Sioux vs. Gophers

[JohnboyND7]

Forwarding this to all my delusional Notre Dame friends immediately.

Thanks MafiaMan

I am a big Irish fan. Must say I don't know any delusional fans anymore. The delusional ones were the bandwagon ones who stuck around a tad longer because Notre Dame generally rocks at football. But with Notre Dame still being pretty average, the delusional ones are gone. And now it is just to sad people like me left to cry after yet another 5-6 loss season.

[jimdahl]

Seven of fifteen was obscene, seven of nineteen is still well above the expected 25%. BC is on an incredible roll both this season and really for almost 15 years.

For Sioux fans of a certain age, it's easy to see why there's a little playoff angst these days. By my quick count:

1980-2001:

UND was 12-2 (86%) in 7 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 5 NCs (71%)

2005-2012:

UND was 1-5 (16%) in 5 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 0 NCs (0%)

In reality, random streaks occur and times change, but Sioux fans had become pretty accustomed to winning it all if we made the Frozen Four until the past decade. In that 80-01 streak, there were also only 3 seasons that the Sioux made the tournament and missed the Frozen Four. Again, a tournament appearance had a better than 50/50 chance of winning it all.

[Irish]

For Sioux fans of a certain age, it's easy to see why there's a little playoff angst these days. By my quick count:

1980-2001:

UND was 12-2 (86%) in 7 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 5 NCs (71%)

2005-2012:

UND was 1-5 (16%) in 5 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 0 NCs (0%)

In reality, random streaks occur and times change, but Sioux fans had become pretty accustomed to winning it all if we made the Frozen Four until the past decade. In that 80-01 streak, there were also only 3 seasons that the Sioux made the tournament and missed the Frozen Four. Again, a tournament appearance had a better than 50/50 chance of winning it all.

When you say 2005 - 2012, you really mean under Hakstol

It's hard for me to separate my admiration for this team from my intense desire to start winning championships again

WE used to be Boston College - the team that won more than anyone else

Time to get this going again

[talksalot83]

For Sioux fans of a certain age, it's easy to see why there's a little playoff angst these days. By my quick count:

1980-2001:

UND was 12-2 (86%) in 7 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 5 NCs (71%)

2005-2012:

UND was 1-5 (16%) in 5 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 0 NCs (0%)

In reality, random streaks occur and times change, but Sioux fans had become pretty accustomed to winning it all if we made the Frozen Four until the past decade. In that 80-01 streak, there were also only 3 seasons that the Sioux made the tournament and missed the Frozen Four. Again, a tournament appearance had a better than 50/50 chance of winning it all.

To be fair, you're comparing a 21-year span to a 7-year span. I'm not saying it's not accurate by any means. For the 21-year span you're averaging a little over one national title every four years. If you're comparing the two, then I suppose some fans should be bent that the Sioux haven't won two in eight years.

[MoSiouxFan]

For Sioux fans of a certain age, it's easy to see why there's a little playoff angst these days. By my quick count:

1980-2001:

UND was 12-2 (86%) in 7 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 5 NCs (71%)

2005-2012:

UND was 1-5 (16%) in 5 Frozen Four appearances, of which they won 0 NCs (0%)

In reality, random streaks occur and times change, but Sioux fans had become pretty accustomed to winning it all if we made the Frozen Four until the past decade. In that 80-01 streak, there were also only 3 seasons that the Sioux made the tournament and missed the Frozen Four. Again, a tournament appearance had a better than 50/50 chance of winning it all.

Just curious as to why you left out 2002-2004.

[jimdahl]

To be fair, you're comparing a 21-year span to a 7-year span. I'm not saying it's not accurate by any means. For the 21-year span you're averaging a little over one national title every four years. If you're comparing the two, then I suppose some fans should be bent that the Sioux haven't won two in eight years.

For titles/year (or years/title), you're absolutely right that the two aren't comparable. However, the discussion I was trying to join was Sagard's comment on UND's success rate once the Sioux make the Frozen Four. For that purpose, I intentionally chose the inflection points (e.g. the record was also noticably worse pre-1980). I was trying to highlight how there's a generation of Sioux fans who became accustomed to not losing in the Frozen Four.

Just curious as to why you left out 2002-2004.

No Frozen Four appearances. I started trying to organize it by coach, since that's the frequent topic of discussion, but decided the natural clusters made an even better point. It would be even more dramatic if we broke up the natural clustering and made the split at 2000 instead. 1980-2000 would be 11-1 with 5 NCs from 6 appearances, while 2001-2012 would be 2-6 with 0 NCs in 6 appearances.

[fightingsioux4life]

When you say 2005 - 2012, you really mean under Hakstol

It's hard for me to separate my admiration for this team from my intense desire to start winning championships again

WE used to be Boston College - the team that won more than anyone else

Time to get this going again

Agree with you 100%. I am not in the "Fire Hakstol" camp, that is foolish and impulsive thinking. But it is totally fair to look at the performance of the team in the Frozen Four under Hakstol (especially in the 2006-2008 time frame) and be somewhat critical of how this team performed on the biggest stage in the sport. It's easy to forget that we are dealing with 18-22 year olds being thrust into a harsh spotlight, with all the media and pressure to perform. And I believe that one of the things that the coaching staff is responsible for is doing what it takes to prepare the team for this environment so that they can perform up to their skill levels. That was absent from 2006-2008. And it is totally fair to point that out as a reoccurring problem.

NCAA titles are not everything, but they are important to putting a program on the map. Let's face it, nobody remembers or cares about who finishes second. And people care even less about programs that are happy "just being there". Hakstol did a great job with this year's team and all the problems that sprung up, but he'll never reach the iconic status that Gino and Blaiser did until he adds some NCAA hardware to the trophy case. Fair or not, that is the standard at North Dakota. And I think Hak, deep down, understands that.

[mizzou/sioux]

Im not even sure those stats are correct anymore. They were true when I made the sig years ago but i think Michigan may have passed us with these crappy years we just went through.

Not certain if I heard the game announcers correctly but I believe that prior to this year's 2012 NCAA tourney that UND (of teams playing 15 or more games in the NCAA tournament) had the best winning percentage of any team at .667. I'm certain it's higher than Michigan's or Minnesota's. Both Michigan and Minnesota have more NCAA tourney wins as well as games played than we have, but UND has a better winning percentage. We also have a better NCAA winning percentage than Boston College for those who are interested.

[buckysieve]

Not certain if I heard the game announcers correctly but I believe that prior to this year's 2012 NCAA tourney that UND (of teams playing 15 or more games in the NCAA tournament) had the best winning percentage of any team at .667. I'm certain it's higher than Michigan's or Minnesota's. Both Michigan and Minnesota have more NCAA tourney wins as well as games played than we have, but UND has a better winning percentage. We also have a better NCAA winning percentage than Boston College for those who are interested.

I think that's correct as well. But I only like stats that make my team look good.

[mizzou/sioux]

For titles/year (or years/title), you're absolutely right that the two aren't comparable. However, the discussion I was trying to join was Sagard's comment on UND's success rate once the Sioux make the Frozen Four. For that purpose, I intentionally chose the inflection points (e.g. the record was also noticably worse pre-1980). I was trying to highlight how there's a generation of Sioux fans who became accustomed to not losing in the Frozen Four.

If I recall correctly, UND went into the NCAA Frozen Four title game five times (1980, 1982, 1987, 1997 and 2000), thereby winning five national title games in a row in the title games played in. UND went from having a 2-3 record in national title games prior to 1979-80 to 7-3 following the 2000 national championship game. I quite agree that for those who were around in the 1980s, comparably speaking there has been a title drought lately. Consider this, however. Michigan won six of the first nine NCAA titles (from 1948 through 1956), then didn't win the next one until 1964, given the Wolverines seven total at that time. Michigan had six titles before UND had any. Going back to Michigan, Michigan then went titleless all the way until 1996. That's a 24-year gap between national titles. I think collegiate hockey is better than ever with competition stronger than ever before. This year both Michigan and Denver were eliminated in the first round, teams that have 16 national crowns between them. Considering the fact that UND was eight points behind the Gophers from right at the get-go after being swept on the road by both Wisconsin and Minnesota and in a sense never a true challenger for the regular season WCHA title, and considering the injury situation, I think Hak and his staff did a simply superb and workmanlike job at rallying the troops and turning a rebuilding season into one that given a break or two (especially against the Gophers on Sunday) could possibly have been playing in the national title game, Boston College nothwithstanding.

No Frozen Four appearances. I started trying to organize it by coach, since that's the frequent topic of discussion, but decided the natural clusters made an even better point. It would be even more dramatic if we broke up the natural clustering and made the split at 2000 instead. 1980-2000 would be 11-1 with 5 NCs from 6 appearances, while 2001-2012 would be 2-6 with 0 NCs in 6 appearances.

[mizzou/sioux]

Should probably correct my post. My paragraph in response to Jim Dahl post beginning in Post #385 should begin with "If I recall correctly" and ends with "Boston College notwithstanding." I must have hit a wrong button since my comments were interspersed with Jim's. Sorry.

[mizzou/sioux]

I think that's correct as well. But I only like stats that make my team look good.

I appreciate your honesty, buckysieve. I believe I've been known myself at times to have "selective perception," so I won't hold it against you.