GDPritch
-
Posts
1,585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by GDPritch
-
-
11 hours ago, hoops44 said:
Looks like Hobaugh and Cashman out of rotation...I would rather see Cashman in at the 5 vs Avants.
I agree 100% on Cashman over Avants for playing time in the front court, Cashman has not played now for like 2+ games. My understanding on that though is it will soon come out that it's to do with a non on the court issue. I believe that's so but don't quote me. It has to be something like that as Cashman, while not a super freshman, had a respectable first season for a big man on a not so good team last season. So, it makes no sense this season he would suddenly be riding the pine now 100% of the time (yeah, yeah I know Jones is the coach but ...).
-
12 hours ago, sioux24/7 said:
I am surprised at Shanks struggles at the line. Seems to have some good touch on the ball. I believe it was the NDSU game he had a couple nice passes from the post. My main gripes with Shanks are he's a 7 footer averaging under 4 boards a game and his attitude sometimes.
As much as I want to like Shanks and his shooting touch for a big guy, it hurts him too in that he's so weak. He gets bumped or fouled when shooting even when just under the basket and you can never count on him making the follow thru for a fg. The reason he struggles as the ft line, despite what appears to be a good touch is his emotional/psychological being. He's simply too emotional and wears it on his sleeves. I'm sure he's thinking way too much at the ft line when he shoots, hence likely will only be in the 50% to 60% range at best for ft's.
-
1. "Uh . . . isn't this using stats to mislead." No, absolutely not. The capitalized heading clearly indicates that the subsequent list contains North Dakota frozen four coaching records. That list, as a result, contains the undisputed frozen four records of every North Dakota hockey coach. The post does not include any personalized opinion derived from these undisputed, verifiable facts. The post is not misleading in any manner whatsoever.
2. "Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good." Fair, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But in my opinion, it's horrendous.
3. "that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he (sic) coached to get his team there." This is incorrect, too. The number immediately following each coach's name in the post indicates the number of frozen fours each coach has attended. For example, in Hakstol's case, the unequivocal reference to his all-time North Dakota record 7 frozen four appearances speaks volumes of his ability to succeed at the regional level.
4. "how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day". This is a good point, and one I often consider. However, this fact aids competing arguments and is a double edged sword for anyone who tries to use this argument to his or her advantage. Prior to 1977, the NCAA selected 4 teams to play in the NCAA tournament. So while there were less teams in the 1970s than there are today, if your team was not one of the arbitrary 4 to get selected, you didn't even get a chance to compete for a title. From 1977-1980 only 5-6 teams made the NCAA tournament. From 1981-1987, only 8 teams made the NCAA tournament. So similarly, while there were less opponents a team needed to defeat to make it to the frozen four, there were a lot less opportunities for teams to even make the NCAA tournament in the first place. For example, for anyone old enough to remember, think about UND hockey in 1983. UND was 21-13-2 and the frozen four was in Grand Forks. UND was infamously snubbed from the NCAA tournament. Interestingly, UND's winning percentage that year was equal to or better than 3 of Hakstol's 11 teams, all of which made the NCAA tournament due to the benefit of an expanded field.
5. "should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the frozen four more often?". Again, see above. UND followed up their 1982 NCAA title with a 21-13-2 record, which is better than or equal to 3 of Hakstol's NCAA tournament teams, and UND still missed the NCAA tournament in 1982 due to limited spots. Likewise, UND had a better winning percentage in 1969 than 5 of Hakstol's 11 teams, and again missed the NCAA tournament completely. Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four. That's right, 1990. So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four.
6. "A lot unsaid". No, the post is factually accurate, indisputable, and not misleading.
I never said the numbers were not accurate or indisputable (they're numbers) but obviously there's a purpose for the post. Not so much misleading, granted, as what the numbers by themselves may or may not say outside of the obvious. The numbers say Haks has coached the second most Frozen 4 games (second to Gino although Haks has been at UND 5 less years than him I think) and Haks has also lost the most Frozen 4 games. I just assumed looking at the post that you were on the fire Haks mission but perhaps I shouldn't of just assumed that then. Anyhow, curious, where do you sit on the fire Haks issue then? Should he stay or should he go? And if he should go, more importantly, who's a better coach to replace him?
