Fire Hak 14-15

[bigskyvikes]

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.

Wow, I feel smarter having read this post.

Facts and math, I love it...well done!

[MafiaMan]

...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. 

 

I wouldn't be too quick to write-off Union College as a threat to become an NCAA powerhouse in hockey...

 

2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2013-2014 ECAC conference champions

 

2012, 2013, 2014 ECAC tournament champions

 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 NCAA tournament appearances

 

2012, 2014 NCAA Frozen Four appearances

 

2014 NCAA champions

 

Obviously Shayne Gostisbehere (a guy who was offered one and only one chance to play college hockey, mind you) was a big part of that program build-up, but Union's on the map for the long-haul, in my humble opinion.  Five years ago, did anyone think Baylor would be the darling of Big XII football?  Not a chance.  Then some guy who goes by RGIII comes along and now it's the new "it" program in college football.  The same could possibly be said of Union in a few years.  We'll see...

[MafiaMan]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't either, but I think UND hockey players might have a different experience at THE Ohio State University, Yale, Michigan, Bowling Green, Lake Superior State, among many others.  Maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek with a few references since last Friday, but the logic at UND seems to be to that tossing money around at everything sports-related is a sure-fire way to guarantee national championships, and when those expectations aren't met, heads must roll. 

[MafiaMan]

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.

Gostisbehere left school after his junior year - apparently 57 teams could use a refresher course on how to evaluate talent.

The above-mentioned Shayne Gostisbehere, along with Mat Bodie, Kenny Agostino, Jesse Root, and Andrew Miller could play on my Sioux team anytime they want.

[Irish]

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.

You must have slept during stats class - Are you familiar with the Gamblers Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)?  Many a fortune has been lost on the Roulette wheel because of it.  If red comes up 10 times in a row, what are the odds of the next spin being black? - 50/50.  We didn't lose the Frozen 4 because the odds say we were due to.  Each time is independent of any other time.  If you assume that each team has a 50/50 chance of winning each game in the frozen 4 then Hak has entered the contest 6 times and instead of winning games at a 50% pace he is winning at a 16% pace (1-6).  His turns are independent of Gino's or Blais's.  Things don't even out towards the expected average until you have a very large sample (the law of large numbers) - this requires many more trials than 20 or so (think thousands).   

TLDR - your "statistical" reason we aren't winning National Championships are nonsense.  You clearly don't understand the "law of averages", the gamblers fallacy, or the law of large numbers.  

[Fetch]

As much as I usually hate stats that was interesting

[Cratter]

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.

 

 

That's where the logic is flawed. There is no "law of averages." UND is never due anything because they haven't won in a certain amount of time. The percent of winning it this year is the same as winning it all the last ten years.

 

Just because I haven't rolled a one on a dice in seven tries, doesn't mean the chance of a one poping up increases on any the next rolls.

 

That's the problem. Hak had a decade, and people here think his "chance will come soon, because he is due." Not true by anymeans. Quite the opposite.

[Irish]

That's where the logic is flawed. There is no "law of averages." UND is never due anything because they haven't won in a certain amount of time. The percent of winning it this year is the same as winning it all the last ten years.

 

Just because I haven't rolled a one on a dice in seven tries, doesn't mean the chance of a one poping up increases on any the next rolls.

 

That's the problem. Hak had a decade, and people here think his "chance will come soon, because he is due." Not true by anymeans. Quite the opposite.

The idea that Hak is underachieveing at the Frozen 4 (1-6) because Gino and Blais were so good there is complete and utter blather, but emotionally it makes us feel better about our recent failures.  You'd be better off going with the "it's so much harder now" argument although I think that is nonsense too.  It's thunderdome - 4 teams enter, one team leaves.  We just haven't been the one that leaves - certainly not because of Gino or Deano - we just flat out haven't gotten it done.  The only year that I feel we were in there with shakey talent was last year.  Other than that, we just plain didn't do it.

[scpa0305]

Gostisbehere left school after his junior year - apparently 57 teams could use a refresher course on how to evaluate talent.

The above-mentioned Shayne Gostisbehere, along with Mat Bodie, Kenny Agostino, Jesse Root, and Andrew Miller could play on my Sioux team anytime they want.

Gostisbehere was drafted, he was the first big recruit Union had pulled (and I believe he was a 3rd or 4th rounder).

some posters are trying to say hak should change his recruiting style and I think that is completely idiotic. Coaches recruit talent, they don't pass on talent. All those players you mentioned have talent. There is talent on the east cost too

[MafiaMan]

Gostisbehere was drafted, he was the first big recruit Union had pulled (and I believe he was a 3rd or 4th rounder).

some posters are trying to say hak should change his recruiting style and I think that is completely idiotic. Coaches recruit talent, they don't pass on talent. All those players you mentioned have talent. There is talent on the east cost too

Yes, Gostisbehere was drafted - my point was that the only offer he had was from Union College. Lots of schools missed the boat on him.

