SJHovey

Some talented freshmen forwards coming in, to be sure, but not much in the way of returning goal scoring up front. By my count, less than 40 goals scored by the returning forwards, without Drake, and 8 of those were Poolman who could find himself back on defense next season. Contrast that to last year where our forwards started this past season having scored over 70 goals the year before. Without Drake, this is what it looks like: Nick Schmaltz 5 goals last year Luke Johnson 8 goals last year Tucker Poolman 8 goals last year (maybe moved to defense Austin Poganski 4 goals last year Bryn Chyzyk 7 goals last year Colten St. Clair 3 goals last year Trevor Olson 3 goals last year Sanderson, Simonson and Murphy all with 0 career goals. I like our incoming class, but I don't remember many teams where our returning forwards had this few goals scored the year before.

We're going to lose Jordan. Simply no way around it. He's a major talent. We were very fortunate to have him for three years, especially to the extent that it helped to recruit Nick to the school. People are kidding themselves if they think he'll be back for his senior season. To my way of thinking the key will be Drake. We're going to be really, really thin up front next year if he jumps early, and he's certainly going to get his chance. If we could keep Drake and either Stecher or LaDue, we ought to consider ourselves lucky. Anyone else is just found money.

In my opinion, the further along you get in the tournament, the better the competition. As a general rule the teams we have faced in rounds one and two have been weaker than the teams we have faced in the Frozen Four. Also, this notion that we are beating all these teams in the regular season, then failing in the Frozen Four is false. In 2005 DU absolutely dominated us all year long. Beat us at home in the only two regular season games, beat us at the X, and then in Columbus. In fact, imho the game in Columbus was the best game we played against them that year. Same in 2006. Wisconsin beat us both games at home in the regular season. We beat them at the X, when Elliot was just returning from his injury, but they were clearly the class of the WCHA that year, and were likely to win the championship whether we got there or not. I personally would like to see us play more eastern teams in the regular season, since candidly the better teams are out east right now.

People write that like a coach controls that. No coach controls that. Here is what coaches control: 1. What players they recruit 2. How those players are trained physically 3. How the players are taught/trained from a skills standpoint 4. Which players play, and in what line combinations 5. What style of play they implement, designed plays to be used, and in game adjustments to those plays, all in the context of available players 6. Proper motivation of the players to work hard, train hard and play hard, using the skills taught Is there something else Hakstol, or any other coach controls? After that, you just send them out there and see what happens. I don't have a problem with Hak on any of those things. I think he's recruited great, and continues to do so. Sure we lose some players early, or to Canada, but everyone does. I've never felt that Hak's teams were physically out of shape or not properly trained. They play as hard as any team in college hockey from an effort standpoint. So again I ask, where do you think he is deficient in terms of his coaching, and why? What's your basis for claiming your way is better? By the way, I'm still waiting for a link to any third party who thinks Hak should be on a short leash with respect to this job.

I find it funny that the anti-Hakstol posters on this board all profess they are not calling for him to be fired, and can't tell us what he is doing incorrectly with respect to the team or the program, except for the "he hasn't won me a natty" refrain. So I guess my question is, if you don't think he should be fired, why are you guys here whining? Either call for his head (and suffer the public ridicule that goes with putting your name to an idea that anyone who is even remotely neutral thinks is crazy), or quit whining. You don't get to have it both ways. And if you think he is making mistakes as a coach that has caused UND to lose these games, lets hear it. What mistake, exactly, did Hakstol make in the BU game? Should he have started Cam Johnson in goal? Was there a different line combination that he should have used? And tell me why these decisions caused us to lose? I'll hang up and listen.

Maybe, maybe not. Hak has shown that he has the ability to get his team to do whatever is necessary to get in the tournament, whether that's winning the conference tournament or whatever. I'll also just throw this out there for people to consider. On this Board, we're obviously all biased. First, in favor of UND hockey generally, and then one way or the other with respect to the coach. Can anyone point to a commentator, a beat writer, a past or present player, a coach, or even a blogger who has even hinted or suggested that Hakstol's continued employment as our coach should be looked at? There are a fair number I've read that say our fanbase is crazy for even talking about it, but of course most of those people think we're crazy anyway. But has anyone seen a neutral party suggest that Hakstol has had his chance, and its time for us to look in another direction?

I don't know about 11 goals, but I agree with this too. I really liked the way Murphy played these last few games. I expect he is going to get consistent ice time this next season. By the way, and I know I'm changing the subject here a bit, but did anyone else go "wut?" when Melrose picked Murphy as his "impact" player or "player to watch" or whatever it was for UND during the pregame? Edit: Ahh, I see siouxstudent saw that as well.

I don't think anyone is saying the program would suddenly go into a 30 year tailspin or something if Hakstol were fired. I assume we could find another coach, and a good one, and I assume that with the advantages our program has, that coach would have some good success. I count myself in the pro-Hakstol crowd, but I will only speak for myself. The reason I don't think we should fire Hakstol is why fire a guy who is leading the program in the direction you want to go? Seems kind of silly. People are fond of comparing Hakstol to York, or Berenson or Lucia or Mack Brown, or Bud Grant, etc... I don't know the answer to this, but has anyone ever been fired for taking a basketball team to 7 Final Fours in 11 years? The NCAA tournament, today, is a bit of a crapshoot. I saw somewhere that with the past 3 champions all winning for the first time, that's the first time that has happened since the first 3 champions in NCAA history. That's pretty amazing, if true, and speaks to the parity in the game. I think the NCAA records book requires a coach to have coached in at least 8 games before qualifying for certain records. I think if you look at that record book after this season you will see that only 3 active coaches have a better tournament winning percentage than Dave Hakstol (York, Sandelin and Jackson). That means that when the season is on the line, playing a team from another conference you haven't seen before, Hakstol is about as good as it gets, and that's with the 1-7 Frozen Four record everyone is fond of pointing out. I was in school for the Gino championships. Those were cakewalks. In the first one, we got selected for the tournament and only had to win two games. In 1982 we got two games against Clarkson at home, then 2 games in the Frozen Four. In 1987, the same. Two games against St. Larry's at home, then 2 games at the Frozen Four. Even Blais only had to win 3 games. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Dave Hakstol's job is safe, and candidly, I'm happy about that.