-
Does the University of North Dakota really need a nickname? Do you really know the nicknames of other schools & does it really matter if they have a nickname. Most people don't know the nicknames anyhow. Ask your friends & family if they know the nicknames of the schools that we play in sports, especially hockey. I have been doing this & I am not surprised that people don't know the nicknames of the schools.
Without looking on the internet & not commenting, can you name the
...nicknames of the schools....
Denver
Colorado College
Omaha
Providence - they just won the frozen four & still didn't know
Ohio State
Penn State
St Cloud
Duluth
Miami of Ohio
RIT
Boston University
Boston College
Michigan State
Michigan
Mankato State
Michigan Tech
But if you ask they will know that it is Minnesota Gophers, Wisconsin Badgers & of course North Dakota Fighting Sioux.
Share this with others not from UND & you might be surprised at the results. Of course I might be surprised at the people who do know them. But my point is when we play these teams you don't ever hear anyone say we are playing the Bulldogs, no we are playing Duluth. So what is the real reason for a nickname? I would like someone to explain that to me.
Not to argue but while I may not refer to many of these schools sports teams by their nicknames I do know all of their nicknames save for RIT. I'm a pretty big sports fan so I might not be your best "sample" so to speak. And I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that perhaps UND doesn't even need a nickname.
-
Hmmmm
Trophy holder: UND won 28-21 on Oct. 18, 2003, in Grand Forks
Current streak: UND has won the last 3 nickel trophy competitions
Nickel-winning record: UND leads 35-30
All-time UND vs NDSU record: UND leads 62-45-3
UND has won 9 of the last 11 head to head.
But then again you don't care because there is no rivalry.
Fargodome, aka "Alerus Center South".
-
NORTH DAKOTA FROZEN FOUR COACHING RECORDS:
Gino Gasparini (5): 8-2
Dean Blais (3): 5-1
Bob May (2): 3-1
Barry Thorndycraft (1): 2-0
Bob Peters (1): 1-1
Bill Selman (2): 1-3
Dave Hakstol (7): 1-7
_____________________________
21-15
Uh, maybe it was posted already but isn't this using stats to mislead. Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good. However, that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he coached to get his team there, how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day prior to making the Frozen 4, and should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the Frozen 4 more often? A lot unsaid.
-
I can tell you what worked wonders for Eaves in 2006: having a regional AND the Frozen Four in Wisconsin.
Hmnnn...come to think of it, that worked out quite nicely for Don Lucia in 2002 too in Minnesota.
And with all due respect, Rick Comley was about to be run out of East Lansing before stumbling into that 2007 miracle-run title.
And no knock on Sandelin but he'd likely agree, what "worked best" for him in 2011 was the Sioux losing "cus of Haks coaching" (give me a break) to Mich in the opposite semi-final.
-
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.
Uh, he badly "coached" the Sioux players into hitting 2 pipes in the 2nd period and also badly "coached" Zane into giving up at least 2 goals that I'm sure he would like back. Yeah, blame the coaching. Hire (insert other coache's name here) and that bad "coaching" would not have happened. Can't make it up.
-
Because Oxford isn't Grand Forks and Miami doesn't have UND's tradition of championships and Blasi didn't take over a team whose previous two coaches had won 5 championships.
Oxford ain't GF? You're probably right if you poll 100 Americans, they would probably degrade GF vs comparison with an Ohio city/college town. U Mich has "tradition" but that ain't winning them many nattys in the last decade or two.
-
If he and his blue-chip teammates are not better than Union's or Providence's players when it counts why do we keep saying that UND recruits so well? What is the problem if we are getting so many high end, blue-chip kids year after year after year?
For the 23rd fricking time, college hockey is one and done! The NCAA doesn't do that in college baseball world series and for good reason. One game doesn't always prove anything.
-
Eli Manning or Payton Manning....Who you picking?
Brett Favre or Trent Dilfer.....Who you picking?
Peyton and Favre are both the better QB's, no doubt. Great point you make.
