Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

dagies

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by dagies

  1. I ask this question, in all seriousness, to those who think that the program has fallen on hard times, below our standards, or that it's time to start thinking about coaching changes.

    Look back over the past 9 seasons (I'm excluding the present season primarily because we don't know how it will turn out). If you could magically substitute the performance of another college hockey program for our own, would you? Whose?

    UND is 235-119-37 over that span, with no losing seasons, 2 regular season crowns, 4 conference tourney titles, appearances in all 9 NCAA tournaments, but admittedly no national titles.

    So who do you wish we were, over Hak's tenure, if not our own performance?

    BC? Obviously. 3 national titles, 3 regular season titles, 6 conference tourney championships, appearances in 8 of 9 NCAA tournaments and a 238-97-33 record.

    But now who?

    Michigan? The supposed greatest college hockey program of all time? No national titles, 3 regular season titles, 3 conference tourney titles, 8 of 9 NCAA tourney appearances (and one losing season), with a win/loss record virtually identical to ours at 237-116-25. I'm not trading. That's the same car I'm driving without the 1 missed tourney.

    How about Miami? 3 regular season titles, 1 conference tourney title, 8 of 9 NCAA appearances, but no national titles and a record no better than ours at 222-107-39. No thanks.

    Minnesota? No national titles. 4 regular season titles but 1 conference tourney title. Only 6 of 9 in NCAA appearances with one losing season and a considerably worse record at 210-120-39. Plus, you're Minnesota. Forget it.

    How about last year's champs, Yale. They have the almighty national title. But 2 regular season titles, 2 conference titles and only 4 NCAA appearances out of 9 seasons, to go along with 3 losing seasons and a pedestrian 153-129-24 record. I don't make that swap.

    Duluth won a title, too. But not a single regular season title, one tournament title and made the NCAA's a paltry 3 of the 9 seasons, with 5 losing seasons and a barely .500 record of 161-149-47. Go ahead if you want to be a Bulldog.

    How about Michigan St. and their national title? Zero regular season titles. 1 conference tourney title. 3 losing seasons. Only 4 NCAA appearances in the 9 years and a very average 173-150-42 record.

    So far I'm not impressed.

    So what about Wisconsin, BU or Denver?

    Lot of baggage with Wisconsin. They have that title real early in the stretch of these 9 seasons, but no regular season titles, one very unexpected conference tourney title, 5 of 9 on NCAA appearances, a couple of sub-.500 seasons and a 196-133-39 record a long way behind UND. It might be for some of you, but not me.

    BU? One great season with a national title. A couple of HE crowns to go with a couple of HE tourney titles. But they only made the tournament half the time and their overall record is still a long way behind UND, at 204-117-39.

    Denver? For me this would be a maybe. 2 regular season crowns, 2 Broadmoors and appearances in 7 of the 9 NCAA tournaments. Pretty good record at 220-115-33. A bit of a toss up, but I might be persuaded to take that record for these past 9 seasons, understanding that the title did come at the very beginning of the run and there has been a generally downward progression.

    Anybody that I missed?

    So, of course I would love to have BC's record the past 9 years. Who wouldn't? Denver's? Maybe, although I don't like the direction they're going. Who else would you rather be?

    Unless someone else has some good answers, I'm not sure I'd be jumping ship right about now.

  2. As a Christian myself, I can understand not wanting to use the Crusader nickname. Frankly, I'm not sure that's anything I'd be proud of. Not sure going to war in the Holy Land is all that Christian of a thing to do. Not trying to get religious or political, but I think I can see a reason why a Christian school might say "ah, maybe let's go a different route".

    On the other hand do I care if Holy Cross uses that nickname? Not a bit. Couldn't care less.

  3. I hope we're not being unfair to Loney and he just got checked out and ok'd, but I agree with everyone else that the way he flopped around on the ice and appeared to be seriously injured was concerning at the time. To find out that apparently didn't have a concussion, didn't hurt his neck, and didn't apparently do any significant damage to his shoulder and could come back within a few minutes and continue to play without any apparent limitations leads one to question his "act". Generally guys who have head injuries don't go flopping around on the ice, nor do those with back injuries. If he was in SO much pain that it looked like something was broken, and then could function normally shortly thereafter is a bit hard to swallow.

  4. Ticket confirmation showed games at 1 and 7 each day, but the times now are 4 and 7:30 Friday, 3:30 and 7:30 Saturday.

    That's a bummer, if true. I like a downtime between games if for no other reason to enjoy the build up and anticipation of the late game.
  5. Rumor has it Frattin was brought back partly because coaching staff was desperate for some offense.....not 100% sure on truth to that, but sounds right.

