Author: Jim Dahl

A first look at the Sioux PWR

For years, college hockey fans online have been discussing the PairWise Rankings as soon as they could begin calculating them. However, the unofficial start of the “bracketology” season is still when USCHO joins the party with their own PWR calculation and their bracketology column. (As a side note, see Does USCHO Own Pairwise, if you missed it, for an interesting look at whether USCHO owns the term Pairwise, with some of the big players in the story having left comments on the blog).

In games played through January 21, the Sioux are currently 5th in the Pairwise. Though many comparisons have been made between this season and past Hakstol seasons that started slow and ended with a hot run to the NCAA tournament, the PWR tells us this year is different.

The PWR Trend Chart shows the Sioux have never dipped lower than #9 this season, a guaranteed tournament berth if maintained until season end.

While the Sioux could definitely fall (see the caveat at the end of the column), right now we’re interested in how they can rise. A top four ranking could result in a favorable #1 tournament seed. To look at how a team can rise, you need to examine those comparisons that the team is currently losing, and figure out if and how each can be won. From the UND PWR details page, those are:

Clarkson

Clarkson holds only a 2-1 advantage in this comparison.

Clarkson takes the TUC and COP points, with plenty of games remaining in both. If the Sioux can flip either and hold onto their RPI advantage, this could be an easy point to grab.

Remaining COP games include two Clarkson games vs. CC and two UND games vs. SCSU.

Colorado College

Colorado College holds a daunting 4-1 lead in this comparison.

A good run by the Sioux combined with a downturn for CC could let UND snag two of RPI, COP, and TUC, but UND is not in the driver’s seat on this one.

Denver

Though Denver also holds a 4-1 lead in this comparison, UND has more direct control thanks to two remaining head-to-head games (at Grand Forks, Feb 15-16). Those provide the best opportunity for UND to gain ground in a hurry, though even a split would leave UND chasing two of the three TUC, RPI, and COP, just as with CC.

Miami

Miami holds a 2-0 lead.

It’s not guaranteed that Miami will hit the required 10 games vs. TUCs to bring that comparison criterion into play.

That leaves UND needing to take the RPI, which is quite doable.

Michigan

Michigan holds a 3-0 lead in this comparison.

It’s TUC, COP, and RPI leads are more formidable than any of the other teams listed above. This one’s a long-shot.

Caveat lector

Looking at individual comparisons, like I did above, is almost useless this early in the season. Because teams fall into and out of being a TUC, the fortunes of teams such as Mankato (#25) and Michigan Tech (#22) could easily double the size of UND’s lost comparison list.

Then why do we bother? It seems fun.

PWR resources

SiouxSports.com Pairwise table
USCHO Pairwise table
CollegeHockeyNews Pairwise table
USCHO Pairwise explanationrpihockey.net comparison of rankings
SiouxSports.com Rankings Trends Charts

NCAA releases blogging policy

Still no Sioux sports to talk about, so another installment of “A day in the life of running a college athletics website”.

Readers may remember the controversy last summer when the NCAA threw a newspaper reporter out of the College World Series for blogging from the press box. The NCAA has finally clarified its position on blogging as part of its new Conditions on Media Credentials.

NCAA Blogging Policy (PDF from ncaa.org)

By my interpretation, Credentialed media must follow rules including the following at NCAA championship events (selected highlights):

  • Any blog must link to ncaasports.com Blog Central
  • All blogs must post an NCAA logo/link
  • All blogs must be free
  • Any representations (picture, video, audio, drawing) of an NCAA championship can only be used by Internet media entities within a 24-hour period following the competition and cannot exceed 3 minutes in length
  • The maximum number of blog entries allowed is restricted by sport, e.g.:
    • Football: Three per quarter; one at halftime
    • Hockey: Three per period — one in between (includes overtime)
    • Baseball: One every inning (includes extra innings)
    • Swimming: Ten per day/session

Note that score/time updates do count as blog entries.

Does anyone own PAIRWISE?

Owning a college sports web site doesn’t usually bring with it much intrigue or drama, though having a blog does allow me to share interesting stories about the online college hockey world with you when they do occur.

Does USCHO exclusively own the term “PAIRWISE”, as it relates to college hockey rankings? For now the answer appears to be no, though USCHO has been trying to change that. I first became aware of this effort when USCHO added a small “SM” to their “Pairwise” tables on their site last spring. I dashed off to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to investigate, which you may also want to do so you can follow along:
USCHO’s claim to Pairwise

Mar. 20, 2006

USCHO’s initial application for trademark for “PAIRWISE”

Apr. 17, 2006

The next action in the file, described as “Paper Correspondence Incoming”, came from a bunch of names you might recognize as formerly associated with USCHO: Mike Machnik (founder of HOCKEY-L, now affiliated with CollegeHockeyNews), Adam Wodon (founder of CollegeHockeyNews), John Whelan (developer of some pretty neat hockey ranking analysis tools, wrote USCHO’s Pairwise analysis tools, now with CollegeHockeyNews) and Keith Instone (long-time HOCKEY-L ranking guru, first devised the pairwise technique to mimic the selection process). Their letter raised quite a few objections to USCHO’s application, including the following:

  • Pairwise is a generic mathematical term that describes how the comparison is performed
  • The algorithm, in relation to college hockey, was developed by Keith Instone before USCHO existed
  • USCHO doesn’t use the term “pairwise” in commerce, as they claimed
  • The sample of “advertising” submitted by USCHO was not, indeed, advertising, but a page of hockey rankings
  • Lots of other sites cover college hockey and publish pairwise rankings of teams

Compelling stuff, particularly the first, which is why I was surprised to see the next document…

Sep. 11, 2006 Office Action Outgoing

No mention of the Apr. 17 “Paper Correspondence Incoming”. Notes were pretty much limited to the following:

Office records have been search and no similar registered and pending mark has been found that would bar registration

The wording used to describe the services needs clarification because it is unacceptable as indefinite. Applicant may adopt the following identification of services, if accurate: Providing information in the field of rankings of college hockey teams; and publication of books featuring rankings of college hockey teams.

Though there seemed to be some confusion between the two parties about wording (is USCHO a book or a web site? is PAIRWISE a marketing slogan or the name of a database?), it seemed like USCHO just needed to adopt the suggested description. I start getting ready to scrub the word “pairwise” from SiouxSports.com and come up with the SiouxSports.com Power (PWR) rankings (which is what everyone thinks PWR stands for, anyway).

Nov. 22, 2006 Response to Office Action

USCHO seems pleased with the change in wording, though did want to note that they publish a website, not books.

Jan. 25, 2007 Office Action Outgoing

Pointing out that USCHO is a web site, not a book, seemed to have compelled the USPTO to search the web, because it came back now denying the claim:

Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes a characteristic and feature of applicant’s goods and services

The proposed mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services

According to the Internet evidence, a ‘pairwise comparison’ is a problem solving method that allows one to determine the relative order (ranking) of a group of items

The mark… is a commonly used term for ranking college hockey teams

Evidence for the denial included a mountain of captured web pages (what did trademark examiners do 10 years ago?)

Page 1 — The first few pages are from Wikipedia. Really? It was my understanding that students aren’t allowed to cite wikipedia in fifth grade reports, yet the PTO uses it? Ok, let’s see what else they have…

Page 9 — Wiktionary?!? Seriously, will someone buy the PTO a subscription to the OED? I think m-w.com is free.

Page 10 — Mathworld, that sounds like an amusement park where I could imagine running into Whelan.

Page 12-16 — SiouxSports.com. w00t. I’m particularly impressed that he grabbed our awesome individual team detailed pairwise comparisons table, which I still think is the best on the net.

Jul. 25, 2007 Response to Office Action

Obviously, PAIRWISE is not descriptive of a ranking

Eh?

Even if the word “Pairwise” has become descriptive of a general process by which items are ordered and ranked by comparing each item to another, the fact that such a process is employed in a specific sport application in which the source of the ranking chooses and assigns weights to selected criteria makes it clear that the word is, at best, suggestive of what makes PAIRWISE rankings better than its competition.

Ok, I think I’m getting it. USCHO is trying to lay claim to PAIRWISE in all caps, differentiated from pairwise, the descriptive term. Huh.

From Tim Brule’s letter:

The success of our PAIRWISE rankings help establish uscho.com as a definitive source of information about college hockey and consequently increases the traffic to our site. Obviously it is economically benefical to us to have high traffic rankings.

Ah, is this about search results? Let’s google “pairwise hockey“:
USCHO.com::U.S. College Hockey Online::Pairwise
USCHO.com::U.S. College Hockey Online::Pairwise Surprise
College Hockey News: NCAA Tournament Pairwise Comparison Ratings
College Hockey News: Pairwise and KRACH
SiouxSports.com: NCAA College Hockey PWR (Pairwise Rankings)

Is USCHO’s new desire to trademark PAIRWISE because CollegeHockeyNews is gaining ground as a source of that information? It hardly seems a coincidence that this occurred so soon after the CHN guys split off.

Sep. 5, 2007 Office Action Outgoing

The examining attorney has also considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.

The applicant has responded to the refusal by stating that the proposed mark is not descriptive of the applicant’s services. The examining attorney disagrees

The term “PAIRWISE” as used in the mark merely indicates that the pairwise method was used to generate the college hockey team rankings.

Let’s take a look at PTO’s new evidence (much of it from the same source as the previous):
Page 4-6: Is PTO really using a page from USCHO’s site to try to demonstrate that Pairwise is a generic description. I don’t get this one.

Page 7-10: CollegeHockeyNews’s PWR

Page 11-12: SiouxSports.com’s PWR

Page 18-21, 27-30: Brad’s blog chats about USCHO’s PWR

I think those last three sets of evidence are flawed, for reasons I’ll describe in the next section.

What does Jim make of all of this?

Keep in mind that USCHO wasn’t trying to protect the mathematical formula behind PWR (which by my understanding could have proven difficult), but rather the name “PAIRWISE” when used to describe their rankings using that formula.

Though the formula isn’t their invention, but rather mimics the NCAA Selection Criteria, trademarking their own unique name of their presentation of those rankings strikes me as plausible. Searching the HOCKEY-L archives** may give you fascinating look at the origin of all of this stuff; the first reference I could find to the criteria came from Keith Instone, but the first reference I could find to PAIRWISE or PWR was from Tim Brule (of USCHO).

As to the numerous examples from the Internet of sites using PWR/Pairwise to describe the college hockey rankings, though there was no way for the examiner to know it, the term is likely in use in all of those places specifically because USCHO popularized it. I have no idea if allowing it become part of the college hockey lexicon for 10 years before attempting to trademark it harmed their case, but I can say on behalf of SiouxSports.com that our PWR rankings are called PWR specifically so people are aware that they use the same methodology as those USCHO calls PAIRWISE (PWR’s very purpose on SiouxSports.com is to assist people who want to analyze and predict the PAIRWISE rankings by providing detail of the calculations beyond that available from USCHO).

However, that is all likely irrelevant, as the nail in the coffin of USCHO’s claim seemed to be that pairwise is a generic term descriptive of the ranking methodology. Though the first reference I can find to that name did come from Tim Brule on HOCKEY-L, it also predated the creation of USCHO, so it’s not surprising that the rankings were given a descriptive name rather than one chosen with attention to trademark suitability. If only he had chosen Tim’s Rankings for American College Hockey (TRACH).

Final thought — it’s almost impossible to run sites like these without a good IP attorney. Thanks to John (ours).

** While browsing the HOCKEY-L archives, you may stumble upon the Nov 29, 1995, announcement of SiouxSports.com, which wasn’t yet called SiouxSports.com, but is a pleasant reminder of our longevity.

A look back at UND vs. Grand Valley

All-time: GVSU leads 3-2
At GVSU: GVSU leads 2-0
At UND: UND leads 1-0
Neutral: Tied 1-1

How GVSU’s past six seasons have ended

2001 – playoff loss vs UND
2002 – National Champ
2003 – National Champ
2004 – playoff loss at UND
2005 – National Champ
2006 – National Champ

How UND’s past six seasons have ended

2001 – National Champ
2002 – Did not make playoffs
2003 – playoff loss vs GVSU
2004 – playoff loss at Pitt St.
2005 – playoff loss at GVSU
2006 – playoff loss at GVSU

December 8, 2001

UND 17, GVSU 14
NCAA National Championship Game
Florence, AL

The Sioux were down 10-14 with 38 seconds left in the game. UND was on its own 41 and facing a fourth down. A missed tackle resulted in a pass to the Sioux tight end completing for 58 yards, setting the Sioux up with a first-and-goal and seconds on the clock. Jed Perkerewiez punched it in for the Sioux, sealing UND’s first national championship.

I was still pruning messages after 60 days and SiouxSports.com didn’t have a football forum yet. In fact, I think I added it due to the upsurge in interest on the site following UND’s first football national championship.

“Sioux Football, Way to go!” thread

December 13, 2003

UND 3, GVSU 10
NCAA National Championship Game
Florence, AL
Ugly weather and staunch defenses on both sides resulted in very little offensive production this game. The deciding, and only, touchdown came after GVSU returned a UND fumble in the red zone.

