The story behind the TCU coach who turned in his own team to the NCAA
Kenneth Davis shed more tears than he cares to admit 37 years ago when he was told he was being suspended from TCU‘s football team.
He may shed a few more tears Saturday, tears of joy, when he sees his alma mater playing the kind of high-stakes game he and his teammates dreamed about before the unthinkable happened.
Just prior to the second game of the 1985 season, a season filled with promise for the Horned Frogs, TCU coach Jim Wacker turned in his own team to the NCAA after learning that several players, including Davis, had been accepting illegal payments from boosters. Davis was coming off a season in which he had finished fifth in the Heisman Trophy voting after rushing for 1,611 yards and scoring 17 touchdowns.
“Yep, the same thing that’s legal now,” Davis told ESPN, referencing NIL. “It was devastating. I just cried and couldn’t quit crying. I think today that I’m still not over it because there was so much we could have done and would have done. They just brushed us out of there for what everybody else was doing in the Southwest Conference back then. And I mean everybody, a lot of it much worse at other schools.
“We didn’t set up any of it. The boosters set it up. They came to us. What kid isn’t going to accept that money if they’re offering it to you, especially the kids coming from tougher backgrounds?
“It was a hard time, not just for us, but for a lot of people who loved TCU.”
As dark as those days were for Davis and the Frog Nation, he said it would all be worth it to see TCU beat Michigan on Saturday in the College Football Playoff Semifinal at the Vrbo Fiesta Bowl, then finish off this dream season with a victory in the national championship game Jan. 9.
“They get a chance to do what I always wanted to do, to win a national championship, and maybe this is finally our time,” Davis said. “I’ll always wonder what we could have done because we had the right players, the right coaches, the right team, the right everything.”
They also had a head coach who was anything but conventional. He was deeply committed to doing what he felt was the right thing — even if that meant dropping a dime on his own team.
“Not many coaches would have done that, then or now,” said former TCU athletic director Frank Windegger, who will turn 89 next month. “What a hard decision, but the right decision despite everything we had to dig out of after that. It was a different time in college football. But Jim was determined to stand by what he had been preaching, that we weren’t going to try to win games by breaking the rules.”
Wacker, the son of a Lutheran preacher, died in 2003 at the age of 66 from cancer. Those closest to him said he was tormented by the aftermath of the scandal, but not by his actions.
“Dad never regretted his decision to do what he did because that decision had already been made,” said oldest son Mike Wacker, who played basketball at Texas and coached basketball for 37 years, recently retiring from Texas Lutheran University. “The last thing he was going to be was a hypocrite. He had said very publicly that he wasn’t going to buy players. He didn’t say it once. He said it a million times. He genuinely believed they could win at TCU without cheating.
“What Dad did regret was how much that decision adversely impacted so many people’s lives. He never wanted that to happen.”
Seven players were suspended, some of whom may have had potential pro careers stunted, and there was shame and embarrassment across the board at TCU. All after Wacker, who had come to the school from the NAIA and Division II ranks, had revived a moribund program that had 16 losing seasons in the previous 17 years before his arrival.
Tom Mueller was Wacker’s defensive coordinator and worked with him for 21 years. To this day, Mueller believes some people in the upper administration at TCU failed Wacker because they weren’t completely truthful with him when he took the job about whether players were getting paid.
“There was a meeting, and he looked the people in that room right in the eyes and said, ‘I need to know if we’re cheating because that’s not the way we’re going to do it. We’re going to do it the right way,'” Mueller recounted. “Maybe Jim was naive, but he believed you could win without cheating and was assured that wouldn’t be the case while he was the coach.”
Those close to Wacker, who was the eternal optimist with his catch phrases like “Unbeleev-able,” said he was surprised and disappointed by how harshly the NCAA penalized TCU even with Wacker being so cooperative. Wacker was insistent on turning over all the information the school uncovered from a payment plan that had been launched by boosters, including trustee Dick Lowe, before Wacker was hired. Lowe, a Texas oil man, died in 2020. He told the Orange County Register in 2010 that the payments were “stupid” and were born out of frustration because “everybody else was doing it and we were getting our asses kicked.”
