Irish

Along the vein of expenses - why does UND need 18 cops? When I was in school we had 2 1/2. What's going on here?

Look, I'm not saying fire Hak or anything like that - just trying to point out that the two sides in this discussion both believe they are right based on some of the beliefs I mentioned. Hak has certainly not done anything that warrents talk of firing - I just really really hope we win one soon.

I think individual beliefs about the nature of winning colors this discussion - Some people believe in the "intangibles" - they think that "winners win" and that there is some intangible but still there differences between teams that step up and win it all and those that don't (it's what seperates the Buffalo Bills and Vikings from say the Patriots and the Steelers. It's what Russell brought to the Celts and Wilt didn't bring to Philedelphia. It's what causes one team to play above their ability in a championship game and another below theirs. People who believe in this feel that for all the Blue Chippers, All-American goalies, hard working grinders, and great teams Hak has assembled, there is something missing. Something Blais and Gino had. Many sports fans believe this (I kind of do too). One of the problems with this belief is the fact that the "winner" label is always applied after the fact and may be just a person's way of making sense of things in a way that fits his belief system. Looking back it is easy to identify the teams who had "it" - looking forward, not so much. People who don't put much stock in this emotional belief look rationally at Hak's record and think only a fool would complain and that things are about to even out. The "intangible" believers can't understand why others don't even consider such an important factor and wonder if Hak will ever pick it up. Since both of these are just beliefs that make sense to the person holding them, there is little common ground.

Actually later - you need many many more trials for any of the math (such as Central Limit Theorem) to kick in. Take Hak's 8 games at the Frozen Four - here are the odds of winning (assuming a 50-50 chance in each game): 0 games = 1/256 1 game = 1/32 (his actual level) 2 games = 1/9.1 3 games = 1/4.5 4 games = 1/3.66 5 games = 1/4.5 6 games = 1/9.1 7 games = 1/32 8 games = 1/256 What do we learn from this? not much - If you subscribe to the luck theory, you can see that he's been really really unlucky. If you are looking for some mathamatical tendency towards an average outcome you won't find it here with this number of trials. If you look at the probability of winning four games it is only 1/3.66 meaning that the probability is greater of some other outcome besides a 4/4 split. Frankly, I was too lazy and didn't know where to stop as to incorperating other coaches' win rates (that some people think are ruining Hak's success). However, a small amount of trials such as 20 is way way to small for any mathamatical regression towards the mean. Look at it this way - flip a coin 10 times - if you get heads 8/10 times you are lucky and it is mildly interesting but not unusual. Flip a coin 10,000 times and 80% heads is off the charts amazing. The belief that the odds are "evening out" with Hak because of Dean and Gino's success is pure hokum.

A well though-out post. At this point we are all wandering in the wilderness trying to make sense of a frustrating streak.

However, most aren't quoting the "odds" when they talk about our failures - they refer more to our tradition and expectations.

Probably the most applicable to this would be either Central Limit Theorem or The Law of Large Numbers, both of which refer to things evening out to the expected outcomes or norm "given a sufficiently large number of trials" 28 trials is absolutely too small a sample for either to kick in. Not even close. Think of flipping coins. If someone flipped 10 times and got heads 8 times it would be mildly unusual but not even close to being incredible. If someone flipped 10,000 times and got 80% heads it would be off the charts amazing. You need a large sample for either "law" to work. If people are saying that the reason that Hak is having such a tought time in the Frozen Four is that Gino and Dean did so well they are searching for explanations in areas where none are to be found. The fact is that no one knows why we are snakebit. Seems to be a little bit of everything with two common elements - less that stellar goaltending and falling behind early. I like many of the things Hak does with our program. My question is - can he be flexible - can he find a fix for this? I really wonder what his take-away is from watching recent Frozen Four game tapes - not trying to be snotty, I really wonder what he sees after study and analysis like no lay person does - what does he see and what if anything is he planning on doing differently. I personally would really like to open up the offense and carry the puck in more, but that's just my layman's opinion.

Because Oxford isn't Grand Forks and Miami doesn't have UND's tradition of championships and Blasi didn't take over a team whose previous two coaches had won 5 championships.

I am not calling for Hak to be fired, just expressing frustration on the 1-7 Frozen Four record. Refering to other coaches' with a title droughts does not make me lessen my expectations of the Sioux Hockey Program any more than comparing us to Alaska Anchorage would.

Blah Blah Blah Red

Point taken, but I still hope we open things up a bit

Waiting ....... Waiting ........ Waiting

Did you cut and paste this from the end of the year threads for the last 5 years (I've been hearing a variation of the Blah Blah Blah York - or the original Blah Blah Blah Red theme for at least that long)? A more relevant comparison would be with Gino and Blais - Geno second year and three overall, Blais in year three and two overall. Both had rebuilding to do when they started - Gino's was massive. Hak took over a loaded team that had recently moved into the best college facility in the country. This idea that we have just been on an unlucky streak and that things will "balance out" with numerous titles is nonsense. Many a fortune has been lost in Las Vegas on the "gambler's fallacy" - the idea that the roulette wheel has been on red for 7 strait times therefore black is "due". Wrong. The odds of black is always the same - about 50-50. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know why we struggle in the Frozen Four. but I think there must be something besides bad luck (probably a bunch of little things. but cumulative). Hak is a good coach who works hard and has his team work hard. I hope he figures it out soon.

I expect next year to look more like a traditional Hak season - slow start up to the point that we are wondering if we will make the playoffs - Then a torrid finish. The end result, well, let's just say that I have been disappointed to the point of not making any bold predictions. What I hope will happen is this: Zane returns and gets a little time off with a quality back-up (and soon to be starter) on roster. Our defensive corps shines - because of this Hak unleashes the hounds up front instead of the eternal dump and chase. We have some talent that may play better in a wide open offense especially with our puck-moving D. I see glimmers of Hak loosening up, but that's all - just glimmers. It is clear that fast, attacking offensive schemes are winning on the national stage.

UND will win an championship that we don't expect and the floodgates will open to many more National Titles.

Thanks for having a sense of humor in this stressful time for Sioux fans

Quinn will win one soon, and when he does, they'll come in bunches - repeat this for the next 10 years

You have to admit, he has fashioned quite a nice defensive corps

The high amount of passion here indicates how much people care about this program. There is no doubt that Hak has recruited well and he and his teams work their butts off. Given the tournament success of his two predecessors, the million dollar question is - are we just the most unlucky program ever, or is there something we need to change? The games we have lost usually have a series of bad bounces, odd penalties, and weak goals - on the other hand in almost every game we get less than stellar goalie play and start out behind. I wish I knew the answer. I don't have any idea what is causing this. I do know that every frozen 4 year I have high expectations based on a different reason - this year we have a Hoby Baker finalist goalie or this year we have the best defense in the nation, or this year we have the best line in the country, or this year we are going in on a roll. Doesn't matter - results are the same and it is frustrating. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any idea what needs to change. I'm not in the fire Hak group, but as we see on this board, Sioux fans are not really the type to hang participation banners. I hope Hak figures it out soon.

It's not just the one loss - it's that frustration times 7

With a whole year's experience on them. You are correct - he did have almost the whole team back.

On Hak's first year roster: Bina, Canady, Fabian, Fuher, Fylling, Greene, Jones, Lamoureaux, McMahon, J Parise, Murray, Porter, Prpich, Radke, Schneider, Smaby, Spirko, Stafford, and Zajac - not quite a rebuilding year.

Man, you just don't know how to read - I was clearly refering to the years 1980 - beginning of Hak era when I said they were the best team in college hockey. As for Michigan, they won in 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 64 - yes they were the best team in hockey IN THE 50's. Just two since 64. Hak's first year had Bina, Canady, Fabian, Fuher, Fylling, Greene, Jones, Lamoureaux, McMahon, J Parise, Murray, Porter, Prpich, Radke, Schneider, Smaby, Spirko, Stafford, and Zajac on the roster. Not quite a rebuilding year.

Many feel that when he was Athletic Director also he took his eye off the ball a bit.

Many of us don't want him fired, but we do want him to win one - getting pretty frustrated with so many Frozen Four failures. So far, Hak = Woog. If there are adjustments to make we want him to be flexible.