GVSU drove to the 1-yard line on the opening drive, but had to settle for a field goal in what would turn out to be the only points of the half.

UND drove to the GVSU 7 to open the second half, but the GVSU defense returned a turnover to the UND 20, setting their offense up for the only TD of the game, giving GVSU a 10-0 lead.

The Sioux again drove into Laker territory, but missed the 43-yard FG attempt when the kicker slipped in the mud. On subsequent drives in the fourth, the Sioux missed a 46-yard FG attempt and nailed a 35-yard one. GVSU missed a 43-yard attempt with about 4 minutes remaining, leaving UND one last chance.

In the game’s final drive, the Sioux were hoping to repeat their 2001 performance as they drove to a 1st-and-10 at the Grand Valley 17. However, the GVSU defense held and GVSU took the honor of having won two of the last three championships instead of UND.

Notably, GVSU did not have home field for any of its post-season games in this championship season.

SiouxSports.com game thread
My photos from the game
My road trip to the game

November 27, 2004

UND 19, GVSU 15
NCAA Quarterfinals
Grand Forks, ND

SiouxSports.com game thread

Between the 2003 and 2004 seasons, the NCAA realigned Division II, putting GVSU and UND in the same region. That meant we had seen the last GVSU vs. UND national championship game, and that the two teams would instead meet in the regionals.

The first such meeting occurred in Grand Forks, as GVSU had lost two games in the regular season. GVSU led 9-3 going into the fourth, when the scoring seesaw began. A 34 yard drive culminating in a Sioux field goal was answered by a 76 yard Laker drive for a TD, bringing the score to 15-6 GVSU (missed PAT). The Sioux answered with a 68 yard TD drive, the first UND TD against the Laker defense in seven quarters, leaving the Lakers with a 15-12 lead (on another missed PAT). The game was decided when UND sacked GVSU’s quarterback and forced a fumble, setting up a UND possession that would lead to the game-winning TD.

November 19, 2005

UND 3, GVSU 17
NCAA 2nd Round
Allendale, MI

The stat of the game:
Fumbles Lost: UND 3, GVSU 0

In UND’s first trip to Lubbers Stadium, GVSU scored TDs on consecutive drives of 85 and 69 yards with the wind in the 2nd quarter. Those two scores proved to be the margin of victory, as the Laker defense kept UND out of the end zone, including a four-down stop against the Sioux on a 1st and goal from the 3.

The Sioux were plagued by a slow start, as GVSU posted 208 yards of offense in the first half, while UND posted only 105. UND ended the game with 332 yards of total offense to GVSU’s 286.

December 2, 2006

UND 20, GVSU 30
NCAA Quarterfinals
Allendale, MI

Sioux comeback bid falls short
SiouxSports.com game thread

GVSU media relations’ description of this game opens:
“The play of the game between Grand Valley State and North Dakota might have come just after the coin toss. Grand Valley State won the toss and elected to defer to the second half, while the Fighting Sioux decided to go against the wind in the first quarter. That decision proved costly.”

I proposed early on that we played the wind wrong, while others noted bigger problems.

The bottom-line to this game is GVSU came out ready to play and used the wind advantage to run up the score to 27-0 by the end of the first. UND clawed back, scoring 20 points in the remaining three quarters, but also left plenty of points on the field.

I wonder what UND could have done if it GVSU hadn’t had the luxury of defending a 27 point lead for the final three quarters, but there’s no doubt that the team that played better football won this day.

Sioux Records — End of the regular season

My third, but hopefully not final, post in the 2007 Fighting Sioux Football Records installment series. I know I haven’t tired of this subject, I hope you haven’t either.

The regular season ended with an aerial assault in South Dakota, we can now look at where this phenomenally prolific offense falls in the regular season single-season record books.

UND 2007 Football Cumulative Stats
UND Football Records

Final Regular Season Records for 2007 Fighting Sioux

Chappell

Chappell
Rushing TDs 12 (T-#6 all time)
Rushing yds 1456 (#4 all time)
All purpose yds 1949 (#1 all time)
TDs scored 15 (T-#4 all time)

Dressler

Dressler
Receiving TDs 12 (#1 all time)
Receiving yds 1142 yds (#2 all time)
All purpose yds 1850 (#2 all time)
TDs scored 12 (T-#9 all time)

Freund

Freund
Passing TDs 24 (#1 all time)
Passing yds 2573 (#1 all time)
Single season completion percentage .687 (#1 all time)

Off-the-cuff thoughts

  • Remember in August when people were concerned about whether Freund was ready?
  • At the risk of repeating myself, what’s the impact on the record books if we’d gotten that 11th game against East Stroudsburg?

Offense continues climbing the record charts

In my mid-season look at UND’s offensive stats, Offense for the Record Books, I noted that the prolific Sioux offense was about to burst onto the records charts with just half their games played.

I’ve been updating the regular season stats in the comments of that post, but with just two games remaining, it’s time for a fresh look.

After 6 consecutive games of 500+ yards of offense (besting a previous record of 1), the offense has settled down with two games in the mere 400’s.

With eight contests settled and two remaining, regular season offensive production for the 2007 Sioux (and where each ranks, all-time):

Chappell
——–
Rushing TDs 10 (11 needed for top ten)
Rushing yds 1243 (#5 all time)
All purpose yds 1634 (#4 all time)

Dressler
——–
Receiving TDs 7 (8 needed for top ten)
Receiving yds 900 yds (#4 all time)

Freund
——
Passing TDs 18 (T-#6 all-time)
Passing yds 2044 (#8 all time)

Players have insisted in the past that they don’t watch their progress toward records during the season; but, when this regular season ends, a few of them may find themselves wondering what their place in history would be if UND had found an 11th game to schedule.

“Fighting Sioux” settlement agreed to by both parties

The settlement agreement is signed.

Here are the highlights:

  • UND has until November 30, 2010, to obtain namesake approval for its nickname and imagery
  • Approval is only of the form of affirmative support from both the Standing Rock Tribe and Spirit Lake Tribe
  • The NCAA pledges not to contact any Sioux tribes with any attempts to influence them to provide or not to provide support for UND
  • The Spirit Lake Tribe’s 2000 resolution is recognized and will count, but only if an individual authorized to speak on behalf of the tribe affirmatively supports UND’s current use of the nickname and imagery
  • The Standing Rock Tribe’s support must come in the form of a written resolution of approval adopted by any means authorized by Standing Rock’s Constitution
  • Absent namesake approval, UND will announce a a transition to a new nickname within 30 days
  • Such a transition must be accomplished by Aug. 15, 2011
  • If the name is changed, imagery must be removed from any venue used to host an NCAA championship except: historical images, images embedded in architecture, items which will ultimately be replaced because of wear and tear.
  • The NCAA will issue a statement to its members that application of its nickname policy to UND has been suspended, and that no institution should use it as a factor in regular season scheduling against UND
  • If UND is removed from the list of institutions subject to the policy, it will be allowed to play regular season contests at venues it does not own that have not complied with the policy (venues it owns must comply with the policy, and championships will not be hosted at non-owned venues which do not comply)
  • The NCAA will issue a statement that it recognizes UND is a leading institution in educating Native Americans and that it did not make any specific findings about a hostile or abusive environment on UND’s campus.

“Fighting Sioux” nickname settlement

As is being widely reported, the N.D. State Board of Higher Education is meeting tomorrow to decide whether to approve a proposed settlement with the NCAA over the “Fighting Sioux” nickname.

In short, reports are that the settlement would give UND three years to continue to use the “Fighting Sioux” name without penalty. By the end of that three years, UND will need to either secure the support of Sioux tribes or change the name.  Fan reaction has been… less than positive.

A few thoughts:

The State’s willingness to accept this settlement might indicate that it sees the only likely outcome of the trial and the NCAA’s post-trial maneuvers as being forced to either get tribal approval or change the name. If true, whichever of those two outcomes it thought likely, this settlement is a good one.

Those three years would be useful in a few ways:

  • The tribes could no longer feign disinterest — the burden is shifted to them to either explicitly declare support for the name or implicitly demonstrate lack of support; if the name is changed, it will specifically be because they did not support it. If polls about the support for the nickname among tribal members are to be believed, there could be significant pressure on tribal leaders to reflect the will of their constituents. Further, the immediate need for UND to have hurried dialogs to pressure tribes into an emergency resolution is abated.
  • If UND will have to change the name, the three year period provides useful “cooling off” for the school. Fans and alums will have a few years to adjust to and accept the coming change, while hopefully not being driven away or alienated by an immediate change. A generation of students will graduate and new classes will come in, aware of the impending change.
  • UND will have ample time to engage its constituents in any potential change. No need to hastily rush into something they’d regret.

