7NationalTitles

Sorry, but if you read any of my posts, you will know that I wasn't referring to Blais-type money. Or even Lucia, Gwoz, etc. I had referenced Lucia in a prior post because 'm alluding to the simple fact that he was able to get an extension prior to his going into his last season under contract. Successful coaches are usually shown the respect for bringing quality teams to the ice and are usually shown gratitude/support for their success on the ice (i.e. three straight frozen fours, national titles, etc.) by giving them extensions before one month prior to their last season under contract. Nowhere am I talking about the amount of money he needs to be paid, I'm just referring to the respect he should be shown by giving him an extension by now.

Thanks for the philosophical insight. Did it take you all weekend to come up with that? Granted, it's not an excuse about Buning as we have become accustomed to. So now we need to write checks (or additional checks in case of some) to pay for Hakstol to stay? I say if that's the case, then how can UND afford to go to D1 if they need more money from more people to get a coach signed? Wait, this actually was an exuse.......some of us haven't written the checks yet so that's why Hakstol isn't signed. Keep the excuses coming. Again, as someone else said, maybe you should sit this one out.

Oh, I get it now. UND is moving to D1 so they can't really afford to pay Hakstol right now. Don't you think that during the original planning on going to D1 that there may have been some discussion of the compensation it would take to pay D1 level coaches throughout the athletic department along with how much it would cost to pay a coach for one of the top hockey programs in the country. My guess is yes so the fact that it is going to cost to sign Hakstol shouldn't take a back-seat to going D1. I would think it would have previously been discussed. But let's not respect the coach and show him that we are behind him as an athletic department. Let's let him dangle in the wind...let him sweat a bit. Heck, you only took us to three frozen fours in a row but you didn't win. Maybe if you would have won at least one we might have signed you by now. It's your own fault Hakstol that your contract isn't signed. Oh wait, it's also the transition to D1 for the reason you contract isn't signed. No, no, no....it's the Alumni's fault for not chipping in. Whatever. I love how you always seem to come up with some kind of excuse for Buning. Keep your excuses coming though. Again, Lucia got a contract extension two (or three years) before his first one expired now taking him through something like the 2011 season (or somewhere thereabouts). And that was with the bumbling Maturi at the helm of the athletic department at a time when he couldn't seem to do anything right. But Lucia won a title and Hakstol hasn't. That must be the reason. Or is it the transition to D1 and the cost contraints there? I forget. Sicatoka, please help me come up with another excuse why Hakstol isn't signed yet. As has been mentioned before, it's about showing some respect to a coach who has done what no other coach at UND has done in his first three years on the job. If you want the coach to respect you and to have no hard feelings towards you or the department, you have to first show him some respect. So Hak is only going to leave for the NHL? How can we be certain that is the only way he'll leave? If this drags on too long, would he not feel disrespected and as a result, would he not consider other options besides the NHL? He's not going to settle for UND if he feels disrespected and doesn't like the way things are run. In talking with Hakstol, he is a very intelligent and upstanding person and doesn't beat around the bush and I'm sure he feels he should be treated the same way that he treats others. Hakstol won't settle for UND because it's the only thing out there. He may very well feel that it might not be worth it.

I'm just saying things that annoy me. I had no intention of specifically referring to you. Just a generality I made. I'm sorry that your hair is such a sensitive issue for you. You have my condolences. Oh and another thing that annoys me....people who take it personally when someone says they are annoyed by something that he / she may enjoy or like.

- Guys who think it's cool to wear sunglasses indoors or at night. - Guys who have not left the '80's yet and still think it's cool to have long hair halfway down their back. Hey, if Metallica can cut their hair, maybe it's a sign that you should too.

Apparently you don't know my true feelings toward Buning......yes, I was being sarcastic.

No need to be worried. Buning knows what he's doing..... Why for any reason would you want to make sure a top-flight coach has his contract extended when there is only 3/4 of a year left on it? I mean did Minnesota / Maturi sign Lucia to an extension before his last year? Oh yeah, that's right....they did sign him to an extension when he still had two or three years left on his original. Nevermind that then....we don't want to be like Minnesota. I guess it must be that Lucia won two titles and Hakstol hasn't won a title yet in his three trips to the Frozen Four. Maybe Buning is right after all to not offer an extension to Hakstol until he can win it all. Only championships get you extensions. Buning has it all under control. He has Hakstol right where he wants him. Make him feel like he's not wanted and have him sweat a bit and let the contract get close to ending before getting an extension done. In Buning we trust......

