There should be a more reasonable approach to reviewing offsides

The NCAA needs to rethink which goals it disallows as the result of an offsides entry into the zone.

There was a time in college hockey when a goal was disallowed simply because a player from the attacking team had a skate blade in the crease. It didn't matter if it was on purpose or inadvertent. It didn't matter if the skate in the crease had anything to do with how the goal was scored or whether it affected the goalie's ability to make the save. The goal was automatically disallowed because the rules said that no player from the attacking team could be in the blue paint ahead of the puck. Even if the officials didn't see the infraction but the replay cameras confirmed it, the team scoring the goal was, in effect, penalized for the officials' blown call.

Fortunately, the NCAA came to its senses and changed the rule, realizing that goals were being waved off for an infraction that had no bearing on how the goal was scored. The "no harm, no foul" principle was applied. It's a much more reasonable approach.

This brings me to UND's disallowed goal against Boston University, a goal that would have given the Fighting Hawks an overtime win in Fargo. Even if you accept that the NCAA had conclusive evidence showing Ludwig Hoff was offsides entering the zone, the image shows that it was by the narrowest of margins. It's easy to see how the linesman missed the call. However, in light of what happened during the UND-BU playoff game, I believe the NCAA needs to revisit the rule on reviewing goals for offsides infractions.

If a team enters the zone on a rush, scores off the rush and was aided by an offsides call the officials missed, then the goal should be disallowed. However, my recollection is that this isn't what happened with Dixon Bowen's disallowed goal against BU. When UND entered the zone, there was no indication from neither the officials nor the players that they believed the entry was offsides. Play went on as usual. UND didn't score off the rush. When the goal was eventually scored, it wasn't as a result of the missed offsides call.

If the NCAA allows a goal to be scored on a crease violation because the violation had no effect on the goalie's ability to make a save, why shouldn't a more reasonable approach be applied to offsides? If nobody knew for certain that the zone entry was offsides, play continued as usual and a goal was eventually scored by the attacking team -- on a play that had nothing to do with the zone entry -- why shouldn't the goal stand? How far back in time should officials go to apply the results of a call they didn't make in real-time?

We know the officials aren't perfect and can't see everything. Sometimes they don't even see what they think they see, as evidenced during Minnesota-Duluth's game against Ohio State when two apparent goals were signaled by referees, only to be reviewed and then disallowed.

Getting the call right after a goal is scored is important to determining the game's correct outcome. The NCAA has already established a precedent that goals can be allowed when an uncalled infraction had no bearing on the scoring opportunity. Just as the NCAA wisely applied common-sense limits to the man-in-the-crease rule, it should do the same when it comes to rewinding the tape to review goals scored following a missed offsides call.

If being offsides created no unfair advantage that led to a goal, then why disallow the goal?

The 5PPG Plan With One Week Left

Here's what my proposed "5 Points Per Game" plan would have the NCHC standings showing:

Team RW-OTW-SOW-SOL-OTL-RL Points

1. UND 13-2-0-2-1-4 78 
2. Miami 12-1-1-0-0-8 67 
3. UNO 10-1-3-0-1-7 64 
4. DU 12-0-1-0-0-9 63 
5. UMD 9-2-0-3-1-7 60 
6. SCSU 10-0-0-1-1-10 53 
7. WMU 4-1-4-1-1-11 39 
8. CC 2-0-0-2-2-16 16 

 In this system,

•  UND would have secured the Penrose Cup 
•  SCSU would still have a shot (with a home sweep of DU and UMD having a poor weekend) at home ice.

What the NCHC needs to change

After watching the UND at UNO series in Omaha last weekend, I'm more convinced than ever that the following changes need to be made:

FIRST: Let’s put the second referee in the press box.

Yes, the press box, and connected wirelessly to the one on the ice.

Under my plan the press box official would call penalties during play through the on ice referee. The on ice official would behave as he does today, but with an earpiece. They would be in constant communication. 

I can rattle off the benefits immediately:

1. One fewer official on the ice opens up space.
2. The press box official will be in charge of replay calls so that process should speed up as they’ll be stationed in front of the replay views all the time.
3. We all know that there are things during the game that happen that are much more easily seen from the higher view of the game: These will be more readily recognized and penalized.
4. We’ll be able to hang onto the experience of the best of the best tenured officials as they will still be able to contribute to the game even if their physical capabilities to keep up with the speed of the game have diminished.

I can hear folks already explaining why it can’t work.

1. Player safety: With one fewer official, who’ll break up scrums? Uh, there aren’t supposed to be scrums; and, the eye in the sky will be in position to see everything, take notes, use replay immediately, and ensure the right folks are facing the right penalties.
2. Not every rink supports it. Really? Every rink has a press box, and replay, already.
3. The technology is unproven. So? That can be fixed by … proving it out. The NCHC has made the move to go away from goal judges to television replay technology. If the NCHC trusts that, why not trust wireless communications over maybe 400 feet? Redundancies can be built into the technology to ensure it works.
4. The press box official won’t have a real feel for the tempo of the game and what’s really happening on the ice. That’s why there is still an on ice referee. Plus, so what. Sometimes that feel and adrenaline may encourage officials to let them play (boys will be boys) rather than see how things look from the stands (and on television). Put another way, the press box official will probably tend to call things more to the letter of the book than the “feel” of the game because sometimes the feel gets out of control.

I’d like to see the NCHC pick a few exhibition games and give this a try. I believe it’s time to use the technology advances available to improve the college game. Goal replay is one step. This is the next.

NEXT: It’s time to look at “points” realistically and align them to risk and reward.

I’m not talking goals plus assists; I’m talking about points used in league standings.

I’d like to see every league game worth five points. Yes, five. I know it’s a vast departure from the past, but points really don’t serve a purpose other than sorting out league standings. Points are merely a standings shorthand, an accounting trick. 

If you get 21 wins and win the league title, does it matter if that standings column says “42 points”, “63 points”, “60 points”, or “105 points”? The key is this: You finished first in the standings. No one remembers the points.

Here’s my proposal:

5 – Win in regulation time

4 – Win in overtime

3 – Win in a shootout

2 – Lose a shootout

1 – Lose in overtime

0 – Lose in regulation time

The opponents will say, “You should get nothing if you lose.” What are they getting? “Standings Points” are just an accounting trick to sort out the standings. You don’t “get” those points to hang from rafters.

