Time to Boo Berry?

[brianvf]

16 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

You're cherry picking again. 

NCAA tournament appearances: UND 34 MICH 40

Frozen Four: UND 22 MICH 26

NCAA Championships: UND 8 MICH 9
 

Overall Michigan has been better.

If you’re looking at those stats, you should factor in how many of those above Michigan numbers were before UND even had a program going. All of Michigan’s stats are inflated due to their early success when the number of programs competing were very small. 
If we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

[Irish]

1 hour ago, 1966guy said:

C'mon man everybody here has the answers to everything whether they are true, hypothetical or completely fabricated.  People don't understand there are plenty of quality programs and all those programs are working towards the same goal.

 

It's a never ending cycle of calling for coaches heads on a platter.  Hockey, football, basketball.  It doesn't matter.  Coach Bernhard may be the only safe coach on campus but look out if they dont win the tournament their in this weekend all bets are off!!

Plenty of complaints but very few answers from what I've read.  The 

last post I read apparently a 20 win season is the new goal post until that's moved again.

I don't see anyone who is not safe - remember, this is the AD who extended the 5-6 Bubba after one of the worst season of coaching calls I have ever seen.  

 

[skateshattrick]

9 minutes ago, brianvf said:

If you’re looking at those stats, you should factor in how many of those above Michigan numbers were before UND even had a program going. All of Michigan’s stats are inflated due to their early success when the number of programs competing were very small. 
If we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

This is spot on. The argument for Michigan is similar to the argument that Minnesota actually has more titles because it won titles before the NCAA was created (and before UND was a hockey program). That is the definition of cherry picking. 

[siouxkid12]

9 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

I think I speak for everyone here in that NO ONE is hoping for a loss to St Cloud on Friday or a big W followed by a loss to DU or CC so that they can revel in pointing at Berry and saying, “HA HA” like Nelson from “The Simpsons.”  The season is what it is at this point and hopefully the life-support machine can be removed on Saturday night as the team breathes on its own again with a 1 in 16 shot to win a national championship.  

100% agree. 
What irritates me is the "fans" who say "its just a game" or "they are just kids". No, its not just a game and they are not just kids. Fan's (like us) pay a lot of money to support this program and when it isn't living up to the standards set forth before them, we will call it out. It is even more frustrating when the media doesn't hold the leaders to the same standards.

[Dustin]

4 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

You're cherry picking again. 

NCAA tournament appearances: UND 34 MICH 40

Frozen Four: UND 22 MICH 26

NCAA Championships: UND 8 MICH 9
 

Overall Michigan has been better.

Ok, maybe you've convinced me.  Maybe not.  If being really dominant for a couple of eras with a huge gap between eras is what you like, I definitely see your point.  I am not going to argue that Michigan isn't one of college hockey's top-tier programs.

My approach is to the argument is similar to yours, but slightly more inclusive of other successes.  I also weigh time between titles, championship game appearances,  conference titles (both regular and tournament) as marks of consistent success.

The most puzzling part of your argument, to me, was: "Michigan may not have won an NCAA title but they have been pretty damn consistent since winning theirs."  Let's see.  Since 1998:

National Championships:  UND 2, Michigan 0

National Championship game appearances: UND 4, Michigan 1

Frozen Fours: UND 10, Michigan 7

NCAA appearances: UND 20, Michigan 18

Conference Regular Season titles: UND 10, Michigan 6

Conference Tournament titles: Michigan 8, UND 6

 

Both teams have been very consistent, no doubt.  I still like UND's resume better.  But that's just me.

[Irish]

1 hour ago, siouxkid12 said:

I would agree with you on the media. Brad and company never push the buttons like they should, its just status quo all the time. When Tim, Jake or Alex start criticizing (just a little bit) the "real fans" lose their mind.
What I do not agree with you is in the shape of the program. Last few years we have been relying on transfer players and we have not had a legit goalie to help us and it doesn't look like we will for a little bit either.

Recruiting has been off for a few seasons now - and unless we can start selling our program to some Blue Chippers get used to the "hey, we had a winning season" mantra.  Our lack of ability to recruit a good goalie is stunning.

