.357

I know & I understand, what started last night as a back-&-forth hypothetical with "burd" has turned into an onslaught of those who don't like the status quo challenged, even if it was just random talk & not directed at Coach Hakstol. At least people are revealing their true colors here, so it's not all in vain.

Sometimes a picture is used to convey thoughts for one lacking in vocabulary or a creative imagination. If my wordy posts get under your skin so much, just don't read them & focus instead on something more palpable like gfhockey's posts. Geesh.

You're funny in a "1984" kind of way. I didn't imply that screaming fire in a movie theater qualified as diversity of thought, but to label others' opinions as "destructive stupidity" (when it comes to simple differences in how coaches are perceived) is comical on your part. Seriously, man, you would rather shut people up who don't agree with your opinion on a head coach? If the opinion differs from yours & the masses about a hockey coach, people need to be shamed. Wow, thanks for your input, comrade. Your version of reason is the correct version, you seem unable to respect or appreciate anything that deviates from your standard.

Diversity of people is held in higher regard than diversity of thought. If people have a thought that differs from the herd, it's usually bop them over the head with a mallet like you see at those arcades where something pops out of a hole & you have to hit it, then something else pops its head out & you have to beat that over the head also. It's like "fightingsioux4life" & I keep popping our heads out of holes & keep gettin' our melons banged. Conform or ...

Some people convey thoughts in words, others in images. : )

My reason for not needing a rationale in terminating a coaching relationship, besides it just not being required, is that fans do not know what goes on in locker rooms. They don't see specifics like how coaches relate to players at scrimmages or what they say in big game situations out of the public eye; or when a team may be behind & need a coach's input to reverse the momentum. All fans see are lost games with teams that are very talented; year after year. So fans go by end results, which is all they can really go by. So I can sort of watch a Sioux hockey game in a FF & lend my perspective about what I'm observing; and 20 other Sioux fans may watch the same game & come up with 20 different conclusions on why we lost. And each perspective may be valid, it's just that the other 20 fans were not focusing on the same trend or flaw in the Sioux game as I was. You said something about being willing to replace a head coach if you notice a coaching flaw in how he handles big game situations. But whose responsibility is it to recognize these flaws or nuances of a coach's perspective which will make it very difficult for that coach to ever win a title? The athletic director? If so, it may take a long time for the guard to change if he's personal friends with the coach & winning it all is a secondary priority (unless the boosters start screaming, I suppose). The part I agreed about most in your post was the difference between being a good program coach & being a good game coach. I thought that was a very good way of looking at the different ways in how a coach can excel at the collegiate level. It's also difficult to argue for a coach's release if different parties are going by these separate standards for judging success. The former for Hakstol is obvious, I think it's obvious he excels at being a great program coach, there should be no debating that because facts speak for themselves. But the latter is obviously something he hasn't mastered yet on the big stage & something Sioux fans want to see changed. As a fan I don't know if that current lack of a title is something attributed to coaching skill, bad luck or a blend of both. I call it "getting over the hump" & I think the law of averages dictates that with his loaded teams he will eventually bring it all home someday. I mean, if the REA isn't cursed by being built on an old indian burial mound & it has nothing to do with his coaching style, you'd think luck would have to change eventually. : )

Exactly. I'm not for Hakstol's release at this point (not that it would matter anyway), but it's important for people when they're debating a point to step outside their entrenched (& I mean ENTRENCHED) beliefs/views & at least try to understand the other's point. To be fluid with one's perspective & entertain the notion that maybe that other person just might have a valid point, even if it may take a few beers to wrap his mind around that other person's thought. For me, it seems like many people go their entire lives clinging to a certain belief & they will die or defend that belief because they just cannot see themselves accepting anything else; almost like they made a vow to that belief & it would be completely unacceptable for them to even entertain changing it. I'm talking generally here, not necessarily as it applies to Hakstol. These rigid thinking patterns seem to be more ironclad in people's mind than prison bars.

I think last night was just a way for me to bide my time until Thursday. I thought that "Burd" would be going to bed soon as he's probably a couple hours ahead of me (I'm in Zona), so I tried to think of a quick analogy before he retired for the night. It may have El Sucko, but it was still a valid analogy. : )

Wasn't exactly how my analogy went, but It would be nice if you didn't razz snaggle-toothed divorcees who are just trying to put some Hot Pockets on the table for their pups. We all have a shining inner beauty that needs to be appreciated. : )

I'm not trying to argue for the release of Coach Hakstol, was just trying to make a point with "Burt" that when a coach is released that the academic institution does not need to provide said coach with a detailed, analytical reason why. It was just idle fodder for me to help pass the night & keep my mind distracted until Thursday. What I did not expect was to get barraged by a bunch of gifs. Is that the common means in 2015 for an adult to reply to a post he doesn't agree with? LOL, geez , it's like Romper Room around here sometimes. Even if I did want his release, which I don't at this point, it would be a futile waste of time to argue with the True Believers around here who will never want him to go, regardless of the reasons given. It's a battle I couldn't win around here IF I were arguing for his release. That's all.

LOL, must a lot of adults around here reply with gifs to make a point? I used the analogy about the cheating spouse & a head coach as the other party in both cases does not need to provide a detailed explanation in order to terminate a relationship. "Burt" is somehow under the belief that a fanbase needs to provide a detailed, analytical analogy in order to terminate a head coach. I didn't say Hakstol should be released, just debating a point with Burt. I didn't think it was a great analogy, but not as terrible as your little Simpson picture implies. But come on, man, if you're over 15 you shouldn't be replying to another person's post with a picture. If you're younger than that, I apologize.

No reason to flame away. That's a valid perspective as I see it. It may not have played a part in all of their FFs, but it very well could have in some of them.

That's okay, it wasn't directed at you.

I didn't imply that I wanted a divorce from Sioux hockey, just trying to understand your rationale. In the examples I stated, both were because expectations were not achieved. And in both cases, it is not necessary to go into detail about why they are ending a relationship with the other person/party, which was my point. Coaches get fired all the time for not producing, do you call every one of these terminations "whining"? I bet they were given the pink slip BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T WIN THE BIG ONE, especially with teams like the Cowboys & Yankees on the pro level. And if I'm not mistaken, all of these other coaches are not given intricate explanations about why they are not needed. "You didn't produce" or "the players can't relate to you anymore" are the usual storylines, but nothing of "You only incorporated the neutral zone trap in 60% of your games & against teams with a PWR between 5 & 10 nationally; leading to a transparent coaching style which the other teams could easily see & adapt to accordingly."

If a spouse cheats, does the other spouse need to know the intricate details of why that spouse cheated, or can that person just end it & get a divorce? Or, if a coach of a revered program goes for a long drought without a NC, does the fanbase need to give an intricate coaching analysis of why they are terminating him, or can they just terminate him for someone who may be more sophisticated in all points of the game? It's not an emotional reaction; it's a conclusion based on the very tangible result that no national championships have been won over a long duration. Cut & dry. .... I'm not implying anything about Hakstol, seriously, just trying to understand your rationale, so no burning parties tonight from the mob, please ....

Exactly. I so want #8 like everyone else here, but it doesn't make sense with this bickering about minutia which matters not in the grand scheme of things. I think Colten St. Clair's performance along with Simo or Murphy's will be crucial to the outcome for us on Thursday & maybe even Saturday. The X factors.

I hear you. But I think now is the time that Sioux fans stop cannibalizing each other & unite for #8. At least for this week anyway. After the playoffs are over, I think it's perfectly normal & expected that we return to a cut-throat mentality towards each other; it's that kind of viciousness that has endeared SS to me. If not about the coach, then maybe about current recruits or the ice conditions at the TC in March. You know, uber important issues like that while an unchecked Fukushima radiates the Pacific & depleted uranium continues to be dropped on less desirable people half a world away.

You can argue the relative talent level each coach has had, but D1 BB teams have to win more games during the playoffs in order to win the title: bracket of 64 teams vs. 16 teams; must win 6 games in playoffs vs. 4 in D1 hockey. So yes, Izzo does have a much tougher road, but he's also won the Big Dance, too. He confuses his opinion with the truth too much for you? If I go to Google Translate, I think that comes out as: "You're a dink because you don't worship our hockey coach at all times." Close? : ) ....My take is that there's a time to praise & a time to be critical; if one is always stuck exclusively in one emotional state he's either a perpetual homer or is wound too tightly, respectively. I'm thinking Coach Hakstol will give us plenty of reasons to praise him after this year. : ) And besides, fightingsioux4life & I share the same stomping grounds. An attack against him is an attack against me. lol

When it comes to hockey, a PC-oriented player is a socially-conditioned forward who has lost his natural goal-scoring inclination; mostly due to him being exposed to teachers & an environment that tells him it's okay to pass. This can never be okay with guys like Wilkie, & we as fans need to voice our loud displeasure to the coaching staff if we see him starting to pass with any regularity next year. This dangerous ideology kills the selfish instincts in pure goal scorers & makes them more altruistic, when their inherent traits are to only shoot. I might go so far as to suggest to Hakstol next year that he doesn't even let Wilkie or Boeser use the word "pass". It can be a slippery slope as allowing them to use words like "pass" & "assist" will eventually lead to these actions. Gotta nip any unselfishness in the bud & get these guys primed & loaded for a flood of goals & big egos next year.

That's what I like about Wilkie, he's a shoot-first, ask questions later kind of guy. We don't need any more polite, PC-oriented players who are burdened with too many manners & are always looking to pass. We need selfish players like Wilkie who know they can score goals to just go out & shoot. And if he ever gets a wild hair up his arse during a shift next year that it's alright to pass, bench him for a couple shifts until he gets back into his selfish shoot-only mindset. Kind of like having a Brett Hull; spend the entire game trying to get the puck in his wheelhouse. It'll be nice to have a player or two or three like him. So at least next year we'll have at least a couple of forwards who were baptized in the Brett Hull denomination of Holy Rippers & not just a squad of all passers. Looking good ....

Agreed. I noted earlier in this thread that it's just being shortsighted & giving up great college rock star experiences in order to get a few shekels in pro hockey. It may sound like a lot of money to a college kid, but they'll never get to experience that college vibe again; while they're sitting next to Rocco Grimaldi in a bus as they tour the NE minor hockey circuit. Would be nice if they listened to their own hearts, & didn't get talked into doing something from an agent that they didn't feel like doing but felt compelled to do so anyway. These agents are doing what is best for the team, not the players; although some would disagree with that.

Now this kinda stuff is funny as hell & no one replies to it or gives it any love. Come on, guys, lighten up a little & don't hold your sticks too tightly.

Hilarious post, love that photo ... : )

It sounds like the consensus is that it's better to have Zane for one more year, even if it means Tomek goes elsewhere & losing a possible 3 or 4 years out of him. Simply trying to gauge how important Zane is to this program .... Once Zane does split I think Sioux fans will quickly realize how important he really was, more so than they thought. Tall, big, physically agile goalies like him with his Cool Hand Luke demeanor don't come around very often.

Your post has a 73.9% chance of being true based on what I said, the current trends, my gut & nothing more. : ) But speculating is kinda fun & it's an inherent part of being a fan so I don't think people are going to stop doing it, even though they have no real clue what's going on inside a kid's head.