stoneySIOUX

Hahaha kind of like the having a degree is super important ..... unless you've played 10 years in the NHL and your degree doesn't matter anymore lololol

It's definitely different. With that said, it was updated with the premise that players had an extra year because of COVID. I'm not sure what you mean by "what it stands for".

So, you're saying if a player plays in the NHL for 10 years, that voids getting a degree? They'll never get anywhere in life without the degree? Very confusing. There's hundreds of examples of players playing the NHL for a large career and then being successful in life. And so what if he doesn't get his degree? Isn't the point of a degree to get a job to build generational wealth? Couldn't he do that in the NHL? This conversation is wild.

Uh, yes there was lol. Nick Jones.... You hate giving kids an extra year to play college hockey? That's a take hahaha.

UND should hire you to do their recruiting! You'd convince a Top 5 NHL draft pick to get his degree instead of passing up million upon millions of dollars and immediate NHL playing time. Especially in an environment where a player could get their degree online or during the offseason. You'd convince them to stay. Feels like you're in it for the best interest of the kid. Helluva job you'd do.

When you say "injury prone", do you mean like an injury that is a hand slice from diving to keep a puck out of a net to win a playoff game? Or, taking a big check in the corner during an OLYMPIC game? Yeah, both of those are Jake Sanderson. Give me that player.

No, I just want players who are like Jake Sanderson at any and all opportunities. To think we shouldn't want players like him is.... well, Idk what that is, but it ain't good lol.

But, I thought winning nattys was the no. 1 goal?

LOL DEFINITELY what I said. Still didn't answer my #simplequestion on if you liked our current pipeline.

HA I think the board would implode.

You said nothing about those three before you said he was one of the conference's best defensemen. I don't understand the comparison. No one is arguing 3, 4, or 24 are among the best defensemen. That's a whole season.... time for him to prove he deserves the spot. He didn't do that. I legit said he deserves more of a look, by the way.

Since I've started following it closely, not particularly. Do you not like our pipeline? #simplequestion

Are you suggesting Tychonick ended up as one of the best defensemen in the conference? I'd highly disagree, if that's what you're saying. Point still well taken. I still feel Johnson has had his shot. Should he get more? I can absolutely see the argument for that.

Confidence, confidence, confidence. He seems to have forgotten he's really frickin' talented. The play last weekend when Savoie (I think?) walked through four well-placed defenders and scored. Moore needs to bury him. I think it's mainly about rebuilding that.

That hasn't worked out well LOL.

I KNEW you were playing the game with me, my friend Whoa, whoa, whoa... as I've talked about.... I need REALISTIC options for a head coach Incredibly fair point. I'm still not sold on the idea of a complete reset and a coaching change. It feels reactive to this season. Like you said, if in 12 months we haven't seen improvement on the disaster of this season, I'd likely be in that boat of willing to explore a move.

I think we have to have at least one portal defenseman, but to fit our need. Stay-at-home, experienced. Preferably RHD. I want a kid like Sidorski for one or two seasons. Completely fine with the rest being freshies.

I know, without a doubt, that Berry was the primary recruiter in building the 2016 team. Hak absolutely sealed the deal in certain situations, but Bubbs was the primary person pounding the recruiting pavement.

Ah, so not necessarily a coaching change, correct? If I missed what you were saying, my bad. I agree with all of that, outside of a for sure change in coaching staff. But, would definitely welcome a change in game style to adapt to players like McLaughlin, Blake, Perron, (smaller, but immensely skilled) etc. And again, we HAVE to identify the players in the portal that can contribute immediately without hampering our pipeline recruits' development.

I was referring to making changes for next season, sorry. At risk of the pipeline? Current players? Without an identified replacement (Karl G and Brett Larson are fantastic options), I am not sure.

Thanks for an ACTUAL OPTION haha. He's been impressive. St. Cloud should be a trash program because frankly, it's a trash city, IMO, with no real legitimately consistent history of putting players into the NHL, without great facilities, and he's done incredibly well, along with Motz, of building that program. But they have yet to take that step into a truly elite program. Could he at UND? I could see it. Without a tremendous idea of what it takes to be a good NCAA coach, I am fine with the your opinion of him being average. I can't really tell you that I disagree because I don't know what it means to be a good or the best coach. My argument is only based of consistency. Bubbs has his teams, with the exception of this season, at the very least, in contention every year. This one has been a massive disappointment and they wouldn't argue against that, IMO.

Certainly ok with that. A coach has to figure it out. First things first -- identify the real reasons this season went the way it did and adjust. I don't think the past six years as a whole indicates a lack of ability to coach, but that's my opinion. Winning league titles is putting us in the position to win in the most important parts of the season. We've not hit our biggest goal since 2016. What do we have to do to make that step again? They need to figure that out.

Ok, so what about the second part of the post? Who is truly going to make UND better, in your eyes? Is it worth risking everything in our pipeline and the players we are looking for immediate growth just for the sake of change? Does this season mean we're not right back in contention next year if we keep Bubbs? If we make the change, what does that mean for the short term AND long term?

Fair point. I'd argue Costantini has made mistakes a sophomore shouldn't make in his opportunities, as well. If all things are equal (production, mistakes, general on ice performance) I'd defer to the upperclassman and I think most coaches would. Would replacing Hain for Costantini night in and night out make us better? Again, I'm speaking from a "win now" approach which was the expectation coming into the season. As far as I'm concerned, Hain's body of work in his career has me favoring him for this season. Long term, Costantini has a higher ceiling, IMO, but it's win now mode and he hasn't performed in his expected role.

Yep. I saw your reply. My bad, my man. I'll be honest, I have no insight whatsoever on what it takes to be a solid AD, so I'm certainly fine with options if there a better ones out there. I thought he handled the "NODAK" controversy in a really odd manner and frankly, that's all I really know about him. That felt like a passive, top-down led decision of immediately quashing it and doing the best to make it a non story. Question for you .... what would a new AD do for you in terms of bringing UND hockey back immediately from this wild season? I'm honestly trying to figure out what people want because from my perspective, I don't see a massive worry. I like our pipeline a lot and I haven't seen a large trend of poor coaching. It's easy to cherry pick this season because of the dumpster fire it's been, but are we TRULY that far off? Talent wise, I don't think so, and that includes the coaching staff.