Old Time Hockey Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 12:22 AM, Cratter said: Its based on the expectation that for once Idalski might actually beat preseason expectations, not necessarily a national championship. Its easy to replace Idalski with some one better. That wouldn't be a problem. The twins didn't come to UND because of Idalski. They came because they wanted to help build their home towns womens hockey teams program. The UND womens hockey coach situation is the reason they chose Minnesota over UND to start their college careers. Expand Wrong! They committed to Minnesota because UNDs coach during the time they were recruited was auwful. Once she was gone, the twins decided it was time to come home. Its obvious you and 83 have a huge inferiority complex with the hockey programs. My comment about dropping basketball was purely tongue-in-cheek bait that you took big time. A serious question I do have however is......... Do the basketball programs run in the black or red at UND? Quote
UND1983 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 4:58 PM, Old Time Hockey said: Wrong! They committed to Minnesota because UNDs coach during the time they were recruited was auwful. Once she was gone, the twins decided it was time to come home. Its obvious you and 83 have a huge inferiority complex with the hockey programs. My comment about dropping basketball was purely tongue-in-cheek bait that you took big time. A serious question I do have however is......... Do the basketball programs run in the black or red at UND? Expand I am sure both basketballs run in the red, most all collegiate programs do. Quote
Old Time Hockey Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 5:27 PM, UND1983 said: I am sure both basketballs run in the red, most all collegiate programs do. Expand That was my guess as well. So if that is the case, what's with all the hate towards the womens hockey program in regards to dropping it? If people think that a coach needs to be fired (for right or wrong) reasons that is one thing. But to say we need to bag a program in general because it is a revenue drain to the overall athletic department seems questionable to say the least. Obviously that is why I made the point about dropping basketball. Women hockey is still a relatively new sport. I think with time we will see it grow nationally to more than the 35 (not 8 or 15) teams as the men programs continue to expand. I look to see how hockey will work at ASU as a litmus test for growing the sport. If it takes off we will see more and more teams join from the west. 2 Quote
F'n Hawks Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 12:18 AM, Old Time Hockey said: How about we drop women's hockey once we drop men's basketball. Women's hockey is more competitive. When was the last time the basketball team made the NCAA tourney (D2 or D1)? Expand I laughed really hard at the drop the men's basketball part... made my day 2 Quote
Cratter Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 UND has beaten Minnesota in the regular season, but ever the post season? Quote
brianvf Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Running out of time...down 2-0 with 17min left in game. Quote
coltssiouxfan Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 Sooooo fire Idaski??? I honestly don't care for him as a coach. As crazy as it sounds get Shannon Miller. She's crazy but she is good too. 2 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 On 2/28/2016 at 2:11 AM, fightingsioux4life said: Based on this little pearl of wisdom, every coach should have an iron clad lifetime contract to coach as long as they want. But this isn't high school, this is Division I collegiate athletics and it's women's ice hockey. And at the University of North Dakota, that means the expectations will be high. This is one of three sports (MH and FB being the other two) that we have a realistic shot at winning national titles in. And I think the overall body of work suggests that Idalski has plateaued. A third to fourth place finish in the regular season, followed by a first round home playoff series and a trip to the Final Faceoff where we will get shut out by either Wisconsin or Minnesota. Rinse. Repeat. If you are happy with that every single year, then that is fine. But some of us want women's hockey to achieve greatness and Idalski doesn't look like the man to do it. Brewster raised the bar for WBB a couple of years ago, Bubba is raising the bar for FB right now and now it is time to raise the bar for Women's Hockey. If Title IX requires us to keep this program and fund it, then we might as well strive to be the best in the nation at it. Expand I hate to say "I told you so", but..... 2 Quote
Cratter Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 The three years before the Lamoureux twins arrived on campus Idalski and UND were 25-67 combined.. .the three years the Lammy twins were at UND 68-37. The transformation from 8-22 to 20-13 in the first year of the Lamoureux twins is nothing short of amazing! The last three seasons since the twins left the rankings of UND womens hockey has started to trend downwards...still "respectable" but nothing to write home about. 2 Quote
sioux rube Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 7:31 AM, Cratter said: The three years before the Lamoureux twins arrived on campus Idalski and UND were 25-67 combined.. .the three years the Lammy twins were at UND 68-37. The transformation from 8-22 to 20-13 in the first year of the Lamoureux twins is nothing short of amazing! The last three seasons since the twins left the rankings of UND womens hockey has started to trend downwards...still "respectable" but nothing to write home about. Expand Time for a change 2 Quote
siouxweet Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 The problem isn't that they can't beat Minnesota or Wisconsin in the post season,it is that they consistently lose to teams they shouldn't during the regular season that kills their rpi. 3 Quote
Maddogg1971 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 8:48 PM, siouxweet said: The problem isn't that they can't beat Minnesota or Wisconsin in the post season,it is that they consistently lose to teams they shouldn't during the regular season that kills their rpi. Expand No question that is the reason. That translates into "who is running this ship"? Completely unacceptable. 1 Quote
Shawn-O Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 5:46 AM, coltssiouixfan said: Sooooo fire Idaski??? I honestly don't care for him as a coach. As crazy as it sounds get Shannon Miller. She's crazy but she is good too. Expand The risk is nowhere near worth the reward. 2 Quote
UND1983 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:39 PM, Shawn-O said: The risk is nowhere near worth the reward. Expand I can hear it already: "who are you going to get that's better?" Just like the Hakstol people clamored last year. Faison looked about 3 feet to Hak's right to find somebody as good, as the results have shown. 3 Quote
jdub27 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:42 PM, UND1983 said: I can hear it already: "who are you going to get that's better?" Just like the Hakstol people clamored last year. Faison looked about 3 feet to Hak's right to find somebody as good, as the results have shown. Expand I don't think his point was that the risk of a new coach may or may not be worth the reward, it was the risk with that particular coach is nowhere near worth the reward. To the latter point, I agree. Quote
Shawn-O Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:58 PM, jdub27 said: I don't think his point was that the risk of a new coach may or may not be worth the reward, it was the risk with that particular coach is nowhere near worth the reward. To the latter point, I agree. Expand Correct. High price tag and baggage. Quote
UND1983 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:58 PM, jdub27 said: I don't think his point was that the risk of a new coach may or may not be worth the reward, it was the risk with that particular coach is nowhere near worth the reward. To the latter point, I agree. Expand I know, I just used his quote as it was the newest. Probably didn't need to quote that one. 1 Quote
Maddogg1971 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:42 PM, UND1983 said: I can hear it already: "who are you going to get that's better?" Just like the Hakstol people clamored last year. Faison looked about 3 feet to Hak's right to find somebody as good, as the results have shown. Expand Exactly. Fabian would be a great head coach. 3 Quote
siouxweet Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 5:42 PM, UND1983 said: I can hear it already: "who are you going to get that's better?" Just like the Hakstol people clamored last year. Faison looked about 3 feet to Hak's right to find somebody as good, as the results have shown. Expand Although,we'll have to wait and see what he does when he gets to a Frozen Four Quote
Irish Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 For what this program is costing, we should demand better. Sure seems like we have seen the top of an Idaski season. Over and over. 1 Quote
Maddogg1971 Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 On 3/7/2016 at 10:10 PM, Irish said: For what this program is costing, we should demand better. Sure seems like we have seen the top of an Idaski season. Over and over. Expand Next year wont be any better either. They are graduating roughly 65% of their scoring. Quote
UNDBIZ Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Just found the million dollars to cut from athletics..... 2 Quote
Cratter Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 On 3/8/2016 at 2:51 PM, Maddogg1971 said: Next year wont be any better either. They are graduating roughly 65% of their scoring. Expand Ouch. And that's missing the NCAA tournament this year. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.