---

College Hockey Update:  First things first — if the emails you receive from me personally (not those from the blogsite system) are going into your spam or junk folder, would you PLEASE send me an email and notify me so that I can try to put an end to that for next season.  Thanks.  And now, second things second.  Yes, we’ve been out of commission and out of touch for a long, long time.  We have also recently been dealing with a very big problem with this blogsite — we couldn’t log into it, we couldn’t create content on it (most of what appears today was already written and we couldn’t add to it or modify it), and many attempts by our co-publisher, Jim Slaughter, to reboot the site, just yielded another crash of another attempt/version.  Eventually Jim came up with this, and here we are.  It’s been a rough month of March.  Our home page is very different than it’s been, and we will try to get it looking something like it used to.  I can’t preview this, so I have no idea what it will look like when I hit “publish” in about three minutes.  But hang in there.  We’re late, but we’re back, and we will be providing some insights to help you fill out your 2023 bracket.  But first, let’s finish off what we didn’t finish off at the end of last season.

THE 2022 CHAMPIONSHIP GAME — A “HISTORY LESSON”

Ok, it hasn’t yet been a FULL year since the NCAA Hockey Championship Game was played . . . . and it was quite a game.  Things started out with a very clear Mankato State game plan that put the clampers on Denver from the get go.  It seemed Mankato knew what they were dealing with in Denver’s high-powered and deep offense, and they wanted none of it.  Mankato held Denver to only three shots in the first period (compared to only eight for Mankato), and they held Denver to only five shots in the second (compared to ten for Mankato), for a total of only eight Denver shots in the first two periods.  What was going on here?  Denver did not have an easy road in the tournament getting to this game.  They played a good UMass-Lowell team, and managed to get seventeen shots off in the first two periods; a very good Minnesota-Duluth team, and managed to get twenty-one shots off in the first two periods; and a great Michigan team, and managed to get sixteen shots off in the first two periods. Mankato State was playing a seemingly perfectly executed game plan, and both teams were dealing with their own side of this pressured game with great discipline.  How disciplined?  In the first two periods the game saw a total of only three penalties, and one of them was against Mankato for too many men on the ice early in the second.  Of the other two, one per team, both in the first period, and one of the looked as though it might cost Denver the game.  Twelve and a half minutes into the first, Denver’s Mike Benning went to the box on a tripping call, and at the fourteen minute point, Sam Morton and gang converted a power play opportunity into a power play goal for the 1-0 Mankato lead, which stood into the break.

Mankato State was playing a neutral zone trap that looked to me like a 2-1-2 zone between the blue lines.  It looked to me as though every time Denver managed to get the puck in their zone, Mankato retreated hastily to this defensive set up, giving Denver their own zone, but making it nearly impossible to get to the other side of the blue lines.  I say it looked to me, because I’m a hockey admirer, not a hockey expert, and I’m going to revisit this “looked to me” later.  If you disagree, please post it, please!  When Denver went between the blue lines, they had bodies and flying sticks to deal with.  They had to complete one pass to get to the Mankato zone, and it was nearly impossible.  Not only was Mankato disciplined about occupying the zone, but they were lightning fast with their sticks getting to the puck and disrupting Denver’s action, whether it was passing or simply possessing.  And if Denver made it through to the other side, they were very disorganized and Mankato had no problem containing and reversing them, as if most of the Denver guys still had their jacket zippers caught up in that chain link fence back there.  And if you were watching/listening to ESPN’s Barry Melrose (played six years in the NHL, coached four seasons in the NHL including coaching his team to the Stanley Cup Championship series and winning 84 of 225 games played, truly a hockey expert, unlike me), you might have heard him say, regarding the Mankato State defense, “this isn’t how hockey is supposed to be played.”  Well, I’d have to say, as a simple observer, I disagree; hockey is supposed to be played to win the game.  Also, it seems to me that as recently as (now) two years ago, Alain Vigneault (coached nineteen seasons in the NHL including coaching his teams to two Stanley Cup Championship series and winning 722 of 1,363 games played) had the Philadelphia Flyers playing nearly this identical defense.  Just saying . . . .

Now, everything else you will have read elsewhere about this game will focus on the third period, and Denver’s stunning coming-to-life.  But not here . . . .   It looked to me as though things started to change late in the second period.  If you don’t agree with what I’m about to write, please post it here!  I though what I saw was a slight shift in what Mankato was doing when Denver got the puck in their own zone.  It seemed as though this was happening when there were about three to five minutes left in the second.  What I thought I saw was Mankato pursuing the puck a bit when Denver got it in their zone; two-on-two play for a bit, which seemed to me to be something at which the two with the puck almost always seem to prevail.  What this did was limit the neutral zone press to only three Mankato players.  Denver started to get through this late in the second.  I’m not saying this was a decision/call from the bench, but why would the players alter the execution of the game plan?  Were they impatient about only having one goal?  Did they start to feel they had such control over Denver so far that they could sort of almost do anything they pleased?  Just a guess, but I imagine playing this defense all game long was not the most exciting thing in the world for them, and they were probably just bursting to do something more.  So it doesn’t surprise me they’d want to do more, but it does surprise me that it continued, and wasn’t put to a stop.

---

And for how the game was going, were they trying to do too much?  They had a one goal lead.  Hockey games are won 1-0 all the time, including Mankato’s 1-0 win over Notre Dame two weeks earlier that brought them to this point.  Well, that’s what I thought I saw.  A door that was only open about two millimeters wide, was now opened up about three inches wide, and that’s all Denver needed to press it open further.  Then came the third —  the Denver fun came crashing down on Mankato State five minutes into the period, when Mike Barrow scored (assisted by Mike Benning), eliminating Mankato’s one goal superiority position.  Now it was a new game; Denver wasn’t done, and Mankato didn’t contain them.  Three minutes later Mike Benning scored the game-winning goal, and he was followed by Massimo Rizzo six minutes later, and suddenly Mankato was in a deep 3-1 hole.  Two empty netters by Brett Stapley and then Cameron Wright, and Denver had managed five unanswered goals in a span of only thirteen minutes.  Congratulations to Denver on winning their ninth NCAA Hockey Championship, which ties them with Michigan for the most of all college teams.  Here’s one for you.  The five Denver goals that were scored in the championship game?  Every single one of them was made by a player from . . . . Canada.  Denver’s Frozen Four Semifinal 3-2 win over Michigan?  All three Denver goals were scored by players from . . . . Canada.  Denver’s 2-1 second round win over Minnesota-Duluth?  One of those two goals scored by a guy from . . . . Canada.  Denver’s 3-1 opening round win over UMass-Lowell?  All three Denver goals were scored by players from . . . . Canada.  So, in the NCAA Tournament, Denver scored 13 goals, and 12 were scored by guys from . . . . Canada.  Denver’s 175 goals this season?  107 of them (61%) were scored by ten guys from . . . . you guessed it . . . . Canada.

THE HOBEY BAKER JINX?

I have to say that I didn’t have a great feeling about Mankato winning this game, and that feeling started Friday night, April 8th, when I learned that their goalie, Dryden McKay, won the Hobey Baker award.  I’ve only attended one Frozen Four, the 1999 edition in Anaheim.  I attended the Hobey Baker award announcement on the Friday before the championship game, and it was given to a deserving Jason Krog who played at New Hampshire.  In his senior year alone, Krog scored 34 goals and had 51 assists.  Heck, as a junior he had 33/33.  Sophomore?  23/44.  He graduated from UNH with 104 goals and 144 assists.  They played Maine the next night, and Maine must have known that by that point that the UNH players had become trained to do one thing — look for Krog.  Krog had one assist in the UNH loss to Maine.  Maine basically double-teamed him all night long, and you almost couldn’t see him on the ice.  And why not?  That’s exactly what New Hampshire had done to the Hobey Baker runner up, Mike York of Michigan State, in their Frozen Four semifinal on the Thursday before.  York graduated with 79 goals and 122 assists; he had 22 goals and 32 assists his senior year.  On that Thursday you couldn’t see York, he didn’t score a goal, and I don’t believe he had an assist in Michigan State’s loss to New Hampshire.

Even since then, I’ve always anticipated that if the Hobey Baker Award winner were in the championship game the next night, his team would lose.  Ok, the award started in 1981, and since/including that year, a team with the Hobey Baker Award winner has played in sixteen championship games; those teams have won six times, and lost ten times.  The odds have been particularly bad since/including 1999; during this stretch, the team with the Hobey Baker Award winner has played in nine championship games and has won three times, and lost six times (compared to three wins and four losses prior to 1999).  For a complete list of the outcomes of championship games which featured a Hobey Baker Award winner, see the very bottom of this post.*

THE 2022 COLLEGE HOCKEY UPDATE POOL

Ok, I’m sure we all remember very clearly where we were in this thing at the conclusion of the first two regional rounds were played.  Wasn’t it incredible?  I mean someone actually getting all twelve of the first games picked right?  What?  You don’t remember those standings??  Ok, for the few of you who don’t, click here:

OK, THAT DIDN’T WORK!  Here’s a good one — everything you see from here down i had already typed in, and it just deleted everything, so I will have to recreate it!

to see the 2022 standings after the first two regional rounds, go to the homepage, find the post:  “McKay/Mankato Shut Out Notre Dame” (4/7/22) and scroll down.

The Results Of The 2022 Pool

So here’s the scoop — no drama in 2022.  George Huberty managed to correctly pick the winner of all fifteen games, for a never before seen total of fifteen picks, and with the two bonus points for getting the correct winner, a total of seventeen points.

Final College Hockey Update Pool Standings

Winner, George Huberty, by landslide, and the first ever perfect bracket

15 correct picks, 17 total points

12 picks, 14 points:  Rarden, Sell

13 picks, 13 points:  Latif, Smith

10 picks, 12 points:  Schmidt

12 picks, 12 points:  Ryan, Pastor

11 picks, 11 points:  Hawekotte, GSchreader, JSchreader, DShymanski

10 picks/points:  Kramer, DMattson, Schwictenberg

9 picks/points:  Esposito, McLean, Reichel, Speare

8/8:  Cattermole, DRamsey, KRamsey, Slaughter, Sweeney

7/7:  Cook, Corbin, KMattson, Michela, Roth, TShymanski

6:  Bettendorf

5:  Oswald

4:  Carlisle

FINAL TEAM RANKINGS/FINAL POLL FOR 2022

Let’s see how well this attempt at importing this data works out . . . .

Rnk	Team	(First Place Votes)	Record	Points	Last Poll
1	Denver	(50)	31-9-1	1000	3
2	Minnesota State		38-6-0	949	1
3	Michigan		31-10-1	894	2
4	Minnesota		26-13-0	856	5
5	Minnesota Duluth		22-16-4	757	6
6	Western Michigan		26-12-1	743	4
7	Quinnipiac		32-7-3	690	8
8	Notre Dame		28-12-0	667	9
9	North Dakota		24-14-1	609	7
10	Massachusetts		22-13-2	544	10
11	St. Cloud		18-15-4	480	11
12	UMass Lowell		21-11-3	425	13
13	Northeastern		25-13-1	421	12
14	Michigan Tech		21-13-3	347	14
15	Harvard		21-11-3	335	15
16	Ohio State		22-13-2	207	16
17	Clarkson		21-10-6	177	17
18	AIC		22-13-3	166	18
19	Connecticut		20-16-0	100	19
20	Providence		22-14-2	64	20

Others receiving votes: Boston University 30, Omaha 15, Cornell 7, Bemidji State 5, Boston College 4, Merrimack 4, Northern Michigan 2, Penn State 2

---

Congratulations to George Huberty on your amazingly huge win in the pool and for hanging in there with so many years of participating in the pool.  Special thanks to Chris Wall, who attended the Frozen Four last year, for picking up the Trophy Sweatshirt on site at the tournament, and providing it to us.  In keeping with the timing of this, the sweatshirt has yet to get the College Hockey Update logo on the back, so George, if you are wondering where the heck it is, call your sister and ask her how that 2022 logo is coming along.  Yes, George is my brother-in-law!

And thanks to my behind the scenes contributors for who know a lot more about hockey than I do, for helping me out — Greg Schreader, John McLean, and Bruce Carlisle (and sorry if I am overlooking anyone else).  And thanks to our co-publisher, Jim Slaughter, for making this possible by putting this blogsite online, and especially this past month, for hanging in there and bringing this thing back to life.

So, that’s all for now.  STAY TUNED, and go Terriers, go College Hockey!

— Tom

*Outcomes of championship games which featured a Hobey Baker Award winner:

Year     Hobey Baker Winner     Team     Team Outcome of Championship Game

1981          Neil Broten              Minn          Lost

1983          Mark Fusco              Hrvd          Lost

1984          Tom Kurvers            UMD          Lost

1986          Scott Fusco             Harvd         Lost

1987          Tony Hrkac              NDak          Won

1989          Lane McDonald      Harvd          Won

1993          Paul Kariya              Maine         Won

1999          Jason Krog              UNH           Lost

2000          Mike Mottau           B. C.            Lost

2002          Jordan Leopold       Minn          Won

2009          Matt Gilroy              B. U.           Won

2010          Blake Geoffrion       Wisc           Lost

2015          Jack Eichel               B. U.           Lost

2017          Will Butcher             Denv          Won

2019          Cale Makar              Mass          Won

2022          Dryden McKay         Mank         Lost

That’s it.  STAY TUNED!