Much to Wacker’s chagrin, the NCAA hardly took it easy on TCU, which was hit with a one-year bowl ban, the loss of 35 scholarships over two years and the forfeiture of its 1983 and 1984 television revenue. Those sanctions were a precursor to SMU receiving the so-called death penalty because of recruiting violations. The Mustangs had to shut down their program in 1987 and 1988. The sanctions against the two schools were part of a series of events that in many ways were the beginning of the end of the Southwest Conference.
“Jim went as far as to find out when NCAA investigators were coming to town and would send a car to pick them up at the airport,” said Bob DeBesse, TCU’s quarterbacks coach at the time. “Jim just felt by doing the right thing, calling the NCAA and handing over everything, that the NCAA would also do the right thing. But, no, it was just the opposite.
“We always said that SMU got the death penalty, but that we got life because we had to keep playing through impossible sanctions.”
In a flash, all the momentum of the TCU football program was gone. The Horned Frogs went 8-4 in 1984 and played in their first bowl game in 19 years. But over the next eight years, they would have just one winning season. It was 15 more years before they would make it back into the AP Top 25. And with the Southwest Conference’s demise on the horizon, TCU ended up bouncing around from one conference to another (WAC, Conference USA and Mountain West) until finally latching on with the Big 12 in 2012.
Davis, who played nine seasons in the NFL with the Green Bay Packers and Buffalo Bills, has talked very little publicly over the years about the way it ended for him at TCU. The same goes for the other six players suspended for taking cash from boosters: Marvin Foster, Gary Spann, Gerald Taylor, Egypt Allen, Darron Turner and Ron Zell Brewer, who died in 2010.
“What happened happened, and there was a lot of anger over it at the time, but we’re all still Frogs,” said Davis. “A lot of the guys from that team keep in touch.”
Kevin Dean was a defensive end on the 1985 team and has remained close with Davis and some of the others who were suspended.
“Some people say they were suspended. I’d say they were more sacrificial lambs,” said Dean, who organizes get-togethers to watch some of the TCU games on television in the Dallas area. “Those guys paid a heavy price, but they’re not bitter. What happened in the past doesn’t define you, and TCU as a university didn’t turn its back on them. Most of them got degrees, and they’ve all been very successful.”
As the SMU investigation heated up in 1985 — and with Texas A&M and Houston also in the NCAA’s crosshairs — the NCAA got word that something might be going on at TCU after talking to other coaches and recruits, and informed TCU officials that it was coming to campus to take a look.
Wacker had already angered some fellow Southwest Conference coaches by sending out a letter soon after he took the job imploring them to clean up their acts in recruiting. Part of that letter, dated March 3, 1983, read: “The major violations — the blatant buying of athletes — is what must come to an end, or we will self-destruct before it is all over. At TCU, we did control our alumni this past recruiting season. We did not buy one athlete. It can be done if we let the alumni know that we will personally turn them in to the NCAA if they are involved in any illegal recruiting practices.”
Mike Wacker said one thing his father regretted was sending that letter because it immediately turned off other coaches in the conference and painted him as holier-than-thou even though that was not his intention.
“I think it became: ‘Who is this guy from Southwest Texas State, a Division II school, coming in here and telling us what we should be doing?'” Mike Wacker said. “That’s one he wished he could have back.”
The letter sparked a well-documented feud between Wacker and then-Texas A&M coach Jackie Sherrill, who called for an onside kick in the fourth quarter in a 53-6 rout of TCU at Fort Worth in the final game of the 1985 season. The following year, Sherrill had the Aggies go for a 2-point conversion late in a 74-10 rout of the depleted Horned Frogs.
