Closing in on Epic Title Drought

[fightingsioux4life]

You never answered my question. If you're asking my preference I choose talking about nothing rather than this but I'm wondering about you guys.

 

Where in my post did I say or infer that it offended me? I just asked if you enjoy it. Not being facetious, I'm seriously wondering if you do.

Enjoy it?  I don't know, I guess I just enjoy a good, robust debate on topics important to the SS.com community.

[Benny Baker]

You never answered my question. If you're asking my preference I choose talking about nothing rather than this but I'm wondering about you guys.

 

Where in my post did I say or infer that it offended me? I just asked if you enjoy it. Not being facetious, I'm seriously wondering if you do.

I think you mean "imply"; fs4l inferred that you were offended.  I don't want to speak on behalf of everyone, but the fact that a person takes the time to post on a message board about, well anything, strongly implies that the person probably has some semblance of enjoyment when talking about that subject.

[GDPritch]

I can tell you what worked wonders for Eaves in 2006: having a regional AND the Frozen Four in Wisconsin.

Hmnnn...come to think of it, that worked out quite nicely for Don Lucia in 2002 too in Minnesota.

And with all due respect, Rick Comley was about to be run out of East Lansing before stumbling into that 2007 miracle-run title.

And no knock on Sandelin but he'd likely agree, what "worked best" for him in 2011 was the Sioux losing "cus of Haks coaching" (give me a break) to Mich in the opposite semi-final. 

[GDPritch]

NORTH DAKOTA FROZEN FOUR COACHING RECORDS:

 

Gino Gasparini (5):                 8-2

Dean Blais (3):                        5-1

Bob May (2):                           3-1

Barry Thorndycraft (1):           2-0

Bob Peters (1):                       1-1

Bill Selman (2):                       1-3

Dave Hakstol (7):                    1-7

_____________________________

 

                                             21-15

Uh, maybe it was posted already but isn't this using stats to mislead.  Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good.  However, that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he coached to get his team there, how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day prior to making the Frozen 4, and should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the Frozen 4 more often?  A lot unsaid. 

[Benny Baker]

Uh, maybe it was posted already but isn't this using stats to mislead.  Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good.  However, that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he coached to get his team there, how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day prior to making the Frozen 4, and should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the Frozen 4 more often?  A lot unsaid. 

 

1. "Uh . . . isn't this using stats to mislead."  No, absolutely not.  The capitalized heading clearly indicates that the subsequent list contains North Dakota frozen four coaching records.  That list, as a result, contains the undisputed frozen four records of every North Dakota hockey coach.  The post does not include any personalized opinion derived from these undisputed, verifiable facts.  The post is not misleading in any manner whatsoever.

 

2. "Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good."  Fair, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But in my opinion, it's horrendous.

 

3. "that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he (sic) coached to get his team there."  This is incorrect, too.  The number immediately following each coach's name in the post indicates the number of frozen fours each coach has attended.  For example, in Hakstol's case, the unequivocal reference to his all-time North Dakota record 7 frozen four appearances speaks volumes of his ability to succeed at the regional level.

 

4. "how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day".  This is a good point, and one I often consider.  However, this fact aids competing arguments and is a double edged sword for anyone who tries to use this argument to his or her advantage.  Prior to 1977, the NCAA selected 4 teams to play in the NCAA tournament.  So while there were less teams in the 1970s than there are today, if your team was not one of the arbitrary 4 to get selected, you didn't even get a chance to compete for a title.  From 1977-1980 only 5-6 teams made the NCAA tournament.  From 1981-1987, only 8 teams made the NCAA tournament.  So similarly, while there were less opponents a team needed to defeat to make it to the frozen four, there were a lot less opportunities for teams to even make the NCAA tournament in the first place.  For example, for anyone old enough to remember, think about UND hockey in 1983.  UND was 21-13-2 and the frozen four was in Grand Forks.  UND was infamously snubbed from the NCAA tournament.  Interestingly, UND's winning percentage that year was equal to or better than 3 of Hakstol's 11 teams, all of which made the NCAA tournament due to the benefit of an expanded field.

