NORTH DAKOTA vs. BEMIDJI STATE - Saturday SENIOR NIGHT

[Siouxman]

Hopefully we're the lucky one's this year, I am just not feeling overly confident.

I am 99.9999% sure (and thankful) the success of this team does not depend upon your feelings, but I understand. I have the same feelings. Actually, with the exception of Quinnipiac I don't feel there is a team out there the Sioux cannot beat. I exclude Quinnipiac because I have only seen them play part of one game. They appeared to be fast, but it could be their opponent was just slow. Looking over this season, there are many teams who looked almost unbeatable at times and since have fallen on tougher times. That includes BU, BC, Notre Dame, MN, and others. While MN hasn't exactly slumped, they haven't been a consistently dominating team either. This year appears to be much more wide open for anyone to take the grand prize. Even Michigan seems to have suddenly pulled it together and could go all the way if they win the CCHA tournament. More than anything, I think UND's goaltending needs to get it together for this team to make the run. They simply cannot get there with average or slightly above average goaltending.

[SJHovey]

I think people should just enjoy what we have. It's great to win a national championship, but if your season sucks everytime you don't, you're probably not going to have a lot of fun watching college hockey.

We might never win another national championship. Try rolling that over in your mind.

I wouldn't bet that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Some things to think about.

41 of the 59 D1 teams have never won one.

Michigan went 32 years after winning their 7th. They're in a 15 year drought now.

MN went the first 26 years of NCAA play without winning, then went 23 more years after the '79 championship. They're in a 10 year drought now.

DU went 35 years between #5 and #6.

BC went 52 years between championships.

Wisconsin went 16 years. On top of that, in the 23 years since winning the regular season title, tourney title and NCAA's in 1990, Wisco has won 1 McN, 2 Broadmoors and 1 NCAA title. We almost matched that in 2000 and 2001 alone.

And these are the best college hockey programs in history.

In that context, an absence from the final victory stand for 12-13 years doesn't seem so outlandish.

It's great to win that last game of the year, but I've found it's an even more enjoyable experience if you just try to relish watching young players come to UND and turn into very good hockey players in 3-4 short years.

[willythekid]

I think people should just enjoy what we have. It's great to win a national championship, but if your season sucks everytime you don't, you're probably not going to have a lot of fun watching college hockey.

We might never win another national championship. Try rolling that over in your mind.

I wouldn't bet that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Some things to think about.

41 of the 59 D1 teams have never won one.

Michigan went 32 years after winning their 7th. They're in a 15 year drought now.

MN went the first 26 years of NCAA play without winning, then went 23 more years after the '79 championship. They're in a 10 year drought now.

DU went 35 years between #5 and #6.

BC went 52 years between championships.

Wisconsin went 16 years. On top of that, in the 23 years since winning the regular season title, tourney title and NCAA's in 1990, Wisco has won 1 McN, 2 Broadmoors and 1 NCAA title. We almost matched that in 2000 and 2001 alone.

And these are the best college hockey programs in history.

In that context, an absence from the final victory stand for 12-13 years doesn't seem so outlandish.

It's great to win that last game of the year, but I've found it's an even more enjoyable experience if you just try to relish watching young players come to UND and turn into very good hockey players in 3-4 short years.

Very well said... sometimes as North Dakota fans we overlook how good we have it. Great program, great players, the BEST fans...

[BeazSioux]

I think people should just enjoy what we have. It's great to win a national championship, but if your season sucks everytime you don't, you're probably not going to have a lot of fun watching college hockey.

We might never win another national championship. Try rolling that over in your mind.

I wouldn't bet that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Some things to think about.

41 of the 59 D1 teams have never won one.

Michigan went 32 years after winning their 7th. They're in a 15 year drought now.

MN went the first 26 years of NCAA play without winning, then went 23 more years after the '79 championship. They're in a 10 year drought now.

DU went 35 years between #5 and #6.

BC went 52 years between championships.