Two years after writing that letter, Wacker’s worst fears came true. It was the Thursday before the trip to Kansas State in Week 2 of the 1985 season, and Wacker had given his team an impassioned speech about how proud he was that TCU was having success without cheating. He knew the NCAA was about to pay a visit to campus and wanted to make sure he had nothing to hide.
“Coach was convinced that any payments that had been going on before he got there had stopped, and in his mind, we were an open book for the NCAA and anybody else,” said David Rascoe, the quarterback on that 1985 team. “He was exactly who he said he was, nothing fraudulent about him.”
Tom Perry was the TCU running backs coach. He suspected that some players on the team might be getting money from boosters simply by looking at their cars, expensive boots and jewelry.
When Wacker quizzed his assistant coaches that Thursday about whether players were receiving extra benefits, Perry found himself in an impossible situation. He said he was one of two assistants in the room to raise his hand when asked by Wacker if there was reason to believe that boosters were still paying players.
Later that day, Davis met with Perry and asked if there was any way Wacker would know if players were indeed getting paid. That’s when Perry went to Wacker with the bad news.
“He just kept saying, ‘Why did you have to tell me? Why did you have to tell me?'” Perry recalled. “I know he was hurting because of how outspoken he had been that we weren’t cheating, and I don’t think Jim was complicit in any way. But I was doing what he’d asked us to do. So, yes, I was pissed at the way he reacted. I just think he was one of those guys who always thought the best of everybody. He was that naive, like he’d just fallen off the turnip truck.”
One by one, the players involved admitted they had been taking money from boosters. Six players were suspended late that Thursday night. Wacker went to meet with the chancellor, called the NCAA and conference officials and also alerted some in the media.
Longtime Dallas television personality Dale Hansen broke the story and remembers interviewing Wacker sometime around midnight on campus after doing his newscast that evening.
“There were some in the media who thought Jim was a fraud, but my argument, and I still stand by this, is that Jim knew they were getting paid when he took the job because everybody in the Southwest Conference was getting paid,” Hansen said. “But Jim also made it very clear to everybody at TCU, ‘From this day forward, it stops.'”
Hansen was doing a regular TV show back then with former Dallas Cowboys receiver Butch Johnson, and they showed a clip from Wacker’s introductory news conference where he said, “Wacker don’t cheat and Wacker don’t pay.”
Johnson looked at Hansen on the air and quipped, “Well, Wacker ain’t winning no football games.”
Gil LeBreton was a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram during that time and was on the team’s charter flight to Kansas State. He said TCU and Wacker wanted to be as transparent as possible and offered the seat.
“It was awful, like being on a flying funeral procession,” LeBreton said. “You could hear players just openly bawling and crying with their heads down in their laps. Their faces were red, like they’d been up all night. It was a surreal scene.”
Somehow, TCU won the game, and the Star-Telegram’s headline the next day read: TCU wins anyway.
The number of suspended players grew to seven after the Kansas State game when Brewer admitted that he, too, had been taking money.
“He felt badly for his teammates and didn’t want them to fall on the sword for something he knew he was also doing,” Dean said. “That tells you a lot about him and a lot about the brotherhood on that team.”
Wacker had his supporters on campus after disclosing the violations, particularly among students. A group of them held up “Wacker Backer” signs in the stands of home games. But not everyone was onboard with Wacker’s decision, particularly some of the more prominent power brokers. That was never more apparent than in 1991, the final year of Wacker’s contract, when he guided the Frogs to a 7-4 finish after they struggled through six straight losing seasons.
“We had [officials from] several bowls in attendance at our last game and knew we were going to one of them after we beat David Klingler and Houston in a great game,” Mueller said. “We’re all standing around in the locker room waiting to see where we were going, and Jim gets the call telling him the administration had declined a bowl bid. It was obvious Jim no longer had the support he needed. He didn’t want to leave TCU, but Minnesota came after him and he knew the time was right to leave.”
Wacker coached at Minnesota from 1992 to 1996, resigning after five losing seasons.
