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

Closing in on Epic Title Drought

Recommended Posts

Because Oxford isn't Grand Forks and Miami doesn't have UND's tradition of championships and Blasi didn't take over a team whose previous two coaches had won 5 championships.  

Oxford ain't GF? You're probably right if you poll 100 Americans, they would probably degrade GF vs comparison with an Ohio city/college town.  U Mich has "tradition" but that ain't winning them many nattys in the last decade or two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the entire NCAA field had "puck luck" this year when Minnesota State went down in round 1 and ensured everyone an easier route to the NCAA title!

Well, would you have rather faced MSU in the title game or cinderella RIT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, how soon they forget the "BC curse" that ran long and hard before that ... from 1949 to 2001. Yes folks, half a century.

Those 4 in 15 years are the Central Limit Theorem balancing out the statistical scales.

Another thought: Maybe BC left the curse with UND in Albany in 2001.

This is too funny!  Who would have thought that an arithmetic theory dictated college hockey champions?  Hey, Colorado College hasn't won any titles since the 1950s, I suppose they're due for a stretch run of titles just like Boston College, right!?  UND should at least fire Hak to save on his salary.  Coaching does not matter in a game like hockey, which is instead determined by the "Central Limit Theorem"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that matters is coaching, why didn't Jerry York win again this year? He's got 3 of the last 8. He should win them all from now on, right? 

 

Everything balances out, returns to the mean, sooner or later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because nobody really knows hockey coaching names, other than the new ones that keep winning NC's.  

 

I think you nailed that.  You have all these idiots on here calling for Hak's head but none of them can give you an actual reason besides we haven't won the big one yet.  But when you ask who they want to replace him? Crickets.

 

I've never seen anyone say that they don't think he has improved as a coach over the years.  I'm still waiting for one person to tell me how Hak has been outcoached in the NCAA tournament in recent years or what he could do better? Once again crickets.

 

I've also been waiting for anyone to find one reputable coach/player/analyst/reporter that thinks Hak should be fired... Guess what? It's those crickets again. I mean even that mouth-breather Ryan Lambert can see how stupid that is but somehow there are still a few geniuses here that can't see that.

 

Hak has recruited well. Hak has developed well. Hak has been able to win consistently.  That's all you can realistically demand from a coach.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ur telling me we always run in to a hot goalie always never have puck luck etc

How do other teams have those ?

 

All I'm saying is the better team does not always win. We outplayed BU and lost. We outplayed the Goofs last season and lost. That happens in hockey, you will notice the last 3 seasons NO power school has won. Last 3 champs are Yale, Union and Providence. Why? Because once you get in the tournament, anyone can win ... regardless of how they look on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that matters is coaching, why didn't Jerry York win again this year? He's got 3 of the last 8. He should win them all from now on, right? 

 

Everything balances out, returns to the mean, sooner or later. 

Actually later - you need many many more trials for any of the math (such as Central Limit Theorem) to kick in.  Take Hak's 8 games at the Frozen Four - here are the odds of winning (assuming a 50-50 chance in each game):  

0 games = 1/256 

1 game = 1/32 (his actual level)

2 games = 1/9.1

3 games = 1/4.5

4 games = 1/3.66

5 games = 1/4.5

6 games = 1/9.1

7 games = 1/32

8 games = 1/256

What do we learn from this?  not much - If you subscribe to the luck theory, you can see that he's been really really unlucky.  If you are looking for some mathamatical tendency towards an average outcome you won't find it here with this number of trials.  If you look at the probability of winning four games it is only 1/3.66 meaning that the probability is greater of some other outcome besides a 4/4 split.  Frankly, I was too lazy and didn't know where to stop as to incorperating other coaches' win rates (that some people think are ruining Hak's success).   However, a small amount of trials such as 20 is way way to small for any mathamatical regression towards the mean.  Look at it this way - flip a coin 10 times - if you get heads 8/10 times you are lucky and it is mildly interesting but not unusual.  Flip a coin 10,000 times and 80% heads is off the charts amazing.  The belief that the odds are "evening out" with Hak because of Dean and Gino's success is pure hokum.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned countless names that could replace Hak

 

I guess I'll just keep waiting for names then...

