Hak vs Blais

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

If a spouse cheats, does the other spouse need to know the intricate details of why that spouse cheated, or can that person just end it & get a divorce? Or, if a coach of a revered program goes for a long drought without a NC, does the fanbase need to give an intricate coaching analysis of why they are terminating him, or can they just terminate him for someone who may be more sophisticated in all points of the game? It's not an emotional reaction; it's a conclusion based on the very tangible result that no national championships have been won over a long duration. Cut & dry.  .... I'm not implying anything about Hakstol, seriously, just trying to understand your rationale, so no burning parties tonight from the mob, please ....

 

[stoneySIOUX]

Not much to chew on there, but I'll give it a shot.  In a divorce, one person makes a decision on his or her own future (although it may involve kids).   It is a one-step process--no immediate replacement is necessary and, in most states replacement within 6 months results in an invalid marriage. 

 

You may wish to divorce yourself from Sioux hockey, and that is your choice.  But if the AD or athletic board "divorces"  a coach, they will have to replace him or her soon afterward unless they want the players to coach themselves.   So if you hope to avoid your previous mistake or even making things much worse, you better have given serious thought to who that replacement will be and why he is likely to make things better and not worse. 

 

I've been critical of Hak myself, and I have no problem with fans getting on his case.  But just wanting him gone because he has not won a title and nothing more is not criticism, it's whining. 

 

^^^ Fantastic. Firing Hak without saying more than "no banners" would make absolutely zero sense. None. Nothing. Nada.

 

Idk why we're STILL arguing this. It's not happening.

[southpaw]

I am no expert on hockey by any means, but I have a theory on the post season problems. UND and the WCHA were always the rough & tumble league of the six leagues. In the post season the refs are from other leagues, UND failed to see the writing on the wall to a shift in gentler, kinder hockey and found themselves in the penalty box in the post season. Flame away.

Then how did his teams win 17 NCAA tournament games in 11 years?

[90siouxfan]

Then how did his teams win 17 NCAA tournament games in 11 years?

Played better, better talent, refs without the ladies hockey background etc, I don't know. I don't have the time to do an analysis of each season but feel free to run the information, what's your theory?

[MafiaMan]

And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College.

2006: BC comes into the Frozen Four having smoked Miami 5-0 and BU 5-0 in the regional. They promptly "blowout" North Dakota 6-5.

2007: BC beats St Lawrence 4-1 and Miami 4-0 en route to a 6-4 "blowout" over North Dakota in the Frozen Four. The 6th goal was an empty-netter.

2008: BC beats Minnesota 5-2 and Miami 4-3 in OT before thumping UND 6-1 in the Frozen Four. No doubt, a good old-fashioned out-behind-the-woodshed whoopin'.

By no means am I suggesting that North Dakota played well in any of those Frozen Four games against BC, but I get tired of the revisionist history that the Eagles skated UND right out of the building those three consecutive seasons. The only true "blowout" was the 2008 game.

[beebsb010]

I am going to give them the credit they deserve no matter what happens this weekend. It was a great season. 

 

We all get that.  Of course you will.   The question is will you ever be able to take off your green shades long enough to understand why anyone on earth would DARE criticize Hak.  Of course you won't. 

[MafiaMan]

If a spouse cheats, does the other spouse need to know the intricate details of why that spouse cheated, or can that person just end it & get a divorce? Or, if a coach of a revered program goes for a long drought without a NC, does the fanbase need to give an intricate coaching analysis of why they are terminating him, or can they just terminate him for someone who may be more sophisticated in all points of the game? It's not an emotional reaction; it's a conclusion based on the very tangible result that no national championships have been won over a long duration. Cut & dry. .... I'm not implying anything about Hakstol, seriously, just trying to understand your rationale, so no burning parties tonight from the mob, please ....

I guess it all depends on whether the coach was cheating with the hot stripper at the King of Diamonds or with the snaggle-tooth chain-smoking divorcee living across the street from him, wouldn't it?

[.357]

LOL, must a lot of adults around here reply with gifs to make a point? 

 

I used the analogy about the cheating spouse & a head coach as the other party in both cases does not need to provide a detailed explanation in order to terminate a relationship. "Burt" is somehow under the belief that a fanbase needs to provide a detailed, analytical analogy in order to terminate a head coach. I didn't say Hakstol should be released, just debating a point with Burt. I didn't think it was a great analogy, but not as terrible as your little Simpson picture implies.

 

But come on, man, if you're over 15 you shouldn't be replying to another person's post with a picture. If you're younger than that, I apologize.

[gfhockey]

If you ain't getting drunk get the outbof the club

[.357]

^^^ Fantastic. Firing Hak without saying more than "no banners" would make absolutely zero sense. None. Nothing. Nada.

 

Idk why we're STILL arguing this. It's not happening.

I'm not trying to argue for the release of Coach Hakstol, was just trying to make a point with "Burt" that when a coach is released that the academic institution does not need to provide said coach with a detailed, analytical reason why. It was just idle fodder for me to help pass the night & keep my mind distracted until Thursday. What I did not expect was to get barraged by a bunch of gifs. Is that the common means in 2015 for an adult to reply to a  post he doesn't agree with? LOL, geez , it's like Romper Room around here sometimes. 

 

Even if I did want his release, which I don't at this point, it would be a futile waste of time to argue with the True Believers around here who will never want him to go, regardless of the reasons given. It's a battle I couldn't win around here IF I were arguing for his release. That's all.

[mksioux]

2006: BC comes into the Frozen Four having smoked Miami 5-0 and BU 5-0 in the regional. They promptly "blowout" North Dakota 6-5.

 

Even though the final score of the 06 game was close, it didn't feel like a close game.  BC led 3-0 after 1, 5-2 after 2, and 6-3 late in the 3rd.  UND scored its 5th goal with only about 12 seconds left.  The outcome of the game never felt in doubt.  At least not to me.  But you're right, it wasn't a blowout. 

[.357]

I guess it all depends on whether the coach was cheating with the hot stripper at the King of Diamonds or with the snaggle-tooth chain-smoking divorcee living across the street from him, wouldn't it?

Wasn't exactly how my analogy went, but It would be nice if you didn't razz snaggle-toothed divorcees who are just trying to put some Hot Pockets on the table for their pups.  We all have a shining inner beauty that needs to be appreciated. : )

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

LOL, must a lot of adults around here reply with gifs to make a point? 

 

I used the analogy about the cheating spouse & a head coach as the other party in both cases does not need to provide a detailed explanation in order to terminate a relationship. "Burt" is somehow under the belief that a fanbase needs to provide a detailed, analytical analogy in order to terminate a head coach. I didn't say Hakstol should be released, just debating a point with Burt. I didn't think it was a great analogy, but not as terrible as your little Simpson picture implies.

 

But come on, man, if you're over 15 you shouldn't be replying to another person's post with a picture. If you're younger than that, I apologize.

 

Come on man, if you're younger than 75 you should know that's not a gif  . 

 

I'm sorry my meme upset you so much. My 8 year old brain just thought your divorce analogy was terrible and didn't require any more of a response. 

 

BTW we're 3 days away from the Frozen Four... so that's cool

[MafiaMan]

Even though the final score of the 06 game was close, it didn't feel like a close game. BC led 3-0 after 1, 5-2 after 2, and 6-3 late in the 3rd. UND scored its 5th goal with only about 12 seconds left. The outcome of the game never felt in doubt. At least not to me. But you're right, it wasn't a blowout.

I'd agree with you, although UND did get to 3-2 in the 2nd before giving up two late goals, including that dagger with less than 30 seconds left to make it 5-2 at the break. Didn't exactly get that "epic comeback" vibe headed into the 3rd either...

[Goon]

 

I don't think anyone said that Hakstol isn't above questioning. He's not.

 

If for some reason UND decided to release him. Hakstol would be snatched up almost immediately. His record speaks for himself. We’ve gotten pretty spoiled up here in Grand Forks, ND. Some teams never get a kick at the can.

 

If anything, I think Hak has grown as a coach the last four seasons. When college hockey evolved, he changed the type of players he recruited. There’s been a serious evolution to UND hockey. They now can skate with the speedy teams, they don't have players standing still. They don’t take a lot of penalties and they are miserable to play against.

 

While some might not appreciate him. Listen to what the league coaches say about him. Recently, SCSU’s and DU’s head coach had nothing but good things to say about the UND head coach.

 

Over the last three-four season, I have on a few occasions had other media people come up to me and ask if some of our fans really want to fire Hak. I have told them that there’s a few. They just laugh and shake their heads.

 

Two years ago after UND lost to Yale in the playoffs, I went on J.T. radio show and one of the questions that came out was, what if he doesn’t win a NCAA title after (X) number of years. I told him unless he has a bunch of losing season or does something bad or illegal, the University isn’t going to fire him. I would bet on that.

 

[.357]

Come on man, if you're younger than 75 you should know that's not a gif  . 

 

I'm sorry my meme upset you so much. My 8 year old brain just thought your divorce analogy was terrible and didn't require any more of a response. 

 

BTW we're 3 days away from the Frozen Four... so that's cool

 I think last night was just a way for me to bide my time until Thursday. I thought that "Burd" would be going to bed soon as he's probably a couple hours ahead of me (I'm in Zona), so I tried to think of a quick analogy before he retired for the night. It may have El Sucko, but it was still a valid analogy. : )

[.357]

We all get that.  Of course you will.   The question is will you ever be able to take off your green shades long enough to understand why anyone on earth would DARE criticize Hak.  Of course you won't. 

Exactly. I'm not for Hakstol's release at this point (not that it would matter anyway), but it's important for people when they're debating a point to step outside their entrenched (& I mean ENTRENCHED) beliefs/views & at least try to understand the other's point. To be fluid with one's perspective & entertain the notion that maybe that other person just might have a valid point, even if it may take a few beers to wrap his mind around that other person's thought. For me, it seems like many people go their entire lives clinging to a certain belief & they will die or defend that belief because they just cannot see themselves accepting anything else; almost like they made a vow to that belief & it would be completely unacceptable for them to even entertain changing it. I'm talking generally here, not necessarily as it applies to Hakstol. These rigid thinking patterns seem to be more ironclad in people's mind than prison bars.

[fightingsioux4life]

2006: BC comes into the Frozen Four having smoked Miami 5-0 and BU 5-0 in the regional. They promptly "blowout" North Dakota 6-5.

2007: BC beats St Lawrence 4-1 and Miami 4-0 en route to a 6-4 "blowout" over North Dakota in the Frozen Four. The 6th goal was an empty-netter.

2008: BC beats Minnesota 5-2 and Miami 4-3 in OT before thumping UND 6-1 in the Frozen Four. No doubt, a good old-fashioned out-behind-the-woodshed whoopin'.

By no means am I suggesting that North Dakota played well in any of those Frozen Four games against BC, but I get tired of the revisionist history that the Eagles skated UND right out of the building those three consecutive seasons. The only true "blowout" was the 2008 game.

But even in those "close" games, Boston College built big leads because our boys forgot to show up on the big stage.  So the final scores are misleading.  You have to play 60 minutes of solid hockey in April if you want any chance at all to win and we didn't do that.  And it helps when you can play right in your own backyard for every freaking regional every freaking year like Boston College gets to do.

 

You can spin it any way you want, but the bottom line is, Hakstol's teams (with the exception of 2005 and 2014) haven't put together 60 solid minutes of hockey in the Frozen Four, which is why we are going on 15 years without one NCAA banner being hung in REA (that means ZERO NCAA banners hung in the new REA since it opened).  Whether you think that matters or not is up to each fan to decide.  I think it's a very important part of the puzzle, but not all that matters.  Some people think "nattys" are all that matter (not my perspective at all) and some think #nattysdon'tmatter (not my perspective either).

[burd]

Exactly. I'm not for Hakstol's release at this point (not that it would matter anyway), but it's important for people when they're debating a point to step outside their entrenched (& I mean ENTRENCHED) beliefs/views & at least try to understand the other's point. To be fluid with one's perspective & entertain the notion that maybe that other person just might have a valid point, even if it may take a few beers to wrap his mind around that other person's thought. For me, it seems like many people go their entire lives clinging to a certain belief & they will die or defend that belief because they just cannot see themselves accepting anything else; almost like they made a vow to that belief & it would be completely unacceptable for them to even entertain changing it. I'm talking generally here, not necessarily as it applies to Hakstol. These rigid thinking patterns seem to be more ironclad in people's mind than prison bars.

It's called confirmation bias, and it is something we all have to be careful to avoid.  Tavris and Aronson wrote an excellent book on it called "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)," which is an excellent read for everyone. 

 

If my school has a coach who has lost control of his players or is consistently performing poorly, like missing the tournament consistently, I would probably conclude that he needs to go and that it will not be very difficult to replace him with a person who will do better.  If I have a coach who ranks in the top three coaches nationwide in win percentage, frozen four appearances, etc, but I can identify a coaching flaw that leads me to conclude that coach will probably never win a banner, I will strongly consider firing him, but I would be very careful about it and would have to be convinced that the replacement is likely to be better, all things considered.   That is a tougher call the better the current coach is performing. 

 

I think it is amusing when posters here complain that they cannot criticize Hakstol.   I don't think I'm alone in saying people should be able to freely criticize him, but if that criticism is limited to personal frustration that we haven't won a banner, then be prepared for others to expect you to identify the basis in terms more helpful than "he hasn't won one yet."    To say that people are being shouted down so they cannot criticize Hak is creating a strawman.  

 

I have stated that I think he is a great program coach, perhaps the best we have ever had, but I'm not convinced he has reached the point where his game coaching has reached that level.   He has certainly done both jobs well this year.   Up to this point, he should be in the running for coach of the year.   But we will see how we do in Boston.   If we win two games, that will be all some people need.  If we lose, I will want to  know what the better-informed hockey people identify as the reason.   Either way, I really like this bunch and what the coaching staff has done with them.  

[gfhockey]

He wins a natty

Th club lays off

[Ray77]

He wins a natty

Th club lays off

 

You've got to be loving how everything sits right now, gfhockey.  If Hak and the team don't seal the deal this year, you'll be able to keep up your schtick.  If Hak and team beat UNO for the championship, you can just tweak it a bit and still criticize the $hit out of him because he beat your (and the GOBC's) best buddy.  I suppose the worst case scenario is that Hak wins it but they beat Providence for the championship.  Heck, even then you can say "well, he didn't beat Blais" and can speculate how Blais would have outcoached him if they'd have met for all the marbles.

[rhenry8439]

Has nobody seen Back To The Future. In one seen it shows that Biff put $1,000 on UND to win the 2015 NCAA Mens National Championship and won that bet.If that isnt proof than i guess we will have to wait till sunday morning.

 

[Goon]

You've got to be loving how everything sits right now, gfhockey.  If Hak and the team don't seal the deal this year, you'll be able to keep up your schtick.  If Hak and team beat UNO for the championship, you can just tweak it a bit and still criticize the $hit out of him because he beat your (and the GOBC's) best buddy.  I suppose the worst case scenario is that Hak wins it but they beat Providence for the championship.  Heck, even then you can say "well, he didn't beat Blais" and can speculate how Blais would have outcoached him if they'd have met for all the marbles.

 

Top-ten post of the year.

[fightingsioux4life]

Has nobody seen Back To The Future. In one seen it shows that Biff put $1,000 on UND to win the 2015 NCAA Mens National Championship and won that bet.If that isnt proof than i guess we will have to wait till sunday morning.

ROFL, that is awesome.

[gfhockey]

Worst case scenario blais smokes us in the title game