UND Ranked #1 in uscho.com poll

[Cratter]

My disappointment has been that Hakstol has only been to the title game once. It's not like he's constantly losing in the championship game. He's good at the regular season and getting to the frozen four. After that not so much.

[Cratter]

Dave Hakstol is 1-5 in the semifinals.

[Shawn-O]

I thought last year was his best coaching job, even though it didn't end how we would've liked. 

[ihatethegophers]

Dave Hakstol is 1-5 in the semifinals.

Yeah but he is like 6-1 in the quarterfinals. Which school other than BC has had more success during Hakstol's time here?

[Goon]

Let's compare 2 schools over the past 10 years:

 

In the past 10 years, School A has 1 leaugue tournament Championsip, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Frozen Four, and 1 National Championship.

In the past 10 years, School B has 2 league championships, 4 tournament championships, 10 playoff appearences, 6 Frozen Four's, and 1 runner up.

 

So I guess you can debate which school has had more success in those 10 years, and if the one Natty trumps all.  But, IMO, Shool B has had more sustained success over those years.  And that is a bigger feat than 1 season flash in the pan.

 

Who was team "A"? Is that Duluth? 

[scpa0305]

Let's compare 2 schools over the past 10 years:

In the past 10 years, School A has 1 leaugue tournament Championsip, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Frozen Four, and 1 National Championship.

In the past 10 years, School B has 2 league championships, 4 tournament championships, 10 playoff appearences, 6 Frozen Four's, and 1 runner up.

So I guess you can debate which school has had more success in those 10 years, and if the one Natty trumps all. But, IMO, Shool B has had more sustained success over those years. And that is a bigger feat than 1 season flash in the pan.

Natty trumps all. That's why we brag to goph fans all the time, because we have more than any other program other than michigan. Haks consistently put out a great product however the next time we get to the frozen 4 I would like to take it down. It's been awhile given how often we get there.

[gfhockey]

Fans remember nattys

New fans who aren't born yet see bannys

They could care less unless you want Hodgkin to hang up participation bannys

[farce poobah]

At least it appears fans won't have to worry about not making the Fargo regional.

 

I think that WIsconsin will win the Big Ten Easy conference tournament and knock UND out at the last minute.

[burd]

Let's compare 2 schools over the past 10 years:

 

In the past 10 years, School A has 1 leaugue tournament Championsip, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Frozen Four, and 1 National Championship.

In the past 10 years, School B has 2 league championships, 4 tournament championships, 10 playoff appearences, 6 Frozen Four's, and 1 runner up.

 

So I guess you can debate which school has had more success in those 10 years, and if the one Natty trumps all.  But, IMO, Shool B has had more sustained success over those years.  And that is a bigger feat than 1 season flash in the pan.

I look at it selfishly at this stage of my life. If School B gives me many more weekends of great, winning hockey, I'll take that over many weekends watching so-so hockey. Everyone wants the team to win the banner, but those are single event pleasures except for the bragging rights, which hold less value now than they once did.

I'd love to see Hak solve the championship riddle, but to have the third highest winning percentage of all active coaches is no small feat. That's a boat load of winning hockey we have the benefit of watching.

[fightingsioux4life]

Says the guy who left the Tom Osborne conversation over in the FBS thread...let me refresh your memory: You suggest that Osborne's legacy is secure because of his 3 national championships...the first of which took him 21 seasons to obtain.

But he did win them.  Hakstol hasn't done that yet.

 

And I left the Osborne conversation because we were just going in circles; no sense beating a dead horse.

[rochsioux]

Who was team "A"? Is that Duluth?

My guess is wisconsin.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

But he did win them. Hakstol hasn't done that yet.

And I left the Osborne conversation because we were just going in circles; no sense beating a dead horse.

Yeah those conversations that just go in circles drive me crazy too...

[MafiaMan]

Natty trumps all. That's why we brag to goph fans all the time, because we have more than any other program other than michigan. Haks consistently put out a great product however the next time we get to the frozen 4 I would like to take it down. It's been awhile given how often we get there.

I don't know any Michigan fans, nor have I ever had any conversations with Michigan fans who ramble on and on about how many titles the Wolverines have won. Probably because they've only won two of them since 1996.

And, sorry, any Sioux fan who simply repeats the company line of 7>5 is just a tool. Anyone with any common sense would know that Minnesota and North Dakota are two of the top college programs in the country.

[MafiaMan]

But he did win them. Hakstol hasn't done that yet.

And I left the Osborne conversation because we were just going in circles; no sense beating a dead horse.

Yes, Osborne did. And the first was in year TWENTY ONE of his coaching career. Had you been AD, you would have no doubt canned him long before 1994.

I got it now, though. Hakstol is a mediocre coach, but if in years 21, 22, and 24 of his coaching career he wins national titles, that makes his first 21 years a success too.

