Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Benny Baker

Closing in on Epic Title Drought

Recommended Posts

It wasn't Hak's order to the team not to touch the Broadmoor Trophy and I've never heard him spit out the tired "unfinished business" line...

No it wasn't his idea's that lead to these sayings, but it was said by multiple different sources that this team is business like. I heard it on ESPN and read it on USCHO and CHN. I have heard this about other teams too, like the year ff was in St Paul.  So my problem isn't that they have curfews or they need optional practices, my problem is that they may be holding the sticks to tight in the big games because of the business like atmosphere. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was certainly not Parise or Toews but he was still a very fine collegiate hockey player, nonetheless.  I sure wish we had had him back this past season, no doubt.  Admittedly, not sure how successful he'll be at the next level though? 

 

With the importance of special teams, I think he can have a fine career as a top-four penalty killer in just about any team's rotation.   His quickness and ability to read plays are top notch.    Those attributes also put him onto a checking line.

 

I don't see him cracking the top two lines regularly, however.    Not quite the scoring touch.

 

Comparable UND alumni career:  Dave Tippett. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to hear which players you think didn't put it all on the line while wearing a UND sweater. Should be easy since you both feel there are lots of them.

I never claimed "they didn't put it all on the line."

Any player that comes to UND for only a year (or in some cases two) are more interested in playing in the pros (the next level) and using UNDs top notch reputation and facilities for it than helping build up the program at UND to new heights.

Thats not some major epiphany.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of UND hockey players are there to mainly just train for the next level.

You guys barf out this line WAY too often. You think BC / BU / Denver / UMD / Minnesota etc don't go after these same guys? Jerry York wins with 2 year guys that want to play pro hockey. No you're right. We should base our entire recruiting philosophy on finding a diamond in the rough and 21 year old freshman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys barf out this line WAY too often. You think BC / BU / Denver / UMD / Minnesota etc don't go after these same guys? Jerry York wins with 2 year guys that want to play pro hockey. No you're right. We should base our entire recruiting philosophy on finding a diamond in the rough and 21 year old freshman.

Yah it's pretty tough to adhere to this and still hang onto the claim of having the most players in the NHL which appears to be a bragging right that gets thrown out quite often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed "they didn't put it all on the line."

Any player that comes to UND for only a year (or in some cases two) are more interested in playing in the pros (the next level) and using UNDs top notch reputation and facilities for it than helping build up the program at UND to new heights.

Thats not some major epiphany.

 

So what are you trying to say then?  Because there are some kids who come through the program who don't stay four full years, they aren't contributing?  Or they aren't concerned with winning?  Or UND would be better off without them? 

 

Who was the last player to only play for one year at UND?  Toews, Parise, Zajac and Nelson (thanks 90siouxfan) are the only three four off the top of my head that only played two and then left for the NHL but maybe I'm missing one or two. Not sure how UND would have been better off without them.  Murray and Spirko went overseas after two seasons. 

 

The majority of the schools who are regularly in the hunt, including those who have won the national title, have kids that leave early.  I guess Boston would have won the national title if they wouldn't have recruited Eichel because he's only concerned about being drafted in the top two and going pro next season?  In basketball and football it happens all the time with the top teams so I have a hard time buying it as a reason for the results. 

 

Still waiting for fs4l to explain his agreement on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you trying to say then?  Because there are some kids who come through the program who don't stay four full years, they aren't contributing?  Or they aren't concerned with winning?  Or UND would be better off without them? 

 

Who was the last player to only play for one year at UND?  Toews, Parise and Zajac are the only three off the top of my head that only played two and then left for the NHL but maybe I'm missing one or two. Not sure how UND would have been better off without them.  Murray and Spirko went overseas after two seasons. 

 

The majority of the schools who are regularly in the hunt, including those who have won the national title, have kids that leave early.  I guess Boston would have won the national title if they wouldn't have recruited Eichel because he's only concerned about being drafted in the top two and going pro next season?  In basketball and football it happens all the time with the top teams so I have a hard time buying it as a reason for the results. 