Heck, I don't even have 100 posts yet and I've been privileged enough to see the letter in reference when it first came out. I guess after all that you don't need to have thousands of posts to be part of the "real chosen few", not a message board "chosen few". Sicatoka, you mentioned previously how you withheld your ground-breaking news about the baseball coach leaving because it was the right thing to do and wouldn't be prudent for you to divulge that information. (I'm sorry, but baseball at UND is about the same level as women's rowing at the U of MN. Even though we all support the programs of our own institution, some unfortunately fall outside the realm of where most people care a great deal about). So, Sicatoka, if you felt it isn't wise to divulge the info that you had about Ziegler, then why last year when I and a couple others were getting all over #1HakFan for divulging recruit information before it was public, did you not weigh in with your two cents then and champion the cause we were making if you are so noble (as you claim you are) for not divulging information before it is public. Rather, I was blamed for making someone not post here anymore even though I was trying to make a point with the poster about divulging non-public information. And I'm sorry, there are many, many people that are aware of the Buning situation and his ineptitude that cause this to be considered more public than non-public information. There should be many things at the top of Buning's list of things to do. Signing Hakstol to a long-term deal is one of them. Sorry PCM, but who cares at this moment in time if Hakstol decides sometime before the contract is up that he wants to move on to a higher level. Good for him if he does. That still doesn't mean because that alternative may be out there you can't go and sign Hakstol now. Even as inept as Maturi has shown he can be at times, didn't he still sign Lucia to a long-term extension through 2011? (a year or two ago) when at the time when he still had two or three years remaining on his other contract. At least Maturi knows that hockey is one of his bread and butter programs and it is essential to have the intricate pieces in place. Yet Hakstol has one season remaining on his contract and he has no extension. Oh wait, it must have been because Lucia won two national titles and didn't just make it to three frozen fours in his first three years. We need to wait until the season starts in three months to first be worried as Sicatoka says. Please, get off your high horse and give me a break. We should be worried now. Heck we should have been worried shortly after the third consecutive frozen four appearance this past spring when there was yet no talk about a Hakstol extension coming from the AD's office. Bottom line, there is a problem in the AD's office and it needs to be corrected.

I'm not sure but I think it should start with everyone taking a look in the mirror and asking themselves how many times a day on average do they post on any given message board and how many days they can go without having to make a post on a message board. That would be the first clue. So even though I'm not sure, I think it can be pretty obvious in some cases (case in point, let's wait to see how long it takes for a response). I'm sorry if I struck a nerve and I'm sure I'll get ripped for my comments but the hardest thing is acceptance. Now I better stop posting before I get suckered into this category.

Nah, I wouldn't say I deserve a medal. That's only reserved for the select few. Rarely do I post, let alone multiple times a day. But you on the other hand.....hey, keep up the good work! You make all of us proud. If I actually sat here 24/7 posting whatever random thought came to my head just because I thought it was funny or cool, then I should be shot instead of given a medal. If I used a message board or blog as my main source of daily interaction with people, then just get it over with and put me out of my misery. That's just my opinion on the matter, but to each his own.

Wait, someone did take me seriously. If I remember correctly, some of you think the reason #1HakFan no longer posts here is because of me. So he must have taken me seriously if I'm the reason he no longer posts here. And I only had like 60 posts then. Wow....I am somebody. Now I'll be able to sleep easily tonight.....no more restless nights of thinking I'm not taken seriously.

Good point....exactly.....why would you? I mean I don't sit at this computer 24/7 trying to post blithering idiotic statements all day of whatever random unintelligent thought comes to my head. I'd have to start doing that before I'm taken seriously and become "one of the guys". And as fs1 mentioned before, on the list of things to do or accomplish in my life, the approval of others on a message board or being a "chosen one" on any message board is next in line above dying.

I haven't posted in a while so I just wanted to post something so my name would be recognized more easily so when the day comes that I have some information to share, people will at least have seen my name pop up now and then and will take me more seriously. Oooohhh....only 10 more posts to 100. It's so close I can taste it.

Pardon me, philosophical....if you were referring to the spelling.

He said Kvalevog.

All I am saying is repeating what Jimdahl said, some people are recognized because of a history of posting. He questions about trusting what those who don't have that history of posting discuss on this board. So what I'm saying is some people get that history of posting without really ever adding any insight except for only a couple times a year. FS1, myself, and others usually only post when we have something insightful to say, not whenever a comment comes into our head. So in the end, we may very well offer up the same number of insightful posts as most others on this board, but since we aren't on here posting meaningless comments multiple times daily, when him and others offer insight, it is questioned in comparison to those others who post whatever thought comes to their head multiple times a day. Like Jimdahl said, these are the people that are recognized, therefore the relatively few insights a year by them are taken at their word. The same amount of insightful information posts by the infrequent posters (in which those insights make up most of their posts) are nonetheless questioned. That's how I have seen it transpire over the years......not only on this board but any message board........you have to be part of the group to be recognized (taken seriously) and the only way to be part of the group is to just post, post, post no matter what random thought (no matter how irrelevant) comes to mind.

