HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

After a less than impressive year last year what do you guys expect out of them this year and who are the players to watch? How will they rank in the WCHA

Disappointing not getting the new rink deal done. That would help recruiting. I don't think the Bulldogs will be strong this year. I look for them being toward the bottom in the standings.

Any truth about their T.V. contract being limited this year vs. previous years?

I can't imagine they will have a big year.

Bulldogs have been picked up by another area station to televise the games, though I'm not sure how many. Also, while the 'Dogs didn't get a new rink, they did get new pipes and flooring for the old rink. The project cost about $300,000 if I'm not mistaken and hopefully it will help the brutal DECC ice.

The Bulldogs managed to come back from an 0-2 deficit to tie the game at 2-2 after 2 periods...and that's the way it ended Friday night in Mankato. I'm looking for the Dogs to play a more complete game on Saturday night to take 3 out of 4 points from the Mavericks.

And the Bulldogs are slowly taking their usual spot at the bottom of the WCHA after short-lived glory with the big boys.

Losing the US U18 Team Doesnt help your morale.

pacman wrote:Losing the US U18 Team Doesnt help your morale.

You obviously weren't at the game... They played their freshman and sophomores as their first and second lines, put reiter in goal and still it took a bunch of bad bounces to lose that game... I think the team is in just fine shape, they're going to stuggle some but they'll finish in the top half (4/5 probably)

I was at the game, and even if they did play their 3rd and 4th line a lot, I did see a lot of their top players, too. The WCHA is too tough for the Bulldogs to finish in the top half. They had to get points from the weaker teams like Mankato and Anchorage, but losing 3 or 4 points to those teams, and having the Gophers, Colorado College, and North Dakota on their schedule at home, and having to go to Madison and Minneapolis, I don't like the Bulldog's odds this year.

I was also at the game, and for the most part, a lot of the usual Dogs were playing regularly. I believe they got outworked, just like the series before against Alaska.

great game last night

PASTRAPIDSFAN wrote:great game last night

Great game and huge W for the Dogs last night against Mankato, let's hope this great comeback win help them shake the funk they were in the last few weekends they played. Another big game tonight at the DECC.

Another tie for the Dogs...It sure would be nice to be able to hold a lead.

It is being reported that UMD defenseman Jason Garrison broke his leg in last nights loss at the University of Wisconsin and is likely out for the season. Bad news for the Dogs entering the stretch run.

Oh Boy, Not Good At All, Garrison was a key guy to that team.

If someone can explain how the referees are utilizing reviews and how they call a game I would appreciate this.1) Friday night in the UMD game I did not see the hit on Garrison but from reports I heard the injury was the END result of Johnson taking advantage of a defenseless player and took him out for the rest of the year with no penalty. People talk about Zajacs cross check, although this was unneccessary I dont think it compares to what I have HEARD happened to Garrison. Would love some feedback. 2) The referees reviewed Geoffrians goal Friday night. If they are reviewing if it went in the net I understand the call but if they were looking for the rules to be enforced I think you had to call man in the crease A) He was in the crease when the initial shop was taken. B)I dont think Geoffrian interfered with the save but I DO think he interfered with the rebound and Stalocks ability to control it. C) Then he turned around outside the crease and wacked the puck loose from underneath Stalock and then knocked in the rebound.
Why would they not have disallowed the goal based upon him being in the crease initally and 2) Why didnt the referee blow the whistle when Stalock had it covered under his pad. WHY HAVE REVIEWS IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE RULES OF THE GAME?
If you review only to make sure the puck goes in the net, then most of this post is irrelevant but if you are reviewing to make sure it is a "legal" goal, I dont understand why they review and then don't enforce the rule. As fans I would like to think we are owed an explanation.
Nice weekend Dogs way to battle, and hang in there!

Well it looks like they might be getting a little help for next year with Duluth native Jack Connolly. He is currently leading the USHL in points with 63 in 48 games played (21 G, 48 A) Hopefully he can help add to the lackluster scoring the Dogs are going through right now!

#8 UMD will travel to #3 Denver for a best of three series this weekend. I look for Denver to sweep, but if UMD gets solid goaltending and timely scoring, they could win a game or maybe even the series.

Penalty Shot wrote:If someone can explain how the referees are utilizing reviews and how they call a game I would appreciate this.1) Friday night in the UMD game I did not see the hit on Garrison but from reports I heard the injury was the END result of Johnson taking advantage of a defenseless player and took him out for the rest of the year with no penalty. People talk about Zajacs cross check, although this was unneccessary I dont think it compares to what I have HEARD happened to Garrison. Would love some feedback. 2) The referees reviewed Geoffrians goal Friday night. If they are reviewing if it went in the net I understand the call but if they were looking for the rules to be enforced I think you had to call man in the crease A) He was in the crease when the initial shop was taken. B)I dont think Geoffrian interfered with the save but I DO think he interfered with the rebound and Stalocks ability to control it. C) Then he turned around outside the crease and wacked the puck loose from underneath Stalock and then knocked in the rebound.
Why would they not have disallowed the goal based upon him being in the crease initally and 2) Why didnt the referee blow the whistle when Stalock had it covered under his pad. WHY HAVE REVIEWS IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE RULES OF THE GAME?
If you review only to make sure the puck goes in the net, then most of this post is irrelevant but if you are reviewing to make sure it is a "legal" goal, I dont understand why they review and then don't enforce the rule. As fans I would like to think we are owed an explanation.
Nice weekend Dogs way to battle, and hang in there!

I believe you'll find that "in the crease" requires that the player also interferes with the goal tender. If the foot is in the crease before the shot, but it doesn't interfere with the goalie making the save, then it's ignored. Also, if it wasn't a goal when he was in the crease, then there is no goal to wave off, right?

As far as the goalie covering the puck, there has to be some control of the puck, which requires a certain amount of time.

Now, I wasn't there and so I'm speaking from what you said. However, I will tell you that the game of hockey's rules are rarely black-and-white. Why referees call some things one way, and a different way another time is one of those things that we will discuss until the end of time.

boblee wrote:#8 UMD will travel to #3 Denver for a best of three series this weekend. I look for Denver to sweep, but if UMD gets solid goaltending and timely scoring, they could win a game or maybe even the series.

That's where Sandelin preferred to play, so let's hope they put on a good show