.357

Really? Are you going there & will the game be shown there this Thursday?

Agree & then some. I'm just looking forward to Thursday & look forward also to celebrating (a hopeful) Sioux victories with you guys.

I don't know, man, I wasn't even arguing about Hakstol's release last night, but some informant from the Central Committee must have read my words wrong & informed the authorities that I had gone rogue & was showing tendencies towards non-conformist thought. I needed to go to Lowe's like 2 hours ago, but am tied to my laptop replying to all this stuff.

The point of whether or not people are laughing at me & those who think like me is irrelevant. I don't doubt that some are, but to claim everyone is shows you to be full of exaggeration. I never claimed I wanted the Sioux hockey team to lose, where did you come up with that one?? Good lord, man, I was talking with another poster last night about how a coach's success can be perceived differently, & all of a sudden I have this sadistic drive to see the team lose on Thursday?! I can't believe I'm reading this crap. And that I can't celebrate when they finally do win #8? What in the world are you talking about? I've been following this team -- religiously & with tons of passion -- since the early 1970s. But now I want them to lose because in your mind you see my difference in opinion on how a coach should be perceived with hating the team. There is no reasoning with certain people, you being one of them. It's not about agreeing with my position on a head coach or anything else, it's about respecting it if it causes no one else any harm & isn't of a psychotic or schizophrenic nature.

So you determine when it's just a difference of opinion and when it is flat out-wrong & insane? LOL. How is my interpretation of the sunset any different than or more wrong than my interpretation of a head coach? Oops, I forgot, my bad, you're the arbiter of such. Of course I'm not schizophrenic or psychotic & don't see or experience any hallucinations, that's completely irrelevant & equating someone's opinion to be so just demonstrates how rigid & intolerant you are in your thinking. Like I said, you seem incapable of tolerating any opinion which deviates from your standards. You couch your reasons with different analogies, but it all boils down to you not respecting what someone else thinks on as basic & inane level as that of a hockey coach. To compare my interpretation on how long a coach's leash should be with a schizophrenic who thinks the sun is warm cheese is just too weird. If you want to continue digging a hole, a backhoe is more efficient than a shovel.

I was talking with "burd" about how coaches are perceived & wasn't implying anything about Hakstol being fired. If I want to bang my head repeatedly, that's my prerogative. It's also your prerogative to ignore me, which I highly encourage as you seem easily irritated. In fact, I really would like for you to put me on ignore so you don't stroke out over some stranger's words before the big game. My guys are also playing in 3 days & I'll be cheering them on just as you are.

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.