Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UND83

Hak vs Blais

Recommended Posts

I hear you. But I think now is the time that Sioux fans stop cannibalizing each other & unite for #8. At least for this week anyway. After the playoffs are over, I think it's perfectly normal & expected that we return to a cut-throat mentality towards each other; it's that kind of viciousness that has endeared SS to me. If not about the coach, then maybe about current recruits or the ice conditions at the TC in March. You know, uber important issues like that while an unchecked Fukushima radiates the Pacific & depleted uranium continues to be dropped on less desirable people half a world away. :)

Agreed, the national champion is crowned in 6 days and our boys are still very much contending for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, the national champion is crowned in 6 days and our boys are still very much contending for it.

Exactly. I so want #8 like everyone else here, but it doesn't make sense with this bickering about minutia which matters not in the grand scheme of things.

 

I think Colten St. Clair's performance along with Simo or Murphy's will be crucial to the outcome for us on Thursday & maybe even Saturday. The X factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I so want #8 like everyone else here, but it doesn't make sense with this bickering about minutia which matters not in the grand scheme of things.

I think Colten St. Clair's performance along with Simo or Murphy's will be crucial to the outcome for us on Thursday & maybe even Saturday. The X factors.

yeah I'm hoping with last change we can neutralize their top line and have our other lines score some goals. Zane will need to play like he did in Fargo and that will frustrate their goal scorers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in the mix, like we are every year and Hak gets little to no credit. I'm hoping he gets #8 this weekend so we can lay this firing nonsense to rest and get people off his back. That said, if we don't win this game against Boston, I sure hope UNO wins the whole thing. It's good for western hockey and our conference if they can win it if not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please elaborate. This sounds like unequivocal BS to me. I can think of loads of talent Izzo has had.

So you want a longer explanation?  Well, here it is:

 

Hakstol has had a long laundry list of talent come through this program since he took it over in 2004.  Cripes, he had Toews (future NHL Hall of Famer), Oshie (NHL All-Star) and Duncan (2007 Hobey Baker Memorial Award winner) on the same team and on the same line.  And that wasn't enough to hang #8.  If you really want to sit there and say Hakstol hasn't had the players, go right on ahead.  That doesn't make it true.  Because it isn't.  That is one example of how Hakstol's teams produce in the regular season and the conference tournament (most years anyway, certainly not this year), but then crash and burn in the NCAA's.  And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College.  You know, the team that doesn't use excuses like "parity", "one and done", "hot goalie" and so on and just gets it done when they have the players to get it done.

 

And please don't tell me that Tom Izzo has the same caliber of talent that Duke and Kentucky have had over the years.  Those two programs are always stacked with McDonald's All-Americans and future NBA lottery picks.  I don't think Izzo has sent all that many kids to the NBA or had a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans on the roster at the same time.  His teams simply are well-coached, well-prepared and take advantage of match-ups that the coaches find for their players to exploit.  Kind of what Wisconsin did to Kentucky last night.  And what UConn did to Kentucky last year.

 

Even without the athletes that Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky have on a perennial basis, Izzo has done more with less during his entire tenure.  Meanwhile Hakstol took over a program with a full cupboard left behind by Blais and hasn't won a single NCAA title.  And, like it or not, hanging NCAA banners is what separates the elite hockey programs from the merely good hockey programs.  And I honestly care more about the status of the program as a whole than how many guys we send to the NHL (more often the AHL or Europe).  That is the point I was making.  And I will stand by it.  End rant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want a longer explanation? Well, here it is:

Hakstol has had a long laundry list of talent come through this program since he took it over in 2004. Cripes, he had Toews (future NHL Hall of Famer), Oshie (NHL All-Star) and Duncan (2007 Hobey Baker Memorial Award winner) on the same team and on the same line. And that wasn't enough to hang #8. If you really want to sit there and say Hakstol hasn't had the players, go right on ahead. That doesn't make it true. Because it isn't. That is one example of how Hakstol's teams produce in the regular season and the conference tournament (most years anyway, certainly not this year), but then crash and burn in the NCAA's. And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College. You know, the team that doesn't use excuses like "parity", "one and done", "hot goalie" and so on and just gets it done when they have the players to get it done.