Davis said he rarely talked with Wacker after leaving TCU, although Davis said he doesn’t begrudge his former coach for going to the NCAA.
“It was his job to do what he did and to protect the team, and that’s what he did,” Davis said. “I understand and respect him for that. I don’t have nothing against him.”
Perry never coached college football again after leaving TCU, but went on to earn a doctorate degree. He hopes what people remember most from that time is the way Wacker came in and turned around the program and “did it his way by getting kids to believe.”
Mike Wacker said his dad will undoubtedly be smiling down from above when the ball is kicked off Saturday afternoon.
“He’d love this team,” Mike Wacker said. “And you know how he loved crazy things, all the rhyming and joking around and coming up with nicknames.
“The thing he’d really love is the Hypnotoad thing.”
“We know it hasn’t always been easy for TCU, and that’s going back a long way,” current TCU quarterback and Heisman finalist Max Duggan said. “There’s been a lot of tough times, so we’re playing for those guys and those teams as much as we are for anybody.”
-
Bill Connelly
In 93 days, it all starts again. From Week 0’s Irish Farmageddon (Iowa State vs. Kansas State in Dublin) in mid-August to the national title game in late January, the 2025 college football season looms. And with transfer portal movement finally slowing down — including spring moves, FBS teams have averaged more than 19 transfers this offseason, up more than 40% from last season — we can finally take a semi-confident look at what’s in store this fall. That means updating our numbers.
Below are updated SP+ projections for the coming season. A quick reminder: Preseason projections are based on three factors.
1. Returning production. The returning production numbers are based on rosters I have updated as much as humanly possible to account for transfers and attrition. The combination of last year’s SP+ ratings and adjustments based on returning production makes up about two-thirds of the projections formula.
2. Recent recruiting. This piece informs us of the caliber of a team’s potential replacements (and/or new stars) in the lineup. It is determined by the past few years of recruiting rankings in diminishing order (meaning the most recent class carries the most weight). This is also impacted by the recruiting rankings of incoming transfers, an acknowledgment that the art of roster management is now heavily dictated by the transfer portal.
3. Recent history. Using a sliver of information from the previous four seasons or so gives us a good measure of overall program health.
(One other reminder: SP+ is a tempo- and opponent-adjusted measure of college football efficiency. It is a predictive measure of the most sustainable and predictable aspects of football, not a résumé ranking, and along those lines, these projections aren’t intended to be a guess at what the AP Top 25 will look like at the end of the season. These are simply early offseason power rankings based on the information we have been able to gather.)
Here are the updated rankings:
This time around, I am also experimenting with what you might call a fourth projection factor: coaching changes. Using data discussed in this March column, I have incorporated some adjustments based on who changed head coaches and/or offensive or defensive coordinators and how those teams performed against historic norms last year. Translation: For teams or units that underachieved significantly against their 20-year averages and changed coaches or coordinators (example: Oklahoma’s offense, Purdue’s entire team), that means a slight bump upward. For teams or units that overachieved and lost their coaches or coordinators (example: UNLV as a team or Louisiana Tech’s defense), that means a bump down.
The adjustments aren’t enormous, but when you see that Oklahoma’s projected rating has risen since February, that explains it.
Minimal changes near the top
Thirteen teams moved up or down at least 10 spots compared to February’s rankings, due to either transfer portal addition/attrition, the coaching adjustments mentioned above, or simply me getting a much better read on returning production after official roster releases. At the very top, however, not a ton changed. The top four teams from February continue to occupy the same spots, though Texas hopped Notre Dame and Oregon into the No. 5 hole. Clemson and Michigan rose a bit, Tennessee dropped five spots after Nico Iamaleava’s transfer, and Oklahoma eased into the top 15. (With their ridiculous schedule, however, the Sooners’ projected win total still isn’t great.)
