burd

Brad Berry is vegan and will not recruit meat eaters.

Anybody who can type can state "what should be done." And on message boards, everyone "knows." burd knows this to be true.

Look on the bright side; It's pretty clear that all the damage that could be done has been done.

No matter what is happening, rider or no rider, bridle or no bridle, ol' gf clip-clops back to the comfort of the only stall he's ever known.

I'd guess Blake did think there was a realistic chance of winning a banner had he stayed. The guy was focused on his NHL goal (to our benefit) and felt he was ready.,

Useful post.

What is the injury?

His contract may impose some limits.

Fair points. At this level, there is probably not that much need for detailed justification for termination if record of success is far below traditional levels (other than standard employment risk management factors). It's just the way things are. One benefit of demonstrated justification, though, is that it helps determine what qualities are most important for the replacement hire. Also, I, for one, do not think anyone should be restrained from criticizing the coaches or the admin people. Just because some people enjoy good hockey assessment does not mean they think others should stifle their opinions, however they are formed. Saying I like Apple pie does not mean I think others should not eat pudding.

Pairwise? Programmers in cigar filled rooms.

It's more than a level of hockey evidence, IMO. I imagine nearly everyone on these threads follows UND hockey as a result their love for the game, That's why I think most of us like to see some discussion of actual, on-the-ice hockey evidence, For example, BB might be consistently out-coached on line matchups, especially at critical points in games. Or posters could refer to reliable published comments by former players as to the staff's coaching methods (or divided locker rooms). Those are just obvious examples, but I think y'all get what I mean. Now, if someone is interested not in the hockey itself but just as a school "fan" who wants and needs its team win, then there is no point discussing anything other than bare outcomes. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of fan. It's all for entertainment, and the more fans the merrier.

Yeah, read my edit, which ought to have been part of the original post

Good start, siouxelevens, but factual evidence to support the conclusions would be useful. Many of the points are so broad or vague they are almost cliche’ -lack of being prepared. -poor game strategy -too much emphasis on the regular season Those are fair points and may be true, but they are just conclusions not supported by causal facts. Again, many of your observations are ones many of us share, but actual hockey factual evidence would make them easier to bank on. To be clear, I wouldn’t find it shocking or offensive if BB was let go for the simple stated reason that he failed to win enough important games—Steinbrenner-like. Head coaches of top D-1 programs are paid a lot of money and understand the need to win. They’re big boys who have survived in an environment based on winning for a long time. It should be different in an amateur sport that is part of a more important context: university life. But that’s not the way it is.

A third grader who has never seen a hockey game could critique a staff or program based solely on NCAA tourney outcomes. They are certainly relevant and important, but some actual hockey talk in this process would be informative as well.

Not even Hollwood A-listers can afford blue chillas!