 

[siouxkid12]

25 minutes ago, Dustin said:

Ok, maybe you've convinced me.  Maybe not.  If being really dominant for a couple of eras with a huge gap between eras is what you like, I definitely see your point.  I am not going to argue that Michigan isn't one of college hockey's top-tier programs.

My approach is to the argument is similar to yours, but slightly more inclusive of other successes.  I also weigh time between titles, championship game appearances,  conference titles (both regular and tournament) as marks of consistent success.

The most puzzling part of your argument, to me, was: "Michigan may not have won an NCAA title but they have been pretty damn consistent since winning theirs."  Let's see.  Since 1998:

National Championships:  UND 2, Michigan 0

National Championship game appearances: UND 4, Michigan 1

Frozen Fours: UND 10, Michigan 7

NCAA appearances: UND 20, Michigan 18

Conference Regular Season titles: UND 10, Michigan 6

Conference Tournament titles: Michigan 8, UND 6

 

Both teams have been very consistent, no doubt.  I still like UND's resume better.  But that's just me.

Now we are getting somewhere. When you originally stated your question, you had no boundaries or anything, you just asked historically which program has been better. I did say they were consistent since winning one in 1998 but I wasn't arguing that they were better than UND since then, I actually said Denver and Duluth were. 
If the cutoff is 1998-present, yes UND has been more than "slightly" better than Michigan. But again my response was to yours saying which programs have been Historically better.

[90siouxfan]

2 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Nope, I don't think this "sums it up" at all.

The new standard for our program is being above .500? I reject that 100%. I would rather have high standards that aren't always met than low standards that are easy to meet. Does that mean more disappointment and frustration on this forum? Yes it does. But it makes years like 2016 all the more sweet.

Oh gosh, hope this doesn't mean you are rescinding your endowment to the program.   Please reconsider,  we will be in dire straights without your support.

[siouxkid12]

47 minutes ago, brianvf said:

If you’re looking at those stats, you should factor in how many of those above Michigan numbers were before UND even had a program going. All of Michigan’s stats are inflated due to their early success when the number of programs competing were very small. 
If we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

Michigan won their first title in '48, UND was varsity program in '46.
 

[brianvf]

11 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

Michigan won their first title in '48, UND was varsity program in '46.

Haha, yes.
The rest of my post still stands.

Michigan won their first 6 titles before UND won their first in 1959.
So, since 1959, Michigan has won 3 titles and UND has won 8.
And, if we're looking at consistency...
UND's longest stretches without making the NCAA tourney was 10 years (69-78) and 6 years (91-96).
Michigan's longest stretches without making the NCAA's was 12 years (65-76) and 14 years (78-90).

So...once again, if we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

[MafiaMan]

4 minutes ago, brianvf said:

Haha, yes.
The rest of my post still stands.

Michigan won their first 6 titles before UND won their first in 1959.
So, since 1959, Michigan has won 3 titles and UND has won 8.
And, if we're looking at consistency...
UND's longest stretches without making the NCAA tourney was 10 years (69-78) and 6 years (91-96).
Michigan's longest stretches without making the NCAA's was 12 years (65-76) and 14 years (78-90).

So...once again, if we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

But Michigan’s 25 straight winning seasons trumps North Dakota’s 21, amiright?

[brianvf]

4 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

But Michigan’s 25 straight winning seasons trumps North Dakota’s 21, amiright?

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

[MafiaMan]

3 minutes ago, brianvf said:

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

C’mon, that was funny.  

[1966guy]

1 hour ago, Irish said:

I don't see anyone who is not safe - remember, this is the AD who extended the 5-6 Bubba after one of the worst season of coaching calls I have ever seen.  

 

I'm talking about safe with this fickle fan base not the A D.  

[tnt]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

Ok, maybe you've convinced me.  Maybe not.  If being really dominant for a couple of eras with a huge gap between eras is what you like, I definitely see your point.  I am not going to argue that Michigan isn't one of college hockey's top-tier programs.

