fightingsioux4life

This is something I have brought up before as well. I honestly don't understand why some people think playing in a lousy, two-bit bowl game on a weeknight in December on ESPN2 with half the seats in the stadium empty gives a program such a huge shot in the arm. Calling it FBS doesn't make it great.

Well said, my friend. Well said.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 2 Timothy 4:7 RIP Serge. Your legacy will live on.

From the media guide: http://issuu.com/undathletics/docs/2013-14_mhky_mg_low_res/1?e=1294848/5258848 December 18th, 1988 vs. Moscow Dynamo L (5-7) This game immediately followed a two-game home series vs. Colorado College on December 16th and 17th, which the Sioux swept 3-2 and 5-1. I don't think I went to this game, but I remember seeing commercials on WDAZ Channel 8 promoting it.

Now the media will have to find someone else's butt to kiss. Especially Mike McFeely of KFGO; the man crush he had on Phillips was annoying to say the least.

I am not saying other teams don't use dump and chase and don't cycle the puck; you make in-game adjustments when needed. But this idea that Jerry York uses the exact same systems as Dave Hakstol just doesn't hold water. Especially since we have direct, head-to-head match-ups between the two programs in the Frozen Four that show one team (Boston College) having much more success than the other team (North Dakota) and clearly playing more of a skill and speed game vs. the more "structured" game of North Dakota. And those North Dakota teams had way more NHL-caliber talent than this team, so that made those losses even harder to swallow and explain. If this team wins it all next week, that will validate what the Hakstol Fan Club is saying. But until Hakstol's methods bring home the bacon on the biggest stage in college hockey, I remain a skeptic (not a hater, a skeptic). In one week, we'll know one way or the other. Until then.....GO SIOUX, BEAT THOSE DIRTY GOPHERS!!!

I am no hockey expert, but I remember being told that when Hakstol took over the average working stiff in the stands wouldn't notice much of a change in style of play. And that hasn't been the case. As for NHL coaches being a fan of Hakstol, I guess that doesn't score many points with me. I honestly don't care what NHL coaches and scouts think (and that includes Starman). The NHL game and the college game are different; what is good for the NHL is not necessarily good for the college game. Boston College uses a similar style to what we used to use and has won 4 NCAA titles in 13 years. North Dakota now uses a very NHL-esque system and has a 1-5 record in the Frozen Four (including some very lopsided losses to Boston College). And it is impossible not to make the obvious comparison between the two programs and how they build their teams when they have faced off so many times on the biggest stage in college hockey. I guess I always wonder what might have happened if Hakstol had loosened up just a little bit when we had blue chippers like Toews, Oshie and Duncan without being sloppy on the defensive end. It could have made a difference, but we'll never know. I do think Hakstol should get another 4-5 years to bring home an NCAA title, but if it doesn't happen, this topic will come back with a vengeance.

When Hakstol took over back in 2004, we were all told that the average fan (not an expert) wouldn't notice a difference in style of play between a Blais coached team and a Hakstol coached team. That turned out to be false. Hakstol's dump and chase, cycle-cycle-cycle system hasn't worked in the NCAA tournament. The 1-5 record in the Frozen Four proves that. But nice try clouding the issue. And please don't hurt yourself over this; it's just a game!

That's a false choice question.

This is part of the problem I have with Hakstol. He inherited a program from Dean Blais that was built on "smaller, quicker forwards" and he turned it into an NHL-style dump and chase trapping team. In short, he inherited a Porsche and drove it like a Pinto. When I point this out in our various discussions on this forum, I get snarky comments about how "College Hockey today is about goaltending and defense, take it or leave it". Well, I don't think Jerry York got that memo because he builds his teams the way WE used to. We won two NCAA titles and a boatload of WCHA titles with that style. And I honestly think if Blais hadn't gotten the itch to coach in the NHL and had stuck around, we would have at least two more NCAA title banners hanging in the rafters of REA. You can call that "living in the past" if you want, but I truly believe that. The brutal truth of the matter is this: Boston College collects NCAA title trophies, while we collect bridesmaid dresses. Some people are okay with that, I am not. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'll give them props for overachieving and getting further than anyone expected even if they lose on Thursday. And I will remain a loyal fan of the team, like I have been since I was about 6 years old.

That seems fair to me. And if the boys do pull it off next week, I will come on here and give them all the props they deserve.

Okay, I think I know where this is headed. First of all, I never said I was anything more than a fan of UND (athletics, academics, research). And this fan cares deeply about how successful UND is at those things. And I don't see how being passionate about UND is a bad thing just because I am willing to step up to the plate and say things that I feel need to be said. Second of all, no I didn't play sports growing up. I had some medical issues that prevented me from doing so. I am thinking I would have played either hockey or football if I had been able to play. And lastly, no I do not have kids. And I am not sure what those things have to do with what is posted on this forum. If you are implying that my opinions mean zilch because I didn't play sports growing up or don't have kids, then you should lobby the administrators to limit posting privileges to people that have played organized team sports and/or have kids that do. Otherwise, you aren't going to be satisfied with what is posted on here by me and others that don't pass your litmus tests.

I would, except my blood pressure goes through the roof whenever I read all the garbage posted on that forum.

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.