-
Their coaching history says otherwise and that you are completely 100% wrong. Once they get to the big game they get sprinkles on their dessert.
Yep, blame Haks "coaching" despite Zane letting in two or three goals he wish he had back and our players hitting two pipes in a dominant 2nd period. Yep, all Hak's fault, poor coaching.
-
1
-
-
I think the Grant comparison is pretty fair outside of the fact that football coaches have much more control over the outcomes of games than hockey coaches do.
I don't agree with the Mack Brown comparison though. It was pretty clear that Mack had reached the end of his coaching career before he left. He was in his sixties and hadn't won any conference hardware in 4 years. Mack is also in a sport where even the best players play 3 years in college and there is not any alternative routes like there is in football like their is in hockey with juniors. Plus that school pretty much recruits itself and always has.
Hak is still in his mid-40s and he's seems to continually be growing as a coach year after year. I don't think we have seen his best yet and that could be scary good for us.
I've said it once here, I'll say it again, it's still easier for a dominant/better football team (yes, there are exceptions sometimes e.g. turnovers) to win 1 game versus an inferior opponent than it is for such a hockey team to do the same against the other team in one game. That's why college hockey hould be playing more than one game to determine a champion, just like the NCAA does in baseball. It would be ludicrous to have college baseball teams play a one game "series" in their world series (which they don't) based on the nature/dynamics of the sport, no different than hockey.
-
I disagree with the whole parity argument. This is all about having both good goaltending and role players in your lineup, which is the downfall of the teams that load up with a bunch of #1 prima donna picks. I wonder how many more times the so called elite teams will have to get beaten in the playoffs by hard working blue collar teams that play better two way hockey before they figure this out. I remember a time with UND had real role players and those Sioux teams polished off plenty of better on paper teams. Have a great summer.
Respectfully disagree. Not an issue for the Sioux. The Sioux had great goaltending all season (Zane had two real bad games, game 1 vs Bem and final game vs BU, poor timing on the last one), have ample role players,.....along with talented players.
-
I was never overly impressed with Rocco either
He was certainly not Parise or Toews but he was still a very fine collegiate hockey player, nonetheless. I sure wish we had had him back this past season, no doubt. Admittedly, not sure how successful he'll be at the next level though?
-
Winning champinships requires a unique level of mental toughness, and an attitude of sacrifice, and not being entitled. Yes, the two programs are not apples to apples.
Cripes, touchy-touchy and I even praised the Herd. Point being one game does not justify establishing the better team in hockey (like in baseball), unlike football. Your statement can't be further from the truth.
-
In college hockey, yes, agree. I would assume so but to be honest, not sure?
-
When was the last time we had freshmen forward scoring a sizable portion of goals/points? Take a look at Omaha this season, some freshmen up there as their top point getters I believe. I'm guessing Grimaldi maybe most recently (?) but it seems we don't get much scoring anymore from freshmen forwards, while other teams seem to, or am I off on that?
-
They still play against teams with the same amount of scholarships and teams within the same classification like UND hockey.
And like D-II hoops, they get to play (albeit they earn it by being seeded high enough) all play-off games at home until the title game. That's a huge factor in play-off runs.
-
There was more to Rocky moving on then his on the field results but how ever you need to mold the story to help your cause.
With all the success we've had short of a natty the last 11 years, if Haks was only 2 games above .500 winning percentage, my guess is he would be fired too. At some schools that might earn an extension though.
-
What would the dynasty look like if the boys were playing DIII hockey? I only state that because the quality of players at the true pinnacle of college football is very different than those that play at UND and Bison level right now. I realize the Bison have come in and beat some FBS schools, bit they aren't exactly playing Alabama, Florida Ohio State, LSU, and USC.
Reminder to all that ndsu is playing at lower tier D1-AA ftbl level (they're damn good at it, I grant you that) with few NFL draft picks and not at the top tier college hockey level with NHL picks filling rosters. Not apples to apples.