 

Still waiting for fs4l to explain his agreement on this.

Brock Nelson for two year, don't recall any one year players but I am not a hockey savant and am pre alzheimers, at least my wife has diagnosed me with the affliction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brock Nelson for two year, don't recall any one year players but I am not a hockey savant and am pre alzheimers, at least my wife has diagnosed me with the affliction.

 

Not sure how I missed that one, but you are correct.

 

Roche and Johnson played two years but both of those were under Blais.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hak and Bud Grant have lots in common.

Both revered my most fans and for lots of good reasons.

Both had great winning percentages.

Both got the team to the Big Game.

Neither could win that Big Game.

I've also compd Hak to Mack Brown who was pushed out as Texas Head FB coach last year.

The only difference-Mack Brown won a national championship.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hak and Bud Grant have lots in common.

Both revered my most fans and for lots of good reasons.

Both had great winning percentages.

Both got the team to the Big Game.

Neither could win that Big Game.

I've also compd Hak to Mack Brown who was pushed out as Texas Head FB coach last year.

The only difference-Mack Brown won a national championship.

 

I think the Grant comparison is pretty fair outside of the fact that football coaches have much more control over the outcomes of games than hockey coaches do.

 

I don't agree with the Mack Brown comparison though.  It was pretty clear that Mack had reached the end of his coaching career before he left.  He was in his sixties and hadn't won any conference hardware in 4 years.  Mack is also in a sport where even the best players play 3 years in college and there is not any alternative routes like there is in football like their is in hockey with juniors.  Plus that school pretty much recruits itself and always has.

 

Hak is still in his mid-40s and he's seems to continually be growing as a coach year after year.  I don't think we have seen his best yet and that could be scary good for us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Grant comparison is pretty fair outside of the fact that football coaches have much more control over the outcomes of games than hockey coaches do.

 

I don't agree with the Mack Brown comparison though.  It was pretty clear that Mack had reached the end of his coaching career before he left.  He was in his sixties and hadn't won any conference hardware in 4 years.  Mack is also in a sport where even the best players play 3 years in college and there is not any alternative routes like there is in football like their is in hockey with juniors.  Plus that school pretty much recruits itself and always has.

 

Hak is still in his mid-40s and he's seems to continually be growing as a coach year after year.  I don't think we have seen his best yet and that could be scary good for us.

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

 

 

Wait wait wait.....you are throwing one of those straw man arguments out there!!  You can't compare a college hockey coach career in relating to winning national championships to another college hockey coaches carrer in relating to national championships!!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best (unfortunately) comparison is Doug Woog. 

 

But Hak can still fix that. And he will. 

 

A sober Doug Woog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

I have posted York's resumé along with Berenson's and Parker's several times over the years. Doesn't seem to make a difference to the skipping record crowd stuck on "York's won 4 since 2001."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

 

Agreed.  But I think the concern is with the lack of Hakstol's success at the frozen four in light of his team's opportunities.  Jerry York has 4 national championship titles, has been to 9 national championship games, and has a 14-7 record in the 12 frozen fours he's been to.  Dave Hakstol has been to 1 national championship game and has a 1-7 record in the 7 frozen fours he's been to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

 

Clarkson = North Dakota

Bowling Green = North Dakota

Boston College = North Dakota

 

Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some people think bowling green and clarkson are like North Dakota

Wow have some people's expectations drop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted York's resumé along with Berenson's and Parker's several times over the years. Doesn't seem to make a difference to the skipping record crowd stuck on "York's won 4 since 2001."

people don't care about that, haven't you figured that out yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are good especially about Brown. What caught my attention was the line that the school pretty much recruits itself.

You don't think the same is true for UND hockey? Btw I give Hak his due for making UND hockey what it is today, but I just can't see the next guy not using all of the tradition to his advantage. I just don't see the doom and gloom others fear if Hak is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are good especially about Brown. What caught my attention was the line that the school pretty much recruits itself.