[Irish]

So what would you rather have.  A coach who year in and year out is one of the top teams in the country and legitimately competing for a National title every year or have a team that makes the playoffs every 3 years or so?  We have made the playoffs every single year Hak has been here.  If his job is in question, that every coach in the country should be considered on the hot seat. 

Why does that have to be my choice?  

[fightingsioux4life]

Yes, Osborne did. And the first was in year TWENTY ONE of his coaching career. Had you been AD, you would have no doubt canned him long before 1994.

I got it now, though. Hakstol is a mediocre coach, but if in years 21, 22, and 24 of his coaching career he wins national titles, that makes his first 21 years a success too.

I believe the whole Osborne debate started when you suggested that Bo Pelini should not have been fired by Nebraska.  And I contended (and still contend) that comparing Osborne and Pelini is apples and oranges.  Would I have fired Osborne way before 1994 came around?  I would say no.  Would I be critical of his teams losing big games on a regular basis?  Yes I would.  And that is the situation we have with Hakstol right now.

 

As for how we should define success (national titles vs. regular season wins), that is a dilemma Gopher fans debated (quite heatedly, IIRC) during the 1980's and 90's.  Would I want a bunch of losing teams and then one or two NCAA title teams?  No I would not.  But I would contend that scenario is the exception rather than the rule (and yes, yes, I know all about Duluth in 2011 and Wisconsin in 2006).  On the other side of it, would I want a bunch of winning teams that fall short over and over and over again despite having world-class talent more years than not?  No, but that is what we have right now.  Hakstol is 1-5 in five trips to the Frozen Four.  If the team is good enough to get there, why all the failures on the biggest stage in the entire sport (some of which were very hard to watch, btw).  That is what some of our fans cannot figure out (including me).  It isn't about "hating" Hakstol, it's about getting over that hump for the first time in almost 15 years.

 

In closing, do I think "nattys" are all that matter?  No, but they can and should be a part of the success of a storied, tradition-rich program like ours.  The notion that national titles aren't "realistic" anymore and that we should just feel satisfied with "being there" is what infuriates me and others on this forum.  As a kid in the 1980's and a college student in the 1990's, our fans were very disappointed when one of our championship-caliber teams failed to win a "natty".  I remember 1998 and the crushing loss to Michigan; I believe a good portion of our fan base chose not to attend the Frozen Four.  I sense that this level of passion does not exist in our fan base anymore.  We have mellowed and have been conditioned to accept being "participants" in the NCAA tournament instead of winning it once in a while.  I have not mellowed that much and I hope I never do.

 

End rant.

[gfhockey]

Is it a lot to ask for a natty? Simple question

[Goon]

Is it a lot to ask for a natty? Simple question

 

Do you guys ever do anything, but troll and try to get everyone worked up? Simple question. 

[brianvf]

The notion that national titles aren't "realistic" anymore and that we should just feel satisfied with "being there" is what infuriates me and others on this forum.

 

National titles aren't realistic anymore?  I don't recall any Sioux fan ever saying or alluding to that. 

 

 

I sense that this level of passion does not exist in our fan base anymore.

I don't think you'll find a more passionate fan base in all of college hockey.

[.357]

I believe the whole Osborne debate started when you suggested that Bo Pelini should not have been fired by Nebraska.  And I contended (and still contend) that comparing Osborne and Pelini is apples and oranges.  Would I have fired Osborne way before 1994 came around?  I would say no.  Would I be critical of his teams losing big games on a regular basis?  Yes I would.  And that is the situation we have with Hakstol right now.

 

As for how we should define success (national titles vs. regular season wins), that is a dilemma Gopher fans debated (quite heatedly, IIRC) during the 1980's and 90's.  Would I want a bunch of losing teams and then one or two NCAA title teams?  No I would not.  But I would contend that scenario is the exception rather than the rule (and yes, yes, I know all about Duluth in 2011 and Wisconsin in 2006).  On the other side of it, would I want a bunch of winning teams that fall short over and over and over again despite having world-class talent more years than not?  No, but that is what we have right now.  Hakstol is 1-5 in five trips to the Frozen Four.  If the team is good enough to get there, why all the failures on the biggest stage in the entire sport (some of which were very hard to watch, btw).  That is what some of our fans cannot figure out (including me).  It isn't about "hating" Hakstol, it's about getting over that hump for the first time in almost 15 years.

 

In closing, do I think "nattys" are all that matter?  No, but they can and should be a part of the success of a storied, tradition-rich program like ours.  The notion that national titles aren't "realistic" anymore and that we should just feel satisfied with "being there" is what infuriates me and others on this forum.  As a kid in the 1980's and a college student in the 1990's, our fans were very disappointed when one of our championship-caliber teams failed to win a "natty".  I remember 1998 and the crushing loss to Michigan; I believe a good portion of our fan base chose not to attend the Frozen Four.  I sense that this level of passion does not exist in our fan base anymore.  We have mellowed and have been conditioned to accept being "participants" in the NCAA tournament instead of winning it once in a while.  I have not mellowed that much and I hope I never do.

