Fire Berry Please!

[Oxbow6]

I tried to package my West Regional tickets at Scheels with Sunday's Pentatonix tickets at the Dome and I got offered less money than just for the Pentatonix tickets alone..........

[tnt]

7 hours ago, cberkas said:

They had back-to-back destination games because they move the Penn State one. So, they stopped them to not burn out the fan base and keep them fresh. Brad talked about why a smaller venue during one of his podcasts. From what I got from Brad was smaller venue is a better fan experience. If the destination games were losing interest they wouldn't sell out the smaller venue of have a wait list. 

"Better fan experience" meaning we sold less tickets than we thought.   I thought Nashville atmosphere was fine, until of course UND took the ice.   The best fan experience would be if they bring their "A" game with some intensity.

[RedFrog]

Serious question.  What does or should the corrective action process look like for a head coach? 

I'm only looking specifically for instances where team performance/achievement expectations are or are not met.  I have my own thoughts, but want to hear what others have to say before sharing.

[.357]

17 minutes ago, RedFrog said:

Serious question.  What does or should the corrective action process look like for a head coach? 

I'm only looking specifically for instances where team performance/achievement expectations are or are not met.  I have my own thoughts, but want to hear what others have to say before sharing.

The only corrective actions that I know of in the corporate world are verbal warnings, written warnings, suspensions, demotions & terminations. And because the first four are not applicable to a head coach in this situation (that I know of), I would guess termination. 

[stoneySIOUX]

15 hours ago, 90siouxfan said:

since you're all ready at round nine, how about you give it a full 60....

 

all this chatter about the FB crowd reminds me of a childhood friend named Todd, Todd's favorite recess activity was hitting the special needs kids with snow balls....

Slow work day yesterday 😉

[siouxkid12]

27 minutes ago, .357 said:

The only corrective actions that I know of in the corporate world are verbal warnings, written warnings, suspensions, demotions & terminations. And because the first four are not applicable to a head coach in this situation (that I know of), I would guess termination. 

Not necessarily. Berry does have a good record, so its not like he is a terrible coach. If they were to extend him, you could reduce his base pay and give him more bonuses if he hits certain incentives. This also could reduce the high amount of a buyout if the school fires him halfway through the contract.

[burd]

His contract may impose some limits.  

[RedFrog]

3 hours ago, .357 said:

The only corrective actions that I know of in the corporate world are verbal warnings, written warnings, suspensions, demotions & terminations. And because the first four are not applicable to a head coach in this situation (that I know of), I would guess termination. 

I'm thinking more along the lines of how does Berry know what the expectation is and when/if he is not achieving that it is clearly stated that improvement is expected. 

I have to imagine it goes a little like this (very high level view and for discussion purposes only):

Before season meeting between AD and Head Coach.  In this meeting they discuss what the expectations and goals are for the team for the year and agree upon what would constitute a successful year (minimally acceptable standard).

After season meeting between AD and Head Coach.  In this meeting they review the season and determine if it was a successful year.  If it was a successful year, good job and we'll see you next year.  If it wasn't a successful year how close was it to being successful and can it be attributed to unforeseen circumstances or just not getting the breaks?  Regardless, unsuccessful has to come with a message that it is not meeting minimally acceptable standards and improvement is needed. 

Questions I have are:

What is the minimally acceptable standard when looking at the season in its entirety? 

Is there much deviation from year to year on what the minimally acceptable standard is?

How frequently is a failure to meet the minimally acceptable standard tolerated?

 

I like the visual from the previous page.  Is the minimally acceptable standard getting into the NCAAs (that would be the water level in this graphic)? 

**Credit to @Big A HG for the above graphic**

Personally, I think winning a Penrose Cup is a successful season regardless of any tournament outcomes ... as frustrating as that has been.  We hang banners for meaningful achievements, and when you hang a banner you have achieved something that is not easily done and exceeds minimally acceptable standards.  Conversely, missing the NCAAs is a failed year and should automatically put a coach on the hot seat (PIP anyone?) ... again, in my opinion. 

At the beginning of the year when the Fire Berry talk started up it infuriated me.  As late as being swept by Denver I was still a supporter but said that the next 6 games (RMU, BSU, Miami) would dictate our season and we did not perform well.  I have since been more open to the idea of a need for change, but I also am one who believes people need to be given opportunities to improve ... corrective action > disciplinary action, however when corrective action doesn't get results, then disciplinary action needs to be used.  I just wonder what those conversations consisted of after the 2018, 2019 and 2023 seasons?

Ultimately, nothing will or should be decided until after the season, but if we miss the NCAAs entirely, which is a very distinct possibility, I know that I will not be satisfied and would not object to a change.  I am hopeful and remain cautiously optimistic that we are making a turn for the better, getting some key players back and can make a serious run in the 2nd half.

[MafiaMan]

13 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

I tried to package my West Regional tickets at Scheels with Sunday's Pentatonix tickets at the Dome and I got offered less money than just for the Pentatonix tickets alone..........

