In sports, some teams seem destined for greatness from the start. A mix of talent, smarts and coaching all seem to mesh from the first game of a new season, and while nothing is ever perfectly smooth, the wins flow and the march toward a championship is continuous.
For other teams, those same factors don’t quite fit together. Or perhaps a key element is simply missing. It takes time and requires repeated failure to wring out the potential that a team possesses. It’s not easy to watch, and at times, the path a good or even great team follows can be agonizingly difficult for the players, the coaches, and the team’s fans. These teams grow and succeed.
And finally, some teams that have potential never get to the level that seems possible. The result is a disappointing mass of “better than mediocre,” but not quite “good” — and certainly not “great.”
The Huskies are probably somewhere along the second route and may end up on the third road. It’s clear, though, that this team didn’t start the season with all of the ingredients needed to be among the nation’s best teams.
Facing Minnesota State
Ever since Penn State started their DI hockey program and the Big Ten finally had six teams for an NCAA conference, Michigan Tech has been competing in a league that has been dominated by Minnesota State. Yes, there have been some digressions. The Huskies and MSU were co-winners of the MacNaughton Cup during the 2015-2016 WCHA season, and Tech also won the WCHA Playoff crown in 2016-17 and 2017-2018. Ferris State won a MacNaughton Cup in 2013-14, while Bemidji State took possession of that oldest championship trophy in college sports in 2016-17.
Still, during that time, the Mavericks from Mankato were the most powerful team, with the best talent and probably the best coach in Mike Hastings. For the past four years, the final chapter in the men’s WCHA, they’ve won the MacNaughton Cup each year and were barely challenged during that time.
This past weekend, Tech traveled to Mankato to face the #2 ranked Mavs and came up short of what they really needed. On Friday, they played a great road game but lost (again!) in overtime 2-1. The Huskies got a short-handed goal from Logan Pietila, and his brother Blake put on a show in goal to keep the game to a 1-1 regulation tie. While Mankato controlled the play and pinned Them Dogs in their own end for much of the game, a breakaway chance for Brian Halonen with just seconds left in the third period was stopped by the NCAA all-time shutout leader Dryden McKay and sent the game into overtime.
In overtime, the Huskies were miserable failures. In less than a minute, they made three glaring mistakes, and in the contrived 3 on 3 game that the NCAA has instituted for overtime, the Mavs got a clear shot on net and Blake Pietila’s magic had run out. Tech got one point and MSU got two in the CCHA standings.
Saturday’s game started the same way, with MSU controlling the play. They picked up a powerplay goal in the first period and capitalized on a Husky error early in the second to lead 2-0. But the Huskies seemed to respond after this, and then largely carried the play for the rest of the game. An unassisted powerplay goal from Justin Misiak brought Tech within a goal, but despite pressure from Tech, McKay was up to the challenge. MSU added an empty net goal with just ten seconds remaining and that was the weekend that was.
Final tally in the standings: Minnesota State gets 5 points, while Michigan Tech gets 1. With that result, Mankato is once again rated the #1 team in the country.
Just the Same or Not?
Tech’s play in the second half of the Saturday game was something Husky Nation really hasn’t seen since the year they were co-champs with the Mavs. Them Dogs showed they have the skill and talent that’s needed to go head-to-head with Mankato — although one and a half periods in a six period series isn’t conclusive. So, it’s hard to make the case that Tech is approaching parity with the big bad Purple Cows.
At the same time, Northern Michigan swept Minnesota-Duluth, the previous #1 ranked team, and made a big statement that the Wildcats, after a shaky start (including a blowout loss to Minnesota State), are back in the mix in the CCHA.
Where does this leave the Huskies?
The Key Ingredients
When you look at Tech’s roster and consider the way they’ve played in 13 games this season, it’s clear they have a high level of talent. Their best players, though, aren’t quite as skilled or capable as the best players from their main rivals for the CCHA championship. Bemidji State, Northern Michigan, and Minnesota State all have 3-4 players that are a small but visible bit better than Tech’s best guys. Only MSU has a similar level of depth that the Huskies have, however.
Tech’s defensive corps is better than NMU and BSU. The Old Dog would like to say they are as good as MSU in that department, but MSU probably has a small edge there as well.
The problem that Tech seems to have is a shortage of game intelligence. Although they now rarely make some of the fundamental errors that have plagued Them Dogs over the past 3-4 years, they are still prone to sloppy play in their own end and make critical, flawed decisions at key points in games against teams with equal or better talent. Not all of those end up in Tech’s net, but too many do. And those same errors in the other end never result in goals. When you are playing again and again in one goal games, those kinds of things matter a great deal.
How much of that is on the players and how much is on the coaching? Overall, the schemes Joe Shawhan and his staff are using appear to be sound — although there is one thing that irritates the Old Dog no end about the Huskies’ system (more on that in a second). This means it’s likely there’s something in the lightning quick thinking required in hockey that Tech’s team just doesn’t quite get. That tends to be hard to change in a college level player; it’s either there or it’s not. Since most of Tech’s lapses lead to goals against, that means Tech simply has to score more. It’s been the same story for quite some time now, and, against the best teams, is still the barrier that the Huskies need to overcome.
One Scheme Suggestion
There is one thing that Tech doesn’t do that the Old Dog believes is a huge failure in the offensive end. While Shawhan constantly talks about “hard ice” goals, it seems he’s talking about crashing the net and trying to jam in rebounds. No doubt, Them Dogs are better at that part of the game this season, but there’s another “hard ice” issue that is conspicuously absent.
If you watched the Mankato series this weekend, you never — and I mean never — saw any forward setting up in front of the net, sticking their rear end in McKay’s face to obstruct his view. You hear it all the time on NHL broadcasts and it’s just as true in the NCAA. If you give a top goalie a good view of the puck, you are not going to get many across the goal line. Nor are you going to get any tip-in goals. The Old Dog occasionally saw a forward in the high slot last weekend but literally never just in front of the crease. In fact, I can only remember one play in the last few games when that happened, and it resulted in a fat rebound and a Tech goal.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why this team, especially with the repetitive mantra of “hard ice goals” doesn’t do that.
All of these things continue to make me wonder if Tech is learning and progressing to the level needed to be an NCAA tournament team, or if they are just hoping to get in with a hot streak in the CCHA playoffs. They remain in the 12th spot in the RPI, but they keep sliding a bit each time they play a good team, and, unless they start sweeping some of those series, they won’t have a shot at an at-large berth in the tournament.
Unfinished Business Before the Holidays
The Huskies simply must sweep their next series with St. Thomas in Houghton this coming weekend, their last games before the holidays. St. Thomas, in their first DI season after decades of top level DIII play, are 1-17 so far. Any hint of letting the Tommies up off the mat will be a less-than-desirable way to head into the coming break.
Nothing seems to come easy for this team, though, so the Huskies need to bear down and never give UST any room to breathe. That’s the mark of a team that’s learning to win on a consistent basis. So far, the Huskies haven’t been that kind of team. They weren’t born with that set of skills — they have to work for everything they get.
Mike Anleitner is a 1972 Michigan Tech grad, and he was in the first class of what has become the Scientific & Technical Communications program. He also has an engineering degree from Wayne State and an MBA from Michigan-Ross. He spent forty seven years in various manufacturing and engineering positions, and is currently a semi-retired freelance engineer. He lives during the fall and winter with his wife of 49 years Carol–also a ’72 Tech grad–in Addison, TX, a Dallas suburb with more restaurants per capita than any other municipality in the US. During the summer, Mike and Carol reside in Elmira, MI and avoid the Texas heat.
Old Dawg, food for thought from one fan, for what it’s worth;
Question – Is a ‘hard skill obsession’ code for ‘team growth (and/or player development) regression’ ?
Regression – “return to earlier stages of development and abandoned forms of gratification belonging to them”
How many successful hockey teams demand that all players fit into the same box?
How many successful hockey teams are not comprised of a mix of talented players that bring a range of individual skills and competencies to the greater good of the team?
How many teams that lack scoring would ground, stifle, or discourage individual players whose most notable skillset is generating offense and creating scoring opportunities?
How many D1 teams recruit offensively skilled players that may in fact lack the ‘must-have hard skill component’ that defines a team culture that the coaching staff swears by and is obsessed with?
Who is more responsible than a head coach, for formulating forward lines and d-pairings, as well as special team assignments, that merges diverse individual talents to facilitate team success?
