Hakstol to be named coach.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Now, would anyone care to share their qualifications in evaluating head coaching candidates?

Perfect.

It seems to me that SOME (read: not all, just a few) UND fans think that some coaching legend is going to apply, and it would be impossible NOT to hire him.

Sorry, guys. As Rick Pitino would probably say, Scotty Bowman is not walking through that door.

[shep]

Bruce said some good stuff back there a post or two that I was too lazy to quote.

The thing about a "national search" is that if it ended with them hiring Hak anyway, we would have seen the same hand-wringing and hostility about this not being a "real search" and they just did it to "make things look good" so now that they didn't go through that potential charade they are castigated for a meely mouthed effort.

Look, I'm a single guy, but if I ever find the right woman, I aint opening the search up in the vain hope of finding another "right woman."

What's done is done.

[defensivend]

I get some real neagtive vibes that you all aren't real sure about Hak and some of the other prospects as coaches:

John Marks was assistant coach at UND for 2 years. IHL coach for 6 years, ECHL coach for 10 years.

Carey Eades was assistant coach 2 years for UND not consecutive either 85-86

and 90-91 no record of coaching in the hire ranks between those times,coached USHL 91-93. Not sure when he started at Warroad so High School Coach til now.

Scott Sandelin quit playing in 92 and became assistant coach at UND in 95 for 5 years now head coach for Duluth. While playing for UND his assistant coaches were Eades & Marks

Steve Johnson USHL Coach for 8 years also played under Eades & Marks

Dave Hakstol USHL Coach for 4 years and Assistant Coach at UND for 4 years

Looking at the record of experience John Marks is the one most qualified for the job and of course this isn't what any of there winning or lose record is where they have coached just the amount of experience they have.

[dagies]

2. Someone else said it: If UND loses a recruit in those two months because they're busy looking for a new coach, nobody would let them forget it. Because the need for depth in this day and age is so great, and the competition for top players is unbelieveable compared to 15 years ago, you can't afford to miss out on two months of recruiting. If UND is asleep at the wheel, they might very well lose major players to league rivals.

Bruce, if you are referring to my post you only have it partly right.

This only applies if they think Hakstol would be the best AVAILABLE candidate when they look outside UND.

Otherwise, if they look outside and think they will land a coach better than Hakstol, the detriment to recruiting is a small price to pay.

I have to believe they think Hakstol is the best qualified candidate who would be interested, and that's why they made this decision when they did.

[Virg Foss is God]

This could change any minute, but so far this morning, I have not heard Tim Hennessy confirm that Hakstol will be the next head coach. He did quote the Herald article saying it, but he hasn't said it himself.

what are you talking about pcm you idiot. the legend reported it. it wasnt a guess. why would you believe hennessy and not foss. its not going to change.

[jk]

Bruce,

Who is to say you would have landed the recruit anyway?

[lawkota]

Now, would anyone care to share their qualifications in evaluating head coaching candidates?

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

BTW, good post.

[Canuck]

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Ha!

Too rich for my blood. Besides, I might as well get some use out of my Super 8 VIP card.

[The Sicatoka]

How do you know they didn't ask? Just because the job wasn't "formally" opened up nationally doesn't necessarily mean there weren't "informal" conversations with people who might be candidates (even long-shot candidates) to see if they are interested. Just a thought.

ScottM used a phrase like "transparent process" earlier.

If they did put out feelers we'll never know because that's not transparent. A national search would be. Instead we're left to wonder what really was the process.

I don't want those types of questions swirling around a new head coach. The job is tough enough without them.

[DMT]

In all honesty, this thread makes me want to puke.

It sure is nice to see the self-proclaimed "best college hockey fans in the nation" supporting our newest head coach, a coach our previous coach publicly and vehemently endorsed. A coach our previous coach hired four years ago without this perceived "head coaching track record." A coach our previous coach had so much faith in, he promoted him to Associated Head Coach in his FIRST YEAR AS HIS ASSISTANT.

Not to be condescending, but what do you guys REALLY know about the candidates? Hell, what do I REALLY KNOW about the candidates? We look at the year-by-year W-L of each and that's about it. The rest is all second-hand knowledge. We don't know how these guys run a practice. We don't know what their recruiting approach is. We don't know what their demeanor is on the bench. Or in the locker room.

To quote former NFL coach Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know."

