Coaching Change

[yzerman19]

MIke Eaves 1977 as player, 2006 as coach

[82SiouxGuy]

Or you can say that just because someone was a great player does not make them a great coach. Gretzky is a great example. Does anyone know if any coach who won a national title won one as a player?

I'm pretty sure Gwozdecky won as a player and a coach also. There are probably others. But believing that Hakstol can't win a title as a coach because he didn't win as a player is a fallacy.

[Sodbuster]

Oh, crap, I don't know what to think. Like I've said before, I'm 61 years old, and I just want them to win one more before I croak.

[watchmaker49]

MIke Eaves 1977 as player, 2006 as coach

Thanks.

[watchmaker49]

I'm pretty sure Gwozdecky won as a player and a coach also. There are probably others. But believing that Hakstol can't win a title as a coach because he didn't win as a player is a fallacy.

Past being a true statement.

[watchmaker49]

Oh, crap, I don't know what to think. Like I've said before, I'm 61 years old, and I just want them to win one more before I croak.

Unless you die young you will.

[Sodbuster]

Unless you die young you will.

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.

[Hayduke]

Did Blais win a national title as a player at Minnesota? Gasparini at UND? Lucia at Notre Dame? York at BC? (The answer is the same for all.) Just because you don't win a national title as a player doesn't seem to be a factor in winning national titles as a coach. Can we at least drop that argument?

I never said it did.

[82SiouxGuy]

I never said it did.

You asked a question, whether winning as a player translated to the ability to win as a coach. I answered the question by proving that there is no correlation between winning as a player and winning as a coach. My last sentence referred to the entire group that seems to think that the reason that Hak hasn't won a title is because he doesn't have experience winning titles. That argument doesn't hold any water and should be dropped by everyone.

[MoSiouxFan]

There is mounting evidence that there is perhaps a greater degree of parity in Division I hockey than there has ever been before. Look at all the No. 1 seeds in the NCAA that have been defeated by No. 4 seeds. As a general rule, that did not happen decades ago. And, just as a matter of comparison, how long did Michigan go without a national title under the direction of coach Red Berenson (I'm not criticizing Red--I think he's one of the great college hockey coaches of all time)? Didn't Michigan win a title in the mid-60s and then go all the way up until the mid-90s or so before winning another title, and then a second title shortly after that? Should Berenson have been fired sometime in the interim? Come on. Note also Minnesota coach Don Lucia's comments about the parity and the competition getting stiff. I know, I know: There's a deep unrest in Gopherland for the same reason. Let's be realistic: I don't think at this point firing Hakstol is the answer we are looking for. As I recall in the semifinal game with Michigan the year Minnesota-Duluth won the title, the pipes were the Michigan goalie's best friend in that game. There are a lot of fine Division I hockey programs out there. Just because Hak hasn't yet been the head coach of a national champion is no reason to fire him. It seems that this is turning into a "what have you done for me lately" bitch. Have people forgotten the late sports writer Grantland Rice's admonition something to the effect that it's not that one wins or loses, but it's how they played the game. As for the Kelly Green and White men's hockey teams collectively under Hakstol, oh, how they played the game. As for me, I'm very proud of the way UND has played the game.

Agree. Good post.