Wisconsin went 16 years. On top of that, in the 23 years since winning the regular season title, tourney title and NCAA's in 1990, Wisco has won 1 McN, 2 Broadmoors and 1 NCAA title. We almost matched that in 2000 and 2001 alone.

And these are the best college hockey programs in history.

In that context, an absence from the final victory stand for 12-13 years doesn't seem so outlandish.

It's great to win that last game of the year, but I've found it's an even more enjoyable experience if you just try to relish watching young players come to UND and turn into very good hockey players in 3-4 short years.

Solid post

[crb1]

I think people should just enjoy what we have. It's great to win a national championship, but if your season sucks everytime you don't, you're probably not going to have a lot of fun watching college hockey.

We might never win another national championship. Try rolling that over in your mind.

I wouldn't bet that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Some things to think about.

41 of the 59 D1 teams have never won one.

Michigan went 32 years after winning their 7th. They're in a 15 year drought now.

MN went the first 26 years of NCAA play without winning, then went 23 more years after the '79 championship. They're in a 10 year drought now.

DU went 35 years between #5 and #6.

BC went 52 years between championships.

Wisconsin went 16 years. On top of that, in the 23 years since winning the regular season title, tourney title and NCAA's in 1990, Wisco has won 1 McN, 2 Broadmoors and 1 NCAA title. We almost matched that in 2000 and 2001 alone.

And these are the best college hockey programs in history.

In that context, an absence from the final victory stand for 12-13 years doesn't seem so outlandish.

It's great to win that last game of the year, but I've found it's an even more enjoyable experience if you just try to relish watching young players come to UND and turn into very good hockey players in 3-4 short years.

Good post and it really puts it into perspective. We are really lucky to have a good team year in and year out. As they say we don't rebuild we reload.

[tnt]

Very well said... sometimes as North Dakota fans we overlook how good we have it. Great program, great players, the BEST fans...

Yeah, just to have the playoffs here for 11 straight years is quite nice. Then you look at all the other factors that Schlossman has pointed out, like our 5 game winless streak which only included a few losses, and how the other programs all had multiple stretches like that. I love it when he points out factors like that because it makes a lot of the chronic complainers look so petty.

[geaux_sioux]

With all of that said we need to win another championship yesterday. This year would be nice. Two years from now we should have a nice team that could make a run at it also. This year seems like the year since there is no great team out there like 2011 when we were the great team. This year is a great opportunity to win one with a very good team which we have. Get it done and let the gophers choke.

[fightingsioux4life]

I think people should just enjoy what we have. It's great to win a national championship, but if your season sucks everytime you don't, you're probably not going to have a lot of fun watching college hockey.

We might never win another national championship. Try rolling that over in your mind.

I wouldn't bet that's the case, but it's certainly possible.

Some things to think about.

41 of the 59 D1 teams have never won one.

Michigan went 32 years after winning their 7th. They're in a 15 year drought now.

MN went the first 26 years of NCAA play without winning, then went 23 more years after the '79 championship. They're in a 10 year drought now.

DU went 35 years between #5 and #6.

BC went 52 years between championships.

Wisconsin went 16 years. On top of that, in the 23 years since winning the regular season title, tourney title and NCAA's in 1990, Wisco has won 1 McN, 2 Broadmoors and 1 NCAA title. We almost matched that in 2000 and 2001 alone.

And these are the best college hockey programs in history.

In that context, an absence from the final victory stand for 12-13 years doesn't seem so outlandish.

It's great to win that last game of the year, but I've found it's an even more enjoyable experience if you just try to relish watching young players come to UND and turn into very good hockey players in 3-4 short years.

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

[siouxweet]

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

couldn't have said it any better.

[burd]

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

Thoughtful post. I have a question that I'm not putting out there for a rhetorical purpose.

Would you give up watching the DOT line their last year for bounce or two against Michigan a couple of years ago and a banner (assume we win the final)?

[beebsb010]

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

Post of the year! Of course, the majority will hate it. Sioux Sports at its finest though..lol. Amen brother, Amen!