To show what my proposal would look like here are today’s standings and what they’d look like in this plan:

                W            L              T              Today    My Plan

UNO      10           5              1              32           53

UND      10           5              1              31           52

UMD     9              6              1              28           47

Miami   8              6              1              26           43

Denver 8              7              0              24           40

SCSU     7              8              1              22           37

WMU    4              7              4              19           31

CC           1              13           1              4              7

So what would be the benefit?

You’d have teams playing to win during the whole game. A team would actually benefit by winning in regulation instead of overtime. And instead of going into a shell in overtime to get the “overtime point” and reach a shootout you have a reason to try to win.

It’s a different approach, but it would make the standings clearer and probably reduce the need tiebreakers to set the seeds at the end of the season. 

Shaping Up: The 2011-12 Sioux Hockey Roster

With the announcements of F Michael Di Puma and D Dan Senkbeil it seems the final shape of the 2011 UND mens hockey roster is fairly well set.

I know some are fretful that F Jason Gregoire may still choose the professional option over a senior year, but I know two things on that front: 1) with the addition of Di Puma I still only see 15 forwards on the roster and that's the minimum UND normally carries, and 2) no amount of worry by me will alter what is ultimately Jason's decision.

I see 15 forwards. That's traditionally the roster size as it makes five complete lines for practice. And 3 goaltenders is traditional also. I see no surprises there.

What is unusual is 9 defensemen. Traditionally that number is 8 (four pairs). But thinking more about that number I think I understand why 9 going into this fall.

In the spring of 2012 UND will lose senior Ben Blood; but, it may also face losing Andrew MacWilliam and Derek Forbort to the professional ranks. That scenario would leave UND with Gleason, Hill, Simpson, the 2011 freshmen, and 2012 recruit Jordan Schmaltz. (That's just seven, so expect to hear at least one more 2012 defenseman recruit.)

Adding defensemen with potential to develop (Panzarella, Senkbeil) now, fall 2011, should smooth out a spring 2012 bump if UND were to see Blood, MacWilliam, and Forbort all depart.

Those are my thoughts given what I see right now. But what I also see is that Hakstol and his staff are playing both checkers (immediate impacts and tactics) and chess (long-term strategic roster planning). That's a lot strategy and tactic to manage off the ice.

UND vs. Michigan: A statistical analysis

Understandably, most North Dakota hockey fans don't have much interest in dwelling on the painful 2-0 loss to Michigan April 7 at the NCAA Frozen Four in St. Paul. It's still difficult for me to comprehend that the opportunity for the Fighting Sioux to win an eighth national championship has come and gone.

After watching the game again and reading some of the analysis that's been done, I decided to delve into the game statistics and shot charts provided by the NCAA. My apologies to those who aren't stats geeks, but I think the value of studying shot charts and statistics serves to debunk some of the statements made about how the Sioux performed and were coached against Michigan.

One area in which I was most interested was shots on goal by each team from the prime scoring area (PSA). I defined the PSA as the area from the goal line out to the top of the faceoff circles with the faceoff dots forming the left and right edges of the box. I was also interested in the shots from beyond the blue line because the chances of scoring on them is probably less than 1 percent.

Here are some interesting facts:

• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• 50% (20) of UND's 40 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• Michigan blocked 23% (16) of UND's 70 shot attempts
• UND blocked 31% (15) of Michigan's 40 shot attempts
• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from outside UND's blue line
• 5% (2) of UND's 40 shots of goal were from outside Michigan's blue line
• 18 of UND's 20 shots on goal (90%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• 4 of Michigan's 7 shots on goal (57%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• In the third period, UND had 4 shots from the prime scoring area that missed the net (wide or high) and 3 that were blocked
• UND had 8 scoring opportunities from just outside the crease
• Michigan had 1 scoring opportunity from just outside the crease
• UND's top line had 10 shots on goal from the prime scoring area
• Michigan's top line had 2 shots on goal from the prime scoring area

Overall, UND had it's top-end players in prime scoring position throughout the game and was generating quality scoring opportunities. UND did an excellent job of shutting down Michigan's highest-scoring players, blocking shots and nearly eliminating any second chances on rebounds.

Based on these statistics, UND played an excellent defensive game against Michigan, effectively bottling up the Wolverines' top scorers. The Sioux were also very disciplined in giving Michigan just one power play. Much was made afterwards about Michigan's shot blocking, but UND's defense was better at not only limiting the Wolverines' shot attempts, but also at blocking a higher percentage of shots and limiting scoring opportunities from just outside the paint.

Offensively, with the exception of the power play, UND did everything well but put the puck in the net. Throughout the game, the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory. But, as Michigan coach Red Berenson said, goalie Shawn Hunwick played the game of his life. If he hadn't, the Sioux would have lit up Michigan like a Christmas tree. Hunwick -- not Berenson's game plan or Michigan's defense -- deserves full credit for shutting down and shutting out UND.

There's no question in my mind that UND dominated the game. Without Hunwick's performance, Michigan would have been sunk.

First Period

UND shots on goal = 14 (1 from outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 10 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Matt Frattin 2; Danny Kristo 1; Brock Nelson 1; Derrick LaPoint 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 3 (30%)
Ben Winnett 1 (scored); Jeff Rohrkemper 1; Carl Hagelin 1

Second Period
UND shots on goal = 11 (1 outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 3 (1 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 6
Evan Trupp 2; Jason Gregoire 1; Andrew MacWilliam 1; Danny Kristo 1; Chay Genoway 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 0

Third Period
UND shots on goal = 15
Michigan shots on goal = 7 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Evan Trupp 3; Matt Frattin 1; Danny Kristo 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 4
Scooter Vaughn 2 (scored empty net goal*); Luke Moffatt 1; Louie Caporusso 1

Game Totals
Michigan shot attempts = 48
42% shots on goal
31% blocked by UND

UND shot attempts = 70
57% shots on goal
23% blocked by Michigan

*Note: Vaughn's empty netter was actually from outside the prime scoring area, but with UND's goalie pulled, I decided the area should expanded.

The funny game

Last Thursday afternoon at the Xcel Energy Center, the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Roman Augustoviz asked me: "Do you see any way North Dakota loses this?"

It was an interesting question because after the Fighting Sioux beat the University of Denver to become the only No. 1 seed to make the Frozen Four, everything seemed to be lining up for UND to win its eighth national championship.