-
The high amount of passion here indicates how much people care about this program. There is no doubt that Hak has recruited well and he and his teams work their butts off. Given the tournament success of his two predecessors, the million dollar question is - are we just the most unlucky program ever, or is there something we need to change? The games we have lost usually have a series of bad bounces, odd penalties, and weak goals - on the other hand in almost every game we get less than stellar goalie play and start out behind. I wish I knew the answer. I don't have any idea what is causing this. I do know that every frozen 4 year I have high expectations based on a different reason - this year we have a Hoby Baker finalist goalie or this year we have the best defense in the nation, or this year we have the best line in the country, or this year we are going in on a roll. Doesn't matter - results are the same and it is frustrating. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any idea what needs to change. I'm not in the fire Hak group, but as we see on this board, Sioux fans are not really the type to hang participation banners. I hope Hak figures it out soon.
well put Irish. I'm in the same boat thought-wise as you.
-
John Fox was fired after leading his team to a Super Bowl and NFCCG in back to back seasons.
Why? Because he couldn't close the deal! And in Denver it's Superbowl or bust. Not too crazy to expect the same with arguably the best college hockey team in the nation year in and year out.
We should be in the frozen four. Too much talent year after year not to be in it. Like someone else said...most of us could have gotten some of these teams to the frozen four. Time to hire someone who can WIN one.
Football is a much different game, even in a one and done scenario. In the playoffs in football I would venture to say the best team OR team that plays best wins 90% of the time. In one and done college hockey I would say that might be at best 65% maybe? And in football the "best" team during the regular season gets to play all games at home except for neutral site Super Bowl. That certainly ain't the case in college hockey. Completely different scenario, game, conditions and circumstances. Can't compare the two, not apples v apples.
-
The problem is who...and would they improve the results? Two things about Hakstol that nobody can argue with, he's been able to consistently recruit the best players in the country and he's been able to gain momentum almost every year going into the playoffs, although unfortunately it has fallen a game or two short. Could we realistically expect a new coach to be able to do those things? It would be a real risk unless there was somebody really proven looking to move, but those kind of guys don't jump around much.
It's not like we're talking about a coach who has stunk it up for 10 years, he wins at about a .650 clip and gets to the tournament every year, that's what makes it hard to think about replacing him. I'm as sick as anyone about these last 10 years and losing games to BC midgets and Michigan unconscious goalies and .6 Goofs and now BU PP's, I've about frickin had it with these NCAA letdowns, but I'm old enough to have gone through 2 stretches of real bad Sioux hockey teams and I have to tell you there is nothing worse than living through 6 or 7 years of that, and I'd hate to lose a coach who knows how to win games and risk being mediocre or worse again for a while.
I don't know what the answer is, I don't believe in jinxes but the Curse of the Bambino seems to be on this team right now.
Agree 100%. I'm being partially glib but is it the curse of the anti-nickname crowd against the new Ralph? I may be wrong but no natty since winning it all in 2000 (correct?) and moving into the new Ralph in 01 yet we've had arguably (up for debate, I realize being we haven't won a natty) since then maybe the best run 15 year continuous run ever for Fighting Sioux hockey ever (minus a natty, I hear ya!). Yes, Hak's had a terrible NCAA run luck-wise but even Dean had some really good teams 01 - 04 that seemed to hit a bad/unlucky streak in those 4 seasons. Not into karma (good or bad) but just saying. I mean, the way our luck has gone these last 15 years in the NCAA tourney, despite playing better than the other teams in well over half the games we've lost to end the season, with all the strange things going on it's really getting to be like WTH is going on here?
2015/16 Season
in Women's Basketball
Posted
Wow, pretty soon it will be fire Brew and not Jones. How things have changed since mid-season or so of last season. Yes, Lloyd sat for most of first qtr and other times but was in there a lot of the 2nd half and looked freaking lost in all aspects. Lil Red (Knox) was absolutely terrible against the press. And agree with earlier comments, we (Knox especially) kept it sloq in backcourt bringing it up like waiting for the double team/press then couldn't do anything to get out of it. Although Lloyd disappointed with just something like 5 pts and poor game Knox to me was the least valuable player. This is getting ugly. Way too many turnovers and only halfway decent outside shot on the team is Dyer. And why did #35 (freshman I think) for UND play so much?