burd

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!

The locker room is divided on whether it’s divided, which is worst kind of divided. If you don’t know for sure if you’re divided, how do you unify? And if you unify; unify as what? There’s more: Until they learn how to play a full 60, it just doesn’t matter. To say nothing of playing for the Penrose instead of the Natty. F ck me these guys are screwed, and BB is toast

Is anyone else worried that the team is now within a point of the conference lead, the Penrose being the season killer that it is?

And they still didn’t play a full 60 either night. Might never.

Berg has already shown himself to be an important part of the offense. Get him healthy and hope the resulting adjustments don’t slow the progress, chemistry-wise.

Ledgies only rent by the day and always use the express elevator, both up and down.

That’s a murderous 10-game stretch when they get back from the break, but it will offer big time pw opportunities.

This team gets Berg and Jammer back, plus at least one D, it will be better. Berg is an important piece. Zmolek would be huge, but it looks like he is unlikely to return.

I get that, but I saw my first Sioux game as a student in 1970. Attended UND for seven years (separated by 14 years), and the team never got a sniff of an NCAA tournament win during those years. “Old School” fans saw a lot of bad Sioux hockey too.

Who posted that?

An angle I hadn't thought of and worth consideration.

How many NCAA BB teams, compared to the number of Hockey teams? Nobody watches the NIT except fans of the teams who couldn't make the NCAA.

Great. Beat by the hot back-up again.

A failure to play a full 60 on both nights causes many UND fans to hate their lives and even their dogs.

Too many of those high-end CHLers play a full 60. He's mostly looking for 40-50-minute guys.

Nice think-about-the-language post. Cool.

Fire Wilbur

Matt Jones

Mora voce: Fair?? Fair?? To be fair???