 

5. "should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the frozen four more often?".  Again, see above.  UND followed up their 1982 NCAA title with a 21-13-2 record, which is better than or equal to 3 of Hakstol's NCAA tournament teams, and UND still missed the NCAA tournament in 1982 due to limited spots.  Likewise, UND had a better winning percentage in 1969 than 5 of Hakstol's 11 teams, and again missed the NCAA tournament completely.  Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four.  That's right, 1990.  So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four.

 

6. "A lot unsaid". No, the post is factually accurate, indisputable, and not misleading.

[snova4]

Out of curiosity, did either of those three teams of Hakstol's make the Frozen Four?

[cberkas]

1. "Uh . . . isn't this using stats to mislead."  No, absolutely not.  The capitalized heading clearly indicates that the subsequent list contains North Dakota frozen four coaching records.  That list, as a result, contains the undisputed frozen four records of every North Dakota hockey coach.  The post does not include any personalized opinion derived from these undisputed, verifiable facts.  The post is not misleading in any manner whatsoever.

 

2. "Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good."  Fair, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But in my opinion, it's horrendous.

 

3. "that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he (sic) coached to get his team there."  This is incorrect, too.  The number immediately following each coach's name in the post indicates the number of frozen fours each coach has attended.  For example, in Hakstol's case, the unequivocal reference to his all-time North Dakota record 7 frozen four appearances speaks volumes of his ability to succeed at the regional level.

 

4. "how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day".  This is a good point, and one I often consider.  However, this fact aids competing arguments and is a double edged sword for anyone who tries to use this argument to his or her advantage.  Prior to 1977, the NCAA selected 4 teams to play in the NCAA tournament.  So while there were less teams in the 1970s than there are today, if your team was not one of the arbitrary 4 to get selected, you didn't even get a chance to compete for a title.  From 1977-1980 only 5-6 teams made the NCAA tournament.  From 1981-1987, only 8 teams made the NCAA tournament.  So similarly, while there were less opponents a team needed to defeat to make it to the frozen four, there were a lot less opportunities for teams to even make the NCAA tournament in the first place.  For example, for anyone old enough to remember, think about UND hockey in 1983.  UND was 21-13-2 and the frozen four was in Grand Forks.  UND was infamously snubbed from the NCAA tournament.  Interestingly, UND's winning percentage that year was equal to or better than 3 of Hakstol's 11 teams, all of which made the NCAA tournament due to the benefit of an expanded field.

 

5. "should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the frozen four more often?".  Again, see above.  UND followed up their 1982 NCAA title with a 21-13-2 record, which is better than or equal to 3 of Hakstol's NCAA tournament teams, and UND still missed the NCAA tournament in 1982 due to limited spots.  Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four.  That's right, 1990.  So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four.

 

6. "A lot unsaid". No, the post is factually accurate, indisputable, and not misleading.

 

Only 2 teams that Hakstol coached finished below a .611 winning % The 2008-09 team and 2012-13 team. 

[Benny Baker]

Only 2 teams that Hakstol coached finished below a .611 winning % The 2008-09 team and 2012-13 team. 

Like I said, "better than or equal to".  2004-05, 2008-09, and 2012-13.  Check your stats.

[Benny Baker]

Out of curiosity, did either of those three teams of Hakstol's make the Frozen Four?

Yup, the 2004-05 team, 25-15-5, was the team he lead to the national championship game.  I wasn't attempting to diminish the accomplishments of Hakstol's teams, but rather point out that the limited opportunities to make the NCAA tournament back in the day meant that some fairly solid teams were shut out from the opportunity altogether.  Like the 1983 Sioux team.

