fightingsioux4life

Oh come on.....if you are going to savage me in public, at least be original.

No problem Old Time Hockey! Glad to be of service!

When is that not the case?

Well, I have followed this program for about 20 years (not counting all the games I watched growing up) and I think that gives me a good perspective on things. Of course others have different perspectives than mine. What I will not tolerate is being called names and basically being told to shut up. You didn't do that.....the people that did know who they are.

If people have a problem with what I think, then that's my problem? So what am I supposed to do then, shut up and assimilate? Sorry pal, that isn't happening. And maybe you are the one that has to "get used to" me having a different thought process on stuff?

I am thinking that because we have a team without all those early round NHL draft picks that people's expectations are somewhat different.

Okay, I see your point about not having his conversation now. But some other posters started talking about it again and I got sucked in (again). I have nothing personal against anyone on this forum; I just feel the need to say what is on my mind and this is as good a place as any to do that.

I was being facetious with the "lifetime contract" comment. But it does sound like that sometimes. People basically give Hakstol credit for everything that goes right with the program, but nothing bad that happens is ever his fault. To your credit, you are not like that, but some others on here (the ones resorting to name calling) have come across like that.

Really? I have a different point of view than a lot of people on here and that makes me a "whiny crybaby"? I thought different opinions were welcomed on a discussion forum. I guess not. And no, I would not "find something wrong" with whomever is coaching this team. I supported Dean Blais 1000% when he was here. I supported Dale Lennon 1000% when he was here. I supported Gene Roebuck 1000% when he was here. And I support Brian Idalski 1000% right now. But when a program was atrophying (Rich Glas), when a program was a total mess (Chris Mussman, Shantel Rivard), I called for changes to be made. I think Brian Jones should be allowed to finish out his current contract, but I don't think he should get an extension unless the Men's BB program shows more progress. In Hakstol's case, we have a program that has a rich tradition and history and a program that has won league championships (regular season and playoff) and has advanced to the Frozen Four six times, but has also underperformed terribly once they got there on five of those occasions. This year might be different, as we are not loaded with 1st round draft picks and the team wins and loses games together (no D-O-T scoring line to shoulder the load). It will be interesting in seeing what happens next week. And I do commend Hakstol and his staff for getting this team to play together so well, which is why we are where we are. But fair or not (and I don't know if it's totally fair), top-notch programs like ours are measured by NCAA titles or lack thereof. Cary Eades said "Greatness at North Dakota is measured in national championships" and I think he knows something about that. Or maybe someone should tell him that "times have changed" and "you just cannot expect that to happen in Grand Forks anymore". I for one agree with him and think we shouldn't ever lose sight of it.

Okay, I see your point on waiting until summer (when there is nothing else to talk about). But when I am attacked, I will respond. I am thankful you don't make personal and childish comments. Come April 12th, this whole discussion might be moot. And I will come on here and give Hakstol and his staff and all his players (some of whom weren't recruited by anybody) all the props they deserve. I have said that before; I just wanted to reiterate it.

Real mature and classy Ray77. And if people want to ignore me, that is fine. It just means they want all opinions to be like their own. I answer people's questions on this topic as best I can and all I get in response is name-calling, childish comments and people telling me to shut up. I don't think I am the one with the problem here.

Really? We want him to make adjustments to his precious "baseline defensive system" when appropriate and we also would like to figure out how some of his earlier Frozen Four teams bombed so bad once the puck dropped in front of a national television audience. I will tell you that I am one of the more objective Hakstol critics; I know some others that are much more vitriolic than I am. And I think they take it too far. Also, I HAVE talked about how to replace Hakstol when he is gone and why it is not as crazy of an idea as some people think. You just choose not to read it or acknowledge it. And that is YOUR problem, not mine. Finally, I don't have to "get used to" anything. If I don't like something, I can and will point it out. If I think there is something wrong, I can and will point it out. If you are insistent on blind loyalty towards everything Hakstol, that is your prerogative. But don't tell me what to "get used to". Again, if Hakstol is the greatest thing since sliced bread, let's give him a lifetime contract so we don't lose him. I don't think it's a good idea, but it seems like a lot of people on this forum think it is. And that is the mentality that I have a problem with.

Well my friend, when people cherry-pick your comments so that your original point is lost and they look like geniuses, that is the very definition of "apologist". My first priority is the program, not individual coaches or players. And while we are on the subject of "name calling", calling me a "hater" because I have the unmitigated gall to make public unpopular opinions is pretty much the same thing. And you are right, we are all rooting for the same school. When that puck drops on Thursday, April 10th and we are battling the hated Gophers for a spot in the NCAA title game, we'll be on the same side. But that doesn't mean we can't have honest disagreements about things.

And I deliver. It's not my fault that people don't want to hear opinions that are not "ducky and bunny" approved. And that is their problem and not mine. And here is another FACT for you; it is possible to be a fan of a team and still criticize where appropriate. For some people on this forum, that time and place doesn't exist. They would give Hakstol a lifetime contract if they could. But that isn't how it works in college athletics and everyone better get used to it.

I think everyone that bleeds green and white is happy. But that won't make all the old debates on this forum magically go away. And that is how it should be; a discussion forum is for debate and give and take.

Thank you, I aim to please!

This should get all of us in the mood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uZBMaaAzhE

Speaking of attendance, I noticed more empty seats in REA during the regular season and the first round of the playoffs than I remember seeing. I think some people are losing patience with Hakstol and his "baseline systems". And your comment about Boston College and how they are similar to our old teams is spot on. I have made that argument myself on here.....but no one wants to acknowledge it or believe it. And if we indeed ARE losing kids to Don Lucia and Jerry York, it might be because of Hakstol's strict, inflexible defensive systems and his traditional refusal to be flexible when it is appropriate. Hockey is a close-knit community and some of the more offensively gifted kids might not want to be handcuffed in that type of system, so they pick a different school. Another problem is recruiting kids that are very talented, but also being pursued by CHL teams that will stoop to any level to get them to leave NCAA hockey. Then we have to bring in kids that are just not as talented and we struggle at times because of that. I think an adjustment in recruiting strategy might be warranted here. I do think Hakstol has definitely loosened up this year and I think that is good for his team. I also think he is making some changes in recruiting strategy. The next couple of years will tell us if it's working or not. Next year's team should have loads of experience from this playoff run and should get off to a better start than they did this year.

You are making my argument for me. Wooden and Auerbach got it done when it counted and when they had the talent to get it done and simply performed above and beyond what everyone else did. That is why they are remembered and the other "great" coaches of their time are not. The margin of error between good and great is very thin indeed. People remember championships; they don't remember runner-up teams, they don't remember woulda-coulda-shoulda's, they don't remember regular season successes. Based on your logic, the Minnesota Vikings are the Team of the 1970's and the Buffalo Bills are the Team of the 1990's because of "just being there". But that just isn't how it works. You just choose not to see it, which is your prerogative. And if you think getting outshot 2 to 1 in March and April isn't a recipe for a butt-kicking, then you are deluding yourself. Gothberg played great on Saturday, but every goaltender has ups and downs and cannot be expected to be that good all the time. If he was just a little bit off yesterday, we lose by 2+ goals. The team will have to play better in front of him on April 10th or I don't think we make it to the title game on April 12th. Minnesota is going to be much tougher to shut down, so we better have some offense on the other end. And finally, don't ever tell me to "quit fussing" or be quiet or shut up or whatever. I don't tell anybody else on here what to say and how to say it, so please don't go there with me. I am just as loyal of a fan of this team (and all our other teams) as anyone else; I just refuse to wear green-shaded glasses and drink green Kool-Aid all the time. But if that makes you feel better, by all means do so. Goodnight and good luck!

And here we are, back at the essential question that has been hashed and rehashed over and over again: Are NCAA titles important at all? And if they are, how important? Old Time Hockey made some very fair points and (as usual) gets blasted for it. Mid-major programs (Bemidji State, RIT) are probably satisfied with "just getting there". But we are NOT a mid-major program and I will never accept a label like that. Ever. I am as excited as anyone else for this team and what they have accomplished this season. But the lack of success at the Frozen Four is a valid topic for discussion. This might be the year this whole topic gets buried for good, but we'll just have to wait and see what happens. We can't expect Gothberg to do what he did last night all the time; the whole team will have to play better if we are going to get two wins in Philly. And then we can table this whole discussion, which I will be grateful for.

UND hockey has been featured in the New York Times, so don't give me that crap.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/wxstory.php?site=fgf If anyone has travel plans the next 24-36 hours, you might want to reconsider them.

Are you trying to get slapped by a woman? Because it will happen if you keep making sexist comments like this.

Well, Schloss has us covered on that one!

I will tell you that I will not say anything like that. And I don't think most of his critics on this forum will either.