As we seek answers to why a very talented team is under-achieving to this degree, I would offer that player growth and confidence and team morale are equally or more important to culture than an old-school, copy cat, verbal diarrhea coaches infatuation with his two favorite words, hard skill.
I’m a ’69 Tech grad, so you and I have seen a lot of horrible hockey, as well as in the 60’s and 70’s some truly great teams. You appear to me to be the only commentator who tells the good, bad and ugly about this team, and that is refreshing for sure. Glad I’m not the only one who has been driven to near insanity by the Huskies penchant for giving the opposing goalie a clear view of the puck.
I would say you are correct in some areas and not so much in others. For all of us, it is maddening to fail to see a big guy screening the goalie, yet tremendous improvement has happened and I suggest will continue to do so.
The evaluation of the games in Mankato are a little off. Yes, we could have come away with both games, but it was fluky type situations that caused that to miss the target.
You mentioned NMU sweeping UMD. What a damn joke. UMD was playing with a nothing goalie and half a defensive corps, due to large amounts of illness or illness protocols and a few injuries. Did you watch the games? Ferris could have at least gotten a split. Certainly Tech would have swept them. Even Potulny stated that it was a sweep due to circumstances. But I digress.
Let’s see. First it was ” Tech can’t score”. Well they can. Now it’s that they can’t make correct decisions on the ice. Yes, they can. Their record states the improvement from a pretty good position before. You want to break it down series by series? No, I suppose not. Suffice it to say, that with the exception of an empty netter, the dogs have not lost by more than one goal by anybody.
They have won by more than one goal, and you failed to mention the previous series (against a lowly Ferris team, to be sure) where they scored twelve goals. Indeed they must sweep this weekend, and take at least one of the “GLI” games. I suspect they could take both, but that remains to be seen.
I see the things they do well, and the things they need to improve on. We could discuss why Mankato has perhaps a higher level skill batch of players every year. Did you consider why? Could it be a large pair of cities a little over an hour away? Is Mike Hastings a better coach? No. Do we need to park somebody in front of the opposition goaltender? I think so, but then I don’t know how that affects the offensive setup.
They started out pretty good, and have improved seemingly with every game, albeit with some slipups here and there. Oh, I failed to mention that we beat NMU, and lost in OT. We also beat Bemidji on their ice. Check and see how often that happens.
Mike, I am aware that you are supposed to report and not cheerlead, as Tim is wont to say. But damn, it’s beginning to sound like the regular media where everything sucks. Well that’s not correct. Check the goals for and goals against. Check out how the hardest part of the schedule was in the front end. The road games are against easier teams and the tough guys have to come to us in the second half.
More than enough said. I am an optimistic realist. I see what they need to improve on. I also see where they have made great strides. Haven’t read much about that. But then, you just report. That’s great. Report it all.
We are not going to have Mike Hastings as a coach. Not sure it would help. Not sure he is any better. Is he? Prove it. I think we need help recruiting. But then, there is the transfer portal. I’m just guessing. I suppose you’d like to have an NHL coach and all the players be draft picks. Well, the draft pick thing isn’t helping massively for Michigan, now is it? Won’t talk about their coach.
Happy Holidays, Mike. I believe we wind up with at least twenty wins. In the regular season.
Well. It SEEMs barbs thrown at Joe. I too, find faults with Joe. Oh, Joe finds faults with Joe. I suggest you look at the entire history of Tech hockey. There are three with winning records. So far. Joe is one of the three, despite having to rebuild a recruiting system picked clean by his predecessor and left in a mess. Yeah, I don’t get all of what Joe does, but it seems a “hard skill” is one necessary to be successful. As to your other statements about holding down players and trying to lessen their skills, well, we differ. Greatly. But then, the rest of the season and perhaps beyond will tell. I think you’ll find yourself soul searching when it finishes clicking, as it is right this minute.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I’m glad everyone keeps reading my stuff–even if you differ with my take on the Huskies at times.
I still think this team–and this coaching staff–can accomplish some great things this season. But so far they’ve fallen a bit short of what their pre-season potential suggested they might accomplish. As I always say, we’ll see what happens.
The key tests are not holding serve against weaker teams, but whether they can start controlling games against better teams–MSU, Bemidji State, NMU (yes, they are a good team this year), and Clarkson. So far, they have done that only in short spurts.
The next ten games or so will tell us a great deal about the 2021-22 Huskies.
Comments are closed.