I just bucked up a pretty penny for 2026 World Junior Hockey Tournament tickets…safe to say, I’m out for next spring and the chance to watch RMU vs Cornell in the regional title game at Scheels Arena.

[SJHovey]

32 minutes ago, RedFrog said:

I'm thinking more along the lines of how does Berry know what the expectation is and when/if he is not achieving that it is clearly stated that improvement is expected. 

I have to imagine it goes a little like this (very high level view and for discussion purposes only):

Before season meeting between AD and Head Coach.  In this meeting they discuss what the expectations and goals are for the team for the year and agree upon what would constitute a successful year (minimally acceptable standard).

After season meeting between AD and Head Coach.  In this meeting they review the season and determine if it was a successful year.  If it was a successful year, good job and we'll see you next year.  If it wasn't a successful year how close was it to being successful and can it be attributed to unforeseen circumstances or just not getting the breaks?  Regardless, unsuccessful has to come with a message that it is not meeting minimally acceptable standards and improvement is needed. 

Questions I have are:

What is the minimally acceptable standard when looking at the season in its entirety? 

Is there much deviation from year to year on what the minimally acceptable standard is?

How frequently is a failure to meet the minimally acceptable standard tolerated?

 

I like the visual from the previous page.  Is the minimally acceptable standard getting into the NCAAs (that would be the water level in this graphic)? 

**Credit to @Big A HG for the above graphic**

Personally, I think winning a Penrose Cup is a successful season regardless of any tournament outcomes ... as frustrating as that has been.  We hang banners for meaningful achievements, and when you hang a banner you have achieved something that is not easily done and exceeds minimally acceptable standards.  Conversely, missing the NCAAs is a failed year and should automatically put a coach on the hot seat (PIP anyone?) ... again, in my opinion. 

At the beginning of the year when the Fire Berry talk started up it infuriated me.  As late as being swept by Denver I was still a supporter but said that the next 6 games (RMU, BSU, Miami) would dictate our season and we did not perform well.  I have since been more open to the idea of a need for change, but I also am one who believes people need to be given opportunities to improve ... corrective action > disciplinary action, however when corrective action doesn't get results, then disciplinary action needs to be used.  I just wonder what those conversations consisted of after the 2018, 2019 and 2023 seasons?

Ultimately, nothing will or should be decided until after the season, but if we miss the NCAAs entirely, which is a very distinct possibility, I know that I will not be satisfied and would not object to a change.  I am hopeful and remain cautiously optimistic that we are making a turn for the better, getting some key players back and can make a serious run in the 2nd half.

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

[tnt]

2 hours ago, SJHovey said:

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

How many have changed coaches since then?  Apparently it wasn't good enough for those other schools either, so subsequently most of them are top teams now.

[burd]

18 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

Useful post. 

[siouxkid12]

9 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

People keep bringing that up and I still think it's an excuse they use to justify the other bad season. Yes, we were the #1 team in the pairwise but we will never know what the outcome would've been due to them not playing any postseason games. We know that after 2016, Berry has had very limited success in the NCAA tournament (and dare I say, the NCHC tournament too). It could easily be argued that UND wouldn't have won the NCAA tournament that year, let alone win a game in the NCAA tournament.

The fact of the matter is, Berry is a good regular season coach but hasn't gotten it done since he inherited Hak's team in 2016. Sure, conference titles are nice, and we can hang a banner, but should we be satisfied with only conference titles? If we exclude the National Championship in 2016 from his resume and based his coaching off everything else, we wouldn't be talking about him now because he would be long gone and that's a fact.

[MafiaMan]

32 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

 

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I’m sorry, but I keep seeing Michigan State referenced as an NCAA hockey blueblood.  Does anyone REALLY have them in their upper echelon of NCAA hockey programs?

[siouxkid12]

23 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2 = 2nd HC since 2017 Frozen Four in 18,22

Minnesota - 3 = 1 HC since 2018 Frozen Four in 14, 22,23 (new coach has taken them to the FF twice)

Michigan State - 7 = 3rd HC since 2010

Wisconsin - 6 = 2nd HC since 2016

Denver - 1 = 2nd HC since 2013 Frozen Four in 16,17,22,24 (won it 3x)

BU - 2 = 3rd HC since 2013 Frozen Four in 15,23

BC - 5 = 1 HC since 2022 Frozen Four in 14,16 (New coach hasn't taken them to the FF yet)

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

All those teams you listed have had a coaching change within the last 10 years, some even had multiple coaching changes. You know why that is? Because the standard for their programs had not lived up to their potential. I also denoted how many times they have been to the FF too.

[Brim006]

19 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I understand what you are saying, but even if we now decide that NCAA tournament is the bar that has to be met, I still don't think it's been that bad.

Yes, under Brad, we've missed the tournament 3 times.  But consider this.  During that same time frame (2015-16 to now), these "bluebloods" of college hockey, that everyone fears we have fallen so far behind, missed the tournament the following number of seasons:

Michigan - 2

Minnesota - 3

Michigan State - 7

Wisconsin - 6

Denver - 1

BU - 2

BC - 5

Further consider that we were #1 in the pairwise in 2020, and of the above teams, only DU and BC were likely to make it that year.  MN was at 17, and Michigan was hanging on at 14, but everyone else was basically dead.