[snova4]

Yup, the 2004-05 team, 25-15-5, was the team he lead to the national championship game. I wasn't attempting to diminish the accomplishments of Hakstol's teams, but rather point out that the limited opportunities to make the NCAA tournament back in the day meant that some fairly solid teams were shut out from the opportunity altogether. Like the 1983 Sioux team.

Thanks. I didn't know.

The more I think about this the sillier it becomes too me. Granted, there have been some teams that we felt should have performed better when they got to the final rounds, but there are also teams that maybe shouldn't have been there either. As much hope as I had for this years team based on senior leadership, I look at the offensive production of the forwards, and I really kind of question it. Nothing against any of them at all, but I can't really point to a guy and say, he should have more goals, or he's going to be a stud.

I guess there is so much more that goes into this than a record in the frozen four. How many teams over performed according to their talent level, how many under. I look at the pony express and what they are doing now, and I guess I thought Frattin would be a bigger star in the NHL. Sorry, kind of just babbling at this point, because I really have no real point, besides there are so many unknowns that we as fans take for granted, or things we think we know as facts about teams that are completely untrue.

[Snake]

And no knock on Sandelin but he'd likely agree, what "worked best" for him in 2011 was the Sioux losing "cus of Haks coaching" (give me a break) to Mich in the opposite semi-final.

In that same vein, Michigan losing to BU in '97 worked out pretty well for Blais.

[GDPritch]

1. "Uh . . . isn't this using stats to mislead."  No, absolutely not.  The capitalized heading clearly indicates that the subsequent list contains North Dakota frozen four coaching records.  That list, as a result, contains the undisputed frozen four records of every North Dakota hockey coach.  The post does not include any personalized opinion derived from these undisputed, verifiable facts.  The post is not misleading in any manner whatsoever.

 

2. "Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good."  Fair, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  But in my opinion, it's horrendous.

 

3. "that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he (sic) coached to get his team there."  This is incorrect, too.  The number immediately following each coach's name in the post indicates the number of frozen fours each coach has attended.  For example, in Hakstol's case, the unequivocal reference to his all-time North Dakota record 7 frozen four appearances speaks volumes of his ability to succeed at the regional level.

 

4. "how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day".  This is a good point, and one I often consider.  However, this fact aids competing arguments and is a double edged sword for anyone who tries to use this argument to his or her advantage.  Prior to 1977, the NCAA selected 4 teams to play in the NCAA tournament.  So while there were less teams in the 1970s than there are today, if your team was not one of the arbitrary 4 to get selected, you didn't even get a chance to compete for a title.  From 1977-1980 only 5-6 teams made the NCAA tournament.  From 1981-1987, only 8 teams made the NCAA tournament.  So similarly, while there were less opponents a team needed to defeat to make it to the frozen four, there were a lot less opportunities for teams to even make the NCAA tournament in the first place.  For example, for anyone old enough to remember, think about UND hockey in 1983.  UND was 21-13-2 and the frozen four was in Grand Forks.  UND was infamously snubbed from the NCAA tournament.  Interestingly, UND's winning percentage that year was equal to or better than 3 of Hakstol's 11 teams, all of which made the NCAA tournament due to the benefit of an expanded field.

 

5. "should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the frozen four more often?".  Again, see above.  UND followed up their 1982 NCAA title with a 21-13-2 record, which is better than or equal to 3 of Hakstol's NCAA tournament teams, and UND still missed the NCAA tournament in 1982 due to limited spots.  Likewise, UND had a better winning percentage in 1969 than 5 of Hakstol's 11 teams, and again missed the NCAA tournament completely.  Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four.  That's right, 1990.  So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four.

 

6. "A lot unsaid". No, the post is factually accurate, indisputable, and not misleading.

