SJHovey

What's funny is when I saw the gopher fans in the stands with the .6 shirts on, I immediately thought of Eddie Gaedel, the "little person" who got one major league at bat as a publicity stunt, and Eddie's 1/8 jersey. http://www.baseball-...o_gallery.shtml But, however they want to roll is fine with me. Those shirts would really look good if they wore them with hockey helmets too.

I don't really get the .6 as a shot against us, or as something to taunt us with. It's essentially an overtime loss. We were .6 away from what? Playing more hockey, that's what. Once we got to the last couple of minutes of that game, and certainly once we would have reached overtime, we were in a sudden death situation. Next goal wins. Whether it came with .6 seconds left in regulation or 10:08 left in overtime, doesn't really matter. One isn't more significant or heartwrenching than the other. Now, had we been ahead, with a chance to go to the title game, and they tied it with .06 left, that would have sucked. That's why I think the UNH loss from '09 is way worse than this one. We had that game. This one is just like the BC loss in '01 or any other OT loss in the NCAAs. Game over, season over. But what's strange is the psychological response. Because we still had a chance to win against UNH in OT, that one doesn't seem to feel as bad, even though it should be much harder to take.

You know what I like best about the rioting story. The cops were shooting them with GREEN paintballs. Excellent!

Two comments. Because I'm not going to go back and read this entire thread, I apologize if I repeat what anyone else has posted. First, don't get caught up in the "agony" of the .6 second thing. That fact is significant only to those broadcasting sports hightlights or writing stories about the game, who have a need for created drama. The exact same play could have happened with two minutes left, or 10 minutes into OT and it wouldn't have made the loss any less painful. That's hockey. A blocked shot, lucky (or unlucky) bounce, puck ends up in the back of the net. Trust me, this loss doesn't feel worse than losing to BC in OT in '01, losing to Wisconsin the the WCHA's in '83 (again, shorthanded) in 3 OT, when a win would have probably resulted in back to back NCAA titles. Second, this doesn't only happen to us. Everyone has forgotten Minnesota's 23 years in the wilderness, getting their hearts ripped out year after year? BC losing in the Frozen Four in OT in successive years, followed by losing a 3rd period lead to us in '00? Fans of this program need to stop claiming they're Job. The team played great. The coaching staff came up with a plan to put a ton of shots on Wilcox against a team that has been the best defensively all year long. A plan to shut down a very fast and talented offensive team. It worked to a T. But sometimes you don't win those games. Here is what I'm going to take away from this game. For me this was a reminder of how great the old WCHA was, and what a privilege it was to watch those games for more years than I dare count. It's like finding a long lost picture of an old hunting dog. One last wonderful glimpse of something you loved, but is now just a bunch of great memories. That's how I'm going to remember this game.

Here are some lines as well. http://www.sportbet..../hockey_college

Thanks Jim. I should have been able to figure that out.

Jim, does the possibility of a tie by UND in the third place game change any of these possibilities? When playing around with USCHO's pwr predictor there were some instances where a UND-DU tie in the third place game still got us in.

I would think it's unlikely, notwithstanding the conspiracy theorists. If UND sneaks in as an at-large bid (wins one of two games and has the other games break right) we'll likely be the #14 team. I don't think they'll do that to MN. They'll give MN the AHA team, or possibly even the NCHC champion. If we get in as the NCHC champ, we'll probably be somewhere between the #10 and #13 team, so again, a first round matchup with the number one seeded MN won't occur. Might find ourselves playing someone like Wisconsin though, with a MN matchup looming in the second round.

A quick run of the Pairwise predictor shows that a loss to Miami would be pretty damaging. Would likely take a Michigan or Mankato loss in their first game, followed by a win by UND in the consolation game, and no other upsets getting autobids.

I think he just posted under his name, John C. Notermann. I don't think he's posted over there for years. He dropped by occasionally after Jason graduated, but I think he realized he had better things to do than debate with MN fans. I haven't seen him for quite awhile. I think I last saw him 6-7 years ago at Tom Reid's during the Final 5.

