NCAA Hockey Scores and Updates (Non-Sioux)

[talksalot83]

A couple of questions for everyone who thinks "just being there" is good enough: If we had ZERO NCAA titles right now, would our program still be considered "great" and "storied"? Another question, if Jerry York and Boston College were still looking for their first NCAA title since 1949, would they still be considered a "great" program? My answer to both is a big, resounding NO. If your answer is yes, you must be a Buffalo Bills fan.

I can't speak for everyone, but this is how I see it. Would I love to see a NC (or two) in the near future? Heck yeah, absolutely! But I like that we contend for it very frequently. I enjoy watching the team win the MacNaughton and the Broadmoor. To me, winning the NC isn't the end all and be all. If Hakstol's teams weren't contending, if they weren't bringing home any hardware at all then I could see why people would be incredibly upset.

I also think about this program in terms of the players and not just as players, but as students too. Every single team is different with different players and dynamics when there's a four-year rotation and players leaving after one or a few seasons that changes dynamics.

I don't believe Hakstol is going anywhere.

[tnt]

Gino had 3 titles in 8 years from 1980 to 1987 and it could have been 4 in 9 years (we finished Runner-Up to the Rodents in 1979). And I think we made it to the Frozen Four in 1984 and 1985. Blais took us to three Frozen Fours (1997, 2000 and 2001) and won two of them (1997 and 2000) with a Runner-Up finish in 2001. The 1998 and 1999 teams were one win short of the Frozen Four.

Irish is right; we used to cash in on our chances at the Frozen Four. Now "just getting there" is all that matters to most of us, which is a shame. Hakstol did a great job with this year's team; now it's time to cash in the next time we "get there" and have the horses to get it done (we just didn't have enough pieces this year).

A couple of questions for everyone who thinks "just being there" is good enough: If we had ZERO NCAA titles right now, would our program still be considered "great" and "storied"? Another question, if Jerry York and Boston College were still looking for their first NCAA title since 1949, would they still be considered a "great" program? My answer to both is a big, resounding NO. If your answer is yes, you must be a Buffalo Bills fan.

People want to win National Championships, but the question is what do you propose when we are not, firing Hakstol? I think that if you keep putting yourself in the position, you will sooner or later break through, much like Jerry York did with BC. If BC didn't remain patient with York, they would not be on the run they are on. Remember, if BC wins it this year, they will have followed up winning the Worcester regional into winning the NC for their last four titles. Having those regionals in your backyard all the time gives you that many more opportunities at getting to the Frozen Four, and they have taken full advantage when they get there. Michigan has had the same advantage many times with close regionals, but they haven't taken advantage for quite some time. Do we propose that Michigan fire Berenson? I guess most of us want to have UND win the NC as much as anyone, but constant complaining doesn't do any good, and if you propose firing a coach that has done a good job but just hasn't gotten over the hump, you never know, you might be missing out on a Jerry York type run as well, or possibly get a coach who will revert the program back by taking away the traditions that have kept players supporting this program long after they have left.

[fightingsioux4life]

I can't speak for everyone, but this is how I see it. Would I love to see a NC (or two) in the near future? Heck yeah, absolutely! But I like that we contend for it very frequently. I enjoy watching the team win the MacNaughton and the Broadmoor. To me, winning the NC isn't the end all and be all. If Hakstol's teams weren't contending, if they weren't bringing home any hardware at all then I could see why people would be incredibly upset.

I also think about this program in terms of the players and not just as players, but as students too. Every single team is different with different players and dynamics when there's a four-year rotation and players leaving after one or a few seasons that changes dynamics.

I don't believe Hakstol is going anywhere.

I never, ever said that NCAA titles are the end all and be all of anything. But the idea that they are not at all important (like the Hobey Baker award) is just plain wrong and not consistent with the standards that have been set for this program for the past 50 years or so. And I agree, Hakstol isn't going anywhere, especially after the job he and his staff did this season.

By the way, Boston College has had players leave early and it doesn't seem to affect them all that much.

[siouxforce19]

I never, ever said that NCAA titles are the end all and be all of anything. But the idea that they are not at all important (like the Hobey Baker award) is just plain wrong and not consistent with the standards that have been set for this program for the past 50 years or so. And I agree, Hakstol isn't going anywhere, especially after the job he and his staff did this season.

