bacon1431

March 30th, 2016 at 2:59 PM ^

They are just admitting they just don't care about hockey. I can't think of another coach that deserved to get fired more than Anastos and didn't, in any major sport.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

gwkrlghl

March 30th, 2016 at 4:05 PM ^

He's sold as a marketing genius but can't sell out Spartan stadium for a top 10 program. He's letting hockey flounder and I believe he's made a few PR gaffes as well. And as noted above, he inheirited Izzo and Dantonio. He really had next to nothing to do with their successes

FauxMo

March 30th, 2016 at 3:05 PM ^

This thread should be deleted. Guys, if people are doing stupid things that benefit you, let said stupid things go unnoticed. Shhhhh...

gwkrlghl

March 30th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

It's gotten to the point that Michigan fans are annoyed because Hollis let one of the greatest rivalries in college hockey (and probably college sports) errode into a laugher. I want Anastos fired. It's ruined the rivalry and they've become deadweight on the Big Ten

Sac Fly

March 30th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

With what they're losing from a team that only won 10 games I'd be surprised if they make it to 10 this year.

How can you continue to support a coach who has guided the program through its worst stretch in team history?

Pepto Bismol

March 30th, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^

Well, first I wanted to point out this beaut from Mark Hollis:

"Unfortunately you can't do that in five years.  Penn State had a great advantage in having no roster (when it started its program) and being able to build from ground zero."

 

Okay.

Anyway, my question is regarding Pairwise.  I'm definitely no expert, but I thought it had been decided that playing teams in the ass-end of the rankings were high-risk/low-reward.  Meaning wins did nothing for you and losses murdered your PWR.  I recall everyone here freaking out last fall about this year's UM schedule because there was no quality in the out of conference and it was going to take a sterling record to get an at-large bid.  No?

Quoting the article:

"Hollis does want to see smarter scheduling from Anastos and other Big Ten programs, which need higher win totals more than brutal non-conference competition to improve their standing in the Pairwise rankins, which determine NCAA tournament bids."

This Hollis-ism seems false.

 

stephenrjking

March 30th, 2016 at 3:18 PM ^

It's all based on RPI, and it's a double-edged sword. A tough schedule doesn't do you any good if you don't win (and MSU rarely ever wins anymore). The thing about the PWR is that a conference basically floats or sinks based on a handful of non-conference swing games, since teams are going to beat themselves up regardless.

A conference that does well in the non-conference schedule winds up seeing mid-tier programs with so-so records record great RPIs. A conference that has a bad run struggles to get even one team in the tournament, as the B1G has.

MSU's losses to North Dakota did nobody any good. You need some strength, but also results. 

1VaBlue1

March 30th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^

It's not like Anastos inherited a dumpster fire of a program.  Sure, a couple of down years, but that doesn't require a complete anihalation of a still-decent program!  Anastos has destroyed what Mason built, and Comely left (pretty much) intact.  Comely was never going to succeed in the same manner that a new football coach can never succeed when replacing a legend, but he did an admirable job considering his circumstance following Mason.  Even if Hollis doesn't care about hockey, there is no basis for retaining Anastos...

Alton

March 30th, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^

If you are building a schedule, the absolute best thing that you can do is schedule the best team in the worst conference.  The reason?  That team will end the season with a record along the lines of 20-10-5, even though they are nowhere near as good as a middle-of-the-pack team from a great conference, that might have a record of 18-18-2.

The way the RPI is weighted so heavily to measure "opponents' winning percentage" as the primary element of strength of schedule tilts the incentive structure heavily toward scheduling teams like Robert Morris & Michigan Tech (both teams Michigan played this year) and away from scheduling teams like New Hampshire and Nebraska-Omaha.

If they used a better rating system, it would be different, but a good scheduler finds good teams in bad conferences.  Note that playing American International doesn't help--they are a bad team in a bad conference. 

Of course for Mr. Hollis, none of this applies if you can't beat those teams on your schedule.  If you lose to Michigan Tech, you are better off losing to North Dakota.  So I don't see what he is saying here, unless he really is talking about scheduling Bentley for a 2-game set.

MichiganStudent

March 30th, 2016 at 3:20 PM ^

So incredibly dumb. We need State to be good again. I enjoy beating their heads in on a regular basis, but having them be this bad is not good for the conference of Michigans SOS.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad