Here's To Not Blowing It Comment Count

Brian

1/8/2016 – Michigan 9, MSU 2 – 12-3-3, 3-1-1 Big Ten
1/9/2016 – Michigan 6, MSU 3 – 13-3-3, 4-1-1 Big Ten

16617368337_865739a30d_z

[Bill Rapai]

The denigration of the Michigan State hockey program happened gradually and then suddenly, like bankruptcy. After Ron Mason retired he hired his buddy Rick Comley from Northern Michigan; he turned the Spartans into Northern Michigan. Comley retired and Michigan State hired a program alum whose most recent coaching experience was something along the lines of girl's high school hockey 20 years ago. I forget what it was exactly and, following Mark Hollis's lead, decline to look something like that up.

This has gone about as well as you might expect. MSU has made the tournament once since 2008, that from a 19-16-4 season in Tom Anastos's first year that saw a quick first round exit. Anastos's brand of hockey—Ron Mason, except defensive—has imploded into itself, leaving MSU one of the very worst teams in the country. At the moment they are 54th of 60 D-I teams in RPI. They've been headed in that direction for a decade.

And Michigan keeps losing to them.

Since Michigan's own slide began, time and again they have encountered the Spartans in the second half of a season spent on the bubble and dropped games to crappy teams that came back to haunt them. The collection of problems that killed Michigan's tourney streak is large and frustrating, but the second-most infuriating trademark of the drought squads has been their ability to get your hopes up just before a NO WHAT ARE YOU DOING loss to Michigan State.

Oh, hell, here you go:

  • 2015: Michigan goes 3-2, losing a pair of 2-1 games in which a dude with 8 goals all year scores the GWG early in the third. The crippling final loss sees Michigan outshoot MSU 38-19.
  • 2014: Michigan eats a humiliating 3-0 loss in the GLI, then blows a 3-1 lead to lose 4-3 on the penultimate weekend of the final season. They miss a bid by one game when they lose to PSU in the opener of the Big Ten Tourney.
  • 2013: A night after whipping the Spartans 5-1, Michigan loses 7-2. They do win the subsequent three games in the series. /waves tiny "punt" flag

It is very painful to lose to Michigan State because when they do score they spend the rest of the game stacked up like cordwood in the crease. Watching these things happen while envisioning big red down arrows next to Michigan's pairwise ranking has been an unpleasant experience, to say the least.

So here's to that not happening, even a little bit, last weekend.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I've spent most of this year disengaged, as you do when you aren't expecting much. I have been waiting for a sign that I should allow my emotions to get involved with this hockey team, and this weekend might have been it.

It was another rote walkover of a bad team, but let us not turn up our nose at rote walkovers of bad teams. There have been plenty non-walkovers of bad teams in the recent past. There turns out to be something to the art of not losing to teams you should not lose to.

I admit I was worried early on Saturday. @YostBuilt kept tweeting "don't lose 2-1" and I was like "please stop tweeting that" in my head. MSU came out with save-our-season energy; Michigan got one shot in the first ten minutes. MSU scored.

The script goes one of two directions then. It goes either to another hat-eating, silent-cursing loss that looms over your season, or Michigan limbers up the machine guns and makes Jake Hildebrand look like he's singlehandedly fighting World War I again. 18 of the 19 players chose Door Murder Hildebrand, and Michigan has no arrow next to its RPI at all.

image

That's all you can ask for when you play a team as bad as Michigan State. On to the next opportunity to not blow it.

BULLETS

Player nineteen. If you follow me on twitter it will not be a surprise to you that I thought Michael Downing had a really bad day. Downing gave up two breakaways in the first 21 minutes, one on a bad change, the second when he made a very inadvisable D-to-D pass, managed to recover from that due to MSU incompetence, and then got stripped of the puck at mid-ice anyway. Later he took two penalties, both of which I thought were legitimate; MSU scored on a 5-on-3 resulting from one to bring the game sort of close.

In between he did more of those Downing things where he decides to go nail a player coming out of the zone. A couple of these worked but he gave up at least one odd-man rush as a result. I will never understand why he chooses to do that or why he hasn't been screamed at until he stops doing it—the upsides there are so low and the downsides so high.

Downing is a bad decision machine and I find it inexplicable he hasn't been benched for a wake-up call. That goes double because Michigan skates seven defensemen most nights and there wasn't a detectable dropoff in play during Downing's three-game suspension.

No line shuffles please. Red loves to throw his lines in a blender from time to time just to see what happens. He usually lets it ride when things are going well, and so we've had a long period where the forwards are relatively settled:

  • Motte-Compher-Connor
  • Selman-Nieves-Kile
  • Warren-Marody-Calderone
  • Dancs-Shuart-X

Where X is whoever they're double-shifting with the fourth line. I'd like to see Michigan stick with this going forward; Motte and Compher have always seemed to play best together, Connor really benefits from their workrate, and the third line is playing really well together. I'm kind of meh about the second line but with the other two rolling and Dancs and Shuart bringing speed and size to the grinding corps it works.

Penalty for hitting too hard. While I though the penalty that put Michigan down 5-on-3 was a legit call, the charging penalty that preceded it was… well… on the one hand, as soon as I saw it I expected a call. But I also thought it was not a penalty.

Hockey's fallen into a situation similar to the one college football finds itself in with targeting. Some penalties get called simply because something legal and impactful looks bad. CFB reviews things, which doesn't help in any way whatsoever because nobody knows what targeting is. College hockey does not.

I dunno. I know we want guys to be safe but to me the pendulum has swung too far the other direction when Kile can plow a guy in the chest and the ref 200 feet away immediately puts his hand up for no other reason than "that looked hurty."

Pairwise bits. As always, it's basically RPI these days. Michigan is 8th. This is relatively good news. Michigan's nonconference opponents have been surprisingly good in conference play, which has kept M's SOS level despite the nature of the Big Ten. They don't have much opportunity to move up into truly secure territory unless they just don't lose the rest of the way; it's more about holding serve and generating a buffer.

This weekend against MSU did little other than help Michigan tread water; anything but a sweep would have been a hit. So, despite being a two-seed this instant, a bad weekend or two puts them right back on the bubble. It will be precarious going forward. So far so good. They are scoring an awful lot.

Comments

Canadian

January 14th, 2016 at 8:49 PM ^

Is it though? What if Mel doesn't want to come back to Ann Arbor? You are sure that the fact a coach is happy at his alma mater means nothing? Or if someone else came in and offered him more he should just take it and leave his alma mater behind?
Do you feel the same about Jim Harbaugh?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Save Us Mel

January 15th, 2016 at 7:39 AM ^

It's a totally different situation than Harbaugh.  Mel has spent much more time in his life at Michigan than he has at his alma mater.  He's a major part of why the Michigan hockey program is what it is today - both in becoming the preeminent program in college hockey, and the major drop off since he's left.  He better than anyone, knows that it is much easier to win at Michigan than his alma mater. It's time to bring Mel back home. 

gwkrlghl

January 12th, 2016 at 7:04 PM ^

When have to be near perfect to get an at-large bid. A risky proposition in the turrible Big Ten with a sometimes shaky defense. We've seen this one before: #1 offense, iffy D. Only thing is the defense is a little less iffy that in years past but the Big Ten is more awful.

BlueDragon

January 12th, 2016 at 7:19 PM ^

If you want to play competitive tournament chess, get used to some lopsided matchups. Say 200-300 Elo difference between the players. This puts the higher rated player in a spot where winning is more of a relief than a pleasure. At the amateur ("mere-mortal") level these kinds of upsets happen all the time. I had a few tournaments growing up where I earned 100+ Elo in a weekend.

Like Zack Novak, competitive chess players such as myself hate losing more than we like winning. It is a consequence of being Alabama Football-esque in hockey, in a middling Big Ten with a pesky PSU around.

Yostbound and Down

January 12th, 2016 at 7:33 PM ^

The series at the end of the month against PSU should be big, as they look to be the only other consistent team in the Big Ten (well, consistently average at least... Minnesota might be getting hot). 

Weekend vs Ohio St could be interesting as they did well in their holiday tournament.

Sac Fly

January 12th, 2016 at 8:48 PM ^

De Jong is like Serville. A top pairing defenseman by default who is still making the same mistakes he made his first day on the ice.

Give Sam Piazza a shot.

rwilb

January 12th, 2016 at 9:39 PM ^

I couldn't agree more about the penalties for big hits these days. In both sports. People play these games knowing that it's dangerous and that's part of the allure i.e. Bravery/masculinity and stuff

TWharry

January 13th, 2016 at 3:28 AM ^

This is why, despite how much I love my alma mater, I was never able to really get behind the hockey team. I was friends with all the players when I was there, and I wish them the best, but I always took hockey too seriously to associate myself with their hockey fans. 

The incessant, ignorant railing on Downing is just plain lunacy to anyone who really knows the game at more than a fan level. I really wish you'd stick to football, because your knowledge of hockey is sorely lacking. If you think the hit that got him ejected, or the one that got him ejected last time, or the one before that was legitimate, you have no business commenting on hockey. 

The hit on Warning was perfectly clean. Warning is short, so the contact was head-level rather than shoulder-to-chest. Downing extended his arm AFTER CONTACT, which is perfectly legal. The extension of his arm is what the ref saw in real time, and that's what caused him to call the penalty. But much like the Lions' phantom facemask that cost them the game against the Packers, this was a case of a ref making a bad judgment call based on what he assumed from what he saw in real time from a bad angle.

And your ignorant bias against Downing caused you to rail on him again. It's old. Stop it. Stick to football.

Go Blue!

Canadian

January 13th, 2016 at 9:45 AM ^

Hahahahaha.... Hitting a player in the head doesn't become legal just because the player is shorter than you are. I know the game as much more than just the fan level and cannot stand Downing's play. He is a liability in his own end and the neutral zone, also tries to blast shots through guys shins (which get blocked and cause an odd man rush the other way) way too often. He would be a serviceable 2nd or 3rd pairing guy with a solid defensive defenseman but he is not in that role.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Blue In NC

January 13th, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^

Wow, not sure that Brian has ever claimed to be an expert but he is a passionate hockey fan, follows the team and offers his opinions.  Not sure he has ever claimed to be a former player.  Just because he is writing as a fan does not mean he should stay silent on the subject.

Apparently you are too serious about hockey to even cheer for the team.  Maybe it's time to take a step back.

I assume you think that all sportswriters should have played the game as appropriate levels - otherwise why are they fit to offer opinions?  

You can disagree with Brian's opinion on these things - fine.  But to then say "stick to football" to him and imply that he cannot write about his opinions on his own blog is lunacy.

JJJ

January 13th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^

Has anyone heard if the B1G is going to extend an invite to ASU hockey as a an affiliate member? It sounds like an interesting idea merging PAC 12 and Big Ten. Will the lack of AAU status and lower academic ranking be a stumbling block?

In reply to by JJJ

Alton

January 13th, 2016 at 1:49 PM ^

It might happen, even though it is just about the only thing the Big Ten could do to actually make itself a worse hockey conference.  ASU, unlike Penn State, created their varsity hockey team with absolutely no plan on how to get better, no vision for the future, and no home arena (and no plans for building one). 

I don't know if the Big Ten cares about the quality of the product, though (see: Rutgers).  Unlike with Johns Hopkins in lacrosse, (1) the Big Ten doesn't need ASU to get an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, and (2) being associated with Arizona State wouldn't add anything to the conference as a whole.

In other words, there are huge disadvantages and only one advantage that I can see (schools would only need to find 10 non-conference opponents a year instead of 14)--and one B1G school wouldn't see that as an advantage at all.  I guess some might think that recruiting might be helped by an annual trip to Arizona, although I don't think that would be a huge deal in hockey recruiting.

Just because the disadvantages outweigh the advantages doesn't mean it won't happen, of course.  The Big Ten doesn't really "get" hockey, so the people making the decisions likely won't care about anything I just mentioned.

 

JJJ

January 13th, 2016 at 4:50 PM ^

I hear you, but the 6 team argument doesn't seem to matter either as the B1G is adding JHU women's lacrosse as an affiliate to make 7 teams. It may be exciting to go down to Arizona once a year and the west is becoming a hotbed of hockey talent. Plus PSU is killing it, maybe ASU will too after a couple of years (unlike Rutgers anything).

gwkrlghl

January 13th, 2016 at 10:40 PM ^

not sure if they'll get there nearly as fast as Penn State though - which is hard to do since PSU Hockey is looking like the prime example going forward of how to build a program.

I'm sure ASU would like to be in the Big Ten as it gives them credibility and a home schedule with teams that ASU fans are actually aware of (have any non-hockey fans ever heard of Minnesota-Duluth or Nebraska-Omaha?) but I'm not sure the Big Ten shouldn't just let them go to the NCHC. I'm undecided