By the way, Boston College has had players leave early and it doesn't seem to affect them all that much.

No one said BC didn't have players leave early. But there are some programs that can minimize those losses, and BC is one of them. And usually, it's not a mass exodus. It's one or two every year, maybe. Overall, the top teams in the country the last few years have remained the same. The teams that reload are always a factor.

[talksalot83]

I never, ever said that NCAA titles are the end all and be all of anything. But the idea that they are not at all important (like the Hobey Baker award) is just plain wrong and not consistent with the standards that have been set for this program for the past 50 years or so. And I agree, Hakstol isn't going anywhere, especially after the job he and his staff did this season.

By the way, Boston College has had players leave early and it doesn't seem to affect them all that much.

Never said that you thought the NC was the end all and be all, I just said that I don't believe it is. I don't think they're not important, I just think they're one more thing to try to achieve. And you're right, all other teams have players come and go, but there are different individuals (players) involved in every shake up for every team. With the exception of BC's recent run and success, it's hard to predict who might come out on top with the NC. It's obvious that, for some reason, Jerry York has been able to figure out how to work his own style. That doesn't mean that Hakstol is a bad coach in my eyes.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I want to see the players win some games, get some hardware, compete for the big one, build character and skill. But most importantly, I want them to get an education (whatever that means to them) while they play at UND. That's success for me.

[siouxforce19]

Gino had 3 titles in 8 years from 1980 to 1987 and it could have been 4 in 9 years (we finished Runner-Up to the Rodents in 1979). And I think we made it to the Frozen Four in 1984 and 1985. Blais took us to three Frozen Fours (1997, 2000 and 2001) and won two of them (1997 and 2000) with a Runner-Up finish in 2001. The 1998 and 1999 teams were one win short of the Frozen Four.

Irish is right; we used to cash in on our chances at the Frozen Four. Now "just getting there" is all that matters to most of us, which is a shame. Hakstol did a great job with this year's team; now it's time to cash in the next time we "get there" and have the horses to get it done (we just didn't have enough pieces this year).

A couple of questions for everyone who thinks "just being there" is good enough: If we had ZERO NCAA titles right now, would our program still be considered "great" and "storied"? Another question, if Jerry York and Boston College were still looking for their first NCAA title since 1949, would they still be considered a "great" program? My answer to both is a big, resounding NO. If your answer is yes, you must be a Buffalo Bills fan.

The sooner more of us realize that the landscape of college hockey has changed and stop living in the past, the sooner more of us can come to terms with how difficult it is to win the NCAA title. You think it's easy to go to five frozen four's in eight years? It's not. There are what? 58 teams in college hockey and only 4 are playing the final weekend. Parity is a lot greater across the country as a whole because the game has grown so much in the last 10-20 years.

And the reality is every good team needs a little bit of luck and things to go their way.

[fightingsioux4life]

People want to win National Championships, but the question is what do you propose when we are not, firing Hakstol? I think that if you keep putting yourself in the position, you will sooner or later break through, much like Jerry York did with BC. If BC didn't remain patient with York, they would not be on the run they are on. Remember, if BC wins it this year, they will have followed up winning the Worcester regional into winning the NC for their last four titles. Having those regionals in your backyard all the time gives you that many more opportunities at getting to the Frozen Four, and they have taken full advantage when they get there. Michigan has had the same advantage many times with close regionals, but they haven't taken advantage for quite some time. Do we propose that Michigan fire Berenson? I guess most of us want to have UND win the NC as much as anyone, but constant complaining doesn't do any good, and if you propose firing a coach that has done a good job but just hasn't gotten over the hump, you never know, you might be missing out on a Jerry York type run as well, or possibly get a coach who will revert the program back by taking away the traditions that have kept players supporting this program long after they have left.

You guys are great at putting words into my mouth. I have NEVER been in the "Fire Hakstol" camp. All I have ever said is that it is totally fair to criticize some of our performances in the Frozen Four during Hak's tenure. Some people on here think that is inappropriate. I must respectfully disagree. When you make as much money as Hakstol and his staff does, you should expect a certain level of criticism and scrutiny. But it's gotten to the point on this forum that unless you stick with the "In Hak We Trust" motto at all times, you get raked over the hot coals. It's either sign the "duckies and bunnies" pledge or get ripped as a bad fan. It is really sad how soft our fan base has gotten over the past 10 years.

And I am sorry if you think I am complaining too much, but those are the standards at UND (it's been that way since Gino built his dynasty in the 1980s) and I like having those standards. Otherwise, you will never achieve greatness. We as fans should not have to apologize for having high expectations. Without those expectations, we might as well start hanging banners for NCAA tournament appearances and Frozen Four appearances.

[talksalot83]

You guys are great at putting words into my mouth.

Not sure if I'm part of the "you guys," but I've never tried to say what I think you believe. I simply responded to how I feel about the idea of winning a national championship. I realize that my feelings are not the same as other's, but that's OK with me. I know what constitutes as success for me and, to be honest, I'm not sure anyone needs to justify their feelings. If someone believes that NCs are the measure of success that he/she deems acceptable then that's just fine.

[brianvf]

I never, ever said that NCAA titles are the end all and be all of anything. But the idea that they are not at all important (like the Hobey Baker award) is just plain wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen a single fan of UND (or any other team for that matter) say that a national title is not important.

[fightingsioux4life]

No one said BC didn't have players leave early. But there are some programs that can minimize those losses, and BC is one of them. And usually, it's not a mass exodus. It's one or two every year, maybe. Overall, the top teams in the country the last few years have remained the same. The teams that reload are always a factor.

The sooner more of us realize that the landscape of college hockey has changed and stop living in the past, the sooner more of us can come to terms with how difficult it is to win the NCAA title. You think it's easy to go to five frozen four's in eight years? It's not. There are what? 58 teams in college hockey and only 4 are playing the final weekend. Parity is a lot greater across the country as a whole because the game has grown so much in the last 10-20 years.

And the reality is every good team needs a little bit of luck and things to go their way.

First of all, why can't our program minimize our losses the way Boston College does? What more do you want than what we have? The best arena in North America, maybe the WORLD, with every amenity you could think of. A long line of NHL-calibre blue-chip players that have come through here since The Ralph opened. A total institutional committment to the program you don't have at every school. A rabid and passionate fan and alumni base. Short of paying players under the table, we have it all.

Second of all, I will agree that all teams have bad luck in the playoffs from time to time. But when you get to the Frozen Four 5 out of 8 years and you lose in the semifinals 4 of those years, you simply cannot blame it all on "bad luck". Our performances in the 2006 and 2007 Frozen Fours were absolutely awful and are totally legitimate targets for criticism. Didn't Ralph Engelstad believe that "The harder I work, the luckier I get"? I think that phrase is on a plaque hanging in the entrance of The Ralph right now. And I think it is especially relevant to this topic.

Thirdly, I agree that the talent level of college hockey is off the charts and is getting better and better with no real significant increase in the number of teams sponsoring the sport. That being said, if the "landscape of college hockey" makes it "almost impossible" to win an NCAA title anymore, why does Boston College win the national title every other year? Why don't they run into "hot goalies" in the NCAA tournament? Why don't we have a different champion every year? If it's sooooo competitive, we really should have a different champion almost every single year. The fact is (and I don't like it any more than anyone else on this forum), Jerry York and Boston College get it done when they have the team to get it done and our program no longer does. I am a season-ticket holder and I have followed this team since I was 6 years old and I will continue to follow this team through thick and thin, but I simply have to call it like I see it.

The bottom line is, I don't want our program to become like those NCAA basketball programs who can only hope for conference championships and maybe one or two wins in the NCAA tournament. The landscape of college hockey is changing, with the Big Ten Conference and the NCHC coming online in a couple of years, and I don't want UND to get left behind. Winning NCAA titles is one sure-fire way to keep an edge on some of these so-called "big time" schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and so on. Otherwise, we'll become known as a once-great program that just doesn't have the goods to win big anymore. And that would be a sad, sad day.

[fightingsioux4life]

Not sure if I'm part of the "you guys," but I've never tried to say what I think you believe. I simply responded to how I feel about the idea of winning a national championship. I realize that my feelings are not the same as other's, but that's OK with me. I know what constitutes as success for me and, to be honest, I'm not sure anyone needs to justify their feelings. If someone believes that NCs are the measure of success that he/she deems acceptable then that's just fine.

Okay, that is fair. I was responding to someone else with that comment, not you.

[gfhockey]

i wouldnt mind coaching changes ifit brings us a a couple ncaa titles

[gfhockey]

First of all, why can't our program minimize our losses the way Boston College does? What more do you want than what we have? The best arena in North America, maybe the WORLD, with every amenity you could think of. A long line of NHL-calibre blue-chip players that have come through here since The Ralph opened. A total institutional committment to the program you don't have at every school. A rabid and passionate fan and alumni base. Short of paying players under the table, we have it all.

Second of all, I will agree that all teams have bad luck in the playoffs from time to time. But when you get to the Frozen Four 5 out of 8 years and you lose in the semifinals 4 of those years, you simply cannot blame it all on "bad luck". Our performances in the 2006 and 2007 Frozen Fours were absolutely awful and are totally legitimate targets for criticism. Didn't Ralph Engelstad believe that "The harder I work, the luckier I get"? I think that phrase is on a plaque hanging in the entrance of The Ralph right now. And I think it is especially relevant to this topic.

Thirdly, I agree that the talent level of college hockey is off the charts and is getting better and better with no real significant increase in the number of teams sponsoring the sport. That being said, if the "landscape of college hockey" makes it "almost impossible" to win an NCAA title anymore, why does Boston College win the national title every other year? Why don't they run into "hot goalies" in the NCAA tournament? Why don't we have a different champion every year? If it's sooooo competitive, we really should have a different champion almost every single year. The fact is (and I don't like it any more than anyone else on this forum), Jerry York and Boston College get it done when they have the team to get it done and our program no longer does. I am a season-ticket holder and I have followed this team since I was 6 years old and I will continue to follow this team through thick and thin, but I simply have to call it like I see it.

The bottom line is, I don't want our program to become like those NCAA basketball programs who can only hope for conference championships and maybe one or two wins in the NCAA tournament. The landscape of college hockey is changing, with the Big Ten Conference and the NCHC coming online in a couple of years, and I don't want UND to get left behind. Winning NCAA titles is one sure-fire way to keep an edge on some of these so-called "big time" schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and so on. Otherwise, we'll become known as a once-great program that just doesn't have the goods to win big anymore. And that would be a sad, sad day.

Caus man, 98% of sioux fans cant take off there green shades and put down the kool aid

[sagard]

I think BC being the only game in town out east is really paying off for them. York pretty much seems to pick his team, then the rest make do with the scraps.

[Let'sGoHawks!]

I think BC being the only game in town out east is really paying off for them. York pretty much seems to pick his team, then the rest make do with the scraps.

York has the college hockey success formula mastered.

As far as Hak goes, I think he has learned a lot since he started as a head coach at UND. He played college hockey in a different era, what worked then doesn't work now. The game has changed. I think he continues to learn each year what it takes to be successful, and it is quite possible he gets on a nice run where he wins 2 titles in a span of 4-5 years.

[MafiaMan]

I think BC being the only game in town out east is really paying off for them. York pretty much seems to pick his team, then the rest make do with the scraps.

I think BU gets its fair share of players too. After that, it's up-for-grabs.

[passit_offthegoalie]

York has the college hockey success formula mastered.

As far as Hak goes, I think he has learned a lot since he started as a head coach at UND. He played college hockey in a different era, what worked then doesn't work now. The game has changed. I think he continues to learn each year what it takes to be successful, and it is quite possible he gets on a nice run where he wins 2 titles in a span of 4-5 years.

Agree with everything you said.

York gets to pick from some great players, but I also think he's at the point where he can just plug guys in his system as long as they are quick and handy with the puck.

I don't think he needs to have a powerhouse group of talent to get to the frozen four and win.

I think Hakstol is getting into that territory. Just look at this year, for proof. Hopefully, it will all fall into place for him and us before long.

