NORTH DAKOTA vs. BEMIDJI STATE - Saturday SENIOR NIGHT

[keikla]

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brock Nelson is the only person who would be on this team and isn't. Aaron Dell left after 3, which you noted is acceptable. Anyone else who has left the team early (that affects this year's team - I'm not talking about Toews, Oshie, etc) has done so because they weren't consistently cracking the line-up, not because they were loved by the NHL scouts. So, we have 3 or 4 year players playing right now, and they are being lambasted for not being good or consistent enough.

[fightingsioux4life]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brock Nelson is the only person who would be on this team and isn't. Aaron Dell left after 3, which you noted is acceptable. Anyone else who has left the team early (that affects this year's team - I'm not talking about Toews, Oshie, etc) has done so because they weren't consistently cracking the line-up, not because they were loved by the NHL scouts. So, we have 3 or 4 year players playing right now, and they are being lambasted for not being good or consistent enough.

Brock Nelson would make this a much better team than it is now. I think Dean Blais said he thinks we would have won the 2001 title if Mike Commodore had come back for his senior year. One player, even in a team sport like this, can put you over the top in certain situations. And don't forget, we had a couple of kids bail on us for the CHL (Jones, Miller). That is another problem with top draft picks: even if you don't lose them to the NHL, you can lose them to the CHL.

There is some truth to the point that we have kept more of our players in recent years. That is probably why the 2011 team was so good thru out the season (I don't think that team had a first-half slump). Last year's team had too many injuries to have a realistic chance to win it all. We'll have to wait and see if this year's crop of younger players sticks around or leaves early. If they do, we'll have another 2011-caliber team in one or two years.

[siouxweet]

I just hope this years team peaks the second weekend in april and not the 4th weekend of march this season.

[207Sioux]

That is probably why the 2011 team was so good thru out the season (I don't think that team had a first-half slump).

You clearly didn't see the Maine series that year

[fightingsioux4life]

You clearly didn't see the Maine series that year

Okay, besides that debacle, the team was solid in the first half.

[SiouxTupa]

I think you can say in a 7-game playoff format like the NHL, the best team should win most of the time. In NCAA hockey, you have to win 4 national tourney games to win the championship. 4 games...that's not even a major hot streak!

I would dare to say it's almost more unusual in this era of college hockey to see the regular season dominant teams win it all. I really want to see the Sioux win NCAA championships, but am not delusional enough to think I have any bearing on that outcome. I'll continue to cheer loud and watch any way possible every week.

[siouxweet]

Okay, besides that debacle, the team was solid in the first half.

there was a time in january that year where they went through some struggles. they lost at home to minny and omaha before going to cc and losing the friday night game. they won on sat and didn't lose again until that fateful night against michigan. there was some hand wringing in january.

[sprig]

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.

But when some talk about why we lost, you talk about them making excuses. Not sure what you are getting at here. I don't see any fan here that doesn't want a natty, but if you expect me to ignore Mcnaughton's and Broadmore's and wish we hadn't won those, I won't agree. I want all of them, not just one, the natty being the most important, but the other's being fun as well. Maybe you're just one of those that want coaches fired, after every loss.

As you get older, you'll be able to appreciate small successes, and you'll get a bit more patient to get to the ultimate success. We all want it now, but what do we do when it doesn't happen?

[siouxweet]

I think you can say in a 7-game playoff format like the NHL, the best team should win most of the time. In NCAA hockey, you have to win 4 national tourney games to win the championship. 4 games...that's not even a major hot streak!

I would dare to say it's almost more unusual in this era of college hockey to see the regular season dominant teams win it all. I really want to see the Sioux win NCAA championships, but am not delusional enough to think I have any bearing on that outcome. I'll continue to cheer loud and watch any way possible every week.

I think Gwoz and Lucia have both said it is tougher to win the Mac Cup than it is to win a nat title.

