NCAA title UMD 3, Michigan 2 OT

Incredible talent on that first Minnesota-Duluth line. Better that UMD wins its first title than the Wolverines get their tenth. And in front of a nearly hometown crowd at the Excel Energy Center, about as far away from Duluth as Cornell was the year we won the title in Buffalo in 2002. (Oops, forgot about the UNH semifinal game.) You'd think with all the Scandanavians in Minnesota the players could get better advice on dying their playoff hair blonde.

The GWG was set up by an extended period of offensive zone puck control which allowed tUMD to change and kept tired Wolverines on the ice. Not quite The Shift, since Michigan managed to clear it to center ice. But due in part to the long trip to the bench now that college hockey changes ends in overtime, Michigan didn't get a full change.

jtwcornell91
The GWG was set up by an extended period of offensive zone puck control which allowed tUMD to change and kept tired Wolverines on the ice. Not quite The Shift, since Michigan managed to clear it to center ice. But due in part to the long trip to the bench now that college hockey changes ends in overtime, Michigan didn't get a full change.

Also due to two icing calls against the Wolverines as they attempted "home run " passes to the blueline.

The four teams were great and the three games entertaining. The Michigan and UMD teams had he type of balanced attack that Cornell is I hope working towards.

billhoward
Incredible talent on that first Minnesota-Duluth line. Better that UMD wins its first title than the Wolverines get their tenth. And in front of a nearly hometown crowd at the Excel Energy Center, about as far away from Duluth as Cornell was the year we won the title in Buffalo in 2002. (Oops, forgot about the UNH semifinal game.) You'd think with all the Scandanavians in Minnesota the players could get better advice on dying their playoff hair blonde.

2003 which is 30 years after the semi in Boston that also haunts my hockey memory.

billhoward
Incredible talent on that first Minnesota-Duluth line. Better that UMD wins its first title than the Wolverines get their tenth. And in front of a nearly hometown crowd at the Excel Energy Center, about as far away from Duluth as Cornell was the year we won the title in Buffalo in 2002. (Oops, forgot about the UNH semifinal game.) You'd think with all the Scandanavians in Minnesota the players could get better advice on dying their playoff hair blonde.

That's one point of view.

First "new" winner since Maine's first championship in 1993. 18 years. Too bad that the team that broke the "spell" was a 4th place team in the regular season that didn't make its conference's semis. Oh well, at least they were playing that weekend instead of sitting home and resting.

I feel a little better about Yale's loss. Just a little.

ugarte
I feel a little better about Yale's loss. Just a little.

I think it was incredible that Michigan was so well coached against its opponents. They stopped CC dead and played a very Cornell like second and third periods against a talented North Dakota. Stopping UMD's pp was also on their list of musts. A high quality finish for a very good team. Classic 3-2 final in OT, too. If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry Melrose is both annoying and fun to listen to. He loves the game but needs a new crystal ball. He seems to pick every loser with consistency. (And Bob Norton seems to be gone for good, thanks be to God.)

Red Berenson still looks as if he's a retired drill instructor going to the same barber for 30 years. Barry Melrose paints your world in simple blacks and whites; imagine being his son in law and discussing poltics over dinner. Not always right but seldom in doubt. Without Bob Norton we're missing those human interest comments about the North Dakota defenseman who was some kind of player for the Chilliwack Chiefs or the Saskatchewan Salmonbacks. Marty, thank you for reminding us what a treat it is not to have Bob on the air. Maybe in five years he'll qualify for rookie correspondent on 60 Minutes.

billhoward
... Without Bob Norton we're missing those human interest comments about the North Dakota defenseman who was some kind of player for the Chilliwack Chiefs or the Saskatchewan Salmonbacks. Marty, thank you for reminding us what a treat it is not to have Bob on the air. Maybe in five years he'll qualify for rookie correspondent on 60 Minutes.

Maybe Bob can help Morley Safer break another story on why the dental amalgam in my mouth has caused my dementia:


Morley explains Marty

How else can one explain my countless hours in Section 7 of the Troy Morgue aka Houston Field House. And with this intentional thread drift I now proclaim the unofficial beginning of the off season.

Best post from the USCHO blog, sorry Adam, during the game:

[Comment From voxomsu]
Mich fans have stolen Cornell's schtick... maybe that's why CCHA fans won't support them.

Jim Hyla
Best post from the USCHO blog, sorry Adam, during the game:

[Comment From voxomsu]
Mich fans have stolen Cornell's schtick... maybe that's why CCHA fans won't support them.

