I ask this question, in all seriousness, to those who think that the program has fallen on hard times, below our standards, or that it's time to start thinking about coaching changes.
Look back over the past 9 seasons (I'm excluding the present season primarily because we don't know how it will turn out). If you could magically substitute the performance of another college hockey program for our own, would you? Whose?
UND is 235-119-37 over that span, with no losing seasons, 2 regular season crowns, 4 conference tourney titles, appearances in all 9 NCAA tournaments, but admittedly no national titles.
So who do you wish we were, over Hak's tenure, if not our own performance?
BC? Obviously. 3 national titles, 3 regular season titles, 6 conference tourney championships, appearances in 8 of 9 NCAA tournaments and a 238-97-33 record.
But now who?
Michigan? The supposed greatest college hockey program of all time? No national titles, 3 regular season titles, 3 conference tourney titles, 8 of 9 NCAA tourney appearances (and one losing season), with a win/loss record virtually identical to ours at 237-116-25. I'm not trading. That's the same car I'm driving without the 1 missed tourney.
How about Miami? 3 regular season titles, 1 conference tourney title, 8 of 9 NCAA appearances, but no national titles and a record no better than ours at 222-107-39. No thanks.
Minnesota? No national titles. 4 regular season titles but 1 conference tourney title. Only 6 of 9 in NCAA appearances with one losing season and a considerably worse record at 210-120-39. Plus, you're Minnesota. Forget it.
How about last year's champs, Yale. They have the almighty national title. But 2 regular season titles, 2 conference titles and only 4 NCAA appearances out of 9 seasons, to go along with 3 losing seasons and a pedestrian 153-129-24 record. I don't make that swap.
Duluth won a title, too. But not a single regular season title, one tournament title and made the NCAA's a paltry 3 of the 9 seasons, with 5 losing seasons and a barely .500 record of 161-149-47. Go ahead if you want to be a Bulldog.
How about Michigan St. and their national title? Zero regular season titles. 1 conference tourney title. 3 losing seasons. Only 4 NCAA appearances in the 9 years and a very average 173-150-42 record.
So far I'm not impressed.
So what about Wisconsin, BU or Denver?
Lot of baggage with Wisconsin. They have that title real early in the stretch of these 9 seasons, but no regular season titles, one very unexpected conference tourney title, 5 of 9 on NCAA appearances, a couple of sub-.500 seasons and a 196-133-39 record a long way behind UND. It might be for some of you, but not me.
BU? One great season with a national title. A couple of HE crowns to go with a couple of HE tourney titles. But they only made the tournament half the time and their overall record is still a long way behind UND, at 204-117-39.
Denver? For me this would be a maybe. 2 regular season crowns, 2 Broadmoors and appearances in 7 of the 9 NCAA tournaments. Pretty good record at 220-115-33. A bit of a toss up, but I might be persuaded to take that record for these past 9 seasons, understanding that the title did come at the very beginning of the run and there has been a generally downward progression.
Anybody that I missed?
So, of course I would love to have BC's record the past 9 years. Who wouldn't? Denver's? Maybe, although I don't like the direction they're going. Who else would you rather be?
Unless someone else has some good answers, I'm not sure I'd be jumping ship right about now.
I agree I would not trade north Dakotas performance over the last ten years for any other teams. however I love that so many fans whether wrong are right demand the absolute best... if it were up to ND fans we would have won the NCAA title every year and that's what makes us so good so some might say people are crazy for saying fire hak.... hey at least they care and want ND to be the best no matter what it takes.
ReplyDeleteTitle every year woudn't be enough, would have to go undefeated all year long as well
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be a more relevant comparison to take a coaches first nine years when comparing a coach's success to Coach Hakstol? Looks like your comparison is more apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteFor example, first nine years for:
Woog 275-110-23 3 WCHA Titles, 2 WCHA Play-off Titles 9 NCAA Appearances. No NCAA Titles.
Lucia 239-113-38 2 WCHA Titles, 3 WCHA Play-off Titles 8 NCAA Appearances, 2 National Championships
Hakstol's a very good coach. No doubt about it. But with all of the talent he's had over the years he should have had at least one NC by now, maybe more.
'Rushmore', I'd say it'd be more apples to apples comparing coaches and teams over the same period of time. College hockey has completely changed over the years and if you don't believe that look at Yale last year. Almost missed the tournament and came out on top. That would never have happened even 10 years ago! Apples to oranges would be comparing Hakstol to guys that coached in different decades and college hockey environments.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see Air Force's numbers over that time period If im right they have 4 season cups, 5 or 6 tournament cups and NCAA births...
ReplyDelete