Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 2 years 6 weeks
|9 weeks 4 days ago||What is the opposite of||
What is the opposite of Muppets?
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Hockey game on TV?||
Wil they have the hockey game on the TV there? It starts at 8 CT.
|18 weeks 4 days ago||Chicago! Yes!||
P.S. Is there way to make the font for the comments larger on the Android app? Maybe I'm just getting old,but it's really hard to read.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||He did hire the right football coach, though.||
Hiring Hoke has to count for something, right? That's a lot more important than one game.
But yeah, this whole Dallas thing stinks.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||It's not about the offense this time of year||
The former players you list were all great, but it wasn't Hagelin and Rust and Caporusso who got us to the final game last year and shut out North Dakota. Or at least it wasn't their scoring; it was team defense and great goaltending. (Although I'm haunted by the two-on-one that Carl and Louie had late in regulation in the title game last year.)
I'm not sure the team "D" is on quite as much as last year's team down the stretch, but that's what's going to be the main factor in whether we can get back to the title game and win it. That's what Red coaches. And the close games are much better prep for the tourney than blowouts.
Anyway, the Pairwise and RPI and KRACH aren't perfect, but there's a reason we're ranked number two in all of them, and I think it's accurate. There have been no truly dominating teams this year, even BC. And if you throw out an inexplicably bad stretch in November, Michigan has been as consistently good as anyone, at least in terms of wins and losses, and that's really what it's all about. So we may not be a great team, but we're a pretty good team, and there's no other team who can really claim to be much more than that.
If you want to worry about anything, worry about the power play. And of course, the somewhat arbitrary nature of single-elimination hockey. Any of the teams in this tournament could win any game, and most of them could win it all. But I'll take our chances with Hunwick. Let's do this!
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Hooray for ambiguous hockey acronyms!||
I read the caption, "Greg Miller is three points short of a PPG," and was like, how is he three points short of a power play goal?
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Looking for a ticket and a ride from Chicago||
Also, if anyone is driving to Green Bay and wants to crash in Chicago on the way, you can stay at my place if you want to pick me up. I'll pay for gas for the Chicago to Green Bay leg and back. Contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks! Go Blue!
|1 year 50 weeks ago||I'm flexible||
I"m pretty flexible. I just want to see some hockey. I already have a room at the hotel next to the rink for Friday and Saturday nights, so I pretty much just need to get there. Contact me at email@example.com. Thanks!
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Seems like a good bracket for us||
Hey, anyone want to crash in Chicago for free on the way to Green Bay Thursday night? And possibly Sunday? All you have to do is give me a ride the rest of the way! I'll pay for gas too.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Green Bay it is||
Green Bay here we come!
|1 year 51 weeks ago||Losing to BG isn't as bad||
Because of the way the Pairwise works, losing to a team like Bowling Green, which is not "under consideration," doesn't hurt your Pairwise nearly as much as losing to a better team does.
|1 year 51 weeks ago||I prefer collegehockeynews.com's predictor||
I prefer this version:
It lists all the common opponents in the individual comparisons.
Basically, the upshot for Michigan is, unless we lose two games at the Joe, we're pretty much locked into the number two or three spot overall. That almost ensures us the top seed in Green Bay, because the committee will likely want to keep Minnesota-Duluth in St. Paul, and both they and Minnesota are ranked high enough that they won't meet in the first round. I'm making travel plans for Green Bay now. (It's a relatively easy trip for me from Chicago anyway.)
|1 year 52 weeks ago||Who do you know who DOES have a passport?||
Well, I don't have a passport. Most college students don't. For that matter, the majority of Americans, and even Michigan residents, don't have passports. Most estimates put passport owernship among U.S. citizens at about 30 percent. Being an illegal alien or not has nothing to do with it.
At any rate, why impose an extra burden on American fans to go to the playoffs so that Canadians can fill up the rink?
|2 years 22 hours ago||What kind of exposure exactly?||
To what end does U.S. college hockey need exposure in Canada? Maybe for recruiting, sure, but it's not like Canadians are going to start up their own teams to compete for the U.S. national championship.
