MafiaMan Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 So my math was off a few years. From 1980 to 2000 we won 5 - count em - 5 National Championships About one every 4 years - no other program came close. So yes, the best program in college hockey pretty much through the Gino and Blais years. Did we have some down years - yes, but not very many and when Hak took over we were at the top of our game - no rebuilding for him.21 seasons of hockey, 5 NCAA titles, and 6 years of what I would very-much-so call "down years." 6 out of 21, almost 1/3 of that stretch was this: 87-88: 21-20-1 91-92: 17-21-1 92-93: 12-25-1 93-94: 11-23-1 94-95: 18-18-3 95-96: 19-18-1 Don't get me wrong, 5 titles in that stretch is amazing, absolutely amazing. But to say there were no lean years or "not very many" is revisionist history. 1
fightingsioux4life Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 That was douchey. I was referring to all of the people on here asking for him to be fired. It doesn't matter what they think, or any of us for that matter. But thanks for trying to fit your agenda. Cute. According to some people on here, even talking about "natty's" is "douchey". Based on that, I plead guilty.
fightingsioux4life Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I think more of the angst is directed at the passiveness of the fans and wanting more people to be alarmed by the failures. Hak is just the one who is the subject. That is the best description of this issue I have read on here. Short and to the point, but descriptive at the same time.
Sioux,CO Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Of course Hak isn't untouchable, he has to start turning in below .500 season for him to be fired. The all mighty question that no one has ever seem to answer, who do you get you replace him and why are they a good fit? Don't give me an answer like "he has won a title" because Larry Coker has won a title too(watch ESPN's 30 for 30 on "THE U" if you don't understand the reference).... That is exactly what I said. I don't want Hak fired, but there are a lot of people on the board saying that there is zero chance he is ever fired. He won't lose his job for failures in the Frozen Four but it also doesn't mean the death of UND hockey if a replacement comes in. I don't have names for specific coaches and I wouldn't expect anyone without a deep hockey coaching knowledge to have that either. There are good coaches outside of Hakstol though that can move up. Of the "Top" programs with new coaches in the last 5 years I would say Boston University and Denver are the only two. BC, Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan and Wisconsin being other top programs with all of those coaches winning a NCAA title other than Hakstol.
Hawkster Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 We soon may be entering unprecedented territory. No North Dakota hockey program or fan base has experienced a title drought longer than about sixteen years. LONGEST CONSECUTIVE SEASONS WITHOUT A TITLE: 16: 1964-1979 [Thorndycraft (1), Peters (2), Selman (2), Bjorkman (10), Gasparini (1)] 15: 2001-2015 [blais (4), Hakstol (11)] 12: 1947-1958 [Jamieson (1), Norman (2), Purper (7), Renfrew (1), May (1)] 9: 1988-1996 [Gasparini (7), Blais (2)] 4: 1983-1986 [Gasparini (4)] 3: 1960-1962 [Thorndycraft (3)] 2: 1998-1999 [blais (2)] 1: 1981 [Gasparini (1)] And "no", this is not another "Fire Hak!" thread, so let's not make it about something that it's not. But this flat out sucks. What's being overlooked here is the "11" behind Hak's name. No other coach has that many failed attempts in a row. I'm not sure if a lot of those guys left on their own or were "encouraged", but it apparently wasn't tolerated in the past. Not really suggesting anything, just pointing out something. Question is, how tolerating are going to be in the future?
90siouxfan Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The funny thing is that no one will step up and say it.Well then, let's call 'em out!FightingSioux4life.Add to list, deny your self or shut the h e double hockey sticks up!
siouxkid12 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 That is exactly what I said. I don't want Hak fired, but there are a lot of people on the board saying that there is zero chance he is ever fired. He won't lose his job for failures in the Frozen Four but it also doesn't mean the death of UND hockey if a replacement comes in. I don't have names for specific coaches and I wouldn't expect anyone without a deep hockey coaching knowledge to have that either. There are good coaches outside of Hakstol though that can move up. Of the "Top" programs with new coaches in the last 5 years I would say Boston University and Denver are the only two. BC, Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan and Wisconsin being other top programs with all of those coaches winning a NCAA title other than Hakstol. I meant to just agree with you was all....
siouxkid12 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 What's being overlooked here is the "11" behind Hak's name. No other coach has that many failed attempts in a row. I'm not sure if a lot of those guys left on their own or were "encouraged", but it apparently wasn't tolerated in the past. Not really suggesting anything, just pointing out something. Question is, how tolerating are going to be in the future? what was tolerated than and now is still the same. the landscape of college hockey has just changed.
CMSioux Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Aren't we also in an epic run of making the NCAA playoffs, making the Final Four? It's a free country so focus on what you want but damn - talk about looking on the dark side.
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I think more of the angst is directed at the passiveness of the fans and wanting more people to be alarmed by the failures. Hak is just the one who is the subject. That is the best description of this issue I have read on here. Short and to the point, but descriptive at the same time. Your issue is that UND fans are too passive... seriously?!
skateshattrick Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 21 seasons of hockey, 5 NCAA titles, and 6 years of what I would very-much-so call "down years." 6 out of 21, almost 1/3 of that stretch was this: 87-88: 21-20-1 91-92: 17-21-1 92-93: 12-25-1 93-94: 11-23-1 94-95: 18-18-3 95-96: 19-18-1 Don't get me wrong, 5 titles in that stretch is amazing, absolutely amazing. But to say there were no lean years or "not very many" is revisionist history. I was a season ticket holder during that horrible stretch, and from 1991 to 1994, you could throw a rock in any direction and not fear hitting anyone. The old Ralph was virtually empty. It was horrible. We had Greg Johnson and not much else. Remember also that although Dean Blais returned the program to prominence, Dave Hakstol was one of his assistant coaches and well known as a very good recruiter. I am a huge fan of Dave Hakstol and all that he does for UND's hockey program.
UND1983 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Your issue is that UND fans are too passive... seriously?! The fans (that blindly support Hak). Not all fans. Read again.
Sioux,CO Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I meant to just agree with you was all.... My bad. Misread your reply. 1
iramurphy Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 As a die hard fan I want to win ONE TITLE!!! How is that throwing the program under the bus? I know there are plenty of fans who love that the program gets to Final Fours and they accept the lack of titles as the trade off-we can be consistently good, but not great. I want both. If it meant missing 10 Final Fours for 1Title I'd take it. I'll start here cuz same applies to a number of you guys. You can't "win one, you don't play"
iramurphy Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 university of north dakota hockey is a machine that with its limitless resources will kick out a 70% winning percentage almost every damn year without even checking the oil...hak is totally replaceable....we need a winner and hak aint that person... You don't have a clue what it takes. The REA isn't enough. Gino, Dean and Hak have also had to put up with fans who think cuz they played 4th line on their Bantam B team they should get to sit and drink beer with them and listen to the dumb ass things they slur after 13 beers. 1
Fetch Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Dean and Gino: Hak: I'd take the chocolate (with a few nuts) over sprinkles any day 1
siouxkid12 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I was a season ticket holder during that horrible stretch, and from 1991 to 1994, you could throw a rock in any direction and not fear hitting anyone. The old Ralph was virtually empty. It was horrible. We had Greg Johnson and not much else. Remember also that although Dean Blais returned the program to prominence, Dave Hakstol was one of his assistant coaches and well known as a very good recruiter. I am a huge fan of Dave Hakstol and all that he does for UND's hockey program. I'm fairly young (30 yrs old) but I remember my grandpa taking me to those games and it was just like you say.
stoneySIOUX Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 According to some people on here, even talking about "natty's" is "douchey". Based on that, I plead guilty. I don't mind the "nattys" use. You spinning words intentionally is douchey. 1
Irish Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 man you just don't know hockey....1948-1964 Michigan wolverians won 7 titles. so your theory of no program not coming close is wrong. You also keep forgetting about the years before the 80's, mostly the 40 years and winning only 2 titles. When Hak took over we were at the top of our game? Did we not lose (Parise freshman year) to Ferris State and the following year lose in the regional to Denver? We all want to win one and yes, as a fan base we are frustrated but its not like Hak has turned the program into a complete dumpster fire.... Man, you just don't know how to read - I was clearly refering to the years 1980 - beginning of Hak era when I said they were the best team in college hockey. As for Michigan, they won in 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, and 64 - yes they were the best team in hockey IN THE 50's. Just two since 64. Hak's first year had Bina, Canady, Fabian, Fuher, Fylling, Greene, Jones, Lamoureaux, McMahon, J Parise, Murray, Porter, Prpich, Radke, Schneider, Smaby, Spirko, Stafford, and Zajac on the roster. Not quite a rebuilding year.
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The fans (that blindly support Hak). Not all fans. Read again. And THAT is your issue? That you think some fans blindly support Hakstol? Not that you want him fired? If this is what your problem actually is, get a freakin hobby.
Cratter Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 At this point I'd be happy with one title game appearance the last ten years or maybe a lead in a frozen four the last 7 years. 2
dagies Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Apparently others outside the program drink the kool-aid as well: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2015/04/10_another_one_that_got_away.php The losses in the seasons' biggest games have been as heartbreaking as they have frequent. Moreover, North Dakota has rarely deserved its cruel fate. The most ardent believers of hockey's oldest, falsest maxims truly think the better team always wins. Hakstol's North Dakota sides have been hard done by a number of NCAA tournament results, though. This team has been good enough — and played well enough — to win a few national championships in his tenure, and few other teams have been a realistic contender annually as UND has under Hakstol.
Kermit's Luck Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I feel like posting in this thread ignores the age-old advice "Never argue with an idiot. They'll only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." 2
Scotty Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 At this point I'd be happy with one title game appearance the last ten years or maybe a lead in a frozen four the last 7 years. Teams you may be interested in: Denver Michigan State Notre Dame Miami Duluth Yale Quinnipiac Union Minnesota Ferris State Michigan Good luck to you.
Recommended Posts