    And apparently that was a big mistake on the part of the coaches because Frattin clearly hadn't cleaned up his act and re-dedicated himself to his craft. Nor was he a good teammate or citizen when he returned.
    • Upvote 2
  6. Look, I think there's room for moderation in the NCAA's enforcement, but let's look at a few facts:

    1. The player wasn't "in need". The player had a very expensive watch stolen out of the locker room. That sucks, but that's not "in need".

    2. Sounds like they've had issues in that room before. if so, then shame on the player for bringing in his valuable watch.

    3. From the other side of the fence, how do you regulate coaches giving players gifts if you let something like this slide? How do you differentiate between an improper gift and a coach giving money for something like this?

    Personally, I don't see it as a huge deal, but on the other hand if you're going to have a rule like this (for good reason) you have to enforce it.

  7. I listened to the comeback against UMD on the radio; the game was in Duluth. Hennessy was beside himself, as you can imagine.

    The 75 Years of Sioux Hockey book has a few tidbits. Behind a Brett Hull hat trick, UMD had a 6-1 lead after one period. The Sioux outshot UMD 34-7 in the third. That fits my recollection, that the Sioux dominated but couldn't get the puck across the line. They eventually did.

    That was my memory as well, that this game was a road game. I listened to it on the radio as well. At least that's my memory. I remember so little of those times that I hesitate to say anything unless someone says something first that matches with my memory :)
  8. It was meant to be in jest, sorry if I offended as sometimes that doesn't translate to posts. Was not actually calling for a ban and I don't believe I even have that power.

    Oh, hey, I was just trying to give Mafia Man some grief. Just for fun. No worries! Sorry if I wasn't clear. :)
  9. BANNED? Ouch!

    That's the second time in the past month that the call has gone out to have me banned.

    Seriously....apparently you cost the Sioux a trip to the Frozen Four and then (here) you put flaming poop on your fellow fans' doorsteps and ring the bell? Sorry, I'm not answering on this one.
  10. "Cleared but not out" is a line you hear not only from Hammer, but from announcers all over, including the NHL. The puck can be cleared (i.e. from the front of the net) but not out of the zone. That one used to get me, but you hear it all the time so I'm used to it by now.

    I've thought about this oen too, and it no longer bugs me. If you think about it, the announcer needs to describe the action in the fewest words possible. "Cleared but not out" describes that a defender tried to throw the puck out of the zone, but was not successful. It's important to describe that because a clearing attempt is much different than an attempt to carry the puck out of the zone. So while I agree the "cleared but not out" is a little bit....off....I think it's descriptive of the action and I understand it's use. In a sense, it's repurposing the use of "cleared" for this specific situation.. Perhaps they could say "clearing attempt not out" but again that takes a bit more to say when there is fast action to describe.

    Just my thoughts on that one. Personally those types of things don't bother me as much as clear mispronounciations that persist throughout the game or even game after game. That's the base line I would expect a professional to be able to achieve.

  11. Exactly. Nebraska football would be a much more appropriate comparison (though those calling for Hak's head aren't likely to bring it up). Frank Solich was the coach from '98-03, going 58-18 in that span. After a 9-3 season in 2003, he was canned. The AD at the time made some stupid statement about not letting Nebraska football settle for mediocrity.

    And you know what happened next? After letting go of a winning coach (who just couldn't get 'the big one'), they hired big-name Bill Callahan who went 27-22 from '04-07 before getting sacked. His teams literally broke Nebraska records for sucking (worst defeat and 1st time losing 5 straight since 1958).

    I used this exact same example last year but, given this thread, I think it warrants repeating. You can't assume that the coach who follows Hakstol will be better (or even as good)...even if you get a big name with a history of winning. I lived in Nebraska from '03-'07, and I never met a single Nebraska fan who didn't regret the decision to let go of Solich, though most of them had been calling for his head back in 2003.

    And they followed up Callahan with Pelini, who hasn't done that much either. not always easy to replace a good good coach with a better one....
  12. Agree with most of the assessments - however, I think we are ignoring what I think could really bite us in the future. This is the worst team I have ever seen when playing with a 2 or 3 goal lead. It's like the prevent defense X 100. We go into a shell like nobody I have ever seen. But for the grace of God it could have been 3-2 with them having the momentum instead of 4-1. If that would have happened, I feel like the game would have been up for grabs. We see this play game after game. No killer mentality at all.

    Yet the team has only 1 time not won (vermont, I think) when they've had a 2 or greater goal lead (out of 9 games total). It's an offensively challenged team......is it that they play passive, or is it that they just continue to struggle to score?
×
×
  • Create New...