82SiouxGuy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 It was tongue in cheek. I personally put more stock in modern history. BC is a great hockey program. Yes they are. Probably the best in this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So, according to your definition, neither UND nor Michigan nor Minnesota are great hockey programs. Minnesota won their last title a decade ago, and the others are longer ago. I'm saying that until recently most Sioux fans felt superior to the Gophs and Michigan and took great delight in pointing out the Woog curse to Gopher fans. Not saying they aren't good programs, just saying that we used to be better than them. Any Sioux fan that has ever said the name Woog to a Gopher fan knows what I am talking about. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I wanna be bc this century dang it!!!! The Hoggs? No ill be in minneapolis with my own ss brunch lol. Yeah ill be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I'm saying that until recently most Sioux fans felt superior to the Gophs and Michigan and took great delight in pointing out the Woog curse to Gopher fans. Not saying they aren't good programs, just saying that we used to be better than them. Any Sioux fan that has ever said the name Woog to a Gopher fan knows what I am talking about. So on one hand, you chide the Sioux for lack of titles in recent history...and on the other you poke fun at Minnesota over a guy who hasn't coached there in almost 15 years? Having personally met Doug Woog several times, I can tell you that he has great respect for Fighting Sioux hockey. Hell, he was even gracious enough to sign my son's Sioux jersey, laughing as he wrote his name, saying "I gotta be honest...I don't sign many of THESE". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Sucks to start to follow UND HOCKEY in the "golden days" (championships). 2000. I got spoiled. And the simple point is I don't really buy the parity issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So on one hand, you chide the Sioux for lack of titles in recent history...and on the other you poke fun at Minnesota over a guy who hasn't coached there in almost 15 years? Yes I am - when you are a fan of the team that brought home the titles while your rivals did not and now you don't it's a hard adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I'm saying that until recently most Sioux fans felt superior to the Gophs and Michigan and took great delight in pointing out the Woog curse to Gopher fans. Not saying they aren't good programs, just saying that we used to be better than them. Any Sioux fan that has ever said the name Woog to a Gopher fan knows what I am talking about. And I never believed that Woog was a bad coach because he didn't win a national title. The weak seasons at the end of his run were more of a factor in him being replaced than the run of not winning titles in my mind. I never thought that UND was significantly better than either Michigan or Minnesota as a program, other than the fact that UND was my favorite. I knew that it was probably going to be a close game when UND played either one. All 3 schools normally had a lot of talented players. Which one was better depended on the season, and usually didn't matter a whole lot when the teams met on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I wanna be bc this century dang it!!!! The Hoggs? No ill be in minneapolis with my own ss brunch lol. Yeah ill be there. I'd like to see UND be the BC of this century too. LOL...the anti-Hoggs brunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 And I never believed that Woog was a bad coach because he didn't win a national title. The weak seasons at the end of his run were more of a factor in him being replaced than the run of not winning titles in my mind. I never thought that UND was significantly better than either Michigan or Minnesota as a program, other than the fact that UND was my favorite. I knew that it was probably going to be a close game when UND played either one. All 3 schools normally had a lot of talented players. Which one was better depended on the season, and usually didn't matter a whole lot when the teams met on the ice. Except we won it all and they didn't - In my book a huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Yes I am - when you are a fan of the team that brought home the titles while your rivals did not and now you don't it's a hard adjustment. I find it much harder to tease Gopher fans about their lack of NCAA title success under Woog since they went back-to-back under Lucia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I find it much harder to tease Gopher fans about their lack of NCAA title success under Woog since they went back-to-back under Lucia. And since we have gone 0 for the decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Sucks to start to follow UND HOCKEY in the "golden days" (championships). 2000. I got spoiled. And the simple point is I don't really buy the parity issue. I started following UND hockey in the early 1970s, listening to games on the radio. They played in 3 national title games during the 4 years I was in school at UND, winning 2 out of the 3. I've watched them go up and down more than once, and watched them win 5 national titles. It all goes in cycles. And whether you believe it or not, there are more talented hockey players in college hockey right now than there ever have been in the past. American players don't just come from a few states along the Canadian border any more. There are college hockey players from California, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Georgia, North Carolina and a lot of other states that didn't have hockey 10 or 15 years ago. That is a big reason for the increased parity in college hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 And with that the gophers made history. And we have all been waiting, thinking heck if Minnesota can do it it must be easy!:'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Except we won it all and they didn't - In my book a huge difference Michigan 96 and 98...Minnesota 02 and 03...what time frame are you referring to since UND's last titles were smack-dab in between those years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 And since we have gone 0 for the decade ...and Minnesota is 0 for a decade now too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Michigan 96 and 98...Minnesota 02 and 03...what time frame are you referring to since UND's last titles were smack-dab in between those years? My time frame is 80-2000 - this is a time when we were the best program in college hockey - count em 5 titles. While others won some, we were a force for 20 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The hoggsbreath brunch pointed out most ss'ers here are older than me. I was 17 when I started following and that was 13 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My time frame is 80-2000 - this is a time when we were the best program in college hockey - count em 5 titles. While others won some, we were a force for 20 years. Your point was Michigan and Minnesota won nothing, which is not correct. And if you make your time frame 1975-2005, suddenly Minnesota is a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 My time frame is 80-2000 - this is a time when we were the best program in college hockey - count em 5 titles. While others won some, we were a force for 20 years. And with the new ralph after back to back title game appearances. Expectations were sky high!!! Much more than 0. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The hoggsbreath brunch pointed out most ss'ers here are older than me. I was 17 when I started following and that was 13 years ago. I'm only 42...I don't remember Rube Bjorkman! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 And with the new ralph after back to back title game appearances. Expectations were sky high!!! Much more than 0. So with that logic, the Miami Marlins should win the World Series, right? After all, they have a new stadium... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I'm only 42...I don't remember Rube Bjorkman! I thought you said you attended the old old barn. Unheated. Chicken wire. Homemade "zamboni". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So with that logic, the Miami Marlins should win the World Series, right? After all, they have a new stadium... I've enjoyed our conversation tonight, but this is the dumbest thing I have heard tonight. We were the best team in the country moving into a state of the art stadium. How does that relate to the Marlins in any way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So with that logic, the Miami Marlins should win the World Series, right? After all, they have a new stadium... What's the World Series? Not sure, but expectations were probably high if they got got off back to back title game appearances and had the nicest arena of any other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Your point was Michigan and Minnesota won nothing, which is not correct. And if you make your time frame 1975-2005, suddenly Minnesota is a player. If you want to cherry pick time periods, how about 1973-1990 when Wisconsin won 5 (or 4 in 11 years from 1973-1983 or 6 in 24 years from 1973-2006). Wisconsin should be on the list. They have won more than Minnesota and more recently than Michigan, Minnesota or North Dakota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts