PDA

View Full Version : NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 09:59 AM
Except, the difference is that recruiting primarily (and for a while exclusivley) in-state was an institutional philosophy started by John Mariucci and carried on by all his successors. Mariucci didn't win that title that Campbell called "USA Hockey's greatest achievement". Brooks did. Not to mention, I fail to see any connection Kennedy had with Harvard's hockey program.

As has been explained earlier, I think you're over-emphasizing Campbell's quote. Plus, Brooks won with a bunch of Sonmor's kids. That being said, it was a very impressive feat given the time and what was surrounding college hockey. Further, I don't think there is anything wrong with tying Mariucci's accomplishments/vision to the University; however, it should be noted that it was Mariucci's vision (that the coaches that followed him shared), and not the University of Minnesota's. As a result, in the context of accomplishments by the program, I wouldn't put as much weight on those sorts of accomplishments/visions from individuals. Now, I would certainly look at that when considering something like the Greatest Coach of All Time, or the Most Important Person to college hockey type discussion.

As for Kennedy, people were simply asking who should get credit. If anyone, it should be the sponsor's of the bill and the President that signed it. Using your logic, whatever University produced/employed those people should get the credit. As for Kennedy's connection to the hockey program, I have no idea whether he had any connection, discussions, or anything of that sort with the program. My guess is you don't either.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:13 AM
Few things Mile High -

No, I'm not over-emphasizing Campbell's quote. He called it USA Hockey's greatest achievement for a very clear reason, which he made pretty clear. I'm not going to keep rehashing this. Provide evidence that he wasn't sincere or that his claim was disputed by USA Hockey or else I will not be addressing this further.

And Brooks won 3 titles with only Americans. Two with only Minnesotans. I disagree that he used mostly Sonmore players to win the 1974 title (read the book), but he certainly didn't win the 1976 and 1979 titles with Sonmore's guys.

As for attributing coaching philosophies or decisions to the program, you are really starting to reach. Coaching decisions impact all aspects of what makesa program great. Whom to recruit, whom to play, what style of hockey to play, etc. These decisions impact how many games and titles they win, which is something you all are clearly using to measure a program's "greatness". Therefore, I see no reason why a program's coaches' decisions that significantly impact the growth of hockey in this country shouldn't be factored into a program's greatness too.

Mariucci and Brooks are both in both of the Hockey Hall of Fames. Mariucci is in both exclusively for what he did at Minnesota that had an impact on hockey in this country. That cannot be ignored when measuring the "greatness" of Minnesota's program. Many other schools/programs may not have been as patient while he struggled early while growing the sport in-state.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:15 AM
And I was being facetious when I asked which program should get credit for that federal program. No program should, and it's impact on the growth of hockey in this country was, in my opinion, grossly over-stated by the poster. He provided no support for his claim at all.

UncleRay
03-01-2013, 10:22 AM
I'm not going to keep rehashing this.Do you promise?

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 10:25 AM
As for attributing coaching philosophies or decisions to the program, you are really starting to reach. Coaching decisions impact all aspects of what makesa program great. Whom to recruit, whom to play, what style of hockey to play, etc. These decisions impact how many games and titles they win, which is something you all are clearly using to measure a program's "greatness". Therefore, I see no reason why a program's coaches' decisions that significantly impact the growth of hockey in this country shouldn't be factored into a program's greatness too.

I understand that you feel that way. I just fundamentally disagree. In my opinion, you are confusing Mariucci's vision with University of Minnesota accomplishments.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Do you promise?

That singular point? Yes. Commissioner Campbell was sincere in his comment that Minnesota's 1974 championship was USA Hockey's greatest achievement up to that point. I will not reply to or acknowledge any remark that says otherwise unless it is supported by evidence that he wasn't being sincere.

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 10:29 AM
That singular point? Yes. Commissioner Campbell was sincere in his comment that Minnesota's 1974 championship was USA Hockey's greatest achievement up to that point. I will not reply to or acknowledge any remark that says otherwise unless it is supported by evidence that he wasn't being sincere.

How do you know it was sincere? Look at the context. Think Mitt Romney in this past election...certainly he said some things that he may or may not have meant to a group of people that wanted to hear it. That's what people do all the time. To discard any possibility that it may have been hyperbole, is incredibly naive.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:32 AM
I understand that you feel that way. I just fundamentally disagree. In my opinion, you are confusing Mariucci's vision with University of Minnesota accomplishments.

This whole board is predicated on opinion, so I have no problem if you disagree. Thank you for being respectful of my opinions. I respect yours.

In my opinion you have to give the program credit because they hired Mariucci knowing he was going to implement this philosophy and stood by him while he struggled early to implement it. Not to mention, program's get credit for their coaches other decisions that result in wins, so they should get credit for these decisions as well.

For instance, recruiting exclusively Minnesotans was only a Doug Woog philosophy, but that philosophy was widely attributed to the program.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:33 AM
How do you know it was sincere? Look at the context. Think Mitt Romney in this past election...certainly he said some things that he may or may not have meant to a group of people that wanted to hear it. That's what people do all the time. To discard any possibility that it may have been hyperbole, is incredibly naive.

Because he said it and there is no evidence he wasn't being sincere.

Gurtholfin
03-01-2013, 10:36 AM
And I was being facetious when I asked which program should get credit for that federal program.


No one believes this...

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 10:43 AM
For instance, recruiting exclusively Minnesotans was only a Doug Woog philosophy, but that philosophy was widely attributed to the program.

Let me ask you two things:

1) If it was Minnesota's philosophy, then why did it change when a new coach came in?

and

2) Should Minnesota then be appropriately deducted points for failing under this system, especially in the final years of the Woog era?

Osorojo
03-01-2013, 10:50 AM
Cheap and readily available natural ice didn't do much to create growth in ice hockey in the 30+ U.S. states located below 38 degrees N. latitude. Canada and U.S. border states may be able to get by with natural ice, but the vast majority of today's players learned their skills on rinks with compressors. Top quality recruits from states such as California, Florida, and Texas are steadily increasing in numbers. No state has a monopoly on inborn hockey skills or coaching. Before the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1962 some few states (and Canada) had a virtual monopoly on ice time, and we know what that meant.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:51 AM
Let me ask you two things:

1) If it was Minnesota's philosophy, then why did it change when a new coach came in?

and

2) Should Minnesota then be appropriately deducted points for failing under this system, especially in the final years of the Woog era?

Minnesota really hasn't swayed too much from this philosophy. They still recruit primarily only Americans and primarily just from Minnesota. Lucia won his first championship with just Americans, and his second with just one Canadian. The program is still giving more opportunities to play to more American kids than any other program.

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 10:54 AM
Minnesota really hasn't swayed too much from this philosophy. They still recruit primarily only Americans and primarily just from Minnesota. Lucia won his first championship with just Americans, and his second with just one Canadian. The program is still giving more opportunities to play to more American kids than any other program.

If you would answer my questions please.

Also, I seem to remember one very non-American player on Minnesota's 2002-2003 team that wasn't Canadian.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:56 AM
Not sure why it's so hard to give the University of Minnesota the credit they are due. I have openly admitted above that Minnesota has fallen short of a number of programs when it comes to on ice achievements. In that regard I think FS23's rankings are pretty good and I don't think I could do any better.

But if the conversation is turned to greatest programs in all aspects, or maybe most important programs would be a better description, I don't know, i think factors such as these should be included as well.

Let me shift the focus away from Minnesota for a second. Are their any factors/achievements of this type for other programs that set them a part or make them important? I would genuinely love to hear them.

JDUBBS1280
03-01-2013, 10:59 AM
If you would answer my questions please.

Also, I seem to remember one very non-American player on Minnesota's 2002-2003 team that wasn't Canadian.

I did answer your question. Minnesota hasn't really deviated from Mariucci's philosophy of primarily recruiting Americans and building hockey in-state. Case in point, MN continuing to play other in-state schools post-realignment.

And yeah, sorry, forgot to include Vanek. Still, all but two players were American, and all but three Minnesotan.

Gurtholfin
03-01-2013, 11:02 AM
And yeah, sorry, forgot to include Vanek.


I can see how he'd slip your mind.

Wisko McBadgerton
03-01-2013, 11:03 AM
Mark wasn't even the best player on that team. Brooks regarded Pavelich as the best player on that team.



Here's a well known and direct Herb Brooks quote: "Mark Johnson is one of the finest young men I've ever coached. We wouldn't have won the gold medal if he wasn't on that team."

Although to be fair, trusting things Brooks said publicly about anything or anyone is always suspect as he rarely did so without some ulterior motive. Regardless, whether sincere or not, it is certainly accurate.

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 11:04 AM
Not sure why it's so hard to give the University of Minnesota the credit they are due. I have openly admitted above that Minnesota has fallen short of a number of programs when it comes to on ice achievements. In that regard I think FS23's rankings are pretty good and I don't think I could do any better.

But if the conversation is turned to greatest programs in all aspects, or maybe most important programs would be a better description, I don't know, i think factors such as these should be included as well.

Let me shift the focus away from Minnesota for a second. Are their any factors/achievements of this type for other programs that set them a part or make them important? I would genuinely love to hear them.

Perhaps it truly is two different questions that everyone is getting hung up on. It would certainly be hard to argue that Minnesota isn't the most important program, or at the very least one of the 2 or 3 most important programs in college hockey history. I would not disagree with you there.

As for other programs, I grew up on a healthy pro-Minnesota diet, so I don't really know of other similar type programs, but I can think of a few: 1) North Dakota growing to prominence from such a small location from such a small state, 2) Boston College's use of primarily Americans from all over the country, 3) Any of the Ivy League schools that have had success while still maintaining absolute top-notch academic standards (this would also apply to other schools not in the Ivy League). Certainly there are more, and this is part of the reason why college hockey is so great, is because so many schools are so unique in their histories and traditions and what makes them great.

That being said, I'd still like an answer to my questions that I asked you earlier.

Mile High Hockey
03-01-2013, 11:08 AM
I did answer your question. Minnesota hasn't really deviated from Mariucci's philosophy of primarily recruiting Americans and building hockey in-state. Case in point, MN continuing to play other in-state schools post-realignment.

I'll ask my questions again, just slightly differently, so you get my point:

1) If it was Minnesota's philosophy, then why did the All-Minnesota Roster change when a new coach came in?

and

2) Should Minnesota then be appropriately deducted points for failing under this system, especially in the final years of the Woog era?