None of the teams that ousted the Sioux from the NCAA playoffs during the Dave Hakstol era – DU and Boston College in particular – were still playing. The location of the Frozen Four in St. Paul assured an atmosphere at the Xcel Energy Center that heavily favored UND.

Hakstol had a 2-0 record against Red Berenson’s teams the two times they’d met in the NCAA playoffs. Most believed that this year’s Wolverines weren’t as deep or as talented as some previous Michigan teams. Also, during the regular season, UND went 2-1 against Minnesota-Duluth and 1-0-1 against Notre Dame.

Going into the Frozen Four, UND appeared rested and relatively healthy, which meant that Hakstol would be able to play his best lineup and roll all four lines. And most importantly, the Sioux were peaking at exactly the right moment and playing their best hockey of the season. The players and coaches were more focused than any Sioux team I'd ever seen. Their goaltending was solid, every line was producing, the defensive corps was outstanding and the special teams were excellent. So there was every reason to be positive.

However, while driving to St. Paul the night before the Frozen Four started, I began thinking about the ways in which many great Sioux teams had fallen short since I began following UND hockey in 1996. Dean Blais’ teams of 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2003-2004 were highly regarded, but never made it out of the NCAA regionals. The four previous times Hakstol’s teams had made it do the big dance, hopes for a national championship were high, but the expectations were never realized.

So when I pondered Roman’s question, the realist in me recalled what had happened the past 11 times UND had been in a position to win a national championship, only to fall short of the ultimate goal.

I remembered poor goaltending, untimely penalties, flat performances, unlucky bounces, badly executed line changes, leads that evaporated, last-second goals in regulation, costly turnovers, goals in overtime and – most of all – opposing goalies who play the best games of their lives. (Do the names Adam Berkhoel and Peter Mannino ring a bell?)

And nobody should forget that the other team always gets a vote in determining the outcome. Any team still playing in April has a great deal going for it. 

As much as I hoped UND would take advantage of the opportunity to win its eighth championship, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned from the past 15 years of following the Fighting Sioux, it’s that in hockey, there’s no such thing as a sure thing.

The 2-0 loss to Michigan reminded me of something former UND player Jason Notermann once said (which I’ll paraphrase because I can’t find the exact quote):  Hockey is a funny game. Sometimes you score five goals on 10 shots, and other times you can’t score one goal on 50 shots.

Against Michigan, UND fell victim to one of those funny games at the worst time of the season. There were so many times that the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory, only to be denied by goalie Shawn Hunwick. As Corban Knight put it, "The plays we were looking for weren't there. When they were, the goalie stood on his head."

What's become apparent over the 10 seasons I've been covering Fighting Sioux hockey for US College Hockey Online is that the team that looks like the favorite to win a national championship often isn't the one that prevails.  And that's one reason college hockey fans return again and again to watch this funny game.

Evan Trupp's magic moment

On Inside College Hockey's latest podcast, Evan Trupp’s lacrosse-style carrying of the puck on his stick during North Dakota’s Friday game against Colorado College was compared to a move Denver University forward Ryan Dingle tried against the Tigers during the 2005 Frozen Four.



Other than the fact that both players did something similar, in terms of sportsmanship, there’s a great deal that sets them apart. Based on what I’ve read and remember about the Dingle incident, DU was leading 5-2 with about 2 minutes left in the game. Dingle had a chance to score on a breakaway. Rather than skating in on the CC goalie and shooting the puck, Dingle elected to show off by using a lacrosse-style move that didn’t come close to working.

Denver coach George Gwozdecky chewed out Dingle and benched him. After DU won 6-2, Pioneers' captain Matt Latsch apologized to CC coach Scott Owens and the Tigers’ captain.

There was good reason for Gwozdecky and Dingle’s teammates to be embarrassed by his actions. The Pioneers had the game won and Dingle was attempting to rub salt in the wound of his team’s biggest rival by showboating on national television. Nobody would have criticized him if he’d deked CC’s goalie and scored on the breakaway. But attempting to humiliate an already-beaten opponent went too far, and everyone knew it.

When Trupp did his bit of puck-toting wizardry, it was with more than 15 minutes remaining in the third period of a tie game. He used his incredible hockey skills in a novel manner with the objective of putting his team ahead. He wasn’t all alone on a breakaway in a game that had already been decided. There were three Tigers players between him and the CC goalie.

Had Trupp scored or even set up an opportunity that led to a goal, it would have been widely praised and celebrated by hockey fans, just as the goal scored by Michigan’s Mike Legg during the 1996 NCAA tournament today is considered one of the most famous goals in college hockey history.

The answer to INCH’s question of why Trupp did this is easy: It was to create confusion and gain the element of surprise for the purpose scoring -- just as Trupp did when me made a no-look, behind-the-back pass to set up Matt Frattin's game-winning goal. The lacrosse move nearly worked because not even Trupp’s own teammates, who’d seen him do similar things in practice, knew how to react.

If Trupp tried the same move again in one of UND’s remaining games, it likely wouldn’t work because the element of surprise is gone. However, at that moment in that game, it was worth a try. Although Trupp didn’t succeed in scoring, even INCH had to admit that “…his trick play with the puck re-ignited his team and the crowd in a tough third period when energy levels had begun to wane.”

Late in the season during the playoffs, players are expected use every arrow in their quiver (within the rules) to help their teams win. Just as nobody criticizes Frattin for shooting the puck too hard and too accurately, nobody should criticize Trupp for using the creative hockey skills he possesses when the outcome of a playoff game is in question. He would be shortchanging himself and doing his team a disservice if he didn’t.

While I'm at it, INCH's criticism of the Fighting Sioux players not wanting to touch either the MacNaughton Cup or Broadmoor Trophy is silly. This hockey superstition didn't begin with UND, nor will the Sioux be the last hockey team to practice it. Singling out UND makes about as much sense as complaining about the time-honored practice of growing playoff beards.

Post-Final Five thoughts

Congratulations to the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's hockey team for bringing home its second consecutive Broadmoor Trophy. UND won the tournament championship in St. Paul by defeating two highly skilled teams -- Denver and Colorado College -- in games that should serve as a good tune-up for the upcoming NCAA playoffs.

  As should be expected this time of year, UND's seniors made the big plays when they were most needed to earn the wins. It was senior Matt Frattin with the game-winning goal for the championship, assisted by seniors Chay Genoway and Evan Trupp. What impressed me most about the play Trupp made to set up the goal was the fact that when he passed the puck back to Genoway, Genoway had just come off the bench and hadn't even entered the DU zone yet.