The overall conference hierarchy hasn’t changed much either, though with the Sun Belt getting hit particularly hard by spring transfer attrition, the AAC moves into the top spot among Group of 5 conferences.
Average SP+ rating by conference
1. SEC (15.3 overall, 33.1 offense, 17.8 defense, 60.7% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 2 Alabama, No. 4 Georgia, No. 5 Texas
2. Big Ten (9.5 overall, 29.1 offense, 19.6 defense, 56.7% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 1 Ohio State, No. 3 Penn State, No. 7 Oregon
Both the SEC and Big Ten boast three of the projected top seven teams, but if we measure conferences by average ratings, the SEC still has a commanding lead due, as always, to the lack of dead weight. Only two of 16 SEC teams are projected lower than 43rd overall, while the Big Ten has six such teams, including three ranked 70th or worse. That helps explain why, despite playing only eight-game conference schedules, SEC teams occupy 13 of the top 15 spots in the strength of schedule rankings.
3. Big 12 (6.3 overall, 31.0 offense, 24.7 defense, 61.8% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 18 Kansas State, No. 22 Arizona State, No. 26 Texas Tech
4. ACC (5.0 overall, 30.8 offense, 25.8 defense, 59.2% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 8 Clemson, No. 12 Miami, No. 20 SMU
We see a similar dynamic with the Big 12 and ACC — in terms of the quality of its top teams, the ACC (three top-20 teams) seems to have an advantage over the Big 12 (one top-20 team). But the Big 12 has eight top-35 teams compared to the ACC’s four, and while no Big 12 team is projected lower than 66th, the ACC’s average is dragged down by three teams ranking 79th or lower.
5. AAC (-7.8 overall, 26.0 offense, 33.8 defense, 49.4% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 48 Tulane, No. 53 Memphis, No. 63 UTSA
6. Sun Belt (-8.1 overall, 24.9 offense, 33.0 defense, 46.3% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 49 James Madison, No. 74 Louisiana, No. 76 South Alabama
7. Mountain West (-8.6 overall, 23.5 offense, 32.1 defense, 46.5% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 33 Boise State, No. 75 UNLV, No. 83 San Jose State
Three G5 teams are within one point of each other on average, though again, the distribution varies significantly by conference. The MWC is propped up significantly by Boise State, the best projected G5 team, but its average is dragged down by three teams ranking 119th or worse. The Sun Belt has only one such team. The AAC, meanwhile, has a solid five teams in the top 70 … and four teams projected 120th or worse.
8. Conference USA (-13.0 overall, 20.4 offense, 33.4 defense, 50.7% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 69 Liberty, No. 85 Western Kentucky, No. 104 Jacksonville State
9. MAC (-13.7 overall, 19.8 offense, 33.5 defense, 41.1% average returning production)
Top three teams: No. 72 Toledo, No. 80 Ohio, No. 91 Buffalo
No conference was hit harder by the portal than the MAC, which has only three teams ranked higher than 94th in the returning production rankings below. That’s going to wreck your averages, though Toledo and Buffalo both escaped too much damage in this regard.
An approximate CFP contenders list
My SP+ strength of schedule ratings are based on a simple question: How would the average top-five team fare against your schedule? Oklahoma’s schedule currently features five of the projected top 11 teams and nine of the top 25, while Notre Dame’s features only two teams projected higher than 30th; SP+ SOS says a top-five team would average a 0.757 win percentage against OU’s schedule (equivalent to 9.1 wins in 12 games) and a 0.894 win percentage against Notre Dame’s (10.7 wins). That’s a pretty big difference.
Schedule strengths obviously vary quite a bit within conferences — not every SEC schedule is Oklahoma’s — but it’s worth acknowledging that when it comes to potential College Football Playoff-worthy résumés, the bar can be set in a different spot based on a team’s conference.
