Game Over, Man?
3/6/2015 – Michigan 4, Penn State 6 – 19-12, 11-6 Big Ten
3/7/2015 – Michigan 3, Penn State 4 – 19-13, 11-7 Big Ten
twilight (not that twilight) [Patrick Barron]
A few years back I wrote something about a pivotal series against Miami that felt both correct and histrionic simultaneously. Michigan was swept 4-2 and 3-0, dumb penalties piled up like Lions mistakes with the Suh contract, and it felt like there was something gone from the program:
So this is definitely an overreaction: that kind of felt like the beginning of the end of the Red Berenson era. I know what the instant reaction to that thought is because I had it too, but after I recoiled at the thing it sat there leering and never scoring any goals it appeared to mean. It's still there. It's horned and pitchforked. It's eating all my cheese dip. I hate it. It knows this, does not care, and refuses to leave.
Michigan proceeded to advance to the national championship game, so I may have pulled the trigger slightly early. But that feeling turned out to be correct, give or take a year. The next year one-seed Michigan was unceremoniously bounced from the tourney by Cornell in the first round; they have not been back since.
Their absence has grown more dispiriting and infuriating as it's lengthened. When Michigan started their slippery slope, they finished seventh in the CCHA only to storm through the tourney, beating #1 Miami on the way, before falling to those same Redhawks when every Michigan fan's "rule most likely to lead to homicide"—a goal waved off because the referee can't see the puck—came to fruition in overtime.
A couple years later they turned around a dismal season about halfway through, reaching the CCHA finals. There they found a very good Notre Dame team that beat them comprehensively in terms of attack time and chances, with the usual vagaries of hockey holding Michigan in it.
Last year all they had to do was beat Penn State, nascent, fledgling Penn State, in the Big Ten tournament to all but guarantee themselves an at-large berth. They lost in two overtimes to a team that was 8-25-2 on the year, allowing 65 shots—44 in regulation. This year they approached Happy Valley in first place in the league, an at-large bid within their grasp, and they blew it. They were down 3-0 and 4-2 in games they'd lose, and this is now their situation:
Gross weekend. Per http://t.co/9RVMXcI80e, chances of making tourney now 25%, 1% without winning B1G Tournament. Just 45% to get a bye.
— Yost Built (@YostBuilt) March 8, 2015 On the one hand you can't be surprised. Michigan has been playing with fire with sloppy goaltending and guys wandering through the slot unchecked all year. It's tough to get points when you give up five goals per game.
On the other… how the hell did we get here? Michigan had a 22-year (22 year!) tourney streak during which it was mostly impervious to these sorts of wobbles. We should be grateful for that. Minnesota, BC, North Dakota—every one of these programs had a year or three in which they were inexplicably bad. Michigan avoided that for an astoundingly long period of time.
No longer, and there's a pretty easy proximate cause to point to:
| YEAR | M RECORD | M TOURNEY | MEL | TECH RECORD | TECH TOURNEY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 33-6-4 | frozen four | M | 14-20-5 | no |
| 2009 | 29-12 | first round | M | 6-25-7 | no |
| 2010 | 26-18-1 | second round | M | 5-30-1 | no |
| 2011 | 29-11-4 | finalists | M | 4-30-4 | no |
| 2012 | 24-13-4 | first round | Tech | 16-19-4 | no |
| 2013 | 18-19-4 | no | Tech | 13-20-4 | no |
| 2014 | 18-13-4 | no | Tech | 14-19-7 | no |
| 2015 | 19-13 | must win BTT | Tech | 26-8-2 | #5 PWR |
Mel Pearson left for Michigan Tech after the 2010-11 season and immediately made them competitive; this year they're damn good. The above chart probably sells it short since it only goes back four years before the change. That middling year from the Huskies is a major outlier amongst even more seasons with 4, 5, 6 wins. Meanwhile, Michigan was rampant.
Even when Michigan beat Tech in the GLI, they were under siege for most of it, getting outshot 41-21. The series in Houghton was simply not competitive. Michigan was at ful strength; goals were 10-3 Tech. The inverse of that used to be the expectation for a Michigan versus Tech series.