 

And the crickets keep chirping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question how people who want Hak gone also have enough brainpower to start a computer

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your response to hearing that the players are affected by what's said on this forum? Is that they should stay off? Man, that's crazy. I would love to interact with these guys and hear their thoughts on the game if they were up to it.

Okay, let me explain this to you because you don't get it.

 

A fan forum like this is where people vent their frustrations over whatever.  Maybe you think it shouldn't be that, but that is what it is.  So the last thing the players and coaches should do is read this forum after a tough loss because they won't like what they read.  I know if I was a coach or player on the team I wouldn't read this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned countless names that could replace Hak

Yet, only a week ago, you had no clue that this was David Quinn's second year at BU. Sorry, you're not the guy Faison's gonna call to lead the search.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hockey and its played on ice not on paper. You're still going to go get the best players you can. Ask Minnesota about losing to Union last year; who do you think had more draft picks. Same case when Yale won it. Does the #1 NHL team win the cup every year?

 

Our loss in the tourney to Michigan was the perfect example. We came out of that regional winning games 6-0 and 6-1. Far and away the best team in the tourney on paper, and to that point the best team on the ice. Hockey doesn't always reward the best team, and the outcome doesn't always reflect the play. We have won games this year where we were probably not the better team out there, and against Boston we had the better play.

 

In a full season with this many games, and a tourney that is 1 and done, anyone who gets in has a chance to win. Thats just the way it is. Do you think Boston losing means they should fire their coach? Do you Deano should be fired, because he lost in the Semis? No because it happens. The only reason people can complain about Hak losing so many Frozen Fours, is because he has gotten us to that many Frozen Fours. Which is more than just about anyone else out there.

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 23rd fricking time, college hockey is one and done!  The NCAA doesn't do that in college baseball world series and for good reason.  One game doesn't always prove anything.

So is college basketball.  And college football.  And the NFL for that matter.

 

I don't hear the "one and done" excuse used in those sports.  So why are we using it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tippet

Sandy

Eadesy

Blaiser

Hertsy

I could go on and on

Crickets ain't chirping anymore bud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is college basketball.  And college football.  And the NFL for that matter.

 

I don't hear the "one and done" excuse used in those sports.  So why are we using it?

Didn't Nick Saban use that excuse? (honest question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, only a week ago, you had no clue that this was David Quinn's second year at BU. Sorry, you're not the guy Faison's gonna call to lead the search.

Umm no I sidnt

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why haven't we won a natty with Hak at the helm?

Crickets chirping......

)new fav expression(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tippet

Sandy

Eadesy

Blaiser

Hertsy

I could go on and on

Crickets ain't chirping anymore bud

I would be willing to bet Tippet doesn't step down to the college ranks (I know I know, Andy Murray did) but Tippet is a better coach than Murray.

Sandy, PLEASE (if you base his whole coaching resume off of one title than you obviously don't know hockey).

Blais, would be  nice to see that but he isn't going to, he is close to riding off into the sunset.

Eades, maybe but I think there are some underlying issues (speculating so don't take it serious) that UND wants to stay away from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take the 'gfhockey' list seriously because not all of those names have championships* as head coaches and there is a name that should be there that meets criteria**. I thought that championships was the criteria. 

 

 

 

*At the level they're coaching at. 

**Steve Johnson (2 USHL at Lincoln)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm no I sidnt

Umm, yea ya did. Unless that was one of your other friends posting under your moniker (and we know that happens with you)...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you people bringing up statistics... A wise man once said

 

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, yea ya did. Unless that was one of your other friends posting under your moniker (and we know that happens with you)...

or one of his other monikers...

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...