Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....

[SJHovey]

BC does it quite consistently...not that we should compare ourselves to BC or anything

BC's on a great run. But go back just 20 years, even after our great run of the early 80's. Lake Sup. St. dominated. Played in 3 straight championship games. 3 championships in 7 years. Top of the mountain.

Anybody want to be an LSSU fan now?

I'd still take our program, and history, over BC's.

[Big A HG]

I wish the players would get us over the hump. Last I checked, Hak hasn't suited up since 1992.

[fightingsioux4life]

I wish the players would get us over the hump. Last I checked, Hak hasn't suited up since 1992.

And the last time I checked, Hak (and his staff, whom he hand-picks) is responsible for recruiting, motivating and in-game strategy. That is why he makes six-figures and his staff makes a nice living as well. If coaching isn't all that important, why are we paying a premium price for standard results?

[MafiaMan]

BC's on a great run. But go back just 20 years, even after our great run of the early 80's. Lake Sup. St. dominated. Played in 3 straight championship games. 3 championships in 7 years. Top of the mountain.

Anybody want to be an LSSU fan now?

I'd still take our program, and history, over BC's.

And if it wasn't for Maine's OT win over that 1993 Laker team, LSSU would have gone back-to-back-to-back! Now, they're drawing 1,500 fans a game.

[brianvf]

And the last time I checked, Hak (and his staff, whom he hand-picks) is responsible for recruiting, motivating and in-game strategy. That is why he makes six-figures and his staff makes a nice living as well. If coaching isn't all that important, why are we paying a premium price for standard results?

I would say that both coaching and the players make up a pretty big part of the results.

That said, the coaches can make any adjustments and use any motivation tactics, but it is still up to the players to get it done on the ice.

Hopefully the team can bring home the big one this year...the last few years of "standard" results have me nearing the ledge.

[jdub27]

If coaching isn't all that important, why are we paying a premium price for standard results?

Standard results? Might want to compare Hak's 10 year history with pretty much every coach outside of Jerry York and see how standard they are. It doesn't have the cherry on top, but outside of that (which is admittidly a big piece), his results far exceed standard.

[Siouxperfan7]

Coaches do all the behind the scenes work that fans seldom get to see. They scout a guy when he is somethimes as young as 14. He goes to their house convinces these top recruits (that are being recruited by several other schools mind you) that it is in their best interest to play at UND. The coaches work with these guys every day at practive teaching their schemes and plays and how they plan on playing their next opponents. That is what they get paid to do. Good coaches year after year put their teams in a position to win. But after that, it is in the players hands. Not once has a player made a great defensive play in a game. Never has a coach set up a power play. Not once has a coach ever had an assist or scored a goal in a game they are coaching in. The responsibility of the coach is to teach these guys how to play and how to win. But the responsibility of the players is to use what they have learned and execute it on the ice. Hakstols teams have shown time and time again that they have learned the schemes put forth by the coaches and have been successful executing that on the ice. 12 straight years finishing in the top half of the league? Next closest after this year will have 6!! Now has UND faltered in the Frozen Four and other playoff games? Yes. Can some of the blame be put on the coaches? Sure. But don't let the players off the hook. The coaches can only take you so far. The players must step up and perform when its playoff time.

[Big A HG]

And the last time I checked, Hak (and his staff, whom he hand-picks) is responsible for recruiting, motivating and in-game strategy. That is why he makes six-figures and his staff makes a nice living as well. If coaching isn't all that important, why are we paying a premium price for standard results?

Strategy, yes, I can agree with you. Recruiting, yes to an extent, but we aren't the only ones out there trying to bring in the best kids...and we've brought in a ton of good ones and lost a few to Major Juniors/NHL who could have put this team over the top. Motivation, no. If being able to play in front of 11,000 fans every home game while wearing a North Dakota sweater in a town that has seen the likes of some of the best college hockey players to play the game, and you need your coach to motivate you, then you have issues.

In 2005, Denver was the better team. Could we have won? Yeah, but should we have? Not necessarily.

In 2006, with a young team, our goalie/defense didn't play very good.

In 2007, the goalie didn't show up again despite the rest of the team playing good enough to win the game.

in 2008, inexplicable.

In 2011, we outplayed Michigan in all facets but goaltender, just didn't get the bounce you needed to have that shot at a title.

[SJHovey]

I ask this question, in all seriousness, to those who think that the program has fallen on hard times, below our standards, or that it's time to start thinking about coaching changes.

Look back over the past 9 seasons (I'm excluding the present season primarily because we don't know how it will turn out). If you could magically substitute the performance of another college hockey program for our own, would you? Whose?

UND is 235-119-37 over that span, with no losing seasons, 2 regular season crowns, 4 conference tourney titles, appearances in all 9 NCAA tournaments, but admittedly no national titles.

So who do you wish we were, over Hak's tenure, if not our own performance?

BC? Obviously. 3 national titles, 3 regular season titles, 6 conference tourney championships, appearances in 8 of 9 NCAA tournaments and a 238-97-33 record.

But now who?

Michigan? The supposed greatest college hockey program of all time? No national titles, 3 regular season titles, 3 conference tourney titles, 8 of 9 NCAA tourney appearances (and one losing season), with a win/loss record virtually identical to ours at 237-116-25. I'm not trading. That's the same car I'm driving without the 1 missed tourney.

How about Miami? 3 regular season titles, 1 conference tourney title, 8 of 9 NCAA appearances, but no national titles and a record no better than ours at 222-107-39. No thanks.

Minnesota? No national titles. 4 regular season titles but 1 conference tourney title. Only 6 of 9 in NCAA appearances with one losing season and a considerably worse record at 210-120-39. Plus, you're Minnesota. Forget it.

How about last year's champs, Yale. They have the almighty national title. But 2 regular season titles, 2 conference titles and only 4 NCAA appearances out of 9 seasons, to go along with 3 losing seasons and a pedestrian 153-129-24 record. I don't make that swap.

Duluth won a title, too. But not a single regular season title, one tournament title and made the NCAA's a paltry 3 of the 9 seasons, with 5 losing seasons and a barely .500 record of 161-149-47. Go ahead if you want to be a Bulldog.

How about Michigan St. and their national title? Zero regular season titles. 1 conference tourney title. 3 losing seasons. Only 4 NCAA appearances in the 9 years and a very average 173-150-42 record.

So far I'm not impressed.

So what about Wisconsin, BU or Denver?

Lot of baggage with Wisconsin. They have that title real early in the stretch of these 9 seasons, but no regular season titles, one very unexpected conference tourney title, 5 of 9 on NCAA appearances, a couple of sub-.500 seasons and a 196-133-39 record a long way behind UND. It might be for some of you, but not me.

BU? One great season with a national title. A couple of HE crowns to go with a couple of HE tourney titles. But they only made the tournament half the time and their overall record is still a long way behind UND, at 204-117-39.

Denver? For me this would be a maybe. 2 regular season crowns, 2 Broadmoors and appearances in 7 of the 9 NCAA tournaments. Pretty good record at 220-115-33. A bit of a toss up, but I might be persuaded to take that record for these past 9 seasons, understanding that the title did come at the very beginning of the run and there has been a generally downward progression.

Anybody that I missed?

So, of course I would love to have BC's record the past 9 years. Who wouldn't? Denver's? Maybe, although I don't like the direction they're going. Who else would you rather be?

Unless someone else has some good answers, I'm not sure I'd be jumping ship right about now.

[bigskyvikes]

Winning the National Championship today is a lot like winning the World Series of Poker. Even the best of players are lucky to make it to the final table. In hockey, to get to the Frozen Four, the coaches can do what they can to give their teams the best chance to win, but it is still a bit of the luck of the draw, having all your guys on board at the right time, and especially your goaltender. If your powerplay comes together at the right time, and your penalty killing as well, and your goaltender performs, you increase your chances substantially. I also think with the number of times Hakstol has brought his teams there, that the odds are going to turn in our favor at some point, and all the cards are going to fall for us.

HERE is the real BINGO!

[scpa0305]

HERE is the real BINGO!

Actually it's no where near the same....look at the total number of college hockey teams, the. Look at the total number of participants in the WSOP.

Also there is much less bad outcomes than there are in hockey....and hockey had a lot of bad outcomes.

[bigskyvikes]

Standard results? Might want to compare Hak's 10 year history with pretty much every coach outside of Jerry York and see how standard they are. It doesn't have the cherry on top, but outside of that (which is admittidly a big piece), his results far exceed standard.

It is unreal how people rank the staff of a VERY SUCCESSFUL SIOUX TEAM!

[bigskyvikes]

Actually it's no where near the same....look at the total number of college hockey teams, the. Look at the total number of participants in the WSOP.

Also there is much less bad outcomes than there are in hockey....and hockey had a lot of bad outcomes.

If hockey teams were tables then how would it look to you? It is an analogy, pretty good one if you ask me. I'm not living in fantasyland like you and others though. Expecting one of the best teams every year to be better, because they just aren't good enough for you!

[scpa0305]

If hockey teams were tables then how would it look to you? It is an analogy, pretty good one if you ask me. I'm not living in fantasyland like you and others though. Expecting one of the best teams every year to be better, because they just aren't good enough for you!

I am perfectly fine with the Sioux hockey teams....I'm just hoping we get lucky one of these years. I am not one of the fire hakers and I am not one of the posters bashing hak's system. I was simply stating that winning the WSOP would be much harder than winning an NCAA hockey title. Again, it really isn't even close.

[fightingsioux4life]

Standard results? Might want to compare Hak's 10 year history with pretty much every coach outside of Jerry York and see how standard they are. It doesn't have the cherry on top, but outside of that (which is admittidly a big piece), his results far exceed standard.

Okay, standard might have been a poor choice of words. How about "less than premium"?

[fightingsioux4life]

Like it or not, the buck stops with the head coach of the program (in any sport). The one constant with this program over the past 10 years is Dave Hakstol. Players have only 4 years of eligibility. We have had some changes with the assistant coaches for various reasons. Every major decision comes down to what Hakstol wants. If it doesn't work, it's on him. And I think he would tell you the same thing if you asked him.

I really find it hard to swallow the illogic that the Frozen Four debacles that have occurred under Hakstol are somehow the players' fault and nobody else's. Yes, sometimes 18-22 year olds lose focus and subsequently lose games they shouldn't lose. But to make this argument to explain every single stink bomb this team has detonated at the Frozen Four is stretching logic to its breaking point. And, speaking of on-ice personnel, you simply cannot make the argument that "We haven't had the players" to win nattys during Hakstol's tenure. We have had talent up to our ears during Hakstol's tenure. So that brings up two possible explanations that must be considered by any objective fan of this team: 1) Hakstol and his staff haven't pushed the right buttons on these guys and/or haven't employed the right in-game strategies at critical moments in critical games or 2) Hakstol and his staff haven't recruited and signed the right athletes for this program. I would argue that it is a combination of both of these. These problems have been most evident in the NCAA tournament, where even minor flaws in coaching, systems and strategy can be fatal. And that is exactly what we have seen when a Hakstol-coached team reaches the biggest stage in College Hockey, the Frozen Four.

Like I have pointed out over and over again, Hakstol has all the tools he needs to bring home multiple NCAA titles. At some point, you have to ask yourself if this regime will produce NCAA title(s) or if it will go down in the same category as Doug Woog's tenure with Minnesota. I really hope this is the year it finally happens so we can focus on more positive topics.

[dagies]

I ask this question, in all seriousness, to those who think that the program has fallen on hard times, below our standards, or that it's time to start thinking about coaching changes.

Look back over the past 9 seasons (I'm excluding the present season primarily because we don't know how it will turn out). If you could magically substitute the performance of another college hockey program for our own, would you? Whose?

UND is 235-119-37 over that span, with no losing seasons, 2 regular season crowns, 4 conference tourney titles, appearances in all 9 NCAA tournaments, but admittedly no national titles.

So who do you wish we were, over Hak's tenure, if not our own performance?

BC? Obviously. 3 national titles, 3 regular season titles, 6 conference tourney championships, appearances in 8 of 9 NCAA tournaments and a 238-97-33 record.

But now who?

Michigan? The supposed greatest college hockey program of all time? No national titles, 3 regular season titles, 3 conference tourney titles, 8 of 9 NCAA tourney appearances (and one losing season), with a win/loss record virtually identical to ours at 237-116-25. I'm not trading. That's the same car I'm driving without the 1 missed tourney.

How about Miami? 3 regular season titles, 1 conference tourney title, 8 of 9 NCAA appearances, but no national titles and a record no better than ours at 222-107-39. No thanks.

Minnesota? No national titles. 4 regular season titles but 1 conference tourney title. Only 6 of 9 in NCAA appearances with one losing season and a considerably worse record at 210-120-39. Plus, you're Minnesota. Forget it.

How about last year's champs, Yale. They have the almighty national title. But 2 regular season titles, 2 conference titles and only 4 NCAA appearances out of 9 seasons, to go along with 3 losing seasons and a pedestrian 153-129-24 record. I don't make that swap.

Duluth won a title, too. But not a single regular season title, one tournament title and made the NCAA's a paltry 3 of the 9 seasons, with 5 losing seasons and a barely .500 record of 161-149-47. Go ahead if you want to be a Bulldog.

How about Michigan St. and their national title? Zero regular season titles. 1 conference tourney title. 3 losing seasons. Only 4 NCAA appearances in the 9 years and a very average 173-150-42 record.

So far I'm not impressed.

So what about Wisconsin, BU or Denver?

Lot of baggage with Wisconsin. They have that title real early in the stretch of these 9 seasons, but no regular season titles, one very unexpected conference tourney title, 5 of 9 on NCAA appearances, a couple of sub-.500 seasons and a 196-133-39 record a long way behind UND. It might be for some of you, but not me.

BU? One great season with a national title. A couple of HE crowns to go with a couple of HE tourney titles. But they only made the tournament half the time and their overall record is still a long way behind UND, at 204-117-39.

Denver? For me this would be a maybe. 2 regular season crowns, 2 Broadmoors and appearances in 7 of the 9 NCAA tournaments. Pretty good record at 220-115-33. A bit of a toss up, but I might be persuaded to take that record for these past 9 seasons, understanding that the title did come at the very beginning of the run and there has been a generally downward progression.

Anybody that I missed?

So, of course I would love to have BC's record the past 9 years. Who wouldn't? Denver's? Maybe, although I don't like the direction they're going. Who else would you rather be?

Unless someone else has some good answers, I'm not sure I'd be jumping ship right about now.

[fightingsioux4life]

Strategy, yes, I can agree with you. Recruiting, yes to an extent, but we aren't the only ones out there trying to bring in the best kids...and we've brought in a ton of good ones and lost a few to Major Juniors/NHL who could have put this team over the top. Motivation, no. If being able to play in front of 11,000 fans every home game while wearing a North Dakota sweater in a town that has seen the likes of some of the best college hockey players to play the game, and you need your coach to motivate you, then you have issues.

In 2005, Denver was the better team. Could we have won? Yeah, but should we have? Not necessarily.

In 2006, with a young team, our goalie/defense didn't play very good.

In 2007, the goalie didn't show up again despite the rest of the team playing good enough to win the game.

in 2008, inexplicable.

In 2011, we outplayed Michigan in all facets but goaltender, just didn't get the bounce you needed to have that shot at a title.

I have heard this many times and I know most fans believe this is how it should work. But that is now how human beings are wired. If we are all honest with ourselves, we will all admit that we had times when we were in school that we weren't motivated to get A's and didn't think the extra effort was worth it. Until a teacher stepped in and pushed the right buttons and got us to see that hard work in school generally leads to good things down the road. The same basic rule applies to college athletes (and, for that matter, professional athletes). People are not robots, you cannot expect human beings to be perpetually motivated all the time without at least some prodding from the coaching staff. Part of coaching any sport is being able to push the right buttons on athletes to get them to perform at their very best when it matters most. Some of the Frozen Four debacles were caused by a clear-cut case of the team not being ready when the puck dropped (2008 being the most glaring example). I think this is one of the problems some of us have with Hakstol (the other being a stubborn refusal to change in-game strategy when it is needed).

PS: Every program loses talent to Major Junior/NHL teams, so I am not sure that is a valid excuse for anyone.

[yzerman19]

Like it or not, the buck stops with the head coach of the program (in any sport). The one constant with this program over the past 10 years is Dave Hakstol. Players have only 4 years of eligibility. We have had some changes with the assistant coaches for various reasons. Every major decision comes down to what Hakstol wants. If it doesn't work, it's on him. And I think he would tell you the same thing if you asked him.

I really find it hard to swallow the illogic that the Frozen Four debacles that have occurred under Hakstol are somehow the players' fault and nobody else's. Yes, sometimes 18-22 year olds lose focus and subsequently lose games they shouldn't lose. But to make this argument to explain every single stink bomb this team has detonated at the Frozen Four is stretching logic to its breaking point. And, speaking of on-ice personnel, you simply cannot make the argument that "We haven't had the players" to win nattys during Hakstol's tenure. We have had talent up to our ears during Hakstol's tenure. So that brings up two possible explanations that must be considered by any objective fan of this team: 1) Hakstol and his staff haven't pushed the right buttons on these guys and/or haven't employed the right in-game strategies at critical moments in critical games or 2) Hakstol and his staff haven't recruited and signed the right athletes for this program. I would argue that it is a combination of both of these. These problems have been most evident in the NCAA tournament, where even minor flaws in coaching, systems and strategy can be fatal. And that is exactly what we have seen when a Hakstol-coached team reaches the biggest stage in College Hockey, the Frozen Four.

Like I have pointed out over and over again, Hakstol has all the tools he needs to bring home multiple NCAA titles. At some point, you have to ask yourself if this regime will produce NCAA title(s) or if it will go down in the same category as Doug Woog's tenure with Minnesota. I really hope this is the year it finally happens so we can focus on more positive topics.

I'd be really surprised if it was this year...we are much better positioned for next year IMO.

Agree no way can you argue lack of talent or desire on the players parts- we had captain serious for Christ sake. He's the most big time/big game player on the planet.

I do agree that sometimes the hockey Gods don't smile on you and there is nothing Toewser and Oshie or Hak can do about it.

Sometimes a great system runs into a better team. Sometimes creativity wins. Sometimes it rains.

[tnt]

BC does it quite consistently...not that we should compare ourselves to BC or anything

...and I think they said every time they have the regional they advance, when they don't, they haven't. Don't get me wrong, it's still impressive, but we haven't had that advantage like Minnesota and BC. I expect great things next year when it is in Fargo though.

[brianvf]

I'd be really surprised if it was this year...we are much better positioned for next year IMO.

You mean we have another year of this thread??

[brianvf]

I really find it hard to swallow the illogic that the Frozen Four debacles that have occurred under Hakstol are somehow the players' fault and nobody else's.

I don't think anyone said that at all.

You can't blame the coaches for everything that happens on the ice and you can't blame the players if the coaching staff failed to prepare them correctly/sufficiently.

The "fault" goes to both.

This thread has been 110 pages of regurgitation for both sides. Every post I read, I feel like I've already read it earlier in the thread 10 or 20 times.

[hrkac]

I don't think anyone said that at all.

You can't blame the coaches for everything that happens on the ice and you can't blame the players if the coaching staff failed to prepare them correctly/sufficiently.

The "fault" goes to both.

This thread has been 110 pages of regurgitation for both sides. Every post I read, I feel like I've already read it earlier in the thread 10 or 20 times.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Yes, the coach can be blamed but not without including Oshie, Stafford, Duncan, Chorney, Porter, Frattin, Malone, Blood, Knight, Kristo, etc.... Great players win big games and it's just a shame that Toews doesn't have a NCAA title to go along with all the other accolades he's achieved thus far in his career.

[scpa0305]

I'd be really surprised if it was this year...we are much better positioned for next year IMO.

Agree no way can you argue lack of talent or desire on the players parts- we had captain serious for Christ sake. He's the most big time/big game player on the planet.

I do agree that sometimes the hockey Gods don't smile on you and there is nothing Toewser and Oshie or Hak can do about it.

Sometimes a great system runs into a better team. Sometimes creativity wins. Sometimes it rains.

Well said.

[sprig]

It takes a lot to watch/follow a team that loses that many games. In my dad's time at UND they lost way more than they won. But he was still at every game, living the college dream. Kind of unique, when my dad started at UND the Old Ralph was new, and when I started at UND the New Ralph was just getting going.

Will there be a New Ralph part 3 when my two year old enrolls in UND in the Fall of 2030? Could be later, depends on how many years that Hak wants him to play juniors.

Watched all those games as well, although year 2 of those losing seasons I had to drive from Devils Lake every weekend. Terrible winter, with terrible roads, losing hockey teams, but I didn't miss. Eventually was gone to Texas, and with no internet, no connection to Sioux hockey in Texas, lost track of the team. Moved back to SD in early 1977, but still don't remember well the Sioux run to the championship game and loss to the Gophers. Finally in 79/80 when the Sioux made it on Prairie Public TV and I lived in SD, very close to Oakes where I drove to watch Sioux hockey, I reconnected with the program. Went to many games as well as friends were still going to school at UND. Always had a doctor in training student ID to get in; friend was in med school at the time.

Wilbur, can't believe I didn't meet your dad as I was at the frat where he belonged often, having friends in that frat from Woodworth/Medina/ and even Maddock. Would guess he was a face in the crowd at the frat when I was there that I just didn't meet during one of their parties.

Maybe it's easier for us who lived through those bad hockey years to enjoy the success we've had under Hak, even without a title. Youngsters certainly demand a lot, hope they are just as demanding of themselves in whatever they are doing, although I'd guess it doesn't apply.