A few upset fans on the message boards think this settlement would be the State giving up mid-fight. That would be true if UND had really been fighting to overthrow the NCAA’s restrictions in court, tribal opinions be damned. However, if UND never saw keeping the name without tribal approval as a realistic possibility, they may have just bought themselves a three year continuance to gain that approval or prepare for the change.

Football regional rankings released

The first round of the NCAA Regional Rankings were released on Monday.

Remember, the regional rankings reflect the NCAA tournament selection criteria. The top six teams from each region make the playoffs. There are no auto-qualifiers, though if a conference representative finishes in the top 10 of the regional rankings, that conference’s top team is guaranteed selection (“earned access”).

In the Northwest, the first 7 are:
1. Nebraska-Omaha 5-0
2. North Dakota 6-0
3. Grand Valley 5-0
4. Central Washington 4-1
5. Ashland 3-1
6. South Dakota 3-3
7. Winona State 5-1
(Full rankings for all regions)

A few things probably jump at you. Since UNO, UND, and GVSU are all undefeated, they’re presumably ranked on strength of schedule vs D-II opponents. Excluding common opponents between UNO and UND, UNO has played Nebraska-Kearney (3-2), and NW Missouri St (4-1) [.700], while UND has played Humboldt State (2-4), Central Washington (4-1) [.567].

Notice that at #6, USD is the fourth team from the NCC in the rankings. If the season ended today, USD would get bumped from the playoffs to make room for Winona State via “earned access”.

The numbers are somewhat meaningless at this point given the remaining games — for example, UNO vs. UND this weekend will send one of the two down the charts this weekend) — but it’s never too early to dive into the stats 🙂

WCHA pre-season coaches media conference

The WCHA held its annual pre-season media teleconference with the coaches today. Here’s a paraphrased summary of what Coach Hakstol had to say. If it’s not in quotation marks, it’s not a quote, so it would be a mistake to interpret it as such.

Hakstol Opening Remarks

We’re starting off with a tough game against Michigan State and a tough schedule in the first half. We’re different from the last couple years in that we’ll be able to lean on a senior in goal, have seniors and juniors on the blue line and up front. We have a nice base of leadership.

Q: Have you followed Jonathan Toews’ adventures in Chicago?
A: We’ve been in close contact, he had an unfortunate injury but was beginning to get comfortable in camp. As he gets over that injury, hopefully in the next couple days, we think he’s ready to transition to that level.

Q: You had a lot of other guys who could’ve left, but it sounds like a lot bonded together to come back. How do you create that on a team?
A: Some of that “pact” may have been fabricated to a certain extent. They’re a close-knit group of guys. A couple guys made the step, and we had about four who probably could’ve gone but decided to stay. They all had their own reasons. Certainly they talked amongst each other and had common interests. They’re excited for the season and are staying for the right reasons.

Q: College hockey has lost unusually high numbers in the last two years. With the way the NHL’s collective bargaining agreement has changed, do you see less raiding from the NHL in future years?
A: The NHL people are running their business as best they see fit. Every organization has a difference philosophy about developing their players. I don’t look at it as a raiding of players. Part of our job is to develop these guys so they’re ready to play in the National Hockey League. More often than not players are going to make the decision for the right reason and at the right time.

Q: You felt Jonathan was ready to make that step?
A: I think Jonathan had some questions at the end of the year. He went to the World Championships and played extremely well, which gave him an extra boost of confidence. I think a lot of people thought it was a given that he would leave after the season, but that wasn’t the case. He took a lot of time and I think he was ready mentally and physically to step up. He’s going to be able to contribute in the NHL immediately.

Q: With all your pre-season accolades, how are you dealing with those expectations?
A: Pre-season polls and predictions mean nothing. They’re not based on performance, they’re just predictions. Nobody has stepped on the ice or played a game. We talk about it openly, we have good leadership and our guys have their feet on the ground and know we’re going to be judged on our performance and wins and losses this year.

Q: What you have thought on how to replace Toews on that Duncan-Oshie line?
A: We’re going to call Chicago and ask for Johnny back. T.J. and Ryan will play together early on. We feel good about all of our freshman up front, we think Frattin could play there, maybe Brad Miller could step forward. There are different ways of thinking, VandeVelde was playing well at the end of last season, you could put him up the middle. We hope we can find some chemistry earlier than in previous years.

Q: When you had Parise and Bochenski there you could put a folding chair with them and have a good line. Is it like that this year?
A: We’re going to put a block of cheese out there with them. We need to find someone who’s comfortable there. It’ll be a challenge.