[jdub27]

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

You're arguing both sides here.

On one hand you are saying we have had too many "NHL talented players" to not win, then you follow it up by saying we should go away from that and have less talented players because they would stick around more and we'd win a national championship. You're saying the reason those teams should have won was because of all the talent on them but you think the answer is to have less talent on the team for guys that stick around, taking spots away from the guys with all talent that are the reason you think UND should have won a national championship in the last decade.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are many fans that don't think UND should have won a national championship over the last decade, but guess what, they haven't. A team only needs to run off 4 games in March to win a title, but you can't do that if you aren't in the tournament. There are very few teams that consistently put themself in position to do that and UND is one of them. If you can't see that, then you need to step back from the ledge and refocus.

[beebsb010]

Thoughtful post. I have a question that I'm not putting out there for a rhetorical purpose.

Would you give up watching the DOT line their last year for bounce or two against Michigan a couple of years ago and a banner (assume we win the final)?

In a HEARTBEAT I would. National titles are what success is measured by at UND. Plain and simple.

Especially since I liked the Trupp, Frattin, Malone team more than the Duncan, Oshie, Toews team. The Trupp, Frattin, Malone team is my favorite team of all time in the 15-20 years I've "passionately" watched (went to a few games as a kid, but didn't really start getting "passionate about them till around my Jr-Sr. year of h.s. in 96-97) this team and that includes the 97 team that won it all when I was really getting into hockey. Seniors that stayed for the duration of their careers and who laid it all out on the ice every single game they played. That is why the Mich loss STILL hurts.

Still hurts.

[beebsb010]

You're arguing both sides here.

On one hand you are saying we have had too many "NHL talented players" to not win, then you follow it up by saying we should go away from that and have less talented players because they would stick around more and we'd win a national championship. You're saying the reason those teams should have won was because of all the talent on them but you think the answer is to have less talent on the team for guys that stick around, taking spots away from the guys with all talent that are the reason you think UND should have won a national championship in the last decade.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are many fans that don't think UND should have won a national championship over the last decade, but guess what, they haven't. A team only needs to run off 4 games in March to win a title, but you can't do that if you aren't in the tournament. There are very few teams that consistently put themself in position to do that and UND is one of them. If you can't see that, then you need to step back from the ledge and refocus.

Apparently, some teams can't even if they are in the tournament. It's been 13 years since a title...I think you can put a lid on the "step back from the ledge and refocus" garb. You don't need to act so "high and mighty" just because some people have different measures of what "success" is than you do.

[gfhockey]

Who needs rings when u can win the final 5

[siouxhockeyfan11]

Wisconsin is a pretty good example of an elite program that is the opposite of our current sustained success with no championships. Since Eaves took over in 2002 they have a national title but have only been to the NCAA tournament 5 times(once with a losing record) in 10 years with a strong posibility of missing again this year.

[UNDBIZ]

Especially since I liked the Trupp, Frattin, Malone team more than the Duncan, Oshie, Toews team. The Trupp, Frattin, Malone team is my favorite team of all time in the 15-20 years I've "passionately" watched (went to a few games as a kid, but didn't really start getting "passionate about them till around my Jr-Sr. year of h.s. in 96-97) this team and that includes the 97 team that won it all when I was really getting into hockey. Seniors that stayed for the duration of their careers and who laid it all out on the ice every single game they played. That is why the Mich loss STILL hurts.

Still hurts.

That loss still hurts to think about for me too. UND was far and away the best team in the NCAA that year..... would've beaten the ugly helmets 4 out of 5.