And please don't tell me that Tom Izzo has the same caliber of talent that Duke and Kentucky have had over the years. Those two programs are always stacked with McDonald's All-Americans and future NBA lottery picks. I don't think Izzo has sent all that many kids to the NBA or had a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans on the roster at the same time. His teams simply are well-coached, well-prepared and take advantage of match-ups that the coaches find for their players to exploit. Kind of what Wisconsin did to Kentucky last night. And what UConn did to Kentucky last year.

Even without the athletes that Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky have on a perennial basis, Izzo has done more with less during his entire tenure. Meanwhile Hakstol took over a program with a full cupboard left behind by Blais and hasn't won a single NCAA title. And, like it or not, hanging NCAA banners is what separates the elite hockey programs from the merely good hockey programs. And I honestly care more about the status of the program as a whole than how many guys we send to the NHL (more often the AHL or Europe). That is the point I was making. And I will stand by it. End rant.

What will you say if he wins one on Saturday? Or next year? Or the year after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will you say if he wins one on Saturday? Or next year? Or the year after that?

I will come on here and give him and his staff all the props they deserve.  I have said that many, many times on this forum.  I give credit where it is due and I give criticism where it is deserved.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want a longer explanation?  Well, here it is:

 

Hakstol has had a long laundry list of talent come through this program since he took it over in 2004.  Cripes, he had Toews (future NHL Hall of Famer), Oshie (NHL All-Star) and Duncan (2007 Hobey Baker Memorial Award winner) on the same team and on the same line.  And that wasn't enough to hang #8.  If you really want to sit there and say Hakstol hasn't had the players, go right on ahead.  That doesn't make it true.  Because it isn't.  That is one example of how Hakstol's teams produce in the regular season and the conference tournament (most years anyway, certainly not this year), but then crash and burn in the NCAA's.  And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College.  You know, the team that doesn't use excuses like "parity", "one and done", "hot goalie" and so on and just gets it done when they have the players to get it done.

 

And please don't tell me that Tom Izzo has the same caliber of talent that Duke and Kentucky have had over the years.  Those two programs are always stacked with McDonald's All-Americans and future NBA lottery picks.  I don't think Izzo has sent all that many kids to the NBA or had a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans on the roster at the same time.  His teams simply are well-coached, well-prepared and take advantage of match-ups that the coaches find for their players to exploit.  Kind of what Wisconsin did to Kentucky last night.  And what UConn did to Kentucky last year.

 

Even without the athletes that Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky have on a perennial basis, Izzo has done more with less during his entire tenure.  Meanwhile Hakstol took over a program with a full cupboard left behind by Blais and hasn't won a single NCAA title.  And, like it or not, hanging NCAA banners is what separates the elite hockey programs from the merely good hockey programs.  And I honestly care more about the status of the program as a whole than how many guys we send to the NHL (more often the AHL or Europe).  That is the point I was making.  And I will stand by it.  End rant.

 

In basketball you can win with 2-3 really good players and an ok surrounding cast.  That's not the case in hockey.  Toews, Oshie and Duncan aren't out there every shift, they're not playing goalie, they're not on the back end trying to stop the other team's high end forwards on every play.  Disappointing Hak hasn't won a title?  Absolutely, but having three great players in one year doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win.

 

Did last year's UND team have all the talent?  Did they underachieve or would you say Hak got the best out of a team that didn't have great talent?  The 07-08 team had Oshie and Duncan, but then only three seniors... they made the Frozen Four.  Is that getting the best out of a team?  I'd say so.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In basketball you can win with 2-3 really good players and an ok surrounding cast.  That's not the case in hockey.  Toews, Oshie and Duncan aren't out there every shift, they're not playing goalie, they're not on the back end trying to stop the other team's high end forwards on every play.  Disappointing Hak hasn't won a title?  Absolutely, but having three great players in one year doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win.

 

Did last year's UND team have all the talent?  Did they underachieve or would you say Hak got the best out of a team that didn't have great talent?  The 07-08 team had Oshie and Duncan, but then only three seniors... they made the Frozen Four.  Is that getting the best out of a team?  I'd say so.  

The 2007 team was not a one-line team, the D-O-T line was simply their best.  They had good to great players from top to bottom that year, just like most years in the Hakstol era.

 

I would say last year's team did overachieve and I do think that 0.6 second loss to the Rodents was a bad bounce, a one in a million shot that just happened to go in.  So I am not too critical of how last year ended.  My main beef is with some of the Frozen Four debacles during the mid to late 2000's.