I never said the numbers were not accurate or indisputable (they're numbers) but obviously there's a purpose for the post.  Not so much misleading, granted, as what the numbers by themselves may or may not say outside of the obvious.  The numbers say Haks has coached the second most Frozen 4 games (second to Gino although Haks has been at UND 5 less years than him I think) and Haks has also lost the most Frozen 4 games.  I just assumed looking at the post that you were on the fire Haks mission but perhaps I shouldn't of just assumed that then.  Anyhow, curious, where do you sit on the fire Haks issue then?  Should he stay or should he go?  And if he should go, more importantly, who's a better coach to replace him?    

[Benny Baker]

I never said the numbers were not accurate or indisputable (they're numbers) but obviously there's a purpose for the post.  Not so much misleading, granted, as what the numbers by themselves may or may not say outside of the obvious.  The numbers say Haks has coached the second most Frozen 4 games (second to Gino although Haks has been at UND 5 less years than him I think) and Haks has also lost the most Frozen 4 games.  I just assumed looking at the post that you were on the fire Haks mission but perhaps I shouldn't of just assumed that then.  Anyhow, curious, where do you sit on the fire Haks issue then?  Should he stay or should he go?  And if he should go, more importantly, who's a better coach to replace him?    

I do not agree with the "Fire Hak" crowd, but I do understand their frustration.  Hak should not be fired, he should stay.  These are just my opinions.

[burd]

 

 

 Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four.  That's right, 1990.  So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four.

 

 

I count 19 teams added to D1 hockey since we won in 1982.   I think that's a 50% increase in teams (40 to 59).   Don't ask me how that helps this conversation. 

[Benny Baker]

I count 19 teams added to D1 hockey since we won in 1982.   I think that's a 50% increase in teams (40 to 59).   Don't ask me how that helps this conversation. 

This is very interesting!  To me, it suggests that it was more difficult to make the NCAA tournament back then, at least mathematically.  If we consider the early years of Gino's tenure, only 5 to 8 teams out of 40 made the NCAA tournament.  That's between 12.5-20% of teams that made the NCAA tournament.  Today, 16 out of 59 teams make the NCAA tournament, or 27% of teams.  The fact that it's much easier to make the NCAA tournament today should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fact that there is a bigger field to defeat today than back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

 

But in my opinion, I think it's easier for a team to the win an NCAA championship under today's format than it was in the early 1980s.  For examples, see Yale and Providence.

[dagies]

more might make the tournament, but it's a longer road to the championship.  Like burd said, not sure how that affects the conversation, but FWIW.

[snova4]

This is very interesting! To me, it suggests that it was more difficult to make the NCAA tournament back then, at least mathematically. If we consider the early years of Gino's tenure, only 5 to 8 teams out of 40 made the NCAA tournament. That's between 12.5-20% of teams that made the NCAA tournament. Today, 16 out of 59 teams make the NCAA tournament, or 27% of teams. The fact that it's much easier to make the NCAA tournament today should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fact that there is a bigger field to defeat today than back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But in my opinion, I think it's easier for a team to the win an NCAA championship under today's format than it was in the early 1980s. For examples, see Yale and Providence.

Weird. Because I take the Yale and Providence examples as to why it's more difficult for the normal strongholds to win it. Different perspectives I guess.

[Benny Baker]

Weird. Because I take the Yale and Providence examples as to why it's more difficult for the normal strongholds to win it. Different perspectives I guess.

Yup, I agree Yale and Providence aren't the normal powerhouses we're used to, but their examples are important for another reason.  I should have been more specific because Yale and Providence both won the national championship as 4 seeds.  Neither team would have even made it to the NCAA tournament under the formats used in the 1970s/1980s.  So the expanded playing field in the NCAA tournament makes it easier (possible) for 4 seeds like Yale and Providence to win the National Championship where they would have been shut out from the opportunity under the tournament's previous formats.

 

Another similar example is UND in 2014.  Under the format used in the 1970s/1980s, the chance at a national title would have ended with UND's frozen faceoff semifinal loss to Miami.  Instead, in part due to the expanded playing field and the University of Wisconsin, UND made the NCAA tournament.