Now, if I may be the voice of reason here, in 1978 fans were screaming that Union coach Ned Harkness replace Rube Bjorkman as UND's head coach. Against public opionon, some dude named John Gasparini got the nod. Hmmm. What did he ever do.

Then, in 1994, Gino was canned. The public was outraged. A good portion of Sioux fans preferred either Paul Pooley (??) or Mark Mazzoleni (who is now the coach at freaking Green Bay) among the three finalists. The third finalist, Dean Blais, won out. Sure, he spent nine years as an assistant at UND. But sheesh, the guy had spent the last two years as a high school coach.

Here we are 10 years later lamenting that UND screwed up in its search for a replacement for a legend. Again.

It's been 26 years since UND fans criticized the hiring of Gasparini. It's been 10 since he was fired and Blais was hired. In that time, we've won five national titles and sent 50-plus players to the NHL.

Now, would anyone care to share their qualifications in evaluating head coaching candidates?

Great Post!

[mikejm]

I can't believe what I'm reading here...starting to sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Here's my read on things (in no particular order):

1. Hakstol has been the primary recruiter since he's been here. At worst he scouted the prospects and set the plate, and had DB come in and close the deals. How's the recruiting classes been lately?

2. Say you open the search nationally. Who do you get that hasn't already been mentioned? Probably no one. Is Sandy really going to come here? Doubtful. He's turned around a moribund program and can probably name his price in Duluth right now. New arena on its way. Why leave that to come back to GF and try to fill Blais' shoes? Johnson would be taking a pay cut of at least $30,000 a year (and more likely $50 - $80,000 less) to come here. Sure he bleeds green, but I'll bet he likes the inside of his wallet to be the same color. Carey Eades should take the second assistant's job. John Marks is trying too hard.

3. Do you all REALLY think Hak's marriage to Erin O'Keefe entered into this? Are you nuts? Roger Thomas and Tim O'Keefe are way too smart to lay that kind of stink bomb. And Kupchella, as much as I despise him, won't stand for any kind of nepotism.

4. Hak will bring some new energy to things. He's at least as intense a coach as was DB. He certainly ain't distracted with a possible NHL move. The players respect him. Who knows? This might be an opportunity for a goalie coach to finally be added to the staff. At the very least he brings the opportunity finally, for a team nickname that will stick: Can't you see The Hak Attack all over t-shirts and signs, etc.?

In sum, give Hak a chance. Put a little more faith than most of you have displayed in Roger Thomas. Then sit back and enjoy what will prove to be a wonderful college hockey season.

[jloos]

In all honesty, this thread makes me want to puke.

It sure is nice to see the self-proclaimed "best college hockey fans in the nation" supporting our newest head coach, a coach our previous coach publicly and vehemently endorsed. A coach our previous coach hired four years ago without this perceived "head coaching track record." A coach our previous coach had so much faith in, he promoted him to Associated Head Coach in his FIRST YEAR AS HIS ASSISTANT.

Not to be condescending, but what do you guys REALLY know about the candidates? Hell, what do I REALLY KNOW about the candidates? We look at the year-by-year W-L of each and that's about it. The rest is all second-hand knowledge. We don't know how these guys run a practice. We don't know what their recruiting approach is. We don't know what their demeanor is on the bench. Or in the locker room.

To quote former NFL coach Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know."

Now, if I may be the voice of reason here, in 1978 fans were screaming that Union coach Ned Harkness replace Rube Bjorkman as UND's head coach. Against public opionon, some dude named John Gasparini got the nod. Hmmm. What did he ever do.

Then, in 1994, Gino was canned. The public was outraged. A good portion of Sioux fans preferred either Paul Pooley (??) or Mark Mazzoleni (who is now the coach at freaking Green Bay) among the three finalists. The third finalist, Dean Blais, won out. Sure, he spent nine years as an assistant at UND. But sheesh, the guy had spent the last two years as a high school coach.

Here we are 10 years later lamenting that UND screwed up in its search for a replacement for a legend. Again.

It's been 26 years since UND fans criticized the hiring of Gasparini. It's been 10 since he was fired and Blais was hired. In that time, we've won five national titles and sent 50-plus players to the NHL.

Now, would anyone care to share their qualifications in evaluating head coaching candidates?