[keikla]

Brock Nelson would make this a much better team than it is now. I think Dean Blais said he thinks we would have won the 2001 title if Mike Commodore had come back for his senior year. One player, even in a team sport like this, can put you over the top in certain situations. And don't forget, we had a couple of kids bail on us for the CHL (Jones, Miller). That is another problem with top draft picks: even if you don't lose them to the NHL, you can lose them to the CHL.

There is some truth to the point that we have kept more of our players in recent years. That is probably why the 2011 team was so good thru out the season (I don't think that team had a first-half slump). Last year's team had too many injuries to have a realistic chance to win it all. We'll have to wait and see if this year's crop of younger players sticks around or leaves early. If they do, we'll have another 2011-caliber team in one or two years.

I think you're missing my point. Miller doesn't apply, because he never actually came here. The complaint was that the team has to start over every year and adjust to no longer having players who left early. The team never adjusted to having Miller in the lineup, so they certainly didn't have to 'start over' because he wasn't. They brought in different, 4 year players (which is what you prefer). And Jones certainly doesn't apply, because he never 'bailed' on UND. He never committed here in the first place...he was very upfront about deciding between UND and the CHL.

You said you wanted a team full of players who stay for 3 or 4 years so that the team doesn't have to 'restart' every year. And I'm saying that, apart from one player, you got your wish. This is a team full of 3 or 4 year players, but it's clearly not meeting the expectations that you think that will bring.

I should probably note that I don't expect Grimaldi (or possibly Schmaltz) to stay for 4 years, but that doesn't affect the team's chances of winning the title this year. It most likely affects the teams chances of winning the title in 2015 or 2016.

[fightingsioux4life]

But when some talk about why we lost, you talk about them making excuses. Not sure what you are getting at here. I don't see any fan here that doesn't want a natty, but if you expect me to ignore Mcnaughton's and Broadmore's and wish we hadn't won those, I won't agree. I want all of them, not just one, the natty being the most important, but the other's being fun as well. Maybe you're just one of those that want coaches fired, after every loss.

As you get older, you'll be able to appreciate small successes, and you'll get a bit more patient to get to the ultimate success. We all want it now, but what do we do when it doesn't happen?

FYI, I am 38 (almost 39) years old and I have two degrees from UND and I know all about patience and following through on a plan and not giving up when things don't work out well the first or second time. And FYI, you would be better served in making your points without the moralistic preaching and lecturing.

[fightingsioux4life]

But when some talk about why we lost, you talk about them making excuses. Not sure what you are getting at here. I don't see any fan here that doesn't want a natty, but if you expect me to ignore Mcnaughton's and Broadmore's and wish we hadn't won those, I won't agree. I want all of them, not just one, the natty being the most important, but the other's being fun as well. Maybe you're just one of those that want coaches fired, after every loss.

As you get older, you'll be able to appreciate small successes, and you'll get a bit more patient to get to the ultimate success. We all want it now, but what do we do when it doesn't happen?

Where do you want me to start? The "hot goalie" excuse? The "bad bounces" excuse? The "it's just too hard to win one anymore" excuse? The "we aren't on the East Coast like Boston College is" excuse? The "Jerry York hasn't retired yet" excuse? Does that about cover it for you?

And I have never "ignored" the other titles. I go to the Final Five every year and next year, I will go to the NCHC tournament in the Target Center. I love it when we hang any banner of any kind. And I am NOT in the "Fire Hakstol" crowd. Any other broad generalizations you want me to clear up?

[sprig]

Where do you want me to start? The "hot goalie" excuse? The "bad bounces" excuse? The "it's just too hard to win one anymore" excuse? The "we aren't on the East Coast like Boston College is" excuse? The "Jerry York hasn't retired yet" excuse? Does that about cover it for you?

And I have never "ignored" the other titles. I go to the Final Five every year and next year, I will go to the NCHC tournament in the Target Center. I love it when we hang any banner of any kind. And I am NOT in the "Fire Hakstol" crowd. Any other broad generalizations you want me to clear up?

So you just want a natty. What happens, then, if the Sioux lose again in the NCAA's.