Not only have they stolen it, but they think they're being original because they added a ton of profanity... i don't even want to mention what happened to the cya chant... makes the old version of ours look family friendly

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

Barry did not say those things to be non-partisan. He said them because he had done less than five minutes of prep on college hockey before ESPN wheeled him out on the Hannibal Lecter gurney to do his little dance.

I know that most of you don't like him, but I thought he was reasonably insightful, did know the teams, their strengths and weaknesses, and some subtleties such as Rust's value to UM. He broke down the PPs of UMD and UND and how UM was trying to change their PK to fit the new team. I admit he gets to be too much of himself, but I prefer that to endless discussion about the players prep schools.

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

I disagree. If I'm focused on it, all I really need to enjoy a televised game is the same scoreboard information available to on-site fans. Don't need announcers at all. I admit, I've never experienced that, but I feel confident that I could follow everything given a competent director & cameramen,

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

css228
NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

When I'm watching football, I nearly always turn the sound off and put on some music. To each his own.

Dafatone

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action. But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

KeithK

Dafatone

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action. But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

css228

KeithK

Dafatone

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action. But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right! A Gene Hart sighting. "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators. It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami. It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call. Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

Jeff Hopkins '82

css228

KeithK

Dafatone

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action. But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right! A Gene Hart sighting. "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators. It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami. It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call. Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

For me watching football, I like commentators so I can keep up with the game and not watch it intensely. I'm usually doing something else at the time, same with baseball.

Jim Hyla

Jeff Hopkins '82

css228

KeithK

Dafatone

css228

Kyle Rose

CowbellGuy

marty
If only Melrose hadn't given Michigan the kiss of death at the beginning of OT by praising Hunwick.

Barry also said the game was "UMD's to lose" in the third period. It's easy to predict a winner when you cover both sides.

This is the secret to being a national broadcaster: you can't be perceived as taking sides. I don't find it unreasonable...just dumb. I'd personally rather they just shut up: I have video and can see the action myself, so I would rather hear the sounds of the game than the inane chatter of the broadcasters. (For instance, MLB.tv used to have an option for sounds of the game instead of the broadcast booth, and it was wonderful when combined with the behind-home-plate camera. I wish they would revive that.)

NBC did something like that with football in the 1980s... I saw the 30 for 30 and I have to say it just felt strange. Should commentators be minimalist? Yes. But if you're not at the game, commentators are necessary.

That 30 for 30 was pretty fascinating. Responses from people who had seen it were mixed, with some positives. To a man, every broadcaster they asked thought it was an absolute bomb.

I remember watching that game. It was awesome. No silly chatter and lots of field noise.

Sometimes the TV analysts do add something to my understanding of the action. But more often than not it's just chatter to fill the airtime. A guy telling me that so-and-so made a great play (which I just watched) is meaningless.

Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

All right! A Gene Hart sighting. "Good night and good hockey!"

I remember the football game without commentators. It was an Oct. 1980 game between (I believe) the Jets and Miami. It was novel in that it was one of the first times they had the refs miked up, so you could hear them make the call. Between that, and the graphics, what more did you need?

I blame Roone Arledge.

For me watching football, I like commentators so I can keep up with the game and not watch it intensely. I'm usually doing something else at the time, same with baseball.

If only Doc Emrick could commentate every single hockey game.

css228
Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

KeithK

css228
Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

Let's just put it this way. Baseball has never been the same for me without Kalas calling the game (in fact today is the 2nd anniversary of his final call, RIP Harry the K) and I'm sure plenty of others on this forum have their own example of a commentator who made the game special for them.

css228

KeithK

css228
Oh I agree entirely, but if you hear a great commentator (this is especially true of baseball) like a Harry Kalas, a Jack Buck, a Vin Scully or Gene Hart and Gus Johnson for a pair of non baseball examples, they can add something to the game. There's just something about a good call that resonates and reflects exactly what you're thinking at that moment. I'm not supporting the Tim McCarver's or Troy Aikman's or John Madden's of the world. But I just can't imagine sports would be better with no commentators at all than some of the greats listed above.

Sure. But IMO the great commentators really shine on radio where they concisely paint the picture of what's happening. On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly but it's not the same and they're not strictly necessary.

Let's just put it this way. Baseball has never been the same for me without Kalas calling the game (in fact today is the 2nd anniversary of his final call, RIP Harry the K) and I'm sure plenty of others on this forum have their own example of a commentator who made the game special for them.

I grew up listening to Harry and Whitey. For me, no other announcers will ever compare.

KeithK
On TV the great ones compliment the video smoothly....

Now that's painting a picture