Well put. I hope I don't come across as anti-Hakstol. My point, and I think the point of others is they should take some time to make a decision and open it up nationally to see who is interested. I think Hakstol would be in the top 2 or 3 on everyones list. I don't buy into the O'Keefe connection - can't blame him for who he married, I don't see any connection. If Hakstol is named coach next week I fully support him and hope he gets a few years to prove himself, he earned the chance. As far as his previous coaching record I posted the stats earlier, as head coach in the USHL he turned a crap program around and had some good seasons.

[Greenbayguy]

Part of the problem is that people get way to sensitive. UND is an elite program! Nothing against DH, but one has to think that there may have been proven coaches interested if given the opportunity to apply.

I am sure DH will do a great job! I really don't care who he is married to, I just don't think that he is quite at the level of the candidates that may have come out in a national search.

Trusting DB as most of us do, I am excited to see what DH brings to the table. Just think that an elite program should do a national search and see what the interest is.

[Rick]

A coach our previous coach hired four years ago without this perceived "head coaching track record." A coach our previous coach had so much faith in, he promoted him to Associated Head Coach in his FIRST YEAR AS HIS ASSISTANT.

Now, if I may be the voice of reason here, in 1978 fans were screaming that Union coach Ned Harkness replace Rube Bjorkman as UND's head coach. Against public opionon, some dude named John Gasparini got the nod. Hmmm. What did he ever do.

Then, in 1994, Gino was canned. The public was outraged. A good portion of Sioux fans preferred either Paul Pooley (??) or Mark Mazzoleni (who is now the coach at freaking Green Bay) among the three finalists. The third finalist, Dean Blais, won out. Sure, he spent nine years as an assistant at UND. But sheesh, the guy had spent the last two years as a high school coach.

Here we are 10 years later lamenting that UND screwed up in its search for a replacement for a legend. Again.

It's been 26 years since UND fans criticized the hiring of Gasparini. It's been 10 since he was fired and Blais was hired. In that time, we've won five national titles and sent 50-plus players to the NHL.

Now, would anyone care to share their qualifications in evaluating head coaching candidates?

Great post Canuck.

I'd like to add a little: Last winter, Blaiser told me that Hak was ready to be a Head Coach at a top program and he hoped Dave would get a chance soon. He said that, like Sandy was 3 years ago, Dave is the best candidate to move to the next level.

I too remember all the screaming when Tom Clifford gave the job to Gino instead of taking the sure thing in Harkness. I wouldn't be surprised if RT had a conversation or two with the Master (Clifford) over the last couple of days. I suspect there are about 5 guys RT consulted with before he came to this conclusion. I doubt that one of those six is currently in the Alumni Office though.

If Blaisers departure had happened 4 years ago and RT would have done a national search to find the best candidate, and what if that candidate would have turned out to be someone with a great resume, with WCHA or college head coaching experience? They hire the outside guy, Sandy moves on to UMD, does a remarkable turn-around and takes the Bulldogs to the National Championship game in three years. We'd be calling for RT's head because he didn't give the job to Sandy, even though he didn't have the head coaching experience at the time.

Many recruits came here to play for the best coach in college hockey. He is moving on to the next level and he's told me quite a few times that Hak and Brad Berry are the two best assistants in the country. Over the last 3 years, Blaiser has had to devote a lot of time to "out-of-hockey" issues. During that time, he has relied heavily on Hak and Brad to pick up more and more of the hockey coaching/operations. I think that is one of the reasons that Hak is ready to continue on without us, as fans, noticing much of a difference in the on-ice performance of the team.

Another question will be......will they be able to attract the top recruits without Blaiser? That will be tough, because recruits like Zach Parise look at the head coach and want to know if he will be able to prepare him best for the next level. Zach came to UND because he knew that nobody prepares you for the NHL like Dean Blais. But when a recruit would talk to Blaiser about this, Blaiser would talk to the recruit about being coached by guys like Hak and Brad Berry. He would talk about their playing experience in the NHL and how that experience will best prepare them for the next level. Not all programs have great assistants with NHL experience.

I don't think recruiting will fall off at all. I believe that once Hak and Berry announce their first few recruits, most of us, and the opposing fans, will say...."how did they pull that one off, I didn't think they'd be able to land him without Blaiser being there".

The only disappointment for me in this process was there were no rumors being circulated about me being on the short list. Once it became clear that RT wasn't going to give me the call, I fully supported his choice.

[U2Bad1]

If Blais had come out and says he endorses Hakstol because he is the best possible replacement for head coach at UND, I would have said "hell yeah, sign him up". But instead he threw out the recruiting line. That's why i am upset by the process.

