Unverified Voracity Slashes Shields

For you non-track people, Chesson's time of 37.66 in the 300h is really fast. Being a good low hurdler doesn't make you a speed demon, but you can't be slow and run that time. He's likely really fast.

But there is a passionate belief throughout college hockey that full shields impair peripheral and up-and-down vision... 

Question to Mgobloggers with hockey knowledge:  Is this true? 

I've been watching the NHL playoffs for pretty much the first time ever this year, and I've been wondering why guys don't wear full face shields (other than the obvious desire to show that they're tough).  I saw a Rangers player get hit in an unprotected part of his face with a puck last week.  I have to believe that getting hit there diminished his performance for the rest of his time on the ice.  Why not avoid suffering injuries? 

And really couldn't come up with a year with two.  McCartney led to Mo on D, and when Mo came back he was on O. But till then, I'm not guessing Bo's offensive counterparts would have anyone excited about the "modern" offense they put together. And then you had Mattison. Terry Malone did a good job on O, but by then the defense wasn't a position you would brag about. So I'm beginning to see how guys who have been around the program for a long time think these are the best coordinators we've had in a LONG time are coming from.

And anyone else think this is horrible timing for the NCAA to be making this move with all the NFL worries going on right now? It's not the same thing, but it certainly doesn't look good.

Be careful. Ovechkin makes everything look cool.

Except winning the President's Cup and getting knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. That looks just as crappy when Ovie does it as when the Wings do it.

I enjoy Heck's work over at The Only Colors. And I liked that post.

To me, more than showing that pass efficiency differential is the one key telling, be all, end all stat, it shows that the key stats to hone in on are anything with a differential. More pundits and MSM media types need to talk about differentials, IMHE, as opposed to focusing on just the basic stats.

As it turns out, turnover margin and yards per carry differential had the same three teams, Wisco, MSU and MICH, occupying the top 3 spots. What a shock, the three best teams in the league a year ago did a lot of different things well. But its hard to swallow that we think coaches are dinosaur thinkers and wrong for wanting to run the football and stopping the run. How come Northwestern's #4 in pass efficiency differential didnt net more wins? Probably because they were one of 3 Big 10 teams (Minny and IU) with a negative yards per carry differential. They couldnt stop the run. Are we saying that Dantonio is wrong to focus on stopping the run? MSU's amazing 2.8 ypc against tells me he's dead correct about wanting to stop the run.

But MSU was a complete team with good to great numbers across the board in everything. NW was a flawed, incomplete team despite their top third passing efficiency differential. I guess I just dont think there is one critical stat. Good teams do a lot of different things well. If you suck at any one of the four (run, pass, stop the run, stop the pass), then you're probably not going to be anything more than average when the season is over.

didn't click the link for Jehu Chesson, he ran the 300 hurdles in 37.66 seconds. That is BLAZING fast. 

I prefer the Big Puppy over Little Big Dog.  I can definitely hear Bill Raftery calling him that.

As to passing efficiency, seeing as how  touchdown percentage and interception percentage are a big part of the calculation it shouldn't come as a surprise that it correlates with winning.

The passer efficiency stat is a good one, and one that is under utilized when talking college stats.  There was an article a couple of years ago at SI.com where they looked at the defensive mirror to that stat and found it was a better predictor of Super Bowl success that the offensive stat.  They called it Defensive Passer Rating, and it was an indicator of how well a team defended the pass.  The poorer that your oppenent's passer rating, the better you are doing on defense.  Over the last twenty five years, there was only a couple of teams that were not top five in defensive passer rating.

What this stat did was disbuse the notion that good defense is built around stopping the run.  The better you can reduce the other team's passing efficiency, the more likely you are to win.  This stat did not care the percentage of run to passing plays.  You are just more likely to win if you can reduce the other team's passing efficiency.  What would be interesting is that with the greater variance of offences in college football, if the same stat bears out.  My guess is that it does and that no matter how good your run based offense is, you still have to pass the ball well to win.

The Jehu Chesson news is really exciting.

I'm trying to not drink too much of my own koolaid: I feel like we're getting two really underrated WRs in Darboh and Chesson.

Darboh was the #2 midwest guy behind Burbridge yet gets very little hype and Chesson just keeps getting good press from his track accomplishments.

I know there's a lot of anxiety among recruiting fans that we need to land Treadwell and another big name to put some talent on the outside; I don't really agree with that. Really looking forward to seeing these guys on the field...I hope they can contribute early.

Half shields at last. I think it's a great idea and helps bring the NCAA a step closer to the 21st Century.

First post ever!! but this one gets me fired up.  I can't believe in the current sports environment we are even talking about going to less protection.  Let's be honest when talking about what this is really about.  As posted earlier, this is about NCAA hockey thinking this will somehow appeal to younger players, and make the guys stick with their tough guy hockey image.  All the other reasons that people give are just excuses.  Air flow..the feeling on your face..come on.  Those little steel bars are not restricting your air flow.  I played hockey through college, and the guys who went to halfies during the summer didn't have hard time switching back during season. Sure the first couple of days were weird, but after that you are used to it again.  You also enough high level players in the NCAA and other places with fish bowls to know that that there are good ways to keep the fog down. 

Most frustrating are some of the safety points they try to make about this.  If guys are getting cut under the masks, as stated by McGlaughlin, then they are wearing them like idiots.  Concussions should not even be a part of the discussion. That is about the frame of the helmet, and football has shown even that can't keep your head from bouncing off the skull.  If anything, having a chin pad keeping you jaw snug would help avoid concussions.  Keeping mouthguards around isn't going to fix that either, especially if you see the way those cut up their guards.  I am a dentist, and I wish I could say the guards will solve that issue, but they just don't.   Sure, people may be a little more careful with their sticks, but that doesn't do anything to stop the puck.  Sticks causes cuts and lead to stitches.  Pucks do lifetime damage.  With halfies, a lot of guys end up wearing them like visors, and that is more dangerous than no shield at all.  For them to bring up neck injuries seems a little ridiculous too.  Shields don't stop that, rule changes and penalties for boarding does. 

If the USHL hasn't had any major injuries yet, they will.  Look how close the issue of shields has come to ending a lot careers, Yzerman for example.  The NCAA should be smart about protecting these players livliehoods and worry less about being like juniors.