  Genoway not only used his speed to intercept the puck before it left the zone, but he also had the presence of mind to one-time Trupp's pass without breaking stride. It was the speed at which the play happened that gave Frattin the best look at an open net that any Sioux player had seen since the second period. As Colorado College learned on Friday night, if you give Frattin that type of opportunity, he's not going to miss.

  In Friday's game against the Colorado College Tigers, it was Genoway's pass that sprung Frattin shorthanded and led to senior Brad Malone's goal after what appeared to be a momentum-changing 5-minute major penalty against UND. And it was Trupp's no-look, behind-the-back pass to Frattin in the slot that gave the Sioux their 4-3 victory over Colorado College.

  Senior Brent Davidson deserves recognition for scoring big goals in both games. Just when you're wondering how the Sioux will make up for the loss of Jason Gregoire, along comes Davidson and sophomore Danny Kristo back from a serious bout with frostbite to add some offensive punch. Denver coach George Gwozdecky correctly noted that throughout the season, UND has found a way to roll with the punches whenever key players were out with injuries.

  That brings me to another point: Where would this team be without players like senior Jake Marto and sophomore Joe Gleason who have demonstrated their willingness and ability to change rolls from defenseman to forward and back again? Beginning with former Sioux Kyle Radke and Brad Miller, players with that type of versatility have become a staple of UND's teams the last several seasons.

  Senior Derrick LaPoint has quietly become the unsung hero on the blue line. Although he was considered an offensive-defenseman when he came to UND, he has turned into a defensive force who's seldom noticed simply because he rarely makes a mistake. Nobody should forget that he suffered a concussion at the end of his freshman season and a devastating leg injury in his sophomore season that would have ended the careers of many players.

  Turning to goaltending, I was disappointed that Aaron Dell was not named to the Final Five All-Tournament Team. It was Dell who kept the Sioux in the championship game when they were being outplayed and heavily outshot by the Pioneers. He made many saves on shots through traffic that perhaps were not as spectatular as some of the saves by Denver's Sam Brittain, but were nonethless difficult stops. He was also the goalie on the championship team that won two games against quality opponents. Dell was a major part of UND's tournament success and deserved recognition for it.

  Finally, the Sioux coaching staff -- Dave Hakstol, Cary Eades, Dane Jackson, Karl Goehring and Pierre-Paul Lamoureux -- all deserve kudos for keeping the team focused, prepared and motivated. Leadership from the upperclassmen no doubt makes their jobs a bit easier. However, in the ten season I've covered Fighting Sioux hockey for U.S. College Hockey Online, I've never seen Hakstol so determined to have the team forget the last game and concentrate on the next one. From a sports writer's perspective, it's a little annoying at times, but if it brings UND an eighth national championship, I won't complain.

  There are many others, such as UND trainer Mark Poolman, who work behind the scenes to help assure the continued success of the team throughout the long season. They, too, deserve kudos for putting the Fighting Sioux in position to win another championship. It's been a great run so far, and I suspect the best is yet to come.

Really?

Let's see...

1. Two guys back in the lineup who've been out for a while.
2. Three lines scrambled.
3. Defensive pairs scrambled.
4. Two defensemen playing forward.
5. Hottest scorer on the team out of the lineup.

And yet, the Fighting Sioux beat Colorado College 4-3 at the Final Five.

If only Dave Hakstol knew how to coach.

About that goal...

Almost nobody (excluding Fighting Sioux fans) seemed too upset about the goal Notre Dame scored with just over three minutes left in Saturday's game against North Dakota that resulted in the a 2-2 tie. It's usually not difficult to tell when Sioux coach Dave Hakstol is unhappy with a call that went against his team. But in his post-game comments, he seemed more than willing to accept the ruling that enabled the Fighting Irish to escape Ralph Engelstad Arena with a tie.

And Sioux goalie Aaron Dell? He's not exactly a wordy or an emotional kind of guy. He didn't say that he felt as though the Notre Dame player in the crease had interfered with him, although it certainly looked as if that was the case at the time the Fighting Irish scored.

So I didn't think there was any reason to make an issue of the game-tying goal until I watched this replay and reviewed the NCAA ice hockey rule book. I had assumed the goal was allowed because the puck was in the crease at the time Notre Dame's Bryan Rust (No. 21) appeared to slide into the crease totally on his own. But as this frame from the video shows, Rust was well into the crease and the puck was well out of it before Notre Dame's Sam Calabrese swept the puck on goal.



It's quite obvious in the video that Rust physically interfered with Dell's ability to make a save. So given that Rust went into the crease after the puck came out and Rust clearly interfered with Dell, how could the referee award the goal to Notre Dame? I submitted that question to the WCHA. Head official Greg Shepherd was kind enough to provide this response:

The only view that the officials have for replay is the overhead view, and talking to the on-ice officials live they thought the North Dakota player caused the Notre Dame player to go into the goalie by the use of his stick, and from the overhead view there was nothing to overturn that. If we had other angles it could have been different.

Unfortunately, Shepherd raises more questions than he answers. The North Dakota player in question would have been Matt Frattin (No. 21) who was closest to Rust. In the video, Frattin ties up Rust's stick with his stick and lifts it to keep Rust from putting in the rebound off Dell's save. Frattin appears to do nothing that would have caused Rust to fall. In sliding into the crease, Rust makes contact with Dell and comes between the goalie and the puck.

Had Calabrese swept the puck straight into the net, the referees might have been able to make the case that Dell was in no position to make a save. Thus, Rust's contact would have made no difference. But the puck appears to hit the post and then travel at an angle away from the goal line. It deflects in off either Dell or Rust. Dell had virtually no chance of making a save with Rust in contact with him and lying between him and the puck.

The most important question is this: If the officials saw Frattin use his stick in a manner that caused Rust to fall, why didn't they call a penalty? Certainly Frattin would have been guilty of interference on a Notre Dame scoring opportunity. A penalty would have been warranted. But because no penalty was called, it severely weakens the case that Rust went into the crease because of Frattin's stick work.

Besides that, the video from various angles in no way supports the on-ice officials' claim that Frattin's stick caused Rust to lose his balance, slide into the crease and make contact with the goalie. While I can sympathize with the fact that the referees don't have access to anything but the overhead view in making their call, the fact remains that their decision was based not only on something that didn't happen, but also on something that the one video replay they viewed didn't support.

