SJHovey

A lot of podcasts are interviewing these players, and frequently they are asked a variation of the question, "so, after the draft, obviously you want to move on to the NHL, but if that won't happen this year, do you think you go back to your junior team or do you go to the NCAA?" For the most part you hear them say, a) they think they are ready for the NHL, and the NHL is the goal, and b) they will talk to the team that drafts them and listen to what they have to say about what is best for their development. So, basically, NHL teams are going to decide whether these high end kids go to the NCAA, and if so, probably which school will be best for them. It is going to be absolutely key that UND develop relationships that are positive with the NHL gm's and their staffs. I should note, however, that I have also heard a few kids talk about their loyalty to their junior program, and their dream of winning a Memorial Cup. If it is left up to the kid, I don't think we can underestimate the possibility of that loyalty winning out over a chance to play against tougher competition in the NCAAs for some of these kids.

I think it will be interesting to see, in future years, how programs adapt to what we are seeing this year, and whether we see the same sort of timing of commitments coming out of the CHL. I tend to think that even as the natural flow of kids from the CHL to the NCAA becomes the "norm," we are still going to see a bunch of the high end kids wait until after the draft in late June to decide exactly what they are going to do. That means that programs like UND are going to be sitting here in late June with maybe a forward or defense spot on the roster unfilled, waiting to see what the recruits, their handlers and their drafting teams decide. The college programs won't know whether they are going the NCAA route, or not, or if so, which school, until fairly late in the game. We could then see a bunch of kids sort of sitting in purgatory each summer, not knowing whether their school is going to send them back to the USHL for another season, or ask them to come in as freshmen that fall.

I don’t know. I attended a Dave Gunther basketball camp at UND when I was in 7th grade, and I never got a sniff. Can’t believe that Dave would have already filled the 5’10” slow guy spot on the roster five years early.

Do we want him here four years? I’d like a goaltender pros are begging to sign.

If BU and Michigan keep stealing our players in the portal it will change.

I think people are being very smart if they are reluctant to just jump into NIL with both feet. There are way, way too many questions, and the inevitable changes, to just throw $100,000 at some kid. Say I give a prospect $100,000 to use his NIL, but conditioned upon him coming to play hockey at UND. If I pay Shaq to promote Coke, I'm pretty sure that contractually he's not going to be able to drink Pepsi. So this kid can't transfer, or quit, or sign a pro contract, or maybe take up baseball, while he is under NIL contract with me? As the holder of his NIL contract, can I assign it to someone else? Can a booster at MN offer me $150,000 for the kids NIL deal, and the kid then has to go play for MN? I could probably sit here all afternoon and type legitimate questions that anyone involved with NIL is worried about right now, and doesn't have an answer for.

If everyone ends up going to 26 on the roster, I think the 15-8-3 is going to be pretty standard. Don't know that teams will go with two goalies or 14 forwards.

Right? I've always maintained that you go to a sports book and make a parlay wager, then lose all the picks, you should at least get your money back. Strange, I always lose that argument as well.

And there is only one team that hung four or more goals in a game on Hampton Slukynsky this year, and they did it twice, on back to back games in Kalamazoo.

Just my take, but I think having “balanced” classes is less important because of the portal. I have no problem grabbing a kid or two out of the portal if they are a quality player, but I don’t need someone who is going to play third or fourth line minutes, just because they are a junior or senior. Having 8-10 freshmen isn’t the end of the world. If those 10 make it to their senior year, some will enter the portal when they see quality underclassmen coming behind.

Heard another thing on one of the CHN blogs. Carle talked about how the BC guys with the program were all teasing Zeev two years ago when he was going to Denver alone and they were going to win all these titles together at BC.

I used to be the same way, but I accept it now without begrudging these kids anything. I realized it was just the fan in me that was angry. I went to school, once. If I had wanted to, I could have switched colleges or universities every year, and so long as they were willing to let me in, I was free to make the move. Why should college athletes be any different? The other thing we have to remember is college is likely the only time in their hockey playing career that they get a true choice as to where to go, whether to switch teams, and how long they want to stay with one team. Hard to be critical of them for taking advantage of it.

So Brad thinks it will be a short turnaround on the assistant's job that's been posted. So, maybe announce on Thursday? Here is my question. Shouldn't we be hiring two assistants, one to replace Karl and one to fill Jackson's spot?

