance

January 14th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^

Mel Pearson at MTU is probably the front runner

I always throw out Seth Appert, b/c he's been pretty successful in the ECAC and has western roots, knows the USHL, etc.

whoever turned Unions program into a year in year out top 10 team moved on to providence, IIRC, but Union is still doing well without him.

Yale surprised a lot of people last year, but IDK if they are sustaining that success.

gwkrlghl

January 14th, 2014 at 11:09 PM ^

The rumor just won't go away and it's popped up over months and months so I have to imagine there's some smoke there. His daughter does go to UofM. It's still widly unlikely but I would put it a few notches above "Jon Gruden to coach at [blank]"

This is Michigan. Let's do the Nussmeier thing and pay a lot of money to get a top flight coach - who that is, I do not know.

Blue22

January 14th, 2014 at 1:38 PM ^

I remember him being more influential in his freshman year. I am not seeing why there's such a drop off in production, he has the talent in my eyes to be a top line guy.