[farce poobah]

40 teams playing NCAA Division 1 hockey in 1982 seems a bit high ... I would have said about 30 (guess:   10 WCHA + 6 CCHA + 12 ECAC + 2 independents).    If you have a source, I'd love to see it.   .... as I have been wondering the same thing.

 

 

Another important factor is the founding of Hockey East in the mid 1980's.   Until then, the ECAC was the only D1 hockey conference ... and abided by more restrictive rules than NCAA limits allowed on # games and length of season.    This led to recruiting disadvantages ... and a dominant run by Western schools.   

 

So until 1985, a Western school had its toughest run just to get to the conference semifinals ... and then got cupcakes from out east in the first round of the Frozen Four.   (1982: UND 6 Northeastern 0 in the national semifinals, for example).

 

Once Hockey East was founded, there emerged a strong competitive differential over time compared to the remnants of ECAC ... including a lot of national titles - Maine and BU in the 1990's and BC more recently.

[farce poobah]

One other important factor contributing to competitive parity was the reduction in maximum scholarships from 25 to 18.    I don't remember (and can't find via google) when that happened, but my recollection is in the early 1980's.

 

That's further spread the talent pool ... while the big name schools still get more of the very elite with full rides, its certainly the case that a full ride at say Mankato is more appealing to many than a half-ride at Minnesota.   (Minnesota had an incredible depth of roster in the 1970's ...)

[farce poobah]

And just to add one more important factor to the competitive balance of East vs West ... is the emergence of the USHL and NTDP over the last 25 years.    Prior to the USHL's stellar growth, a Western hockey coach such as at UND had two primary sources of talent:  Minnesota high schools and Canadian Tier 2 juniors.  

 

The 18-19 year old Americans faced a gap in their development path, which was closed by the USHL's success.   (THANKS GINO!)   And it just so happens that more of them stay West than go East.    I'm not aware of a similar-quality prep league in New England ... 

[gfhockey]

Butparity

[90siouxfan]

Butparity

cheez and rice, a dozen quality posts, then your input, proving the "every town needs an idiot" maxim

[burd]

40 teams playing NCAA Division 1 hockey in 1982 seems a bit high ... I would have said about 30 (guess:   10 WCHA + 6 CCHA + 12 ECAC + 2 independents).    If you have a source, I'd love to see it.   .... as I have been wondering the same thing.

 

 

Another important factor is the founding of Hockey East in the mid 1980's.   Until then, the ECAC was the only D1 hockey conference ... and abided by more restrictive rules than NCAA limits allowed on # games and length of season.    This led to recruiting disadvantages ... and a dominant run by Western schools.   

 

So until 1985, a Western school had its toughest run just to get to the conference semifinals ... and then got cupcakes from out east in the first round of the Frozen Four.   (1982: UND 6 Northeastern 0 in the national semifinals, for example).

 

Once Hockey East was founded, there emerged a strong competitive differential over time compared to the remnants of ECAC ... including a lot of national titles - Maine and BU in the 1990's and BC more recently.

I actually had that thought too, farce.   When I started typing that post, I didn't know what the total would have been in 1982 and thought I'd just state that there were far fewer in 1982 but then thought I had some obligation to at least try.  I just went to a site listing the current 59 teams and the dates those programs became D1.  19 had come aboard since 1982.   Some of those that existed in 1982 might have fallen off, I suppose.    40 still seems high to me as well, but it would take more digging. 

 

The overall point is that there is much more hockey being played now, and there are more teams competing for the prize.   Which is good IMO.   Union, which came aboard in '91, is good evidence of that.  That was a dam good team that clobbered UM. 

[bigskyvikes]

This could be an interesting read...? May start some arguments on here though!

Check out @JessRMyers's Tweet: https://twitter.com/JessRMyers/status/598325964242747393?s=09