Average strength-of-schedule rating per conference
SEC 0.799 (9.6 wins for a typical top-five team)
Big Ten 0.846 (10.2)
ACC 0.891 (10.7)
Big 12 0.902 (10.8)
AAC 0.956 (11.5)
Sun Belt 0.958 (11.5)
MWC 0.959 (11.5)
CUSA 0.964 (11.6)
MAC 0.965 (11.6)
When it comes to how a top-five team would fare, the average SEC schedule is about one win harder than the average ACC or Big 12 schedule. The Big Ten, with its deadweight teams, is about a half-win harder than those leagues but is still more likely to get lumped in with the SEC than the others in the Power 4.
Long story short: We can confidently say that any 10-2 or better team in the SEC or Big Ten would be a likely playoff contender, just as any 11-1 or better team in the ACC or Big 12 would be. We can therefore create a loose list of likely CFP contenders by looking at the teams most likely to hit those marks.
Odds of an SEC team going 10-2 or better: Alabama 65% (SOS rank: 11th), Texas 61% (12th), Georgia 61% (13th), Ole Miss 38% (23rd), Tennessee 33% (24th), LSU 30% (ninth), Florida 18% (second), Auburn 13% (15th), Oklahoma 9% (first), Missouri 5% (25th)
Odds of a Big Ten team going 10-2 or better: Penn State 82% (SOS rank: 29th), Ohio State 77% (21st), Oregon 73% (32nd), Michigan 62% (38th), Illinois 29% (40th), Nebraska 13% (35th), USC 10% (20th), Indiana 9% (31st)
With a particularly weak nonconference schedule and a particularly good team, Penn State might be in the driver’s seat in terms of playoff qualification, while Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama, Michigan and Georgia are all over 60% likely to finish the regular season with two or fewer losses.
Odds of a Big 12 or ACC team (or Notre Dame) going 11-1 or better: Notre Dame 52% (SOS rank: 44th), Clemson 37% (34th), Miami 23% (36th), Kansas State 17% (57th), BYU 7% (64th), Texas Tech 7% (62nd), SMU 6% (45th), Arizona State 5% (61st)
Odds of a Group of 5 team going 11-1 or better: Boise State 37% (SOS rank: 84th), Liberty 17% (136th), Toledo 11% (133rd), Memphis 8% (121st), James Madison 7% (104th)
Notre Dame starts the season with games against Miami and Texas A&M, and while the rest of the schedule features plenty of solid opponents (five are projected between 30th and 47th), if the Irish are 2-0 out of the gates, they’re staring a second straight CFP appearance in the face.
Updated returning production rankings
With updated SP+ projections come updated returning production figures. A reminder: While returning production doesn’t correlate with pure quality, it does correlate well with improvement and regression, particularly at the extremes.
(Note: The production of incoming transfers is mashed into both the numerator and denominator of the returning production formula — so if you lose your starting quarterback but bring in someone else’s from the portal, your returning yardage is probably somewhere around 50%. The production of transfers from schools below the FBS level get half-credit.)
As was the case in February, Clemson leads the way here. And with the way that talent trickles upward in the transfer portal era, it’s probably not a surprise that nine of the top 10 teams in returning production (and 22 of the top 26) are power-conference teams. The P4 boasts 59.6% returning production overall, while the G5 is at 46.8%. That’s a pretty massive gap, one that isn’t likely to shrink anytime soon.
-
Kristen Shilton
Jeff Blashill has been hired as coach of the Chicago Blackhawks, it was announced Thursday.
The veteran bench boss steps in to replace interim coach Anders Sorenson, who was promoted after the Blackhawks fired Luke Richardson early in the 2024-25 season. Sorenson was thought to be a candidate for the permanent role, and Chicago had also shown interest in University of Denver coach David Carle.
The Blackhawks ultimately landed on Blashill to be the 42nd head coach in franchise history. Blashill, 51, most recently spent three seasons as an assistant coach on Jon Cooper’s staff with the Tampa Bay Lightning. He previously replaced Mike Babcock to take on his first NHL head coaching job with the Detroit Red Wings from 2015 to ’22, attempting to guide Detroit through a lengthy rebuilding process.