I too have been apprised of some of the situations that you list in more specific detail than what you or others would be willing to share here publicly. And so the question isn't asked.....No, I'm not going to give proof.

Word......

A perfect example right here. Diggler gets respect on this board because his posts are seen a lot on here. But when was the last time any insightful information has been passed along? Usually it's just comments such as this by him and others that offer no insight but yet people see their ID's so these people are recognized. I'm still trying to understand why comments that offer no insight or add anything to the discussion are made. There has to be a reason for it but I have yet to come up with one other than they want their name to be seen and want people to laugh because they made a funny comment or whatever thoughtless comment is made. I think I'll follow this approach by others so my name is more recognized and then once every six months when I actually post something of substance, people will take it at its word.

I think the point fs1 makes is very poignant. Because some of us aren't on here posting all the time, people tend to forget prior comments that we have made and therefore, whenever we try to post something insightful, we are challenged on it. And sticking your neck out and making a prediction or offering insightful information on a touchy subject is much different and will ultimately draw more criticism than sitting back and constantly offering a phylosophical analysis of what others have said. Like Jimdahl said, he believes others and takes them for their word because he sees there posts a lot and sees a lot of what they have to say even though it may just be "fluff" and not all that insightful. So if we are always constantly hit with comments by the same posters over and over again, we tend to take them for their word (which indirectly relates to the number of posts a person has). I can't recall a time when fs1 has offered insight that has been false or way off base. In fact, he's even had the correct recruit information when some of the more highly touted recruit posters on this site have been wrong in the past. So just because fs1 or others don't post often enough for them to be recognized easily, that doesn't mean what they say has any less truth behind it. And like was said previously, this situation with Buning is common knowledge among quite a few people and there have been rumblings of it for quite some time. So it's completely different than making a comment that no one has any knowledge of whatsoever (i.e. Hakstol eating kittens as the example Jimdahl tried to make). So when fs1 made his first post in this thread on this subject, it seemed like he was adding further analysis and insight into the situation. But since he wasn't recognized because he doesn't post that often, people knee-jerkingly ask for where's the proof whenever someone new tries to offer insight.

I think it comes down to people with a lot of posts don't consistently get questioned on items they post or whatever they say, whereas newer posters are almost certain to get attacked and questioned almost instantly on items of information they post even though the information may be completely accurate. In all honesty, it all comes down to how many posts you have for it to be determined if what a person says will be taken seriously or not. I've been observing this board for a few years and this seems the normal path among the conversations and general responses to various people on the board....there is a correlation to how often a person posts.

Because we just love to get into these phylosophical questions and dissect items word-for-word of what others say, how is what you said or are implying any different than a reporter saying "Officials had a closed door meeting but I'm reporting that unnamed sources have told me this about the meeting"? Is it because we aren't reporters and then should be held to a higher standard? But the reporter always follows back on the excuse that the public has a right to know and that they haven't broken any trust bonds. So when you say "Isn't repeating any part, even the nuance, of the conversation publicly breaking the trust of a person who values principles and trust?" are you then saying that reporters don't value principles and trust? Because reporters do the exact same thing of which you are chastising some of us for doing. I've seen many reporters write about what has happened in closed door meetings and even mentioning names and naming exact specifics by quoting unnamed sources. If what you feel above is true, then I have reason to conlude you question the principles and values of reporters as well when they report on any matters in a similar way. Am I wrong in my conclusion or did I not interpret what you said correctly?

I apologize, I'm not a reporter so I shouldn't be saying "Officials had a closed door meeting but I'm reporting that unnamed sources have told me this about the meeting". Because no one ever mentions what is happening behind closed doors or quoting unnamed sources in any public forum or newspaper.... Like I said above, some people whined about wanting proof concerning this whole subject (or any other subject) when another poster tried to provide some insight without naming names, sources, or exact specifics. He was getting somewhat attacked because he was a "know-it-all-teenager" who didn't really know what he was talking about. I'm sorry, but if someone posts accurate information and then gets blasted for it, I will try to defend that poster by backing up his/her claims.

So what you're saying is there should be no response to those people who say, "I saw Buning at the Gopher hockey game and he was doing the sieve chant at Briggs. If he did that and is such a good cheerleader because I always see him out in public smiling and rooting on the team, than he must be a good AD." If those people can offer their opinions than yes, I will contradict those opinions without giving exact names or situations, but instead with just generalizations. No trust has been broken; no names or situations were revealed. Again, I know what I say won't be taken as gospel....you need to have thousands of posts on here before you get to that stature or before a person can get that big of an ego.

Exactly, and what I say or how I act in "public" is going to be different that what I say or how I act behind closed doors with those I trust.