Frozen4sioux Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 My God , what an arrogant wanker. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "moron" How's the air up there on your high pedestal? The air is clear and fresh with the sweet smell of fall. And yes anybody who thinks the University of North Dakota should replace Dave Hakstol is a blithering moron and the laughing stock of the entire college hockey world. 2
Irish Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 This thread needs to die. The problem with this thread is that it is bianary - either you are a "moron" who wants to fire a coach with one of the best winning percentages in the country or you are a weak Sioux fan who doesn't care about National Championships. Many fans are in between these positions. They don't think Hak should be fired but are extremely frustrated with the lack of a championship and a 1-6 record in the frozen 4, correctly pointing out that even though Hak has won a lot, the standard at UND in the past 35 years has been championships. We used to make fun of teams (Gophers) who couldn't get it done like we did. Now, not so much. I for one am getting pretty restless. Time to win one, and what we saw Friday put into context seemed to indicate that even in a year where we are returning 20 lettermen and hopes are high we couldn't even get up for the home opener. I know it is a long season, but the poor starts and flameouts in the frozen 4 seem to be linked somehow into a pattern of frustration that we hoped we could break this year. I truely hope that Hak wins this year and gets the monkey off his back. He does a lot of things I like as a coach, but when we can't seem to win it all regardless of the year or talent it is easy for us armchair coaches to look at his "systems" and wish they were more like the coach before him. While "fire Hak" probably is a very poor title for a thread, there probably needs to be a place where us "morons" can vent a little while still being considered good Sioux fans. Many of us don't want Hak fired, we just want him to get it done. 4
MafiaMan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 The problem with this thread is that it is bianary - either you are a "moron" who wants to fire a coach with one of the best winning percentages in the country or you are a weak Sioux fan who doesn't care about National Championships. Many fans are in between these positions. They don't think Hak should be fired but are extremely frustrated with the lack of a championship and a 1-6 record in the frozen 4, correctly pointing out that even though Hak has won a lot, the standard at UND in the past 35 years has been championships. We used to make fun of teams (Gophers) who couldn't get it done like we did. Now, not so much. I for one am getting pretty restless. The year 2000 and a Sioux NCAA title: practically forever ago for Sioux fans The years 2002 and 2003 when Minnesota won back-to-back NCAA titles: seems like yesterday for Sioux fans 2
Hayduke Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 That 5-1 loss was obviously embarrassing. I'm not on the "Fire Hak" bandwagon yet...but let the season play out and we'll see...
MafiaMan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 That 5-1 loss was obviously embarrassing. I'm not on the "Fire Hak" bandwagon yet...but let the season play out and we'll see...No question it was embarrassing. No question. Last season, a day after whoopin' UMD 6-1 at home, Minnesota laid a 2-6 goose egg at Mariucci against the Bulldogs, a game which saw UMD lead 3-0 after 1, 5-1 after 2, and 6-1 with less than 9:00 left in the game before the Gophers managed to score their 2nd goal. Two years ago, Union and Quinnipiac absolutely embarrassed Yale in the ECAC tournament. A few weeks later, Yale shut out QU in the national title game. Egg laid...and then avenged. Everyone has an ugly loss once or twice a year. Let's hope UND's one egg for 2014-2015 was the home opener. 1
Hayduke Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 No question it was embarrassing. No question. Last season, a day after whoopin' UMD 6-1 at home, Minnesota laid a 2-6 goose egg at Mariucci against the Bulldogs, a game which saw UMD lead 3-0 after 1, 5-1 after 2, and 6-1 with less than 9:00 left in the game before the Gophers managed to score their 2nd goal. Two years ago, Quinnipiac absolutely embarrassed Yale in the ECAC tournament. A few weeks later, Yale shut out the exact same team in the national title game. Egg laid. Everyone has an ugly loss once or twice a year. Let's hope UND's one egg for 2014-2015 was the home opener. I'm hoping the same.
MafiaMan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 No question it was embarrassing. No question. Last season, a day after whoopin' UMD 6-1 at home, Minnesota laid a 2-6 goose egg at Mariucci against the Bulldogs, a game which saw UMD lead 3-0 after 1, 5-1 after 2, and 6-1 with less than 9:00 left in the game before the Gophers managed to score their 2nd goal. Two years ago, Union and Quinnipiac absolutely embarrassed Yale in the ECAC tournament. A few weeks later, Yale shut out QU in the national title game. Egg laid...and then avenged. Everyone has an ugly loss once or twice a year. Let's hope UND's one egg for 2014-2015 was the home opener. I'm hoping the same. I edited my post slightly before your reply and wanted that reflected here. I was thinking of the 5-0 Yale game at the ECAC tournament, but their opponent was Union and not Quinnipiac. Quinnipiac turned around and shut out Yale 3-0 the next day in the 3rd place game, hence the combined effort at embarrassing Yale. In games Yale absolutely needed to play well in and win, they were shut out by a combined 8-0 score. Of course, we all know what happened later as things bounced the Bulldogs' way in other conferences and they made the tournament after all...
scpa0305 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 The problem with this thread is that it is bianary - either you are a "moron" who wants to fire a coach with one of the best winning percentages in the country or you are a weak Sioux fan who doesn't care about National Championships. Many fans are in between these positions. They don't think Hak should be fired but are extremely frustrated with the lack of a championship and a 1-6 record in the frozen 4, correctly pointing out that even though Hak has won a lot, the standard at UND in the past 35 years has been championships. We used to make fun of teams (Gophers) who couldn't get it done like we did. Now, not so much. I for one am getting pretty restless. Time to win one, and what we saw Friday put into context seemed to indicate that even in a year where we are returning 20 lettermen and hopes are high we couldn't even get up for the home opener. I know it is a long season, but the poor starts and flameouts in the frozen 4 seem to be linked somehow into a pattern of frustration that we hoped we could break this year. I truely hope that Hak wins this year and gets the monkey off his back. He does a lot of things I like as a coach, but when we can't seem to win it all regardless of the year or talent it is easy for us armchair coaches to look at his "systems" and wish they were more like the coach before him. While "fire Hak" probably is a very poor title for a thread, there probably needs to be a place where us "morons" can vent a little while still being considered good Sioux fans. Many of us don't want Hak fired, we just want him to get it done. I'm probably as frustrated as anyone and have also been critical of Hak, however, it's way too early to start complaining. Save it for the offseason. "Hak team's" have their flaws however they have also been a pretty decent product as well. A guy deserves time to win a natty and I'm guessing his clock is ticking. This topic should be an offseason topic though, not after the first weekend of the year.
fightingsioux4life Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I'm probably as frustrated as anyone and have also been critical of Hak, however, it's way too early to start complaining. Save it for the offseason. "Hak team's" have their flaws however they have also been a pretty decent product as well. A guy deserves time to win a natty and I'm guessing his clock is ticking. This topic should be an offseason topic though, not after the first weekend of the year. The problem is, some people on this forum don't think it's EVER an appropriate topic. And after 10 years of working in one of the best arenas in the world and with some of the best young hockey players in the world, I think the "clock" has been ticking for some time now. And I don't think people on here are talking about just Friday night, but the whole body of work and what needs to change to get over that last hump. 2
MafiaMan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 The problem is, some people on this forum don't think it's EVER an appropriate topic. And after 10 years of working in one of the best arenas in the world and with some of the best young hockey players in the world, I think the "clock" has been ticking for some time now. And I don't think people on here are talking about just Friday night, but the whole body of work and what needs to change to get over that last hump. Soooooo tired of the arena being the top reason or near the top of reasons why UND should be winning NCAA titles every 3-4 years...North Dakota did just fine in a rink that most folks today would consider a first-class garbage dump. 3
Shawn-O Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Hakstol is under contract through 17-18 so I wouldn't get too excited. The GOBC doesn't have the juice to buy it out either.
Shawn-O Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Soooooo tired of the arena being the top reason or near the top of reasons why UND should be winning NCAA titles every 3-4 years...North Dakota did just fine in a rink that most folks today would consider a first-class garbage dump. Isn't that the point? That he has better resources than his predecessors?
MafiaMan Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Isn't that the point? That he has better resources than his predecessors? My point is that schools like Yale and Union recruit guys to be part of the program...UND recruits NHL prospects. Maybe pumping cold water into the hot tub or disconnecting cable from the giant big-screen TV in the players' lounge might wake a few "rock stars" up? P.S. home green for the Bison game yesterday.
choyt3 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 My point is that schools like Yale and Union recruit guys to be part of the program...UND recruits NHL prospects. Maybe pumping cold water into the hot tub or disconnecting cable from the giant big-screen TV in the players' lounge might wake a few "rock stars" up? P.S. home green for the Bison game yesterday. You've referenced this a few times now since Friday. Do you think REA is the only facility with hot tubs and big screen tv's in the players lounge/locker room area? Pretty sure it's not.
shep Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Soooooo tired of the arena being the top reason or near the top of reasons why UND should be winning NCAA titles every 3-4 years...North Dakota did just fine in a rink that most folks today would consider a first-class garbage dump.Soooooo tired of the arena being the top reason or near the top of reasons why UND should be winning NCAA titles every 3-4 years...North Dakota did just fine in a rink that most folks today would consider a first-class garbage dump. Gino Gasparini and Dean Blais did just fine in that "dump." I don't expect one every 3 or 4 years, but every 10... Damn right. And for the record I dont come to my conclusions based on 1 game this weekend.
fightingsioux4life Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Soooooo tired of the arena being the top reason or near the top of reasons why UND should be winning NCAA titles every 3-4 years...North Dakota did just fine in a rink that most folks today would consider a first-class garbage dump. It sure isn't the top reason, but it can't hurt to have a first-class weight room, first-class locker rooms, etc. I remember Blais saying back in the early 2000's that he lost a recruit to St. Cloud (I think it might have been Matt Cullen) because they had the better weight room and he was thrilled at what the new REA had with regard to training resources for the players. And your comment on the Old REA vs. the New REA just bolsters the point that I (and others) have made about Hakstol having more resources to work with than previous head coaches and yet hasn't gotten over the hump. But I do agree with the concept of recruiting players that want to have success in college and who aren't focused entirely on where they are drafted and how much money they get with their first NHL contract. There is a grain of truth to that.
scpa0305 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 It sure isn't the top reason, but it can't hurt to have a first-class weight room, first-class locker rooms, etc. I remember Blais saying back in the early 2000's that he lost a recruit to St. Cloud (I think it might have been Matt Cullen) because they had the better weight room and he was thrilled at what the new REA had with regard to training resources for the players. And your comment on the Old REA vs. the New REA just bolsters the point that I (and others) have made about Hakstol having more resources to work with than previous head coaches and yet hasn't gotten over the hump. But I do agree with the concept of recruiting players that want to have success in college and who aren't focused entirely on where they are drafted and how much money they get with their first NHL contract. There is a grain of truth to that. Some of you guys don't get it. A coach doesn't recruit for those "4 year players" he recruits for talent. Yes, the unions and yales have had recent success but a lot of it was luck. When 57 other teams pass on a kid there is a reason for it. In Haks defense, you don't just turn a blind eye to talent, he is competing against the gophers and Eagles and the chl for the best young kids in the country. Those "4 year players" are the result of everyone else passing on them and a lot of luck. That's why those teams typically are hot and cold every other year. However, hak has had a lot of talent and even our "4 year players" could have played almost anywhere else, so he needs to get one relatively soon.
burd Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Some of you guys don't get it. A coach doesn't recruit for those "4 year players" he recruits for talent. Yes, the unions and yales have had recent success but a lot of it was luck. When 57 other teams pass on a kid there is a reason for it. In Haks defense, you don't just turn a blind eye to talent, he is competing against the gophers and Eagles and the chl for the best young kids in the country. Those "4 year players" are the result of everyone else passing on them and a lot of luck. That's why those teams typically are hot and cold every other year. However, hak has had a lot of talent and even our "4 year players" could have played almost anywhere else, so he needs to get one relatively soon.True. BC isn't wining more titles than anyone because they have a lot of players recruited to say 4 years. They have a great coach, but their roster is high end. And yes, UND always has a bunch of draft picks, but they're not getting the level of talent BC or Minny is getting.Like everybody, I'm looking to see if Hak can become as good a game coach as he is a program coach, at which he has few equals.
82SiouxGuy Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 True. BC isn't wining more titles than anyone because they have a lot of players recruited to say 4 years. They have a great coach, but their roster is high end. And yes, UND always has a bunch of draft picks, but they're not getting the level of talent BC or Minny is getting. Like everybody, I'm looking to see if Hak can become as good a game coach as he is a program coach, at which he has few equals. BC has more guys in the NHL than any other school, so they must be recruiting NHL talent rather than recruiting "4 year players". 1
fightingsioux4life Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Some of you guys don't get it. A coach doesn't recruit for those "4 year players" he recruits for talent. Yes, the unions and yales have had recent success but a lot of it was luck. When 57 other teams pass on a kid there is a reason for it. In Haks defense, you don't just turn a blind eye to talent, he is competing against the gophers and Eagles and the chl for the best young kids in the country. Those "4 year players" are the result of everyone else passing on them and a lot of luck. That's why those teams typically are hot and cold every other year. However, hak has had a lot of talent and even our "4 year players" could have played almost anywhere else, so he needs to get one relatively soon. If four year players inherently suck, then how did Dean Blais do so well with primarily four year players (very few of his kids left early from the mid 1990's to the early 2000's. There is value in the idea of having a roster of kids that started out together and graduate together (the freshman class of 1996-97 won an NCAA title their first year and in their senior year of 1999-2000). That builds chemistry and togetherness. When you add some 1 to 2 year higher-end kids to that group, you have a pretty good collection of veterans and young guns. As for why schools "pass" on certain kids, that varies from case to case. Sometimes, kids feel more comfortable on a smaller campus vs. larger campus, sometimes one school has his chosen field of study and another doesn't, some kids like to be close to home while others want to be as far away from home as possible. Recruiting (like professional drafts) is an inexact science and just because one school "passes" on a kid doesn't mean that kid won't fit in someplace else or that he's not good enough for D-I hockey. And finally, I don't think Yale and Union were "lucky". Yale beat both UND and Minnesota in the regional. I watched some of Union's play last year and they are top to bottom a very good team. They hung 7 on the mighty Goofs in the title game. You don't do that with "luck".
fightingsioux4life Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 BC has more guys in the NHL than any other school, so they must be recruiting NHL talent rather than recruiting "4 year players". Jerry York typically doesn't lose a lot of guys early all at once. Sometimes one or two will leave early, but he's also had a lot of kids that have stuck around for 3-4 years. That probably explains their consistency of winning games and NCAA titles over the past 15 years or so.
brianvf Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 If four year players inherently suck, then how did Dean Blais do so well with primarily four year players (very few of his kids left early from the mid 1990's to the early 2000's. And finally, I don't think Yale and Union were "lucky". Yale beat both UND and Minnesota in the regional. I watched some of Union's play last year and they are top to bottom a very good team. They hung 7 on the mighty Goofs in the title game. You don't do that with "luck". It's hard to compare 90's/early 2000's to now IMO. Back in those days, you had a grand total of maybe 10 powerhouse schools that were dominant almost every year. It certainly isn't like that anymore. I don't think there's ever a set number mix of 4yr players and blue chippahs for an ideal team...the team mold is constantly evolving. What works one year may not work the next year. I don't think he was referring to Yale and Union's title runs as luck...there was no denying that both of those teams were playing very well when they got the title. I took his comment as meaning that they got lucky with the player mix on those particular teams...it's not like we are expecting Yale and Union to turn into powerhouse teams with multiple titles...could happen, but just not as likely. Every title team needs a bit of luck on their side (except for maybe the Hrkac Circus...they were going to win regardless). Like Frattin's senior year Sioux team...that team was going to win the title. No doubt in my mind. But they sure didn't get any puck luck in that semifinal against Michigan. Sometimes the luck just isn't there to back up the talent.
bigskyvikes Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Gino Gasparini and Dean Blais did just fine in that "dump." I don't expect one every 3 or 4 years, but every 10... Damn right. And for the record I dont come to my conclusions based on 1 game this weekend. Well this is the 2nd game since the frozen four??? Oh Yea there is no way they should have loss that game in Philly with Hak having the REA and the talent in his players... These complaints are soooo mind numbing!
Big A HG Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Gino Gasparini and Dean Blais did just fine in that "dump." I don't expect one every 3 or 4 years, but every 10... Damn right. And for the record I dont come to my conclusions based on 1 game this weekend. Winning 1 out of 10 is a pretty good clip, and a very reasonable goal to maintain at UND. I know I've said this before, and it's not going to change anyone's mind, but we are ahead of the game when it comes to winning. The Law of Averages plays a bit of a role in this. The bad news is, from a historical perspective, we were due for another drought. On the bright side, during this drought, we've still had a lot of secondary success to fall back on. It's not like we've been in the cellar trying to crawl back into the successful ranks of college hockey. The good news with the law of averages plays off of our short-term history, and it's the fact that we should have one coming soon. So, you have the long-term history fighting against our short-term history and it's just a matter of which one plays out. Chance of winning a Frozen Four...1 out of 4 or 25% (obviously) UND has won 7 titles in their 20 Frozen Four appearances...or 35% UND had won 7 of 14 appearances prior to Hakstol...50%!! (we were bound to slide back closer towards 25% as it was unrealistic to maintain a 50% winning percentage) If winning 1 out of every 10 titles is a good, yet reasonable clip (which I feel is very fair for a team like UND), we'd have 10% of all titles...or 6.7 titles (in a case like this, you can only round down as you can't get credit for more). UND has 7 championships, so we are still ahead of the game. Because we can't round down, we have 12 more years to win a championship to stay ahead of the curve. We've been very fortunate with our history, but times have changed and so should our expectations a little. On the short-term we are overdue for another championship, but on the long-term, we are doing just fine still. This is why everyone both wins and loses this argument every time. Hak is a fine coach who has put our team in many opportunities to win #8. He can't do it all, sometimes it's on the players, and the other team wants to win just as badly as we do, and we end up losing some games when we shouldn't.
Recommended Posts