[scpa0305]

Yes, Gostisbehere was drafted - my point was that the only offer he had was from Union College. Lots of schools missed the boat on him.

u

True. No other teams have him an offer huh?

[SJHovey]

That's where the logic is flawed. There is no "law of averages." UND is never due anything because they haven't won in a certain amount of time. The percent of winning it this year is the same as winning it all the last ten years.

 

Just because I haven't rolled a one on a dice in seven tries, doesn't mean the chance of a one poping up increases on any the next rolls.

 

That's the problem. Hak had a decade, and people here think his "chance will come soon, because he is due." Not true by anymeans. Quite the opposite.

What is true is this.  Jerry York, Ron Mason, George Gwozdecky, Don Lucia, Red Berenson, Jeff Sauer, and "Badger" Bob Johnson were all D-1 college hockey coaches for 10 or more years before they won a title, and most of those guys have had a pretty good run.

 

True, there have been guys like Dean Blais or Jeff Johnson who came in and won one or two right away.  But there have been guys like that who won right away, then spent the rest of their career trying to recapture it.

 

I don't care what kind of advantages or disadvantages a program gives to a coach.  It can take very good coaches time to figure out how to win, so to speak.  What works, what doesn't work.  To adapt to changes in recruiting.

 

If or when the program falls on hard times like it did a bit in the later part of Gino's tenure, I'll have no problem if the school wants to look in another direction.  But right now the program is in the running for a title each year, so I'll take my chances.

[Cratter]

What is true is this.  Jerry York, Ron Mason, George Gwozdecky, Don Lucia, Red Berenson, Jeff Sauer, and "Badger" Bob Johnson were all D-1 college hockey coaches for 10 or more years before they won a title, and most of those guys have had a pretty good run.

 

True, there have been guys like Dean Blais or Jeff Johnson who came in and won one or two right away.  But there have been guys like that who won right away, then spent the rest of their career trying to recapture it.

 

I don't care what kind of advantages or disadvantages a program gives to a coach.  It can take very good coaches time to figure out how to win, so to speak.  What works, what doesn't work.  To adapt to changes in recruiting.

 

If or when the program falls on hard times like it did a bit in the later part of Gino's tenure, I'll have no problem if the school wants to look in another direction.  But right now the program is in the running for a title each year, so I'll take my chances.

 

All true. But there are always deviations from the standard. You'll never find a one size fits all. 

 

But what we can do is look at Hakstols ten year average. And see a line that has a downward projectory in his NCAA tournament coaching record.

 

Where he got his first year (the national title game), he has yet to go back to. Then the following three years after that he loses in the semifinals (pretty awesome start)....

 

Then he gets back to the semifinals twice in the next six years (the last six) only to lose again. In ten years Dave Hakstol has been in the title game once.

 

Don Lucia went from CC to winning a title at Minnesota in his third year. So "advantages and disadvantage of a program" do play a part.

George Gwozdecky once going to a program with more resources (Denver) He won a title in year ten.

Jerry York won it in year 12. That gives Dave this and next year to match Jerry Yorks first title. Took Jerry only 7 years to win a title at BC. In which he had to turn a program around. 

 

 Red Berenson another great regular season coach. Not so great at one and done format. Like Doug Woog.

 

Last years champion coach, Rick Bennett, had only been a head coach for three years before winning a ncaa hockey title. (How much did does he make at Union? Can we steal him away?)

2013 NCAA Hockey Champs. Took their coach 7 years as a head coach.

2012 Jerry York

2011. Sandelin. Took him 11 years.

2010: York

2009: Jack Parker: got his first championship in year 5 of coaching BU.

2008: York again.

2007: Rich Comley: once going to a "better program" in Michigan State from Northern MIchigan got it done in year 5.

2006: Mike Eaves. 4 years.

2005: Gwoz

2004: Gwoz

2003: Lucia

2002: Lucia

2001: York

2000: BLAIS. His second. His first came after 3 years as head coach at hockey rich North Dakota.

 

 

By Far more often than not. If you don't win a championship in 12 years as head coach. You never win one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day?

[Sodbuster]

UND vs US International, with Brad Beutow as coach. Ugly game; I remember even Hrkac took a rare frustration penalty in that one. Season ended pretty good though.

One of the 2 games I saw in person that year.

[gfhockey]

#butregularseasonrecord

[MafiaMan]

All true. But there are always deviations from the standard. You'll never find a one size fits all.

But what we can do is look at Hakstols ten year average. And see a line that has a downward projectory in his NCAA tournament coaching record.

Where he got his first year (the national title game), he has yet to go back to. Then the following three years after that he loses in the semifinals (pretty awesome start)....

Then he gets back to the semifinals twice in the next six years (the last six) only to lose again. In ten years Dave Hakstol has been in the title game once.

Don Lucia went from CC to winning a title at Minnesota in his third year. So "advantages and disadvantage of a program" do play a part.

George Gwozdecky once going to a program with more resources (Denver) He won a title in year ten.

Jerry York won it in year 12. That gives Dave this and next year to match Jerry Yorks first title. Took Jerry only 7 years to win a title at BC. In which he had to turn a program around.

Red Berenson another great regular season coach. Not so great at one and done format. Like Doug Woog.

Last years champion coach, Rick Bennett, had only been a head coach for three years before winning a ncaa hockey title. (How much did does he make at Union? Can we steal him away?)

2013 NCAA Hockey Champs. Took their coach 7 years as a head coach.

2012 Jerry York

2011. Sandelin. Took him 11 years.

2010: York

2009: Jack Parker: got his first championship in year 5 of coaching BU.

2008: York again.

2007: Rich Comley: once going to a "better program" in Michigan State from Northern MIchigan got it done in year 5.

2006: Mike Eaves. 4 years.

2005: Gwoz

2004: Gwoz

2003: Lucia

2002: Lucia

2001: York

2000: BLAIS. His second. His first came after 3 years as head coach at hockey rich North Dakota.

By Far more often than not. If you don't win a championship in 12 years as head coach. You never win one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day?

After winning that 1978 title with BU, Jack Parker would go another 17 years before winning another in 1995, then 14 more before winning a third crown in 2009.

Rick Comley won with Northern Michigan in 1991. He was just about run out of town in East Lansing until the miracle title win in 2007 helped squelch the masses.

[jdub27]

So each year is independent of each other and what happened in the past has no bearing on future years so Hak/UND can't be "due" to win one soon yet since Hak hasn't won a championship by now, he clearly won't because that's what the past shows us? 

 

I don't agree with either side on this one, but you can't have it both ways.  And Hak is in no danger of losing his job.

[brianvf]

Last years champion coach, Rick Bennett, had only been a head coach for three years before winning a ncaa hockey title. (How much did does he make at Union? Can we steal him away?)

 

Haha.  That's ridiculous.  If Union doesn't reach the F4 for another 15 years, would you still want Bennett? 

What about the Yale coach?  He has one title too!  Maybe we should snag him!

[Cratter]

Haha.  That's ridiculous.  If Union doesn't reach the F4 for another 15 years, would you still want Bennett? 

What about the Yale coach?  He has one title too!  Maybe we should snag him!

 

Absolutely!

[bigskyvikes]

Haha. That's ridiculous. If Union doesn't reach the F4 for another 15 years, would you still want Bennett?

What about the Yale coach? He has one title too! Maybe we should snag him!

Exactly.... Ridiculous!

[Cratter]

After winning that 1978 title with BU, Jack Parker would go another 17 years before winning another in 1995, then 14 more before winning a third crown in 2009.

Rick Comley won with Northern Michigan in 1991. He was just about run out of town in East Lansing until the miracle title win in 2007 helped squelch the masses.

 

Hopefully Hakstol is on the same path of Parker. Well. I guess he's already behind on the first one. And in four years if he doesn't win one, he will be behind on another accomplishment of Parker.

 

Rich Comley was almost run out of East Lansing after four or five years with Michigan State? In his fourth year he got second place in the conference and lost in the NCAA quarterfinals. Must be high standards in East Lansing.

[bigskyvikes]

Absolutely!

What a joke! Get that guy, he don't win it, fire him! Lucia wins one, get him, he don't win here, fire him, blais wins one, get him, he don't win, fire him! If you guys got your way UND would look like that loser that buys the best of everything, but is good at nothing! Just desperate!

[Cratter]

What a joke! Get that guy, he don't win it, fire him! Lucia wins one, get him, he don't win here, fire him, blais wins one, get him, he don't win, fire him! If you guys got your way UND would look like that loser that buys the best of everything, but is good at nothing! Just desperate!

 

Who said anything about firing a guy after not winning one? My "absolutely" was about hiring the Yale Coach.

[Cratter]

So each year is independent of each other and what happened in the past has no bearing on future years so Hak/UND can't be "due" to win one soon yet since Hak hasn't won a championship by now, he clearly won't because that's what the past shows us? 

 

I don't agree with either side on this one, but you can't have it both ways.  And Hak is in no danger of losing his job.

 

Just pointing out trends. Yes its a fact, most (not all of course) coaches of NCAA Mens Ice Hockey have won their first championship within 12 years.

 

Also just saying there is no such thing as a "We're due a championship soon. Its been a while." Is also a fallacy. When you have ten years of history to look back on, one can make an educated guess on where this season will land. But that's why they play the games. Anything can happen.

[bigskyvikes]

Who said anything about firing a guy after not winning one? My "absolutely" was about hiring the Yale Coach.

Read the title of the thread! If you want the "hiring of the Yale coach" then what was your plan for Hak?