You don't think the same is true for UND hockey? Btw I give Hak his due for making UND hockey what it is today, but I just can't see the next guy not using all of the tradition to his advantage. I just don't see the doom and gloom others fear if Hak is gone.

 

UND doesn't exactly struggle when it comes to recruiting but we don't have nearly the natural recruiting area that UT has in Texas.  They can pretty much hand-pick every players they get out of the state that is debatably the biggest hot-bed for talent in the sport in the country.  We can't get our recruit from one specific area or state like Texas.  Our two biggest recruiting areas historically have been northern Minnesota and Southern Manitoba.  In northern Minnesota we have to compete with the Gophers, Bemidji and Duluth for guys and the traditional powerhouses like Roseau and Warroad have been down the last several years compared to where the used to be.  In Southern Manitoba the kids are much more inclined to go the juniors route so we have to compete with that.  This has led to our team having to recruit from all over the country and Canada.  Two of our best players in the last decade or so in Parise and Toews have some from Shattuck which is less than an hour away for Minnesota's campus and firmly within Gophers territory.  UT simply does not have to go out of state very often to get there talent as about 90% of their roster on any given year comes from Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UND doesn't exactly struggle when it comes to recruiting but we don't have nearly the natural recruiting area that UT has in Texas.  They can pretty much hand-pick every players they get out of the state that is debatably the biggest hot-bed for talent in the sport in the country.  We can't get our recruit from one specific area or state like Texas.  Our two biggest recruiting areas historically have been northern Minnesota and Southern Manitoba.  In northern Minnesota we have to compete with the Gophers, Bemidji and Duluth for guys and the traditional powerhouses like Roseau and Warroad have been down the last several years compared to where the used to be.  In Southern Manitoba the kids are much more inclined to go the juniors route so we have to compete with that.  This has led to our team having to recruit from all over the country and Canada.  Two of our best players in the last decade or so in Parise and Toews have some from Shattuck which is less than an hour away for Minnesota's campus and firmly within Gophers territory.  UT simply does not have to go out of state very often to get there talent as about 90% of their roster on any given year comes from Texas.

Baylor and TCU are making inroads. It's not as easy for them as it used to be.

We still ave the nicest facilities in the country and with the UND hockey status, I don't see a new coach not using those to his advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would encourage those who question Dave Hakstol to consider the coaching career of Jerry York, considered to be arguably the best coach in college hockey. York coached first at Clarkson for 7 years and never won a title. He then coached at Bowling Green for 15 years, where he won 1 title in 1984. It took him 12 years to win his first title. He would have to wait another 17 years for his next one at BC. He was in his 9th year at BC when he won his 1st title. For the first 29 years, he won 1 title. Be patient. When Dave Hakstol wins his 1st title (and he will if given the opportunity) he will win many.

Did you cut and paste this from the end of the year threads for the last 5 years (I've been hearing a variation of the Blah Blah Blah York - or the original Blah Blah Blah Red theme for at least that long)?  A more relevant comparison would be with Gino and Blais - Geno second year and three overall, Blais in year three and two overall.  Both had rebuilding to do when they started - Gino's was massive.  Hak took over a loaded team that had recently moved into the best college facility in the country.  This idea that we have just been on an unlucky streak and that things will "balance out" with numerous titles is nonsense.  Many a fortune has been lost in Las Vegas on the "gambler's fallacy" - the idea that the roulette wheel has been on red for 7 strait times therefore black is "due".  Wrong.  The odds of black is always the same - about 50-50.  I'll be the first to admit that I don't know why we struggle in the Frozen Four. but I think there must be something besides bad luck (probably a bunch of little things. but cumulative).  Hak is a good coach who works hard and has his team work hard.  I hope he figures it out soon.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best (unfortunately) comparison is Doug Woog. 

 

But Hak can still fix that. And he will. 

Waiting ....... Waiting ........ Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...