What I meant was, not enough 4 year players, etc, etc, are excuses just as much as your list above.

If you're not directing your anger at coaches and/or players, then you must be redirecting it at other Sioux fans, who you feel aren't as worked up as you are.

[dagies]

I think Gwoz and Lucia have both said it is tougher to win the Mac Cup than it is to win a nat title.

I've heard the same from a former Sioux player who won both. He even said it's harder to win the Broadmoor as well. The Final Five tournament, he said, was tougher than the National Championship because the teams you had to go through for the Final Five were tougher than the teams faced for the National Championship.

This was prior to the new tournament process, so I think the Sioux had a 1st round regional bye at that time. And, it seems these days there is more parity near the top than there used to be (see #4 seeds knocking off #1 seeds which never used to happen).

[fightingsioux4life]

So you just want a natty. What happens, then, if the Sioux lose again in the NCAA's.

What I meant was, not enough 4 year players, etc, etc, are excuses just as much as your list above.

I never said that, you are just choosing to believe it.

All I did in my original post was point out that having a core of players that stick around 3-4 years makes it easier to build a cohesive unit of players that know each other and work well together. And I provided a concrete example of that (the mid to late 1990's). And it's a fair conversation to have because it goes back to our recruiting philosophy as a program. Unless, of course, you think that should be off-limits on SS.com. I don't think it should be.

[jdub27]

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.

So regular season and conference tournament championships aren't considered success to you then? You must just cringe when you see the banners for those hanging from the rafters or walls of the REA. The nerve of UND celebrating and glorifying things that some fans don't deem as success. If you think that acknowledging those as accomplishments is acting "high and mighty" than I don't know what to tell you.

[siouxweet]

I think it will be easier for this year's team to win a natty than the broadmoar for various reasons, one of which is in all liklihood we would be playing three games in three days again and the level of competeion will be probably the best the final five has ever produced this year. last year we did win it playing three in three but the other team we were playing was playing their third game in three days as well(6 in nine days if you really want to get specific).

[runaroundsioux]

I think it will be easier for this year's team to win a natty than the broadmoar for various reasons, one of which is in all liklihood we would be playing three games in three days again and the level of competeion will be probably the best the final five has ever produced this year. last year we did win it playing three in three but the other team we were playing was playing their third game in three days as well(6 in nine days if you really want to get specific).

Not the Gophers!( hee,hee)

[sprig]

I never said that, you are just choosing to believe it.

All I did in my original post was point out that having a core of players that stick around 3-4 years makes it easier to build a cohesive unit of players that know each other and work well together. And I provided a concrete example of that (the mid to late 1990's). And it's a fair conversation to have because it goes back to our recruiting philosophy as a program. Unless, of course, you think that should be off-limits on SS.com. I don't think it should be.

Haven't looked back, but I obviously mistook you for one of the posters complaining about Sioux fans that are "supposedly satisfied" with Broadmores. If that wasn't you, sorry.

[SJHovey]

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.

The 1997 championship team had 4 seniors (including the back up goalie who didn't play), 3 juniors, 11 sophomores and 7 freshmen on it's roster.

[bigskyvikes]

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.

This is a great post and a perfect response to the complaining about something that is truly great!

[Fetch]

I'm happy with winning the Final Five what is wrong with that ?

I have been to a Frozen Four (even had a suite) & the Final Five was much more Fun

[Fetch]

To much luck involved in a Frozen 4 if we can't do it with the DOT line & many other better teams than this one - I have my doubts

[Fetch]

Too many damned good goalies out there - get hot for three games & deserve it or not u can win it all & I like compeating with teams I know

Plus I hate supporting the ncaa for what they did to us - they dont deserve us

I think all tournaments should be best of three - all games till it done maybe even best of 7 for finals Frozen 4

[hrkac]

To much luck involved in a Frozen 4 if we can't do it with the DOT line & many other better teams than this one - I have my doubts

.

which is exactly the reason it could happen this year if you think about it...