 

End rant.

To me it seems like the fanbase is atomizing into two camps: those who are content with the current results & those who are about to lynch gfhockey to appease their anger.

 

You could extrapolate Hakstol's career another 12 years & if he's 0-24 there would still be Sioux fans who love that he's still brought 24 years of winning hockey in the regular season. Time will tell.

 

When does a Sioux hockey coach reach a point in his career when the fans demand a national championship? I'm addressing the fans who are content with Coach Hakstol's results so far. Does this point exist or doesn't it matter?

[Godsmack]

Ask any CC fan what they'd chose since 1957...I think they and other schools of their ilk would take UND's consistent success any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If any of you have forgotten those difficult years of the early 90's of Sioux hockey, try being in my position as a CC season ticket holder as well as someone who has traveled several times the past three seasons to watch them play road games only to watch them lose, and at times, lose badly. I can't even begin to explain how difficult it's been sometimes to watch them play but I continue to go because I love the program and I want to see them succeed.

I'm not trying to turn this into a conversation about the woes of Tiger hockey, I'm just trying to give some perspective on things and hope UND fans realize what we're all debating right now is such a good and enviable position to be in. I would bet fans of at least 50 other college programs would trade for UND's track record.

In the past, I've lamented Hakstol, criticized him too but in hindsight, at times, I was just frustrated over a big loss and was looking for a pound of flesh, an easy target to blame. Hakstol is to be commended for his body of work and the product he delivers year in and year out. Yah, he's not had the success we'd all like in the FF but let's remember the talent level of the opposition...these weren't exactly the Anchorages or Techs of the college hockey world we were losing to either.

End of my rant.

[brianvf]

When does a Sioux hockey coach reach a point in his career when the fans demand a national championship? I'm addressing the fans who are content with Coach Hakstol's results so far.

 

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Sioux fan "content" with the results thus far.  Everyone here, with no exception IMO, wants a national title.  Every single Sioux poster on this forum.  But just because some Sioux fans "demand" a title does not make it so. 

 

Regular season success.  League titles.  Playoff titles.  National titles.  Hakstol-led teams have brought the fanbase all of them except for the most coveted one.  Would a different coach have brought a national title to GF during this drought?  Maybe, maybe not.  If Hakstol was fired/replaced, would a national title soon follow?  Maybe, maybe not.  The grass is not always greener...

 

The only thing that irks me is how some fans bring this topic up in every single thread.  Regardless of time of year.  Regardless of the team's record.  ("hey look over there, the team is ranked #1 right now!!...Fire Hakstol, he can't win the big one!") It's a valid topic, but does the same conversation really need to be rehashed after the first loss of the year and after every subsequent loss ("we're 0-1, do you think Blais will come back?"). 

 

This conversation goes in circles.  And it will unfortunately keep going until either Hakstol brings it home or he gets replaced...at which point the circular conversation begins fresh once again.

 

That said, how about this current #1 ranked UND team?  Even with all those injuries.  Maybe they can hoist that big trophy up at the end of the season in Boston...or Tampa...maybe Chicago...or St. Paul.  Heck, why not all four?

[.357]

National titles aren't realistic anymore?  I don't recall any Sioux fan ever saying or alluding to that. 

 

I don't think you'll find a more passionate fan base in all of college hockey.

Sioux fans don't directly say that, but there are indirect references to more programs being around or the landscape being more competitive, making it more difficult than 20 years ago. 

 

 

I don't think anyone on this board personally hates Coach Hakstol. But there are many who are dissatisfied with the zero NCs so far & who want to see some results. I don't think pressuring a coach or a team to succeed on the big stage is bad at all. A fanbase who expects their team to win the NC & starts pressuring when none is realized year after year, is more conducive to eventually winning it all than a fanbase who is complacent with just successful regular seasons. If a coach feels pressure from the community, he is often forced to change his coaching philosophy when this same philosophy didn't work in previous years, lest he be looking for a new job. No pressure, or reduced expectations, leads a coach to use the same approach year after year because he's not being forced to alter a failed philosophy or strategy. Last year was encouraging, though, because Hakstol appeared to have finally figured it out coaching-wise at the FF, aside from the last second.

 

This topic is better left for the off-season (if needed), but it should still be openly discussed & not shunned as being hateful or irrelevant; because coaching is a results-oriented profession, especially at this level. 

 

And going by your other response, you didn't say if there should be a timetable or not for a Sioux hockey coach to win a NC. Am curious what your opinion is..10, 20 or more years or no timetable at all? Not trying to be a thorn, just wondering..

[Oxbow6]

The beginning of this season has been enjoyable as a fan. Currently #1 in the polls and not sitting at 5-7-2 like most years at this point. I'll be in Fargo for the regional cheering on this team to make the F4 again. If they do...well the team then just needs a 2 game winning streak to end it the right way.

[gfhockey]

So now we are comparing Und to cc?

Wow

I hear there recruiting tools are better then ours