Berenson's contract has one more year on it, and when it was signed he said it was almost certainly his last. I can't see any way that's not the case, and if Hackett has the stones to make a change now (I cannot believe I am saying this…) it might be time. In another situation with an unclear candidate pool, the argument for waiting would be stronger. With Pearson available and acting out the best-case scenario for Tech hockey, if you can get it done now that's a move you have to make.
Maybe Michigan wins the Big Ten tourney; maybe they outscore their mistakes for a bit in the tournament. The direction the arrow is pointing is clear enough even in that hypothetical scenario.
If Red isn't the guy to lead the program, I'm sure he knows better than anyone and will step down like he said he would.
They're bringing in a Top-3 class next year. What's looking like the #1 class for 2016.
If they can nail the next hire, this program has potential to do more than win games in the next few years. I'm talking about championships. But some of you would rather settle for another year of mediocrity because "Red is a Legend."
I expect Red to give Pearson a call at the end of the season and see if he is interested. If he is, I expect Red to retire. Red doesn't seem like the type who wants a goodbye tour collecting rocking chairs and other nonsense. If Pearson isn't interested, then Red would probably stick around to give Hackett the time needed to find the right replacement.
This team, especially over the last 3 years, doesn't have that winning culture and mentality that defined Michigan for so many years. Rumors are floating that Red has completely lost this team. Time to call up Pearson or whomever is #1 on the list for the next coach.
I wish this subject wasn't so taboo.
A couple of years ago, everyone thought that it might just be a bad batch of senior leaders, so the theory was that after some addition by subtraction, we'd be back where we used to be. I thought at the time that we would eventually be forced to come to the conclusion that Red just doesn't have it anymore. That's basically where we are. To me the only question that remains is how much do we "owe" him for his success? How many more mediocre or bad years has he earned from his decades of success. My answer in this case is what it always has been -- "zero". I don't think that anyone earns a job for life, or the right to quit on their own terms. The program is well below expectations right now, and it's time for a change.
"Michigan had a 22-year (22 year!) tourney streak"
Take all the time you need Red.
The man has one year left on his contract. If he and Pearson talk (and do you really think they don't?) and agree now is the time, great. But if we throw a legendary coach (and the mentor of our ideal target, Babcock notwithstanding) out on his ass with one year left on his contract, I hardly think Pearson or any other coach worth their salt will come rushing in to replace him.
If he wants to, let the man finish out his contract. I have to imagine Pearson will be available and, with Red's blessing, willing, a year from now.
That is totally on the coaching staff to have two horrible starts in two games that mattered the most.
If he's not the best coach for Michigan, he shouldn't coach anymore. His history earns him respect but not invincibility. It should be handled gently and respectfully, but I think Hackett should be telling Red that now's probably the time to hang it up.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
You mean the players who signed up to be coached by Red Berenson?
You want him to be fired because you think he's not up to it anymore, that's fine. But don't couch it in some self-righteous crap about concern for the players.
They signed up to play for Red, the Legend, who is pretty damn impressive. But if Red, the coach, isn't quite up to par anymore, I don't think they'd learn that in a recruiting trip.
Is it really "self-righteous crap" to think that the players would probably prefer to win games and make the tourney? To get the best coaching available to help them in the NHL?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I don't know why people keep saying that about the Babcock thing because there at least were some decent legs to it. I can only assume people saying that don't know the history. See the mgoblog posts tagged Mike Babcock. The chatter was coming from within the program and from guys who knew Red.
I pretty much agree with Brian word-for-word, but the counterpoints that a) Red has earned his one more year if he wants it and b) you don't want to piss off the Michigan Hockey aristocracy (which may very well include Mel. Think Harbaugh and Hoke) is very valid.
I don't really buy the idea that Red should be able to coach forever because of the great things he did in the 90's, but given that his contract is up in a year I suppose we can stomach another mediocre year just out of respect.
Ideally, Red sees what the situation is, determines himself that he wants to retire, and encourages Mel to come home
While not solely on their shoulders, it should be mentioned that our goalies suck. The defense in front of them is still a little youngish and making plenty of mistakes on their own, possibly due to scheme, but the goalies do, in fact, suck. Gibson and that other turd left this team without workable goalie plans two years in row by jumping ship in the tenth and eleventh hour. It directly coincides with our current misfortunes.
While I do think it is time for Red to go, and I love the guy, it should be on his terms. I'll give him that due to his legacy - taking over from the absolute disaster that was Giordano and creating the behemoth we were for twenty years. I also think he should have pulled the trigger two years ago. Maybe it was the plan to get Pearson some HC experience because they knew at the time Michigan (Brandon?) wouldn't hire him without it.
I don't buy the Babcock thing for a minute. I had a glimmer of hope the last time around but seriously doubt it is anything other than wishful thinking at this point. I'm too lazy to look it up but when does Mel's contract end? He's doing good work over there, probably having a ball, has too much loyalty to skip out on a current contract, and frankly I'd be ashamed of both parties if they closed a deal under those circumstances. Doesn't seem like Hackett's style either.
The biggest problem is the goalies and the lack of having two true starters. We essentially have two backups in net. That worked out with Tiny Jesus but you can't operate that way on a yearly basis. Both current goalies have opportunities to steal games but can't be counted on to do it consistently or even be counted on to win the common games. How does the equivalent of Appy State beat us in hockey so consistently? How do you not get angry and hyped on the ice to avoid this embarassment? It's infuriating.
Some of that is on recruiting. Not sure why goalies weren't the absolute highest priority for every year after the above two misses. If the D can tighten up this is still a viable team. If the Goalies could stand up this is would be a viable team. I don't see the latter happening as the talent just isn't there. If the trend continues as is, this won't be a viable team for a while.
FTR, I'm a ten year season ticket holder from California. I make four or six games a year. My father held tickets for twenty years before that while we lived in A2. This has been in jeopardy for the last two years on my end now. My wife beats me up every year at renewal time. It wasn't that way when there was more passion on the ice and we were making a fraction of the money we are now.
You clearly didn't read the post end to end. I addressed a number of issues other than Gibson.
As stated, it wasn't Gibson alone. It was that loss plus another premier goalie, the name escapes me at the moment right now, and no attempts to secure anything that remotely looks like a starter in the ensuing years. It is a goaltending problem, not a Gibson problem. Though a decommit like that will make him a douche for the rest of his life in my book.
The goal of this program should be to have two starters vying for the start. Not two backups hoping they haven't screwed up enough to let the other guy step into the paint.
One premier goalie, in the last six years, who didn't pan out. Rutledge flamed out in his freshman year because there was no one else to go with and no chance at development. There was no one in the hopper. He should have been a freshman challenging the incumbent for ice time but there was none. You are making my point here.
Zach might be having an off year. I actually like the kid and he could work out but has definitely not proven himself a true starter. Racine on the other hand is clearly no starter and never was. He got hot, or lucky, a couple of times over the last two years. Hardly what you should hang your hat on.
One in six - this is a lack of forward planning. There should be a premier goalie every other year to develop. This plus a prefered walk on who can work up to a scholarship every other year puts a Tiny Jesus type in your pocket or at least the chance to roll the dice on him.
That's not how goalie recruiting works. Your "Premier goalie" wants to start. In most cases that player will not come here to sit on the bench, even if it's just for 1 year.
At best, they can recruit a goaltender of that caliber every 3 years if they're lucky. That's how everyone does it.
Either way (after this year or next), a plan needs to be in place. This shouldn't be a surprise, given Red's contract. Hackett needs to be putting out feelers to Pearson (and Babcock? lol) and anyone else who may be interested. He needs to have a sit down with Red THIS WEEK to understand what Red's feelings are.
Hearing the radio show on how Hackett executed the Project Unicorn, I have to assume he already has a plan in place. Not sure if he's gotten feelers out there so as not to undermine Red, but Hackett really seems to know what he's doing
Comments