Plus, the three misses in the 16 team era was probably not a standard that can be sustained.  None of the above teams have come close to that.

I have a theory.  I always think the panic around here starts to build when the team struggles, but it goes over the top when one of our chief rivals (MN and DU) are having success at the same time.  That's what we are seeing now.

Yes, exactly and they've all hired new coaches during that span (for varies reasons including performance). Also, they're all currently ranked better than UND other than Wisc, and all had deep tournament runs since then other than Wisc and Mich State during that span. 

Frozen 4 appearances in that span.

Michigan - 4

Minnesota - 2

Michigan State - 0

Wisconsin - 0 

Denver - 5

BU - 2

BC - 2

UND - 0

 

So based on tournament appearances, frozen 4 appearances, and current rankings it appears UND is in the mix for the worst blue blood drop off during this span (Berry's tenure). Debate would be between Wisconsin, Michigan State and UND. Michigan State and Wisconsin have pretty clearly had the worst drop offs in that span, but Michigan State has turned things around and is back on top. I'd say Wisconsin wins the crown for the worst, but we'll see how this coaching change works out for them since he's in his 2nd season now I believe. 

[Brim006]

15 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

I’m sorry, but I keep seeing Michigan State referenced as an NCAA hockey blueblood.  Does anyone REALLY have them in their upper echelon of NCAA hockey programs?

Probably not but now they're better than UND again so what does that say haha. 

[MafiaMan]

10 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

All those teams you listed have had a coaching change within the last 10 years, some even had multiple coaching changes. You know why that is? Because the standard for their programs had not lived up to their potential. I also denoted how many times they have been to the FF too.

Ummm…unless my eyes deceived me last spring, Greg Brown had BC in the title game vs Denver at the X.

[Big Green]

28 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

People keep bringing that up and I still think it's an excuse they use to justify the other bad season. Yes, we were the #1 team in the pairwise but we will never know what the outcome would've been due to them not playing any postseason games. We know that after 2016, Berry has had very limited success in the NCAA tournament (and dare I say, the NCHC tournament too). It could easily be argued that UND wouldn't have won the NCAA tournament that year, let alone win a game in the NCAA tournament.

The fact of the matter is, Berry is a good regular season coach but hasn't gotten it done since he inherited Hak's team in 2016. Sure, conference titles are nice, and we can hang a banner, but should we be satisfied with only conference titles? If we exclude the National Championship in 2016 from his resume and based his coaching off everything else, we wouldn't be talking about him now because he would be long gone and that's a fact.

At one point I thought we would have likely won a NC in 2020, however I now believe one of the best things to happen to Berry was the season ending due to Covid as I don't think they make it out of the regional.

 

[MafiaMan]

Just now, Big Green said:

At one point I thought we would have likely won a NC in 2020, however I now believe one of the best things to happen to Berry was the season ending due to Covid as I don't think they make it out of the regional.

26-5-4 overall but only 3-2-1 in the last 6 games of that season.  I know lots of folks want to christen 2020 the “black banner” season but boy oh boy, imagine how hot Berry’s seat would be today had that been another 0-1 NCHC Frozen Faceoff performance followed by an 0-1 NCAA tournament showing a week later.

[Brim006]

12 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

26-5-4 overall but only 3-2-1 in the last 6 games of that season.  I know lots of folks want to christen 2020 the “black banner” season but boy oh boy, imagine how hot Berry’s seat would be today had that been another 0-1 NCHC Frozen Faceoff performance followed by an 0-1 NCAA tournament showing a week later.

On paper, the track record shows that was the most likely outcome. But we'll never know! 

[Blackheart]

1 hour ago, MafiaMan said:

26-5-4 overall but only 3-2-1 in the last 6 games of that season.  I know lots of folks want to christen 2020 the “black banner” season but boy oh boy, imagine how hot Berry’s seat would be today had that been another 0-1 NCHC Frozen Faceoff performance followed by an 0-1 NCAA tournament showing a week later.

Those last few games that season, how much did we have to play for?  I honestly believe they would have made Frozen Four that year.  But yeah, forget the black banner bs.

[SiouxFan100]

To be successful you have to have NCAA tournament wins.

[cberkas]

3 hours ago, MafiaMan said:

I’m sorry, but I keep seeing Michigan State referenced as an NCAA hockey blueblood.  Does anyone REALLY have them in their upper echelon of NCAA hockey programs?

With how bad them and Wisconsin fell off a cliff. It's hard to even mention them being "bluebloods" anymore. 

[MafiaMan]

25 minutes ago, cberkas said:

With how bad them and Wisconsin fell off a cliff. It's hard to even mention them being "bluebloods" anymore. 

1966, 1986, & 2007 titles for the Spartans.  If they’re bluebloods based on that, then Colorado College and Michigan Tech should still qualify too.