[sagard]

I'd say you're starting to sound like a blood curtling ditch dwelling goofer from Eagan.

Don't worry. Your in good company with myself and WPoS. Eaganites.

[The Sicatoka]

Once it became clear that RT wasn't going to give me the call ...

Glad to see you snapped out of your "Craig Dahl moment" there.

[sagard]

To me the biggest failure on UND's part is missing out on the fact they could of had it both ways.

Hakstol could have been named "interim" Head Coach for the '04-'05 season and UND could have taken their time deciding if he was truly the right guy for the job. He certainly may be.

I don't think there are many recruits that would have been put off by this and it would have kept the continuity of last years team for next years championship run.

Anyhow, I really don't think Hakstol can be evaluated for his performance for at least three years. If he actually does have any minor flaws, they will be completely masked by next years loaded Sioux team.

[luckynodak]

To me as a fan, Blais is the God//stories-rumors yadayadayada-2 sides to all of them. Now largely because, I believe, Dean has blessed the tandem, I am for HakBerry 100% and cannot wait to see us win another Nat'l title in 2005.

In the early 90s, we had a player over for supper and asked him about the new asst Eades who replaced Blais and he said something to the effect that the last few years in dryland training Blais would be running with them/behind them and encouraging/prodding them to move it and become their best phy conditioned athelete they could be.

And we said, oh how about Eades?

He said, yeah he's in the golf cart!

Enough said

Can't wait for the season to start.

[jk]

A fine post, Rick. I think the Sioux hockey community is still a bit in shock over the whole series of events, and a little reassurance will probably go a long way.

[dagies]

Sagard, my first reaction to the news was to think that was exactly what would happen.

But when I think about it now, I do wonder if that would have more impact than you or I think on a new recruit. Players come to play for coaches, I believe, and facilities second. I suspect that could really wash out a year of recruiting.

I think naming a coach after a couple months into the process sounds less disruptive now.

Thanks for the scoop, Rick. Makes one feel a bit better about the scenario. Will enjoy speculating on the 2nd assistant for a while, and look forward to 2004-05 which should be a fun one.

[UND Fan]

Sagard - I must differ from your thoughts. Whether it is sports or business, you must have someone in charge who you assume is going to be in the position for the foreseeable future. Giving Hakstol the job on an interim basis would likely have a negative impact on the team.

Without really knowing it, a coach may make decisions based upon what is better for the immediate team today rather than next year (bring a kid now instead of giving him an extra year to mature, playing a kid when he may be hurt, etc.), recruits wouldn't know for sure who they would be playing for when/if they committed, it may affect the play of current players (either trying too hard for the coach, wanting him to get hired or slacking off, hoping a new coach would be named for the next year), etc. These are fairly extreme examples but any potential "lame duck" coach or manager in business does not command the same respect/production as someone you know to be in charge for the long run!

I also am a bit confused by another comment - you want to give him one year but you admit you won't really be able to judge his effectiveness for three years. Therefore, how do you make a decision about him after the first year?

[Rick]

Glad to see you snapped out of your "Craig Dahl moment" there.

Actually, I should re-phrase that: Once it became clear that Roger and I weren't going to come to terms on long-term contract, I then fully supported his decision. There were just too many hurdles to overcome....the signing bonus, the annuity, annual salary, piece of the REA action, car, boat, etc. Roger just failed to see what I could bring to the table (ice).

[jloos]

Actually, I should re-phrase that: Once it became clear that Roger and I weren't going to come to terms on long-term contract, I then fully supported his decision. There were just too many hurdles to overcome....the signing bonus, the annuity, annual salary, piece of the REA action, car, boat, etc. Roger just failed to see what I could bring to the table (ice).

If Roger Thomas is reading, I would like to throw my name out. I have more head coaching experience than Hakstol, five years to his four. Four of my five years were winning seasons, one of those years my team nearly won the Pee-Wee B1 tourny. That has to be at least as impressive as the McNaughton Cup. Further, I'll do the job for 1/2 of what you'd pay Hakstol, and unlike Rick I don't require any bonus, annuity or boat. A car would be nice though.

I would require bringing my own staff in. My former assistant may be a little slow, but I am loyal.

[PCM]

Roger just failed to see what I could bring to the table (ice).

How many napkins does one person need?