PC was certainly the aggressor in the Omaha game, and maybe even better in the 3rd period of the BU game, but this was no high flying offensive juggernaut. Tied for 18th in goal scoring. 38th on the power play. You have to go a long way down the national scoring list to find a PC player. Just a handful of guys in double digits in goals scored. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this PC team was built exactly like this year's UND team. The primary difference in the Frozen Four was goaltending. Zane played an average game against BU, while Gillies was superb.

Like Providence's?

I was really impressed with Luke's play near the end of the year, and especially in the post season. The kid can flat out snipe the puck. He's gained a little strength in his two years in school, and I expect that will only continue. I hesitate to put any labels on kids, or say they play like this player, or remind me of that player. But I seriously think Luke has Matt Frattin senior season level talent, and we could start to see it as soon as next year.

No question Quinn must go. If you can't win a natty with the greatest American born player ever, he never will.

Put me down as someone who does not want Hakstol fired. If up to me, give him a contract extension.

Congrats Zane! Well deserved! I'm with those who expect him to be gone, but I did like reading that he wants to speak to his extended family, basically everyone who matters to him, before making a decision. http://www.uscho.com/2015/04/10/mike-richter-award-winner-mcintyre-credits-family-coaches-for-development/

67 years.

Hak isn't going anywhere. Rational minds realize it would crazy to fire a coach who has taken his team to the tournament every year, and to the Frozen Four 7 times. The only way he gets fired is if the team goes in the tank for 3-4 years, missing the tournament, missing the conference tournament, etc... You guys might as well get used to it, or start complaining about the weather.

It is kind of funny. The odds are much better that UND moves its home games to Purpur Arena than they are that they get rid of Hak in the foreseeable future. He keeps sending teams to the Frozen Four, regardless of the outcome, he's going nowhere. The "common denominator" crowd can whine all they want. Them's the facts.

So at what point during these next two weeks do we get the Lambert story which reveals CORSI numbers that not only are 61.9% of all BU goals scored when Jack Eichel is on the ice, but 53.3% of all goals in all hockey games, everywhere, are scored when Jack Eichel is on the ice for BU, and we've actually already lost this game, mathematically?

Lot of tall buildings with ledges in Minneapolis. Feel free to jump, people.

MN can't lose two. I agree there are a lot of scenarios where they get in. But there are some quirky ones where they'll have to sweat, including what Jim Dahl pointed out this morning.

My wife and I stayed there last year, (when I think it was the Graves) and we're doing so again this year. Great rooms. Spectacular location for the Target Center. Skyway right to the arena from the hotel across the street. Never even wore a jacket. A bit pricey.

People complained about the so-called "Minnesota rule" (as an aside, the exact same rule was implemented the couple of years the tournament was held in Wisconsin and Wisconsin got the night game), for years. I was not one of them. First, there is no question the league and tv wanted that rule to allow local fans to come to the game after work, or watch Minnesota play in the evening. But people forget what a huge advantage that was for some other programs, namely UND, DU and a few others. I can't tell you how many times I got to watch UND play an afternoon semi-final against a team that had just played the play-in game the night before. It didn't always work that way. If MN was the #1 seed the play-in winner got to mercifully wait until Friday night. But many a time I got to see a tired UMD or CC or other team show up at the rink just a few hours after a tough fought win in the play in game, and we almost never lost those games.

In his earlier article discounting UND he also floated the notion that UND's success so far is a mirage, fueled in part by Zane's play at times, and in larger part by the fact that we apparently never left REA this year. But here's the thing. First, when we did leave REA we were as good as any team in the country. UND's winning % on the road was, by my eye, 3rd best. Lambert's darlings, DU and Miami, didn't exactly kill it on the road. DU was under .500, and Miami was barely over. I'm sure he'd say, or has said, that we didn't play anyone of consequence on the road. But again, if you look at strictly conference play, I think we were 8-4 on the road. UMD who was supposedly a great road team this year was 7-5. Miami 6-5-1, DU 5-6-1 and UNO 4-5-3. You'd think for a guy who claims he's a "numbers" guy he'd actually look at the numbers. Those who point out he likes to try to aggravate our fan base are correct. What's funny is that in the comments to his article, it's apparent he has aggravated just about every other fan base.

3rd in conference play, 24th nationally. http://www.uscho.com/stats/conference/nchc/2014-2015/ http://www.uscho.com/stats/overall/division-i-men/2014-2015/

I saw that article too. I was surprised, but not outraged, that Zane received as little acknowledgement as he did. I thought it was the perception of most college hockey commentators that Zane was the reason for this season's success. I'll say this. I would really like to get all these college hockey sportswriters, bloggers, etc..., into the same room and ask them exactly how they think UND is doing it this year. Smoke and mirrors? They are #1 in the PWR. Tied for best winning % in the country, and won the regular season title in the conference most feel is strongest top to bottom, at least this year. But apparently our Corsi numbers suck. We don't have anyone even sniffing the top 50 in scoring. Our penalty kill is average, at best. Our power play is ok, but not in the top 10 nationally. And apparently it isn't our goaltender. Maybe it is all just smoke and mirrors.