Shepherd leaves open the possibility that had the referees been able to see the replays of the goal from different angles, they might have made a different decision. That's nice, but what does the WCHA do about an officiating crew which allowed a goal that shouldn't have counted, a goal that might have important implications at playoff time in March? What do you do with an officiating crew that claims to have seen a penalty on a scoring opportunity, but didn't call it and then uses the non-call as its rationale for allowing the goal?

It makes no sense.

Hockey needs to figure this out

What is and what isn't a legal hit? Is it permissible to blast a player in a vulnerable position -- such as having his head down -- or isn't it? For many years, the thinking in hockey has been that if a player puts himself in a vulnerable position, he gets whatever he deserves. But it should be evident by now that allowing such hits can cause serious injuries.

So does hockey want to eliminate these types of hits or not? The check UND's Brad Malone delivered to Denver's Jesse Martin during Saturday's game that sent Martin to the hospital is a perfect example of hockey's indecisiveness on the issue. (The latest reports say Martin was seriously injured on the play.)

Was Malone guilty of charging? Perhaps, but that's unclear from the video. I'd like to think that if what Malone did was a flagrant charge worthy of a five-minute major penalty and ejection from the game, it would have been obvious not only to the officials on the ice, but also to almost everyone watching the game, but that was not the case.

None of the four officials on the ice put an arm up to signal a penalty. UND continued to play for five seconds with possession of the puck. Matt Frattin had a good scoring opportunity during that time. If he had scored, would it have counted? Or would the officials have retroactively wiped out the goal when they retroactively got around to assessing the penalty they didn't originally call?

A score by UND at that point could have had a significant impact on the game's outcome. It demonstrates why it's necessary to have an established policy and concrete rules in place rather than making something up on the spot depending upon the seriousness of the injury to the player.

Either you say that some hard hits are part of the game and allow them or hockey's regulatory authorities should take substantive action to make it clear to players, coaches and officials that they will no longer be tolerated because they're simply too dangerous. It's too important an issue to make it up as you go, and hockey has put off dealing with it far too long.

Football, for the most part, seems to have figured this out. Players are no longer permitted to deliver dangerous hits just because an opponent is in a vulnerable position. As a result, sometimes players are flagged for hits that were completely accidental, unintentional or because an opposing player did something they couldn't have anticipated.

This leads to players occasionally being unfairly penalized for a situation that was completely out of their control. That's the down side of attempting to eliminate dangerous hits from contact sports. However, it is the best way to insure that player safety is the top priority.

Football hasn't suffered from attempts to take dangerous hits out of the game, and it's doubtful that hockey would, either. Hockey should follow football's lead.

Sioux in good hands with Eidsness

Worth noting at season's end is that Fighting Sioux sophomore goalie Brad Eidsness in on track to be one of North Dakota's all-time best goalies, especially if he plays four years. He's already made a name for himself in the UND record books.

For the second straight season, Eidsness tied his fourth-place record for most wins in a season by a UND goalie (24). His goals against average this season was 2.11, which ranks him fifth in UND's record book, with only Karl Goehring, Phil Lamoureux, Jordan Parise and Bob Peters above him.

Eidsness' .914 save percentage ties him with Lamoureux for the ninth best season ever by a Sioux goalie. His three shutouts this season tie him for seventh with Lamoureux, Ed Belfour, Goehring and Lefty Curran. His 41 games played this season is second only to Lamoureux's 42 in 07-08.

In career stats, after two years, Eidsness is already tied for seventh with 82 games games played. He's in sixth place with 48 career wins. He needs only five more wins to pass Jon Casey and Toby Kvalevog, eight more to pass Parise and 13 more to pass Lamoureux in second place. If he stays four years, he could potentially pass Goehring for all-time number of wins (80).

Eidsness' current career winning percentage of .667 ranks ninth and his 2.34 career goals against average ranks third behind Lamoureux and Parise. More impressively, his .910 career save percentage ranks fourth in the Sioux record book, tied with Casey and behind Goehring (.918), Lamoureux (.920) and Parise (.921)

What more could you expect from a sophomore goalie? Yes, Eidsness has given up some soft and untimely goals, but what goalie hasn't? Besides being very durable his first two seasons, he's also improved significantly. His save percentage went from .906 his rookie season to .914 this year and his goals against average from 2.56 to 2.11. It will be interesting to see if he can be even better in 2010-2011.

My greatest concern about UND's goaltending for next season is that Aaron Dell needs to develop into a reliable backup who can spell Eidsness on occasion and substitute for him should it become necessary.

It's a team game after all

As another Fighting Sioux hockey season comes to an unsatisfying end, I'll state the obvious: size, speed, skill, talent and past victories will only take a team so far. The team that consistently plays inspired hockey and plays together stands the best chance of winning a national championship. Until Yale ended UND's season with a 3-2 win yesterday, I had no reason to believe that the Sioux weren't such a team.

Little RIT brought down the regular season champions from the nation's two most powerful conferences, the WCHA and Hockey East. And if Wisconsin doesn't bring its best game against the Tigers in the Frozen Four, all the Badgers' NHL draft picks and Hobey Baker finalists won't save them from the same fate.

For the rest of the season, I'm a Wisconsin fan if for no other reason than to prove ESPN commentator Bob Norton wrong about the WCHA. Last night, he couldn't resist taking a swipe at the league when reporting on Yale's win over UND. I like Norton because he actually knows something about college hockey, but his perpetual eastern bias is annoying, and it doesn't help when he goes out of his way to put in on display.

So, on Wisconsin!

Right and Wrong
There's no sugarcoating a season-ending loss, but it's worth noting that the Sioux did some of what they needed to do against Yale. It's what UND didn't do that ultimately cost it the game.

UND didn't get the quick start it needed. Yale had played just three games in the past three weeks. Bulldogs coach Keith Allain took a gamble when he went with a goalie Ryan Rondeau who had played only three games all season. That made a strong Sioux start imperative, but UND came out flat, which gave the Bulldogs time to shake off the rust and Rondeau time to gain confidence.

Yale got the first goal of the game when the Sioux flubbed the opportunity to clear the puck from their zone. Denny Kearney made a beautiful deflection off Thomas Dignard's point shot, and suddenly the underdogs had momentum. The Sioux cause wasn't helped when Jason Gregoire made an uncharacteristically bad decision that cost UND a chance for a two-man advantage.

