April 11, 2003
NCAA Frozen Four

Championship Game Scouting Report

On Friday Inside College Hockey talked to a number of head coaches whose teams have played Minnesota and New Hampshire this season. In exchange for anonymity, they gave us a candid breakdown of the matchups. Opinions were divided about who would win on Saturday, but we compiled some of the most insightful comments about the two teams:

On Minnesota

Obviously, you've always got to keep an eye on their power play. Even though it hasn't been a huge factor, it's always lurking.

Secondly, you've got to find a way to take care of Vanek and Riddle, but you can't forget that one of the main reasons for their success of late is that other people are emerging. Gino Guyer and Tallackson have been streaky. Potulny is steady.

Even their fourth line, which I think at times is their second best line (even though they don't score), you can't load up against. You've got to stay spread out and keep an eye on things. And you've got to watch for 13 (Keith Ballard) and 10 (Paul Martin) and 3 (Chris Harrington) jumping up in the play. Your last couple of guys back-checking have to keep their heads on a swivel and look around for the late guy.

They're pretty solid of late. If I were facing them on Saturday I'd be very much concerned about their starts. Thursday night was an exception, but they've been outstanding in the early parts of games. Traditionally they're much better and sharper the second night of a series. Thursday is a matter of having to give credit to Michigan for being ready to play, and if it wasn't for Weber, Minnesota might not be playing on Saturday.

Goaltending has been Minnesota's Achilles Heel. I think against Weber you have to get traffic in front of him. He's a smaller guy and he's young, so you need to create traffic and take away his eyes.

On New Hampshire

They've got two big strengths. Number one is their goaltending, and number two is their dynamic offensive ability. They can really turn around the complexion of a game in a matter of moments.

I'd be scared to death of Ayers if I were Minnesota. He seems to be the reason why they play so well.

I do think that Collins and Saviano are very, very good. I would try to get the puck down low to Minnesota's defensemen and try to buzz them with the combination of speed and size that New Hampshire has. But there's a reason why they're beating BU in 1-0 games, so you have to be cautious. Their systems are good and I think they're playing defense first, which is scary this time of year.

I really think New Hampshire's speed is going to present problems for Minnesota's defensemen. They can counter-attack quickly. UNH also does a very good job of flooding areas of the ice, which puts pressure on the defensive team to maintain their spacing.

Overall

On paper I think Minnesota stacks up really well, but we'll see if Weber can be that good in back-to-back games. Michael Ayers has had a good season, so I think it'll be a close game.

I think Minnesota's down-low play is going to be very tough for the UNH defensemen to contain. UNH struggled against Cornell down there, and they have struggled throughout the season. Minnesota is a counter-attacking, transition type of team, but I think they should try to create their offense through offensive zone play.

If it goes to overtime, as so many of these games do, you've got to keep a good handle on who's getting it done for you. If you have to cut to three lines and five defensemen, you've got to do it. Anytime Vanek is out there in the third period or late in a game, the statistics dictate that Minnesota has got a chance.

Both coaches have national championship game experience, which is huge. They've got some of the intangibles that other coaches haven't been able to learn yet.