I'm sure that no one, including those of us posting in this thread, want to see UND win a national championship more that Dave himself. People have referenced Doug Woog. He went what, 14-15 years at Minnesota. Never won a championship. Had some great teams. Some heartbreaking losses in the NCAAs. We can mock him, but the guy is a beloved figure in U of M hockey, even without the championships. And that's because people remember the great teams. The joy of winning, of having a top program, of competing for national titles if not actually winning them. That's what I try to do. We all want to see UND be champion again. But I also get great joy out of seeing top notch hockey. I had a great time at each of the Frozen Fours that we've lost under Hakstol. The Final 5's are the highlight of my spring each year. When the program stops competing. When we don't get to Minneapolis/St. Paul for the conference tournament. When we're posting sub-.500 records. When we don't get into the NCAAs playing at a high level. Then, that's the time to start the discussion about going a different direction. In my opinion, not before.

We went 17 years between #2 and #3, and we were really crappy during a great portion of that time. Like Anchorage kind of crappy. Heck we went 10 years between #5 and #6. The 13 year "drought" we're on now isn't that terrible. In fact, since we've won 7 titles in something like 65 years of UND hockey, our average "drought" is 9+ years anyway. We'll just have to disagree about 9 other coaches having more success.

Why does there have to be an "excuse"? We just got beat. Sometimes we may have been the better team. Sometimes we weren't? Either way, the other team scored more goals. Why did we not win in '98? We had the great Dean Blais, who knew how to get players to play big in big games. We had the exact same team we had in '97 when UND won the whole thing, except now the team had another year of experience, including championship game experience? And how about '99? Still the same team, but this year they were upperclassmen. You get those answers for me, then I'll give you your "excuse" as to why Hakstol hasn't won in his trips to the Frozen Four. I also guarantee you a very fine career as a consultant for college hockey coaches.

First, I don't think that "everyone" has an issue with Hakstol's teams. In fact, I don't even think it's a majority. That said, what I have tried to convey in my posts is that during the past 9 seasons, covering Hakstol's tenure as UND head coach, precisely one NCAA Division I hockey coach has had more success than Dave. We can sit here and bemoan the fact that we haven't had BC's success during this past decade. But when you sit and think that there is one, and only one hockey coach who has been even arguably more successful during this same timeframe, I think it's kind of silly that there are enough UND fans unhappy enough to keep this argument going. Just my two cents.

UND has won 13 NCAA tournament games under Hakstol. No one other than BC has more than 8 NCAA tournament victories in that time.