So why the slow start? Did seeing Rondeau in net give the Sioux a false sense of confidence? Did it have something to do with playing a sparsely attended game without the usual number of supportive Sioux fans? Was it too many injuries? Or did physical or mental fatigue finally catch up with the team? Whatever the case, UND coach Dave Hakstol said after the game that he didn't see the letdown coming, nor could he explain why it happened. He didn't, however, think it had anything to do with fatigue.

Going into this game, I believed that if the Sioux could get Yale out of its game, they would stand a good chance of success. In some respects, UND achieved that goal. Yale came into the contest averaging 40 shots on goal per game. The Sioux held them to 23.

Rensselaer was the only other team to hold Yale to fewer shots on goal. That happened Jan. 30 in a game Renssalaer won 4-0 while outshooting the Bulldogs 26-22. Defensively, UND deserves credit for limiting Yale's high-powered offense to so few opportuntiies. Unfortunately, the Bulldogs took advantage of the few they got.

I also believed that UND needed to stay out of the penalty box to avoid giving Yale's power play – second in the nation – a chance to be a factor. The Sioux did that, too, limiting the Bulldogs only three power plays and killing them all.

The Bulldogs' defensive strategy appeared to be that any time the Sioux had a "Grade A" scoring chance, they would take a penalty rather than risk giving up the goal. It worked because UND didn't capitalize on any of its four power plays and Darcy Zajac just missed on his penalty shot. UND's power play has run hot and cold for much of the season. In a one-and-done playoff game, it was a poor time for UND's power play to go cold.

I noted in this blog back on March 12 that 7 of UND's 11 losses to that point had come when the Sioux were outscored in the second period. Now it's 8 of 12 as the Bulldogs outscored the Sioux 2-0 in the second period, thus becoming the only team to accomplish that feat since St. Cloud State did it on Feb. 12 and won 4-3. This was also the only period in which Yale outshot UND (10-6). Until Saturday, the Sioux had put their second-period lapses behind them.

Missing Pieces
Freshman Joe Gleason is the type of defenseman who's well-suited to play a team like Yale. But an injury suffered during the playoff series with Minnesota kept him out of the game. And although Jake Marto played exceptionally well, Hakstol admitted that the junior defenseman has been injured, not practicing for the past month and operating with limited ability. The Grand Forks Herald's Brad Schlossman reported in his blog that defenseman Ben Blood was playing hurt, too.

Under the circumstances, UND did a remarkable job defensively by limiting Yale to 23 shots on goal and keeping the Bulldogs' power play off the board. And while there's no point in crying over spilled milk, it's difficult not to think about how much of a difference Chay Genoway could have made in this game, both as a player and an on-ice leader.

UND's downfall throughout the season wasn't defense, it was scoring. That turned out to be the case against Yale when the Sioux didn't begin to generate quality scoring chances until the third period, capitalizing twice. As forward Matt Frattin noted after the game, by then it was "too little, too late."

Defensively, the Sioux were two bounces away from doing all they needed to do to win the game. They cut Yale's average number of shots on goal nearly in half; they held the nation's top-scoring offense to a goal less than it averaged; and they shut out one of the most potent power plays in the country. If the Sioux underachieved in any area, it was on offense.

Was it Coaching?
In each of the nine seasons I've covered Fighting Sioux hockey for U.S. College Hockey Online, I always learn something new from Hakstol and other coaches with whom I'm fortunate to interact.

When unranked Ohio State defeated Bemidji State in overtime at the Subway Holiday Classic at Engelstad Arena, I asked Beavers coach Tom Serratore if his team had a hard time getting up for the game against the Buckeyes after defeating No. 1 Miami the previous day.

The ever-glib Serratore replied, "I'm a coach. I think our team should be up for every game."

That's an important lesson because no matter how much coaches and fans want to believe that their team is completely fired up and totally motivated to play any team it faces, human nature and plain-old bad luck are always waiting in the wings to throw a monkey wrench into the best laid plans.

It's easy to think that UND should win a national championship every year -- until you stop to consider all the factors that conspire against it. As Gen. Tommy Franks says, "...the enemy gets a vote." In other words, no matter what you plan for your team, the opposition will do all it can to make the plan go awry.

One of Hakstol's favorite expressions is: "Control what's yours to contol." Throughout six seasons of covering Sioux hockey under Hakstol's guidance, I have no reason to believe that he doesn't do his best to control what he can. In the course of a season, he must make hundreds of judgement calls with the potential to produce negative results. He deserves credit for getting the vast majority of them right.

Compared to even the elite teams in college hockey, UND under Hakstol has been a model of consistency, going to the Frozen Four four times, making the NCAA tournament six years, winning the WCHA tournament twice and claiming a league championship. That's to say nothing of the reputation UND has garnered for producing pro-caliber players.

Even some of the UND's harshest critics express grudging respect for what Hakstol and his coaching staff accomplish season after season. How many times has he been asked: "How do you do it?" To say that most college hockey programs are envious of UND's record of success is an understatment.

I'm as disappointed as anyone that another hockey season has come to an end without the Fighting Sioux adding a national championship banner to the rafters of Ralph Engelstad Arena. But I can't wait until next season when I walk into the arena, remind myself that, yes, I am in Grand Forks, ND, and feel confident that no matter happens, Hakstol, Cary Eades and Dane Jackson will have the team primed and positioned to make a run at No. 8.

There's really nothing else that anyone can reasonably expect.

Sioux shouldn't take Yale lightly

The Yale Bulldogs concern me because they're a small, fast team that scores a lot of goals. They're the top offensive team in a nation, averaging slightly more than 4 goals per game. Yale has the second highest rated power play in the nation (23.5 percent). They remind me of the skilled, offense-minded Hockey East teams that have given the Sioux trouble in recent years.

Nobody can say that Yale hasn't beat anybody. The Bulldogs beat Cornell twice, a team that split with UND. Having noted this, I'll also say that the Fighting Sioux are a better team than the one that split with Cornell. Barry Melrose aside, UND's record against Cornell in January isn't the most reliable measuring stick at this point of the season.

On the plus side, I can see the Sioux matching up very well with Yale. UND's size could give the Bulldogs problems, especially in front of their net. If Yale is forced to take penalties, they could be in trouble. The Bulldogs' penalty kill is ranked 29th nationally. It hasn't had to be great because Yale takes very few penalties (38th nationally). UND will have to stay out of the box to keep Yale's potent power play off the ice.