[scpa0305]

This is what I mean when I point out that national titles don't seem as important to our fan base as they used to. I should bookmark this post so I can point it out every time I get told that "no Sioux fan would ever say national titles aren't important", because that is what this post is saying. I don't think every season without a national title is a failure (I don't think I have ever said that), but when you have the talent we have had over the past 13 years and have ZERO national titles during that time, it is fair to ask what variable is missing from the equation. And you simply cannot explain it all away to bad luck, hot goalies and all that other stuff.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore. We had those from 1997-2000 and, not coincidentally, that was one of the most successful periods in the history of the program in terms of both wins and championships. It is good to have a few 1st round draft picks on the team to add that extra level of firepower, but if your team is dominated by them, you run the risk of starting over with a new team every year. That is tough to overcome.

If we get back to having a core of players that are talented and skilled, but not loved by the NHL scouts, I think we'll have more success in March and April. And I will close by saying this: I will gladly give up the "UND in the NHL" status we have had since the new REA opened in 2001 if it means hanging more NCAA title banners in that beautiful arena. Agree or disagree, but that is my position on the subject.

Agree....but I like the top end talent we get, those players are fun to watch and put our program on the map (I know...so do titles).

[brianvf]

I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough 3-4 year players in our program anymore.

I would say that UND is one of the best programs at retaining their star players for an extra year or two. Just look at guys like Oshie, Parise, Toews, Kristo, etc. All of those players could have easily left a year earlier than they did.

[siouxweet]

Thoughtful post. I have a question that I'm not putting out there for a rhetorical purpose.

Would you give up watching the DOT line their last year for bounce or two against Michigan a couple of years ago and a banner (assume we win the final)?

absolutely. but better yet how about the DOT line beats BC that year in St. Louis and we take care of Mich State for number 8.

[brianvf]

It will be nice when the Sioux win their next national title.

For one, it's a Sioux national title!!!

But then we'll also be done with this argument of "some Sioux fans don't think National Titles are important any more" or "it's harder to win national titles now" or "why can't we win a national title every year like BC" or "If Dean were still here, he'd have won us 28 more titles by now", etc, etc, etc.

Or at least that argument will be done until a couple more years have gone by... Haha.

[Snake]

How many more seasons will it take for those of you who are so disappointed by the lack of a recent natty to just quit following the team?

This is a serious question, because I would think at some point the lack of satisfaction would eventually take its toll, and it wouldn't be worth the trouble any more.

[fightingsioux4life]

How many more seasons will it take for those of you who are so disappointed by the lack of a recent natty to just quit following the team?

This is a serious question, because I would think at some point the lack of satisfaction would eventually take its toll, and it wouldn't be worth the trouble any more.

Okay, here is a serious answer.

I have absolutely no intention to stop following the team. They have been my team since I was 6 or 7 years old and they always will be my team. But if the Cary Eades quote in my signature has any meaning or relevance at all, then it is fair to talk about why we haven't won one in 13 years and what it will take to get back to that level. It is possible to be a "real" fan and also be objective and logical. It's too bad some people on here don't feel that way.

[siouxweet]

How many more seasons will it take for those of you who are so disappointed by the lack of a recent natty to just quit following the team?

This is a serious question, because I would think at some point the lack of satisfaction would eventually take its toll, and it wouldn't be worth the trouble any more.

nope, I've been a Cubs fan for most of my life and still follow just a passionately as I did 20 years ago. the difference is this program is EXPECTED to compete for a national title every year and with that comes the expectation of winning one every now and then. with the Cubs they are rarely expected to do anything but I still follow them.

[Snake]

Okay, here is a serious answer.

I have absolutely no intention to stop following the team. They have been my team since I was 6 or 7 years old and they always will be my team. But if the Cary Eades quote in my signature has any meaning or relevance at all, then it is fair to talk about why we haven't won one in 13 years and what it will take to get back to that level. It is possible to be a "real" fan and also be objective and logical. It's too bad some people on here don't feel that way.

Fair enough. I also value the NC as the standard, but to generalize fans who are proud of the program's recent accomplishments despite no NCs as not caring if they ever win one again is quite unfair.

I guess it's probably a difference in how we're wired. I don't "expect" national championships every X amount of years because its not within my control. It's up to the guys in the locker room to have that expectation, and I believe they do.

My expectations are reserved for things I have control of.