I ask this question, in all seriousness, to those who think that the program has fallen on hard times, below our standards, or that it's time to start thinking about coaching changes. Look back over the past 9 seasons (I'm excluding the present season primarily because we don't know how it will turn out). If you could magically substitute the performance of another college hockey program for our own, would you? Whose? UND is 235-119-37 over that span, with no losing seasons, 2 regular season crowns, 4 conference tourney titles, appearances in all 9 NCAA tournaments, but admittedly no national titles. So who do you wish we were, over Hak's tenure, if not our own performance? BC? Obviously. 3 national titles, 3 regular season titles, 6 conference tourney championships, appearances in 8 of 9 NCAA tournaments and a 238-97-33 record. But now who? Michigan? The supposed greatest college hockey program of all time? No national titles, 3 regular season titles, 3 conference tourney titles, 8 of 9 NCAA tourney appearances (and one losing season), with a win/loss record virtually identical to ours at 237-116-25. I'm not trading. That's the same car I'm driving without the 1 missed tourney. How about Miami? 3 regular season titles, 1 conference tourney title, 8 of 9 NCAA appearances, but no national titles and a record no better than ours at 222-107-39. No thanks. Minnesota? No national titles. 4 regular season titles but 1 conference tourney title. Only 6 of 9 in NCAA appearances with one losing season and a considerably worse record at 210-120-39. Plus, you're Minnesota. Forget it. How about last year's champs, Yale. They have the almighty national title. But 2 regular season titles, 2 conference titles and only 4 NCAA appearances out of 9 seasons, to go along with 3 losing seasons and a pedestrian 153-129-24 record. I don't make that swap. Duluth won a title, too. But not a single regular season title, one tournament title and made the NCAA's a paltry 3 of the 9 seasons, with 5 losing seasons and a barely .500 record of 161-149-47. Go ahead if you want to be a Bulldog. How about Michigan St. and their national title? Zero regular season titles. 1 conference tourney title. 3 losing seasons. Only 4 NCAA appearances in the 9 years and a very average 173-150-42 record. So far I'm not impressed. So what about Wisconsin, BU or Denver? Lot of baggage with Wisconsin. They have that title real early in the stretch of these 9 seasons, but no regular season titles, one very unexpected conference tourney title, 5 of 9 on NCAA appearances, a couple of sub-.500 seasons and a 196-133-39 record a long way behind UND. It might be for some of you, but not me. BU? One great season with a national title. A couple of HE crowns to go with a couple of HE tourney titles. But they only made the tournament half the time and their overall record is still a long way behind UND, at 204-117-39. Denver? For me this would be a maybe. 2 regular season crowns, 2 Broadmoors and appearances in 7 of the 9 NCAA tournaments. Pretty good record at 220-115-33. A bit of a toss up, but I might be persuaded to take that record for these past 9 seasons, understanding that the title did come at the very beginning of the run and there has been a generally downward progression. Anybody that I missed? So, of course I would love to have BC's record the past 9 years. Who wouldn't? Denver's? Maybe, although I don't like the direction they're going. Who else would you rather be? Unless someone else has some good answers, I'm not sure I'd be jumping ship right about now.

BC's on a great run. But go back just 20 years, even after our great run of the early 80's. Lake Sup. St. dominated. Played in 3 straight championship games. 3 championships in 7 years. Top of the mountain. Anybody want to be an LSSU fan now? I'd still take our program, and history, over BC's.

I haven't lowered my expectations for the program at all. 1. I expect the program to be competitive for a national championship. I expect they will be in the NCAA tournament a high majority of the years, with a legitimate chance to advance. 2. I expect the program to be clean. No recruiting scandals. No payments to student athletes. No academic cheating. 3. I expect the players to be treated with the same respect shown to other students, so that they leave the University with fond memories and good feelings about their experience. I want them to be proud to be UND alum, happy to come back and support the University, willing to send their own children there. 4. I expect the team to compete for league and conference tournament titles. 5. Finally, I want the program to be considered in that elite class of 5-7 programs at the top of NCAA college hockey. In my opinion, the UND hockey program has met those standards under Hakstol, and under his predecessors.

I recall reading the University of Wisconsin thread maybe a year or two ago over on USCHO. Keep in mind that Wis has a national championship since we last won in 2000, and that Wis has 6 total, a pretty solid history of hockey compared with all others. What was funny about that discussion, and how it's relevant to our current discussion, is that they took an almost completely opposite view to how some here (gfhockey, Irish, etc...) view the status of their own program. In their view Eaves' teams have underachieved. Even though he has the one championship, the large majority of Wisconsin fans engaged in that discussion were extremely unhappy. Under Eaves there were no regular season championships. There were no (until last year) Broadmoor championships. Maybe made the tournament half the time. Some sub-500 seasons. The one championship wasn't enough. In fact, some specifically cited UND as a program where even though we hadn't won since 2000, we were competitive for the league titles each year, we were competitive at the Final 5, we were in the tournament with at least a puncher's chance to win the national championship. That was the kind of program they wanted. I wonder what gfhockey, Irish and the others would say if we were sitting here, now almost 10 seasons into Hak's tenure, and there were no regular season championships, no Broadmoors, maybe a 50/50 chance of even getting into the national tournament, but there was that one, bright shining moment of a single national championship. My guess is they would be just like the Wisconsin fans, the "grass is always greener" approach.