One surprising aspect about Yale is the fact that they don't seem to have a top goalie. They've played four different goalies throughout the season. Their top netminder, freshman Nick Maricic, is 46th nationally in GAA (2.95) and 73rd in save percentage (.888). That explains why the Bulldogs are ranked 32nd in the nation on defense, giving up 2.94 goals per game.

It seems a bit unfair that UND, the top-rated No. 2 seed in the NCAA tournament, should have to play the top-rated No. 3 seed. However, Yale has lost three of its last four games, two of them to Brown, which finished 11th in the ECAC. The Bulldogs haven't been the same since losing senior forward Sean Backman, the team's third leading scorer.

Yale's had a week off since being ousted from the ECAC tournament by Brown. By the time the puck drops against UND, the Bulldogs will have played only three games (losing two) in 21 days. That might work in their favor when facing the Sioux, who are coming off six games in nine days. Or it could work to UND's favor because the Sioux are accustomed to winning playoff hockey games against good teams on neutral ice.

UND can't afford to take Yale lightly or look ahead to Boston College. Coach Dave Hakstol knows that and will be hammering the message home to the team throughout the week. The Sioux must also keep in mind that they won't be dealing with WCHA officiating, and that the games might be called much more tightly. They will have to be more disciplined than they were against St. Cloud State on Saturday.

Although the Sioux shouldn't look past Yale, I can. If UND gets past the Bulldogs, it will be an excellent tune-up game before taking on Boston College -- assuming the Eagles don't look past Alaska.

Don Lucia is right

After North Dakota's 4-1 victory over Minnesota to win the series, Gophers coach Don Lucia was visibly upset about Matt Frattin's hit that knocked defenseman Kevin Wehrs out of the game.

The moment I saw the hit, I knew the result would be bad and that Frattin would get a 5-minute major for it. He deserved it. He came a long way to make the hit, and both his skates left the ice when he delivered it. It was a classic case of charging. If the WCHA suspends Frattin, it will be because he deserves it.

In his post-game comments, Lucia said: "That’s a vicious hit. Say what you want, it’s not the kind of hits we want to see in the game. My own personal feeling is that it was more than a five. Obviously, Wehrs is not in great shape right now. They’ve got a defenseman (Chay Genoway) that hasn’t played all year because of a hit, and those are things that I don’t think need to be part of the game."

I'm in complete agreement with Lucia. I, too, thought Frattin should have been tossed out of the game and was surprised he wasn't.

I suspect that the league will suspend Frattin for at least one game, and that's too bad because he has proven himself a valuable part of the team at a critical point in the season. If Fighting Sioux fans are honest with themselves, they'll admit that it's the right course of action.

UND is the last team that should be delivering dangerous hits to the head because of what happened to Genoway. And because of what happened to Robbie Bina five years ago, it should be the last team taking checking from behind penalties. There's no defending those types of hits.

So much for that theory

For just the second time this season, North Dakota lost when it outscored its opponent in the second period.

Going into Saturday's game against Minnesota, the Fighting Sioux were 19-1-4 when they held the second period scoring advantage. Corban Knight's goal Saturday, which made it a 1-1 game, meant that UND outscored Minnesota 1-0 in the second. When Matt Frattin made in 2-1 in the third period, I thought the Sioux were on their way to ending Minnesota's season, but it was not to be.

Give Minnesota credit: When they fell behind in a hostile environment, they didn't crumble as they did Friday. They pushed back hard and gutted out a 4-2 win. The Gophers looked nothing like the team that gave up in the first period Friday. They seem to respond well to hostility and abuse from fans, media and former players.

I mentioned in my blog Friday that UND was a different team from the one that played at Minnesota in January because it was without Knight and Frattin was not yet a factor. Those two players have certainly come through for the Sioux in the first two games of this series.

The big mystery is: What's happened to Brett Hextall and UND's power play? The Sioux are 1-19 with the man advantage in their last four games. The power play outage Friday didn't matter, but it did matter in Saturday's game. The power play must get back on track if UND hopes to win Sunday and go far in the playoffs.

Finally, WCHA officials have shown that when given the opportunity to play a role in influencing the outcome of a game, they will. UND's victory Friday was so decisive that there wasn't anything they could do to keep the game close, but Saturday's game was a different story. In the first two games of the series, Minnesota has a nearly two-to-one advantage in power plays.

If the Sioux are to win Sunday's third game against Minnesota, they'll need to do it in a decisive manner that doesn't give the WCHA's finest an opportunity to influence the final result.

It's not so much what the officials do call as what they don't. In Saturday's game, I witnessed two very obvious penalties on Mario Lamoureux that went uncalled at times when all eyes should have been on him. And while Brad Eidsness did trip Jacob Cepis in the first period of Saturday's game, Cepis should also have received a penalty for embellishment because that's what he did.

In the WCHA, players who are known divers and continually exhibit such behavior are frequently rewarded for it. At one time, the NCAA said that cutting down on diving was a point of emphasis, which led to the embellishment rule. But as with many NCAA points of emphasis, it got heeded for a short time by the WCHA and then ignored.

As Brandon Bochenski once remarked about players who dive, "It's unmanly."

Besides that, it's dishonest and unsportsmanlike. The WHCA needs to put divers down.

Gophers or Sioux? Just a second...

Many look at Minnesota's and North Dakota's 1-1-2 records against each other and declare the series a toss-up. They could be right, but certainly on paper, UND is a better team statistically. Its won-loss record, its finish in the WCHA and its Pairwise ranking all point to that conclusion.

However, I would argue that the team the Gophers will be playing at the Ralph this weekend has much more in common with the Sioux team they played in Grand Forks in November than it does with the Sioux team they played at the Mariucci in January.

One positive in the Gophers’ favor is that this time in Grand Forks, they’ll have forward Jacob Cepis, a player who’s provided the team with a significant offensive spark. In contrast, UND is without captain and top defenseman Chay Genoway, who the Sioux had when they went 1-0-1 against the Gophers at Engelstad Arena.

So…advantage Gophers, right? Not necessarily.

Much has changed for the Sioux since they last played Minnesota. When UND went to Minneapolis in January, Brett Hextall and Corban Knight were out with injuries. While it’s arguable that Knight would have been a difference-maker in that series, the Sioux have been a much improved team since Hextall’s return. And it’s not just because he helps make the power better and provides added scoring punch. Coach Dave Hakstol acknowledged that Hextall’s leadership on the bench and in the locker room was missed. UND was 3-4-1 without him and has gone 7-1-0 since his return.