 

And lastly, back in 1997, Blais took a sophomore dominated UND team to the National Championship.  And in 2015, he has taken a freshman and sophomore dominated Omaha team to the Frozen Four, just two wins away from their first National Championship.  So youth isn't always an impediment to success in March and April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 team was not a one-line team, the D-O-T line was simply their best.  They had good to great players from top to bottom that year, just like most years in the Hakstol era.

 

I would say last year's team did overachieve and I do think that 0.6 second loss to the Rodents was a bad bounce, a one in a million shot that just happened to go in.  So I am not too critical of how last year ended.  My main beef is with some of the Frozen Four debacles during the mid to late 2000's.

 

And lastly, back in 1997, Blais took a sophomore dominated UND team to the National Championship.  And in 2015, he has taken a freshman and sophomore dominated Omaha team to the Frozen Four, just two wins away from their first National Championship.  So youth isn't always an impediment to success in March and April.

Agree on your point about Omaha's young team and in F4 just two games from a Natty; no, youth ain't always an impediment to success come spring.  A writer out of Madison a month ago following a Badger's asst coaches outburst at their fans (frustration with the Badger's historically bad season) praised UND in fact for winning the conf title and advancing in the NCAAs back several seasons ago with generally an under classmen dominated team.  The asst coach was trying to fault the fans in Wis for not understanding what they (coaches) were doing and said they were having a bad season cus they lost a ton of seniors and had early departures (true).  However, the writer challenged that assessment and gave examples of other teams that didn't necessarily have to accept challenging for a natty one season with an older team and then totally fall off the radar (Wis) the next season.      

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will come on here and give him and his staff all the props they deserve.  I have said that many, many times on this forum.  I give credit where it is due and I give criticism where it is deserved.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I was responding to the question of whether I would give them credit for finally getting over the hump and hanging #8.  But your point is well taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want a longer explanation?  Well, here it is:

 

Hakstol has had a long laundry list of talent come through this program since he took it over in 2004.  Cripes, he had Toews (future NHL Hall of Famer), Oshie (NHL All-Star) and Duncan (2007 Hobey Baker Memorial Award winner) on the same team and on the same line.  And that wasn't enough to hang #8.  If you really want to sit there and say Hakstol hasn't had the players, go right on ahead.  That doesn't make it true.  Because it isn't.  That is one example of how Hakstol's teams produce in the regular season and the conference tournament (most years anyway, certainly not this year), but then crash and burn in the NCAA's.  And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College.  You know, the team that doesn't use excuses like "parity", "one and done", "hot goalie" and so on and just gets it done when they have the players to get it done.

 

And please don't tell me that Tom Izzo has the same caliber of talent that Duke and Kentucky have had over the years.  Those two programs are always stacked with McDonald's All-Americans and future NBA lottery picks.  I don't think Izzo has sent all that many kids to the NBA or had a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans on the roster at the same time.  His teams simply are well-coached, well-prepared and take advantage of match-ups that the coaches find for their players to exploit.  Kind of what Wisconsin did to Kentucky last night.  And what UConn did to Kentucky last year.

 

Even without the athletes that Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky have on a perennial basis, Izzo has done more with less during his entire tenure.  Meanwhile Hakstol took over a program with a full cupboard left behind by Blais and hasn't won a single NCAA title.  And, like it or not, hanging NCAA banners is what separates the elite hockey programs from the merely good hockey programs.  And I honestly care more about the status of the program as a whole than how many guys we send to the NHL (more often the AHL or Europe).  That is the point I was making.  And I will stand by it.  End rant.

I get what you are saying, fighting, and many of us share the frustration, but there is not one word of actual coaching analysis in that post.  There has been very little criticism of Hak's coaching on this forum--just frustration about not winning #8. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want a longer explanation? Well, here it is:

Hakstol has had a long laundry list of talent come through this program since he took it over in 2004. Cripes, he had Toews (future NHL Hall of Famer), Oshie (NHL All-Star) and Duncan (2007 Hobey Baker Memorial Award winner) on the same team and on the same line. And that wasn't enough to hang #8. If you really want to sit there and say Hakstol hasn't had the players, go right on ahead. That doesn't make it true. Because it isn't. That is one example of how Hakstol's teams produce in the regular season and the conference tournament (most years anyway, certainly not this year), but then crash and burn in the NCAA's. And I believe a 1-6 Frozen Four composite record is crashing and burning, especially some of those blowouts to Boston College. You know, the team that doesn't use excuses like "parity", "one and done", "hot goalie" and so on and just gets it done when they have the players to get it done.

