.357

To me it seems like the fanbase is atomizing into two camps: those who are content with the current results & those who are about to lynch gfhockey to appease their anger. You could extrapolate Hakstol's career another 12 years & if he's 0-24 there would still be Sioux fans who love that he's still brought 24 years of winning hockey in the regular season. Time will tell. When does a Sioux hockey coach reach a point in his career when the fans demand a national championship? I'm addressing the fans who are content with Coach Hakstol's results so far. Does this point exist or doesn't it matter?

I'm looking for qualities in this team that resemble those of the 1996-97 freshman class who brought home two national championships. Peter Armbrust was in that class & he didn't have the greatest of talent, but he had a lot of character & played big in big games. There weren't any outstanding stars in that class that I remember..

Games like these are good for target practice and seeing if you can hit double digits both nights, but I don't think they really help a team like the Sioux become all that much better. If we pound them both nights, it helps our PWR & is good for the guys' egos; but I don't think playing down to this level helps them become better prepared for March. It maybe gives them a false sense of how good they really are. I suppose it's better than not playing at all, though, as it keeps the guys in shape & is a good time to play Murphy both nights to see if he can get out of his self-imposed rut..

Panzarella played smart, physical hockey & didn't try to play beyond his abilities or role. Plus he stuck up for his teammates when needed without drawing dumb penalties. Ausmus & Stecher are beasts out there ...Ausmus is very confident & capable when it comes to holding the blueline without backing off prematurely & Stecher just doesn't quit out there. Stecher not only plays hard all the time, he plays smart & sets a great example for his teammates. What a steal he's been & he exemplifies what Sioux hockey is. Poganski showed excellent acceleration in the O-zone last night when he blew by an Omaha defender for a good scoring chance; he's definitely figuring out the college game very early in his career. K. Thompson showed confidence in his game when he went end-to-end & got off a good shot; L. Johnson showed some tenacity & was moving his feet this weekend. Don't know what's going on in J. Schmaltz's head. He doesn't appear to have an undisclosed, nagging injury & it seems his tentative play is stemming from a lack of confidence, overthinking or maybe he's got something going on in his personal life. I wonder if his relationship to star brother Nick precludes him from riding the bench, albeit briefly. I suggest this as the coach has no qualms benching other players who aren't producing or who are too inconsistent. No clear-cut dominant teams at this stage in the season. The Boston schools are very beatable, MN is too up & down & their conference is mostly down, defending champ Union got whacked by W. Michigan like 8-2 this weekend, the Sioux are talented but too inconsistent at this point for them to be ranked as high as #2, imo. We'll see in 3.5 months who's gelled & improved the most..Oh, & did someone keep track of how many times Omaha tried to go backdoor on UND? I lost track of how many times both UND defenders would be staring down an Omaha forward in the corner while one of their defensemen rushed in from the blueline without being noticed.

I understand now. Try losing the snarky attitude..

Thanks, all I needed was an explanation; not an editorial about everyone needing to already know this..

Schlossman said Omaha gets the extra point, though .. So how many pts does each team get?

I thought it was considered a tie if no one scored in OT?

Thank goodness we have another nail-biter, blowouts don't keep Sioux fans on their toes....

UND scores: 2-2

A good coach whose team is behind will make the necessary adjustments.

How so? They've dominated UND the last 10 minutes..

Thanks a lot, siouxforeverbaby

Would someone clarify if the Sioux are on DirecTV this weekend? I think they are on tomorrow, but not tonight. Is this right?

I hear ya, but I'd rather have these injuries happening in November compared to March when we really need them. So maybe there is a silver lining with all these current injuries. .

For me, goals are gravy. I'm looking for him and the entire team to play smart, hard hockey every shift for the entire game. From that, goals should follow. Can't stand it when players coast and take shifts off during the game. Number 1 pet peeve. Guys who do this need to be called out by their teammates and/or coaches AS IT'S HAPPENING so the culprits can modify their in-game behavior and start playing Sioux hockey. If the armchair Sioux fans can see this happening, so can the coaches and players..Losses are easier to swallow for me if the team plays passionate, smart hockey for 60 minutes..

Agreed that this is a topic better left for the off-season. IF it needs to be brought up this next summer, that is.

I wasn't trying to create any division by saying that Hakstol wasn't a good coach. Of course he is & he has a winning record to prove it. But when discussing the reasons why a national championship haven't been achieved in such a long time, every factor needs to be considered: The players, coaches, facilities, the fan environment, everything. If I were a Western Michigan or Alabama-Huntsville fan, I would just be content that my local college had a hockey program & that I got to see a couple of games every other weekend. But as a Sioux hockey fan, & like fans of other proud traditions who are accustomed to winning & dominating on a regular basis, everything should be on the table when discussing why a championship hasn't been won for so long. No one or no thing is off-limits so a likely reason can be found through civil consensus for what the program is lacking.

I wasn't insinuating anything about Blais being more worthy & needing to return. Now that would be beating a dead horse. But the conversation is relevant after a major power like ND goes 11+ years without a national title under a certain coach & with all the firepower he has had during his tenure. I realize that the college hockey landscape has changed, but coaches, like players, are great because of more than just luck. Are coaches like Bill Belichik in football, Darry Sutter in hockey, Nick Saban at the college level just plain lucky at winning titles? Or are they kings of strategy & bring out the best in their players in playoff scenarios when it really matters? Is it still beating a dead horse if the Sioux are without a national championship after 15-20 years & someone mentions the coaching aspect as possibly the reason?

Sioux hockey fans usually have no problems comparing various players with each other, like, is player A better than player B? It's just a normal part of being a fan. What I don't get though, & maybe someone can explain it to me, is why do some fans get overly sensitive when coaches are compared? I mean, is it bad hockey etiquette to compare the current Sioux hockey coach with the one who preceded him? Is that taboo? Also, what are the hallmarks of a successful college hockey coach? Winning percentage in the regular season, ability to recruit star players, number of national championships, good spokesman for the university, develops the players well for the next level, etc etc? .... Some of these qualities or all of them in order to be considered successful at the D1 collegiate level?

Thanks. Any reviews on how Poolman did at forward? I suppose that was done because he would be less of a liability at forward while he gets used to the college game. Can't imagine Olson being a healthy scratch again considering how hard he plays on all his shifts..

Does anyone know which players Hakstol sat on Saturday after Friday's loss? Olson doesn't seem to need reminding to crash the net and go hard every shift. Other players you need to drill it into their heads, but it seems instinctive with him or he's been well-coached. Physique and playing style like Mark Recchi..

What you said. That about sums it up.. They weren't just losing draws after a hard-fought scramble, SCSU was winning most of those faceoffs cleanly. And how they can go hot against Miami in game 2 to cold most of tonight is baffling.. Game 1 last week was also like tonight, heart just not into the game..

That's the most frustrating part of losing: not playing with intensity for 60 minutes. I wonder if this ho-hum attitude is contagious on the bench, this going-through-the motions crap. You would think the team leadership or coaching staff would notice this & do something like a call a TO, switch up the lines, change the strategy, just something to get back the momentum..

So it's a lack of effort on ND's part? Or is SCSU just better?