It's always fun to take a "legacy" from another program. I vaguely remember Yon's father playing for MN in the early 80's. I don't recall that he was really a top 6 forward or anything, but he seemed to play pretty regularily. I recall reading somewhere that MN didn't make much of an effort to land Yon. Probably has more to do with their current forward situation than anything else. I hope Zach comes to UND in a couple of years and produces like the Archibald kid at UNO.

If you see him, you should check to see if he was at the NFR in Las Vegas this year, and played poker at the Mirage. Curious to see if he remembers playing with me. I wish we had sat closer together so we could have talked. Kind of hard to carry on a conversation 10 feet across a poker table, especially that late when they had the music in the casino absolutely thumping. I didn't get a chance to play long with him but I would have liked to talk to him about the teams he played on.

I would describe him as "wiry". I don't think he was taller than 6 feet by any means. Sometimes it's tough to get a feel for a person's height if they're wearing cowboy boots and a hat, like this guy was. He just looked very lean and in very good shape for someone who is in his 60's.

Friday, December 6, I was in the Mirage Casino in Las Vegas. The National Finals Rodeo was in town, and the Mirage caters pretty heavily to that event. I was playing poker when this cowboy sits down. Very distinguished looking. Immaculately dressed in a starched white button down shirt. Big ol' cream colored cowboy hat. Looked to be in his mid-60's. Also looked like he could pretty much whip the crap out of anybody in the place. I was wearing a black baseball hat that has the new Sioux logo on it.. We were seated at opposite ends of the table. After awhile, I see him staring at my hat. I asked him, "you recognize it?" He responded, "you go there, or you just find that hat?" I told him I was a N.D. native, and the years I attended. He said, "I played for that team." I think he said '68-70. James Stuart from Calgary, Alberta. He said he played with some great ones. Bobby Duncan. John Marks, who he described as the meanest hockey player he ever played with. I gathered he was a role player. Said he played mostly left wing. Mixed it up in the corners, which I believe. Funny thing was, all he really wanted to talk about was the recent years. He still follows the team avidly, even from Calgary.

One of the differences between this team and the one we've had the last few seasons is face offs. The team is getting better, and I think will be much better by the end of the season, but I don't think they've yet developed a reliable center who will consistently dominate in the face off circle. Mark Mac's injury hasn't helped in this regard. That means we spend an awful lot of time trying to get the puck back.

I just can't believe we're even having this discussion right now. Jerry York: 12 seasons (then went 17 more) Ron Mason: 20 seasons Red Berenson: 12 seasons Don Lucia: 15 seasons George Gwozdecky: 15 seasons Shawn Walsh: 9 seasons "Badger" Bob Johnson: 10 seasons These are the supposed legends of college hockey coaching, at least in the last 30 years. What would have been if people had given up on them, as people did with Hak, after about 8 years? Or look at other sports. Nick Saban: 9 years Mike Krzyzewski: 17 years Geno Auriemma: 10 years Dean Smith: 21 years Dean Smith went 20 seasons in which he won 9 regular season championships, 8 ACC tournament championships, and never sniffed the big one. Ask Carolina fans whether they think Dean should have been canned. Even the great John Wooden, probably as close to a deity as this country has in coaching, went 19 years as a head coach, including 16 at UCLA, before he won a championship, then won what, like 10 in a row? I could probably go on all day with examples. Winning a championship is about being a good coach and recruiter, which Hak clearly is, but it's also about timing, luck, a hundred variables that you can't control. For every situation like a Dean Blais who comes in and wins one in his first 3 seasons there are many other great, great coaches who go many years without savoring that first championship. 9-10 years is nothing in a coaching career. I want to win as bad as anyone, but man some in this fanbase have really become cliffjumpers in a hurry.