Natalie Darwitz: Former U.S. hockey star getting used to TV

Feb. 19--SOCHI, Russia -- Natalie Darwitz is back on a competitive hockey team and loving every minute she is not on the ice, with an eye toward changing the culture of USA Hockey.

The Eagan native, former Gophers star and three-time U.S. Olympic hockey player is scoring points now as a studio analyst for NBC's coverage of the 2014 women's tournament, a role Darwitz never expected to play.

She was in a boat on Prior Lake last summer when NBC called and invited her to a Connecticut audition to replace Cammi Granato. The network liked her personality, on-air delivery, contemporary knowledge of the sport and hired her.

Six months later, Darwitz took a leave from her job coaching Lakeville South High School girls hockey and arrived in Sochi to work alongside Liam McHugh and Kathryn Tappen.

"Everybody will tell you here candidly, you could see she was nervous at the beginning and she had to overcome some nerves. And she has overcome them," said coordinating producer Ricky Diamond. "You don't get a whole lot of reps to get good at this. She has grown very quickly.

"There's something in the competitive athlete who wants to be good at something, and she's got that. She obviously has a very good hockey IQ, and not just in an X's and O's kind of way but understands what goes into it and the camaraderie, being part of a team. The whole thing she understands."

Darwitz, 30, won three world championships and three Olympic medals during a 12-year career with USA Hockey, also winning a pair of NCAA titles as a three-time All American at Minnesota. She and her husband, Chris, a respiratory therapist at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, live in Apple Valley.

The Pioneer Press visited her Tuesday at the NBC compound. Darwitz shared strong opinions on a variety of topics, from Noora Raty's retirement to Thursday's U.S.-Canada gold-medal game, and why she thinks USA Hockey's women's program has become stale.

PP: So, TV work, have you become a natural?

ND: I don't know about that. By the time I get the hang of it I'll be on the plane (laughs). But it's been good. I had no experience coming in and was thrown into the fire, but it's fun.

PP: How do you learn the nuances of studio work?

ND: I feel more comfortable and confident whereas the first day I'm like, 'Do I look at Liam? Is there a camera I talk to?' A lot of the guys who have been around it say you're just having a conversation in a living room. You're telling someone who doesn't know about hockey what's going on. And you've got to do it quick. You're a coach who just happens to be on camera. First day I was nervous. How could I not have been? But as it's gone on I've gotten a lot more comfortable. I know what to expect.

PP: OK, so U.S.-Canada. Who wins and why?

ND: I think the U.S. wins. The loss a week ago really fired them up. I think they've learned a lot. I think they're going to come out with a lot more intensity. I think the Americans, on this sheet of ice, are going to exploit the Canadians and them being older and not having as much speed as the Americans. I really like how they played (in Monday's 6-1 semifinal victory over Sweden). I think the Canadians were a little more rusty.

PP: Where is this series psychologically?

ND: Up until (Monday) was there panic in Team USA's eyes? I think so. I think having a really dominant performance (against Sweden) they started to smile. I feel like finally they got back to playing their style of hockey. I think it's going to help them Thursday. The last game, 10 minutes out of the 60, Canada outplayed them. The rest of the time I thought the ice was tilted. I think it was a wake-up call for them.

PP: What are your thoughts on Noora Raty's retirement and what her career has meant for women's hockey?

ND: She kind of mentioned a couple times to me coming in, 'This is it.' I think she hit it on the head. She didn't say, I'm retiring, I'm done. She said this is why: I'm 24 years old. I have no place to play. Do I choose to make money and try to find a real job or do I continue down the road of working a full-time job and then training on my own as my second job?

PP: You can relate to that, right?

ND: I can. There's no opportunity outside college. The 2010 year's training, that was three years on my own. It gets tough every day waking up by yourself and not having a buddy or a team to go to and going on the ice by yourself. And not getting any financial help on top of it is tough. There are just no resources after college hockey to grow and become better and pay your bills. She made a bold and blunt statement that hopefully gets the attention of somebody, somewhere.

PP: What about the Canadian Women's Hockey League?

ND: Guess what? They're getting paid a thousand bucks (a game). They're on a bus for eight to 10 hours to travel for a game. At 24, 25 years old that gets tough.

PP: You were married in August. Are you ruling out playing ever again?

ND: Could I see myself on the ice? Yeah. Being here gets the competitive juices back going. But my last three years have been great. To think of how much these girls have sacrificed for the last 3-1/2 or four years, to play for three weeks? That's a lot. Like Noora hit on, I wouldn't be making much money. I would have to rely on my husband. And when you get older, other stuff comes into play -- insurance, mortgage, car payments. What comes in isn't enough to survive, really, without having a side job. You're talking about burning the candle at both ends then.

PP: Are you still satisfied with the balance of coaching at Lakeville South High School, or do you see coaching Division I again down the road?

ND: I'm not going to rule anything out. I'm totally happy with where I'm at. I love the high school age group. Would I like to get a little more competitive? Yes. What fires me up is, being in USA Hockey for so long, and seeing the same things happen, I would love to get my foot in the door there and possibly make some changes.

PP: Does USA Hockey know that?

ND: I don't think so. No, they don't.

PP: Are you talking cultural changes, strategic hockey changes?

ND: Yeah, both. Just being in the trenches so long, and knowing the players now, there haven't been a whole lot of changes made. Same course every four years. They make a few tweaks. I think there's a great product in the U.S., but I don't think we've hit on all cylinders.

PP: What will Thursday's gold-medal result dictate if the U.S. loses again? The Americans have not won gold since 1998.

ND: If they don't win gold they're going to say again, 'Well, what happened?' And it's usually the coaching staff and an administration thing. To put it all on their shoulders, yeah. But at the same time, I think the higher ups need to look at women's hockey and say, 'There's a great product here, and every four years we're in a gold-medal game. How can we be dominating?' Because we get into the gold-medal game and then I feel like it's, 'OK, we're there.' No. Let's win. How can you change that frame of mind? If they win a gold medal, they're going to say we did everything right. If they lose they're going to say we did everything wrong. It's sports. But I don't think that's how you should look at it. They do some great things; how can you build on that and turn a couple things we could do better?

Follow Brian Murphy at twitter.com/murphPPress.

___

(c)2014 the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.)

Visit the Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.) at www.twincities.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services