And please don't tell me that Tom Izzo has the same caliber of talent that Duke and Kentucky have had over the years. Those two programs are always stacked with McDonald's All-Americans and future NBA lottery picks. I don't think Izzo has sent all that many kids to the NBA or had a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans on the roster at the same time. His teams simply are well-coached, well-prepared and take advantage of match-ups that the coaches find for their players to exploit. Kind of what Wisconsin did to Kentucky last night. And what UConn did to Kentucky last year.

Even without the athletes that Duke, North Carolina and Kentucky have on a perennial basis, Izzo has done more with less during his entire tenure. Meanwhile Hakstol took over a program with a full cupboard left behind by Blais and hasn't won a single NCAA title. And, like it or not, hanging NCAA banners is what separates the elite hockey programs from the merely good hockey programs. And I honestly care more about the status of the program as a whole than how many guys we send to the NHL (more often the AHL or Europe). That is the point I was making. And I will stand by it. End rant.

I said that Hak never had the players? Hmmm. News to me. No. No I didn't. Again, just making stuff up. I said that Izzo has had plenty of talent himself during his time. Which he has.

Arguing basketball to hockey is so flipping stupid. Izzo's stars are on the court for 48 minutes. Hak's.... 20-25.

God dang it this freaking week needs to go fast because this type of trite arguing is absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just post this in ref to Hak's coaching performance over the past 11 seasons (since it was written LAST season I updated it to reflect for the past 11 seasons), written by Dave Berger.  I thought he stated the case in support of Hak very well.  Obviously if your only focus is on winning a national title (go ahead and get Eaves to coach us then but he's not my choice) then we could argue 'til we're blue in the face. 

 

"Aside from BC, ND, and Min, no other school has earned more than 2 Frozen Four bids in the past 11 years , and Dave Hakstol has done it 7 times. Yes, I understand that Jerry York (BC) has also brought his team to 6 Frozen Fours in that time span, and has won 3 in the past 11 years (2008, 2010, 2012), but no one is saying that Dave Hakstol is a better coach than Jerry York (at least, they won’t until he wins a national title or two). But does that make him second-best in the country? Third? Any time someone brings up the idea of “firing Hak”, my question is “and who’s your replacement?” In other words, it had better be good, because Hakstol has been excellent."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it:  the "no banner" argument, though understandable, is an emotional one, not an analytical one. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying, fighting, and many of us share the frustration, but there is not one word of actual coaching analysis in that post.  There has been very little criticism of Hak's coaching on this forum--just frustration about not winning #8. 

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 ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it:  the "no banner" argument, though understandable, is an emotional one, not an analytical one. 

Gotta agree, spot on.  I'm very frustrated that Hak ain't won at least 1 natty but at the  same time I'll defend his success year after year and challenge anyone to name a coach to bring in who might possibly get better results (and that ain't just winning a natty) if we fire him Hak.  I honestly can't think of one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ....

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ....

3d72f264b0cf2e7ad14d4eafd894c101fb52afd6

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

I didn't imply that I wanted a divorce from Sioux hockey, just trying to understand your rationale.

 

In the examples I stated, both were because expectations were not achieved. And in both cases, it is not necessary to go into detail about why they are ending a relationship with the other person/party, which was my point. Coaches get fired all the time for not producing, do you call every one of these terminations "whining"? I bet they were given the pink slip BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T WIN THE BIG ONE, especially with teams like the Cowboys & Yankees on the pro level. And if I'm not mistaken, all of these other coaches are not given intricate explanations about why they are not needed. "You didn't produce" or "the players can't relate to you anymore" are the usual storylines, but nothing of "You only incorporated the neutral zone trap in 60% of your games & against teams with a PWR between 5 & 10 nationally; leading to a transparent coaching style which the other teams could easily see & adapt to accordingly."  :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No reason to flame away. That's a valid perspective as I see it. It may not have played a part in all of their FFs, but it very well could have in some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...