Knight had just begun to play up to his potential when he went down with an injury the weekend before the Gopher series. While his offensive stats aren’t gaudy, the number of minutes he’s played in key situations have increased, which shows that Hakstol relies on the freshman forward to play a steady, consistent game. Knight deserves some credit for his role in UND’s turnaround, and he makes the Sioux a better team in the upcoming playoff series.

In addition, when UND played at Minnesota in January, Matt Frattin had only been back for four games since his half-season suspension. It would be another five games before he scored his first goal of the season. Since then, he’s scored five goals in seven games and is playing well on a line with fellow juniors Evan Trupp and Brad Malone. His overtime goal at Colorado College assured UND of home ice in the playoffs and might prove one of the most important plays of UND’s season.

One of the most significant changes for UND has gone unnoticed. In seven of UND’s 11 losses and in its tie at Minnesota, the Sioux were outscored in the second period by a 19-3 margin. During the team’s current seven-game winning streak, the Sioux have outscored opponents 14-4. That stat is somewhat skewed by a six-goal second period at St. Cloud, but it’s worth noting that UND’s performance in the second game against SCSU marked the beginning of the team’s second-half surge.

For whatever reason, the second-period letdowns that were a trend for UND earlier in the season (and which contributed to the Gopher win and tie at Mariucci in January) have all but disappeared. The one game in which the Sioux were outscored in the second period (1-0 at Colorado College), they won. Even throwing out the six-goal second period against SCSU, UND is outscoring its opponents 2:1 in the second rather than being outscored by better than 3:1.

When the Sioux outscored their opponent in the second period, they were 12-1-4. When second period scoring was even, UND went 6-3-0. In other words, the Sioux are 18-4-4 when outscoring or holding their opponents even in the second period. If the Sioux can continue the trend of strong play in the second period, I like their chances in this series.

WCHA head games vs USCHO mind games

In her US College Online column on the WCHA this week, Theresa Spisak addresses the issue of the WCHA's inconsistency in calling penalties for hits to the head. I'm in full agreement with her about the ridiculousness of the league's handling of contact to the head penalties and its seeming unwillingness to discipline players when they engage in dangerous on-ice conduct.

That being said, it's unfair to compare the hit by UND's Corban Knight on UMD's Mike Connolly to the hits made by Aaron Marvin on Chay Genoway and Blake Geoffrion. We still don't know if Genoway will return this season. And who knows how long Geoffrion might be out? Knight's hit wasn't even close to the hit on Minnesota's Nick Leddy. He was out for weeks with a broken jaw, which the WCHA apparently doesn't consider part of the head.

Connolly practiced this week and will play this weekend for the Bulldogs. While it's unfortunate that he was injured as a result of Knight's hit, it is not at all clear that his injury was caused by an elbow or any other deliberate blow to the head. Saying something happened does not make it so. The video doesn't conclusively prove anything regarding the claim that Knight's elbow was the cause of Connolly's injury.

In no way do I condone hits to the head. I'm in total agreement with the NCAA's zero tolerance policy against them. If the video proved that Knight went after Connolly's head, I'd be among those calling for the WCHA to suspend him.

However, I believe that if Knight was guilty of anything when he hit Connolly, it was boarding. To me, it appears that Knight got lower than Connolly and brought up his right shoulder, which drove the UMD player backwards. The left side of Connolly's helmet violently impacted the glass. An elbow wasn't needed to cause the injury, which turned out to be nowhere near as serious as Genoway's, Geoffrion's or Leddy's.

I can see this now because I have the benefit of watching the video in slow motion. But when I was at the game covering it for USCHO, Knight's hit didn't look dirty or illegal. Usually when such hits occur, there are reactions and comments made in the press box, such as, "He got away with one there." I don't recall anybody saying anything about this particular hit during or after the game. As the video shows, the crowd barely reacted to it. I can understand why no penalty was called at the time. It simply didn't look that bad.

Sioux players have been getting called for contact to the head penalties all season long, so I know they're not angels in this regard. One would hope that players and coaches would have a clear understanding of what "zero tolerance" means. If they did, it would greatly reduce incidents of headhunting.

However, when WCHA officials don't consistently call contact to the head in cases where it's clearly warranted and the league office displays great reluctance in giving suspensions to players whose hits result in serious head injuries, it should come as no surprise that such dangerous plays continue to occur.

So, by all means, criticize the WCHA for its lackadaisical attitude toward head injuries and its unwillingness to enforce the NCAA's mandate against the plays that cause them. But there's no need to create new controversies where they don't exist, especially when there are already plenty of glaring examples of WCHA ineptitude on the record.

Why now?

Folks, I've provided that history of Bruce McLeod to let some of you know just that: History.

What must be dealt with now is how the WCHA is being run today.

Is the league looking out for player safety?

Are the rules being enforced by the book?

More Revelations

After my last post recapping the past adventures of WCHA Commissioner McLeod I've received more information (this time from the Star-Tribune) about his past exploits. Enjoy.

UMD athletic official was at the center of police probe; In an investigation of suspected witness-tampering and bribery, authorities taped conversations in 1992-93 between Bruce McLeod and a student who told police she was assaulted by a hockey player.(NEWS)

Article from: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
Article date: June 19, 1996
Author: Oakes, Larry
More results for: bruce mcleod duluth investigation
Copyright 1996 Star Tribune

Bruce McLeod, the University of Minnesota-Duluth's athletic director, offered to arrange payment to a UMD student if she would decline to testify against a hockey player who assaulted her, according to a police investigation that included recordings of their conversations.

Transcripts show that during a private meeting in his office, McLeod discussed with Erin Masser, then a UMD sophomore, the disadvantages of pursuing an assault case and offered to act as "middleman" in passing money to her from hockey player Sergei Krivokrasov, who had signed a pro contract worth $900,000. ...

McLeod: " . . . Maybe you should be compensated in some way for your, you know, anguish and your time."
Masser: "Whose money would it be?"
McLeod: "It would be his."
Masser: "Sergei's?"
McLeod: "Yup. . . . I was trying to figure out in my mind if, in fact, that something was done, how you could kind of keep it as private as possible or something like that. I even thought of, you know, acting as a middleman or something like that and just tell him that, you know, write Bruce McLeod the check. . . . "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the commissioner of the premier college hockey league in the country? This is how he operates?