[jodcon]

When you have the best program and the best coach in the whole eastern US where the population is, you can attract and cherry-pick pretty much whoever you want.

You have to take your hat off to York, he has it figured out.

[Goon]

I think BC being the only game in town out east is really paying off for them. York pretty much seems to pick his team, then the rest make do with the scraps.

Lets not forget that Jerry York is a hall of fame coach with 912 wins on his resume, that is pretty impressive in anyone's book. Lets also not forget that Jerry York is 66 years old and has been coaching since 1972-73 and didn't win his first NCAA title until his 12th season and didn't win another title for 17 years.

[MafiaMan]

When you have the best program and the best coach in the whole eastern US where the population is, you can attract and cherry-pick pretty much whoever you want.

You have to take your hat off to York, he has it figured out.

As much as I hate Boston College and those ugly new faux-back third jerseys...you're right. BC won the title in 1949...and didn't make a championship game appearance again until 1998. That's 49 years between title game appearances. It's incredible what Jerry York has done during his tenure there.

[Sodbuster]

Any BC underclassmen a threat to leave school early after tomorrow's game?

[SiouxForever]

Any BC underclassmen a threat to leave school early after tomorrow's game?

Chris Kreider I think is a junior, will be gone for sure.

[GFG]

First of all, why can't our program minimize our losses the way Boston College does? What more do you want than what we have? The best arena in North America, maybe the WORLD, with every amenity you could think of. A long line of NHL-calibre blue-chip players that have come through here since The Ralph opened. A total institutional committment to the program you don't have at every school. A rabid and passionate fan and alumni base. Short of paying players under the table, we have it all.

Second of all, I will agree that all teams have bad luck in the playoffs from time to time. But when you get to the Frozen Four 5 out of 8 years and you lose in the semifinals 4 of those years, you simply cannot blame it all on "bad luck". Our performances in the 2006 and 2007 Frozen Fours were absolutely awful and are totally legitimate targets for criticism. Didn't Ralph Engelstad believe that "The harder I work, the luckier I get"? I think that phrase is on a plaque hanging in the entrance of The Ralph right now. And I think it is especially relevant to this topic.

Thirdly, I agree that the talent level of college hockey is off the charts and is getting better and better with no real significant increase in the number of teams sponsoring the sport. That being said, if the "landscape of college hockey" makes it "almost impossible" to win an NCAA title anymore, why does Boston College win the national title every other year? Why don't they run into "hot goalies" in the NCAA tournament? Why don't we have a different champion every year? If it's sooooo competitive, we really should have a different champion almost every single year. The fact is (and I don't like it any more than anyone else on this forum), Jerry York and Boston College get it done when they have the team to get it done and our program no longer does. I am a season-ticket holder and I have followed this team since I was 6 years old and I will continue to follow this team through thick and thin, but I simply have to call it like I see it.

The bottom line is, I don't want our program to become like those NCAA basketball programs who can only hope for conference championships and maybe one or two wins in the NCAA tournament. The landscape of college hockey is changing, with the Big Ten Conference and the NCHC coming online in a couple of years, and I don't want UND to get left behind. Winning NCAA titles is one sure-fire way to keep an edge on some of these so-called "big time" schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and so on. Otherwise, we'll become known as a once-great program that just doesn't have the goods to win big anymore. And that would be a sad, sad day.

BC is able to minimize losses because they never bring in 15+ NHL draft picks at a single time like Minnesota and Nort Dakota do. They find very good players that weren't exactly NHL caliber and then mold them. It helps that all the players there buy into what they're coached as well.

[MafiaMan]

BC is able to minimize losses because they never bring in 15+ NHL draft picks at a single time like Minnesota and North Dakota do. They find very good players that weren't exactly NHL caliber and then mold them. It helps that all the players there buy into what they're coached as well.

I concur 100%.

Union College made it all the way to the Frozen Four with a roster made up primarily of freshman and sophomores. Oh, and not a single scholarship player. It can be done.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

So do you think people on here were melting down after that loss? Seriously?

Try to ignore him as he can't be taken seriously and is one of a couple of reasons I don't post here as often as I used to. He's the kind of guy who used to receive a regular wedgie before we were adults and now thinks it is okay to pretend he knows something about hockey.