In my opinion, no. Not even close. The new reality is that kids (in all sports) are going to seek greener pastures. It's true in hockey and football and basketball. Other sports as well, I assume. The traditional powers are not going to be exempt. Kids will leave traditional powers for other traditional powers, or even schools of lesser standing if they think it will improve their situation. Matthew Wood, as a first rounder, leaves UConn to go to MN. MN exits in the first round and UConn nearly makes it to its first Frozen Four. MN loses a kid to Mankato. We've lost high draft picks to OSU or elsewhere. It's the new reality. We just have to be prepared for it so that we can pick off players from other teams as well. Boisvert was a very talented player, will likely be a Hobey Finalist candidate wherever he goes, and will play exactly one more year of college hockey. I think we'll survive without him. As for Perron and OM, I would have loved to see them stay, develop and finish their college careers here. But there have been hundreds of players as talented as they are who have come through the program before, and and hundreds more who will come after them. They are not irreplaceable. Far from it. I wish them the best. Good luck wherever they go. But if we play you, I would hope we will greet you rudely.

Given that someone here posted back in February these players had already selected their team, it seems unlikely that there is any correlation between their departures and the firing of Berry, hiring of Jackson or any player input into that process.

I watched that game last night, and the post-game festivities, and I suddenly realized something. Even after all these years, it never gets old to see a kid, wearing a BC uniform, standing on the ice crying his eyes out.

I wish him well. I would have liked to have seen him stay, but I still think we have some skill on the D line, and coming in. By the way, did he get hurt in that WMU game? I remember thinking that I hadn't seen him on the ice for awhile, and looking for him on the bench. I'll admit that I didn't see what happened if he did get hurt.

I wouldn't be surprised if the players had a close relationship with Jackson. As I understand it (having never played major college athletics) it's not unusual at all that the assistants are the closest to the players, while the head coach is more unapproachable. It's the assistants who are there, sometimes keeping secrets, helping to clean up messes, etc... I think that it was maybe Hak that talked a little about that after he was promoted. How do you, as the head coach, adapt from being their buddy to being the head coach. If Jackson is promoted, he'll have to do that.

There have been a number of posts about how far this program has "fallen" (in their opinion), that we are no longer considered a blue blood school, etc... First, I do not think that is an opinion that is shared outside this board, or outside a portion of this fan base. I suspect that if you went around and asked college hockey players, coaches, administrators, media types and fans to name the premier schools in college hockey, the blue bloods, UND shows up on all or almost all of their lists. Second, I've had the privilege of going to UND games for a long time. My first games were at the old Winter Sports building, and those were definitely not the good old days. The vast majority of my UND seasons have ended in disappointment. We lost, season over. It might have been in the national championship game, or it could have been in the first round of the conference playoffs, but either way, the dream was dead. Wait 'til next year! That is the norm! We had an incredible 20 year run from the '96-97 season through 2015-16. Incredible. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but that is not sustainable. If you don't believe me, talk to a 70 year old UCLA basketball fan, or a current NE Patriots fan, a New York Yankees fan or an Alabama football fan in 10 years. If that is the "bar" that you want to set for this program, then no coach should want this job, and we're going to be firing coaches about every three years. We should expect our coaches to run a clean program, to work hard to recruit the best possible players (who are also good people) to come play for the program, and to teach them. That's the job of a coach is to teach. If we find someone who teaches the game the right way, we'll continue to have more success than most other programs, and we'll occasionally even win a title. I have no reason to think that Jackson can't be that guy. And finally, I think that a reality check is needed. College athletics are changing, and changing dramatically. UND (and a lot of others) are going to be at a significant disadvantage. That doesn't mean that we should give up, or do nothing, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that whatever collective we can put together is going to compete with the likes of the Michigans, Penn States, Arizona States, etc..., of the world. We just can't. They can find way more NIL money in the cushions of their football coach's couch than we could ever raise. I understand that, and as a college athletics fan, I think it sucks. But we have to be prepared to try to win more with less. Just my two cents.

Hak's teams were different than Blais' teams, and Berry's teams were different than Hak's teams. If Jackson gets the job, I have no reason to think this won't continue to be the case.

They did.

I think what has been lost on this board is that when word went out Sunday that BB was fired, the reaction of about 99% of the college hockey world was “WTF? They did what?” The USCHO podcast guys had some interesting takes, including the idea that coaches may think twice before applying for this job if a guy who won a natty, five conference titles and a conference tournament title, and never had a losing record in ten seasons was dumped.

I have another idea on the "posting" issue, and the relatively short time candidates have to "apply." No one is going to apply for this job. Almost certainly the posting is a legal requirement put in place by the school to comply with public employee/university/state policies or laws. They make the time period short because they then have the flexibility to hire whenever they strike a deal with someone. If you were to apply for this job, and you were currently the coach at another school, that application becomes a public record. When you don't get the job, you will have a very interesting meeting with your own AD the next time you talk. This will be a job that will be offered either because our AD approached that coach, or an interested coach makes it known through back channels that they would be receptive to an offer from UND.

If anyone wants to go back and dig out the Fire Hak! threads, you'll see that I was obviously a Hak supporter. I have no problem with him coming back. He clearly will be a hire that will position us best to retain the current players we have and the recruits in the pipeline. Is he best for the long term? I guess time will tell.

That job posting reads like Dave Hakstol's resume reads.