After reaching the playoffs in his first year with the Red Wings, Blashill’s teams never improved beyond fifth in the division and, after six consecutive seasons outside the playoff field, he was fired following the 2021-22 campaign. He left the Red Wings with a 204-261-72 record.
Blashill now joins another organization deep into a rebuilding process, providing experience that Chicago has been lacking. The Blackhawks have churned through four different first-year NHL head coaches — Jeremy Colliton, Derek King, Richardson and Sorenson — since Joel Quenneville’s departure in 2018, and now they’ve targeted a new voice with a developmental background.
Blashill has worked in the NCAA, USHL and AHL throughout his career. His time spent under Cooper — the NHL’s longest-tenured head coach — is another asset.
“Jeff is an incredibly smart and talented coach who boasts more than 25 years of coaching experience across developmental leagues, the NHL and the world stage,” general manager Kyle Davidson said in a statement. “He’s thrived when in a position to develop young players and has shown he’s capable of blending that into overall team success, a vision and philosophy we share for where we are today and where we see our team in the future. We couldn’t be more excited for what’s to come under Jeff’s direction.”
The Blackhawks haven’t been to the postseason since 2017, but they didn’t begin their retooling in earnest until the 2021-22 season. Davidson has been at the helm of Chicago’s rebuild since October 2021 and remains in the thick of it, as Chicago has finished 31st overall in the league standings the past two seasons. The Blackhawks have focused on growing through the NHL draft, and selected phenom Connor Bedard first overall in 2023.
Game 1 of the Eastern Conference finals went about as well as it could have for the Florida Panthers. For the Carolina Hurricanes? Not so much.
Following a 5-2 win, the Panthers carry a 1-0 advantage into Game 2 (8 p.m. ET, TNT) on Thursday night.
Will the Hurricanes punch back before the series heads to South Florida? Which players will be most critical to each team’s success? Here are key players, matchup notes and stats to know from ESPN Research ahead of Game 2.
More: Game 1 recap | Grades
Matchup notes
Florida Panthers at Carolina Hurricanes
Game 2 | 8 p.m. ET | TNT
With the Panthers up 1-0, they are now -250 favorites to win the Eastern Conference finals, while the Hurricanes are +200, per ESPN BET. The Panthers now have the shortest odds to win the Stanley Cup, at +160, while the Canes have the longest, at +500.
The Panthers have scored 38 goals on the road this postseason, tied with the 2022 Avalanche for the most through a team’s first eight road games of a single postseason. They are outscoring opponents 17-4 on the road over their last three road contests. The 17 goals are their most in a three-game span on the road in a single postseason in franchise history
The Game 1 defeat was the Hurricanes’ 13th straight loss in the conference finals, going back to 2009. This extends the longest streak in NHL history for losses in the round before Stanley Cup Final; the next highest was the Toronto Maple Leafs with 10 straight losses between 1954-56.
Aaron Ekblad‘s goal in Game 1 gives the Panthers 12 from their defensemen this postseason. That is four more than any other team, and ties the franchise record for most in a single playoff run (both 2023 and 2024).
With goal No. 7 of the postseason, Sam Bennett became the third Panther to score seven or more goals in consecutive playoff runs, joining Carter Verhaeghe and Sam Reinhart (who both accomplished it in 2023 and 2024).
The Hurricanes’ penalty kill was a strength leading into the conference finals — they allowed two power-play goals on 30 chances. That wasn’t the case in Game 1, as they allowed two goals on three chances.
Sebastian Aho joined an impressive list with his Game 1 goal: He is now tied for the most goals in series-opening games in Whalers/Hurricanes history (with five). The others on the list are Ray Whitney, Andrei Svechnikov and his head coach, Rod Brind’Amour.
Current scoring leaders
GP: 11 | G: 4 | A: 8
GP: 13 | G: 4 | A: 9
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway