Irish Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 thanks for understanding where I was coming from. I fully respect everything Blais did here as his hiring turned this program around, but some people on here think he walks on water. He doesn't walk on water, but he did win a couple of National Championships after taking over a sagging program. Championships count for a lot here. 1 Quote
Fetch Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Hey GF Hockey that boat u gave blais was kinda small u musta known where he would fish in the future Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Wasn't that small. He goes to low and dl quite a bit Quote
scpa0305 Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ncaa-hockey-101--hockey-east-already-a-2-team-league-144512896.html I like this guy's thoughts on UNO. Hopefully the correction happens this week! Quote
Goon Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/ncaa-hockey-101--hockey-east-already-a-2-team-league-144512896.html I like this guy's thoughts on UNO. Hopefully the correction happens this week! He filleted them. Quote
90siouxfan Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 What will Blais pull to get an edge this series? haberno in the roasted almonds? chicken soup in the hot tub? steal one of the nets? 1 Quote
.357 Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Sioux hockey fans usually have no problems comparing various players with each other, like, is player A better than player B? It's just a normal part of being a fan. What I don't get though, & maybe someone can explain it to me, is why do some fans get overly sensitive when coaches are compared? I mean, is it bad hockey etiquette to compare the current Sioux hockey coach with the one who preceded him? Is that taboo? Also, what are the hallmarks of a successful college hockey coach? Winning percentage in the regular season, ability to recruit star players, number of national championships, good spokesman for the university, develops the players well for the next level, etc etc? .... Some of these qualities or all of them in order to be considered successful at the D1 collegiate level? 1 Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Who remembers how many wins each of our coaches have? Not one Who remembers how many nattys they win? I do 3 Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 I didn't know we hang participation banners? Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 I didn't know we hang participation banners? That is what we should do if "nattys" don't mean as much as they used to or are just too hard to win. Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Weren't thatvhard to win with the last two coaches each got two Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Weren't thatvhard to win with the last two coaches each got two Correction: Gino got three (1980, 1982, 1987) and Blais got two (1997, 2000). You know, back when all the other teams sucked and it was so much easier to win a "natty". Quote
geaux_sioux Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Correction: Gino got three (1980, 1982, 1987) and Blais got two (1997, 2000). You know, back when all the other teams sucked and it was so much easier to win a "natty". Yea those Badger teams from the 80s where horseshit Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Yea those Badger teams from the 80s where horseshit I was being sarcastic. Did you not see the ? I guess not. Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 For the people who don't like winning nattys how many years do you give Hak for not winning one? Quote
brianvf Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Correction: Gino got three (1980, 1982, 1987) and Blais got two (1997, 2000). You know, back when all the other teams sucked and it was so much easier to win a "natty". You don't think that some parity has happened in NCAA hockey since that time? Just a coincidence that prior to Holy Cross knocking off UMN, that no #4 seed had ever beaten a #1 seed...but now it happens almost every single year? Doesn't strike you as odd that three of the last four national title teams won their first title (Union, Yale, UMD)...yet before those three the last team to win their first title was Maine in 1993? I am in full agreement that UND has had the horses to win a title in recent years, but just hasn't gotten it done. That said, I do honestly believe that it was "easier" to win a title in the 80's/90's/early 00's...back in those days there were 10 teams most years that had a realistic chance of winning the title. Now that could probably be expanded to 20-25 different teams each year. Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 It's not my fault I like to watch banners get hung Quote
brianvf Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 For the people who don't like winning nattys how many years do you give Hak for not winning one? 1. I do like winning national titles. 2. I would say that if Hakstol doesn't win one before his current contract is up, that UND needs to potentially be looking at some candidates that could help get it done. Simple question: How many years do you give him? Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Current contract so we don't have to buy him out Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 You don't think that some parity has happened in NCAA hockey since that time? Just a coincidence that prior to Holy Cross knocking off UMN, that no #4 seed had ever beaten a #1 seed...but now it happens almost every single year? Doesn't strike you as odd that three of the last four national title teams won their first title (Union, Yale, UMD)...yet before those three the last team to win their first title was Maine in 1993? I am in full agreement that UND has had the horses to win a title in recent years, but just hasn't gotten it done. That said, I do honestly believe that it was "easier" to win a title in the 80's/90's/early 00's...back in those days there were 10 teams most years that had a realistic chance of winning the title. Now that could probably be expanded to 20-25 different teams each year. The point of my sarcastic comment (man, I just love sarcasm too much! ) is that NCAA titles are never easy to win. In the early 1980's, you had Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northern Michigan, ect. to deal with. We beat Michigan State in 1987 for the title and they were coming off of a title of their own in 1986. Then during the Blais era, you had the Boston's (BU and BC), Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire and so on. The bottom line is that if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best; upsets or not. And we just don't do that as much as we used to in March and April. Quote
brianvf Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Current contract so we don't have to buy him out I bet GOBC could buy him out easy! Quote
gfhockey Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 We porbably could but would like that money to go to bubba as we see potential there Quote
stoneySIOUX Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Sioux hockey fans usually have no problems comparing various players with each other, like, is player A better than player B? It's just a normal part of being a fan. What I don't get though, & maybe someone can explain it to me, is why do some fans get overly sensitive when coaches are compared? I mean, is it bad hockey etiquette to compare the current Sioux hockey coach with the one who preceded him? Is that taboo? Also, what are the hallmarks of a successful college hockey coach? Winning percentage in the regular season, ability to recruit star players, number of national championships, good spokesman for the university, develops the players well for the next level, etc etc? .... Some of these qualities or all of them in order to be considered successful at the D1 collegiate level? For me, it's just beating a dead horse. Blais is just simply never coming back, whether people like it or not. Why waste time on talking about the past when we have a great team on the ice this season working towards No. 8? I feel like the postseason is a much more appropriate time to talk about it any way. The talk about how many "nattys" Hak hasn't won and how Blais is so much better is just worn out. We've been talking about it for years and it ends up going in circles with one side thinking Hak is God and the other thinking Blais is. Simply put... Blais won us titles... great. Hak hasn't... bummer. Blais isn't coming back..... Hak is a great coach, but has yet to win the big one we all crave... I think we all hope he gets us one. Why continue to beat this issue to death? 1 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 For me, it's just beating a dead horse. Blais is just simply never coming back, whether people like it or not. Why waste time on talking about the past when we have a great team on the ice this season working towards No. 8? I feel like the postseason is a much more appropriate time to talk about it any way. The talk about how many "nattys" Hak hasn't won and how Blais is so much better is just worn out. We've been talking about it for years and it ends up going in circles with one side thinking Hak is God and the other thinking Blais is. Simply put... Blais won us titles... great. Hak hasn't... bummer. Blais isn't coming back..... Hak is a great coach, but has yet to win the big one we all crave... I think we all hope he gets us one. Why continue to beat this issue to death? Because anytime someone criticizes Hakstol for not getting over the hump in the postseason, that person gets raked over the hot coals. So that person responds and then we have another online "discussion" on our hands. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.