Also, U.S. citizens need a passport to travel to Canada these days. So you would fill a rink with a lot of neutral fans, but shut out most of the fans of the teams competing, just for "exposure?" Sorry, but I'm not ready to cede our national championship to Canada. The Frozen Four is for the players and the teams, but it's also for the fans, for us, not for Canadians. They have their own teams.
If you want exposure that's going to actually "grow the sport," then instead of Toronto, how about having the NCAA tournament in Chicago? Instead of encouraging a bunch of Canadians to fill a rink, how about exposing people from other Big Ten schools like Illinois and Northwestern to the sport? That's the way to grow the sport, by having more teams in the U.S., not by filling rinks in other countries.
|2 years 22 hours ago||So now everyone needs a passport to go to the Frozen Four?||
As I noted in my comments on Michael Spath's article, while Toronto is a fine city, the problem with having the NCAA tournament there is that a passport is required for most U.S. citizens to travel to Canada. This would be a significant burden for many college hockey fans, especially students, wishing to follow their teams. It’s one thing to hop in the car and road trip to St. Paul, or even Tampa, on a whim; it’s another to go to a whole different country. If you can't legally travel there on short notice to follow your team, then Toronto is really no better than New Zealand.
It's true that some fans would plan ahead to obtain passports for the Frozen Four, but a lot of tickets get bought and sold right before the event when the teams are set, since lots of fans are more willing to travel at the last minute for a chance to see their team win a championship. Would fans of RIT have been able to see their team make an unexpected appearance in the 2010 Frozen Four if it had been held in Toronto?
Wanting to "grow the sport" is fine, but unless Canadian teams are going to somehow compete for the U.S. national championship in college hockey, there's not really much point in growing this particular sport north of the border. They already have hockey there, or so I've heard.
I submit that Toronto be replaced with Chicago in this scenario. Chicago is a great Original Six hockey city as well, and it seems to me that a more useful way to grow the sport of U.S. college hockey, in a way that's meaningful to Michigan, would be by encouraging other Big Ten schools like Illinois and Northwestern to start hockey teams than by encouraging Canadians to do... well, I'm not exactly sure what.
And you don't need a passport to visit Chicago.
|2 years 5 days ago||Why doesn't softball have the same problem?||
Doesn't the same logic about going on the road for the first two months of the season apply to softball too? If not, why not? I mean, Michigan has done pretty well recently in the Women's College World Series. What do the women know that their male counterparts don't?
|2 years 1 week ago||mgoblue.com audio stream problems||
Anyone else having trouble listening online? The audio is there, but it's really quiet, even with my speakers turned all the way up.
I guess there are technical issues in BG. Jason, who's running the chat at MichiganHockey.net, is posting from his cell phone because the Internet is down at the rink.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Actually, it was Boston||
Actually, it was Boston University who beat us in Milwaukee, with the BU band playing "On Wisconsin." That spoiled a much-anticipated matchup between Michigan and North Dakota in the final.
But you're right, it's been 20+ years of mostly frustration, at least at the very end. Although there have been a lot of great wins too. I think you need outstanding goaltending, and while we've had some good ones, we haven't had a truly dominating goaltender since Turco, until now. That's why we were so close last year.
Here's hoping we can pull it off in Tampa.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||We were #1 in PWR for a few hours||
RIght after our game, before the other games last night, we were in the top spot in the Pairwise and the RPI. We're only one thousandth of a point behind BC in RPI, which is the difference in their PWR comparison too. So making up that 0.001 in RPI would put us back into the top spot in the Pairwise. (However, our RPI will probably take a hit next weekend even if we sweep due to a drop in strength of schedule.) The other team winning a comparison against us is Minnesota-Duluth, and we have a good chance of passing them in the TUC comparison.
We're also currently #1 in KRACH.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Android||
I searched for a Michigan app in the Android Market.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Is Tampa nice in springtime?||
Here's hoping we have a chance to find out what Tampa is like in the first week of April.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Ferris is #1 in PWR||
Actually, Ferris is number one in the Pairwise right now. I agree that Michigan has a great chance to pass everyone except UMD and BU, especially BC and Ferris, who we beat head-to-head yet hold very slim edges in RPI. Great analysis!
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Chicago!||
I'm fine with neutral sites, but they need to make sense. Traveling 5-plus hours by car or plane is okay for the Frozen Four, but I dunno about the conference tourney. Ideally a site would be near as many fans as possible, and would rotate to be fair.
Campus sites are great, but they tend to be smaller. At least Yost and Munn are. And while either of those would be a sure sellout (which even Joe Louis struggles to get, even with both Michigan and FYS), it's hard to imagine that working out for a six-team tourney in the long run. Yes, it's been done at both, I know, in the NCAA regionals, and mostly it was great for Michigan, but I think the Big Ten needs to think bigger; otherwise, what's the point of it?
There's still the Joe, of course, and that should definitely be in the rotation. And Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities, and sure, even somewhere in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania would be fine. The Discount Furniture Rink in that state down there is okay too, if you can stand it.
But what about Chicago?
Of course, I'm selfish: I want to be able to see some college hockey without leaving my own city.
But except for the slightly inconvenient fact that there are no college hockey teams in the whole state of Illinois, Chicago would seem a natural central location for a Big Ten hockey tourney. And it's got to be better than St. Louis or Fort Wayne or Grand Rapids for a regional. There are lots of alumni from B1G schools here, plenty of hotels, and I mean, come on, it's Chicago!
The only other negative I can think of is that the United Center is surrounded by nothing but parking lots. I was really impressed by the atmosphere at the Frozen Four in St. Paul: the Xcel Center is a fine rink, but it's in a great area, right downtown with lots of things to do. So a tourney in Chicago wouldn't quite have that same feel right outside the rink, but there's still plenty going on not too far away. The UIC Pavilion (former home of the UIC Flames hockey team) is a better location, but its capacity is only about 7000. (Although the regionals have been in smaller places.) There's talk of some games at Soldier Field, which could be fun, but Michigan is apparently not involved.
This all makes me miss the CCHA, with its wonderfully easy road trips. When I was living in Ann Arbor, even when I was poor, I could easily make over half of Michigan's road games. Tickets were cheap, most of the road trips were within a couple of hours, and there was a great group of Dekers to hang out with. The Hockeymobile made it a lot of fun too. And of course, the hockey team was regularly kicking butt, even on the road, in the heady days of the 90s. There were some great trips to places like Bowling Green, Kalamazoo, and Big Rapids, as well as the Soo, Oxford, and South Bend. There will still be trips to Munn for FYS, and the den of ultimate evil is only a few hours south, but I can't imagine too many people hopping in the car on a Friday afternoon to head from A2 to Madison or State College, let alone Minneapolis.
Anyway, come to Chi-Town. You can all stay with me. ;^)
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Turco, Shields, Sharples||
My personal favorites, in that order. Hunwick has a great chance to move into that list, but I don't think he can pass Turco. Marty, of course broke Steve Shields's all-time wins record, which had been thought unreachable. And he has two NC rings.
True, it's not Hunwick's fault that he can't get those records, and it's also true that Turco backstopped some great teams. But Turco basically stole the '98 title almost singlehandedly. Hunwick did come a shot away from repeating that feat last year, and that run was Turco-worthy, but looking at the body of evidence of a whole career, how can you put anyone ahead of Marty Turco? One could make this argument for all of college hockey, not just Michigan.
But yeah, the Rudy thing is silly. I put Hunwick more in the Tom Brady category. Not that Shawn will have the same success in the pros, nor was he a blue chip recruit out of high school, but they're both guys who everyone overlooked as having insufficient talent to be elite players. And both are driven to prove everyone wrong.
If Hunwick isn't a Hobey finalist - heck, if he's not in the top three - that will be an outrage.