My approach is to the argument is similar to yours, but slightly more inclusive of other successes.  I also weigh time between titles, championship game appearances,  conference titles (both regular and tournament) as marks of consistent success.

The most puzzling part of your argument, to me, was: "Michigan may not have won an NCAA title but they have been pretty damn consistent since winning theirs."  Let's see.  Since 1998:

National Championships:  UND 2, Michigan 0

National Championship game appearances: UND 4, Michigan 1

Frozen Fours: UND 10, Michigan 7

NCAA appearances: UND 20, Michigan 18

Conference Regular Season titles: UND 10, Michigan 6

Conference Tournament titles: Michigan 8, UND 6

 

Both teams have been very consistent, no doubt.  I still like UND's resume better.  But that's just me.

And until recent Big Ten success and when they used to be in the WCHA Michigan hasn't had the same league grind to get into the national tournament.  Some of the old CCHA teams they used to face haven't exactly been ripping up the NCHC. 

[fightingsioux4life]

50 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

Oh gosh, hope this doesn't mean you are rescinding your endowment to the program.   Please reconsider,  we will be in dire straights without your support.

#biteme

[stoneySIOUX]

17 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

But Michigan’s 25 straight winning seasons trumps North Dakota’s 21, amiright?

9 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

C’mon, that was funny.  

I desperately want this convo to end, but yes, this made me LOL

[stoneySIOUX]

Just now, fightingsioux4life said:

#biteme

Glad you're rolling with the assigned bit  good on you, brother. We need consistency here! #

[90siouxfan]

Just now, fightingsioux4life said:

#biteme

lol, third grade was awesome for me too, we has "I know you are, but what am I?"...   fun stuff, those were the days.

[fightingsioux4life]

Just now, stoneySIOUX said:

Glad you're rolling with the assigned bit  good on you, brother. We need consistency here! #

That is how I respond to snotty little comments that add nothing to the discussion.

[siouxkid12]

57 minutes ago, brianvf said:

Haha, yes.
The rest of my post still stands.

Michigan won their first 6 titles before UND won their first in 1959.
So, since 1959, Michigan has won 3 titles and UND has won 8.
And, if we're looking at consistency...
UND's longest stretches without making the NCAA tourney was 10 years (69-78) and 6 years (91-96).
Michigan's longest stretches without making the NCAA's was 12 years (65-76) and 14 years (78-90).

So...once again, if we’re comparing these two programs over the last 10/20/30/40 years, I’d take UND every time. 

Again, you are moving the goalpost to fit your narrative. You asked how many of those numbers were done before UND had a program going and the answer is zero. Now you move the goal post to say how many were won before UND won their title? 
There was never any mention about time frames, the original question was all about both program's overall history. 

 

[siouxweet]

This thread will be going strong either Friday at about 10 or Sat around 9:30.  This team needs to win back to back games against 2 very good teams, something it hasn't done ALL year.  What makes anyone think they will do it against SCSU and Denver??

[brianvf]

9 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

Again, you are moving the goalpost to fit your narrative. You asked how many of those numbers were done before UND had a program going and the answer is zero. Now you move the goal post to say how many were won before UND won their title? 
There was never any mention about time frames, the original question was all about both program's overall history. 

Sweet bejesus. Alrighty. 
I prefer UND’s overall history. You like Michigan. No worries! 

[MafiaMan]

8 minutes ago, siouxweet said:

This thread will be going strong either Friday at about 10 or Sat around 9:30.  This team needs to win back to back games against 2 very good teams, something it hasn't done ALL year.  What makes anyone think they will do it against SCSU and Denver??

SCSU is ripe for the picking and Denver will be playing not to get hurt on Saturday.  I’m sayin’ there’s a chance.  

[Sweethockey]

11 minutes ago, siouxweet said:

This thread will be going strong either Friday at about 10 or Sat around 9:30.  This team needs to win back to back games against 2 very good teams, something it hasn't done ALL year.  What makes anyone think they will do it against SCSU and Denver??

Faith brother, nothing but faith!