The Sicatoka

So the league will be destroying the tapes and Congress will begin investigations?

I know what Hak was telling Adam. I want a transcript of what Genoway was telling Barriball (?) when coming back from break the one time.

How about .... "Been stupid all your life or did this come on recently?" or "Your momma raise all stupid kids or just you?" (Stole those and I love 'em.)

Great piece by "The Virg" in the Herald: Seems the WCHA thinks not talking about its officiating issues will make us forget them. But Feb 2 at Mariucci only highlighted them further.

No, take off the maroon shades and look at that game objectively.

I think I agree with Mike Jacobs: Now I think I need to go and shower.

Ya'know, that'd be more funny if it didn't look to be true more often than not. Remember that RPI game? What a joke that was. The only thing missing was a bow on top.

I don't mind Marco Hunt. The WCHA is a player stepping stone. It needs to become the same for officials, and not a "retirement community".

So why'd I have to bring it up?

Alternatively, call the game by the rulebook! I said it on USCHO; I'll say it here: Start calling by the NHL standard. I don't care if it's 3x3 hockey for a whole game plus OT. The players and coaches will figure out pretty quickly that the stick stays down, period. Last night was caused by uncalled stick infractions and obstructions. If you can't move without getting slashed or tripped up of course the negative emotions are going to come uncorked.

So I assume you're as disapproving of a two-handed "bow tie" cross-check by Lucia on Zajac.

I was silly enough to expect to find them in the Herald for a day or two before I started looking.

Call in a marker here, make a phone call there, and what do you get? You get the Voting from the January 28 meeting of the President selection committee. (A note: Johnson didn't even get voted on to move forward.) 3 "worthless" (meaning each voted to pass every candidate along) members*: Fisher - Probably first time interviewing anyone of this level Munski - A genuinely nice guy; a candidate would need a big flaw to get a no Paulsen - Gee, he wanted *all* of the names forwarded to the board *he* controls .... 3 members voted for just Kelley and Smith: Espegard - an active State Board member (UND grad from GF) O'Keefe - so much for the "Hockey is anti-Smith" conspiracy theory Stewart - another letterwinner votes for a letterwinner 3 members voted only for Kelley: Brekke - UND's Budget Director Burgum - the Alumni Board's representative (and a guy who's made a lot of money) Clayburgh - a former State Board member from Grand Forks 2 members voted "outside only" (meaning just Kelley and Long): LeBel - the committee chair Olson - long-time Education school (a Chester Fritz scholar) 2 members voted all but Elbert: Lindquist-Mala - the rep of the American Indian population of the state Pitts - associate dean of UND Med (Fargo campus) 3 more members voted "everyone but": Paukert (GF community rep) voted for everyone but Long. Lindseth (Nursing Dean) voted for everyone but Kelley. Yearwood (IT Dept.) voted for everyone but Smith. The male board members (10) picked: Kelley 10, Smith 7, Long 6, Elbert 4 The female board members (6) picked: Kelley 5, Smith 3, Long 3, Elbert 2 Any other ways folks would like me to "slice and dice" the numbers? * Let's examine the voting if these three "gimmes" weren't considered: With 16 voting members: Kelley 15 (94%) Smith 10 (63%) Long 9 (56%) Elbert 6 (38%) Removing the 3 members who vote for everybody, based on "of 13": Kelley 12 (92%) Smith 7 (54%) Long 6 (46%) Elbert 3 (23%)

Given a group of 16 people, I bet I could put together a cadre of five who'd be against Gandhi, Jesus Christ, or even Zach Parise. So how'd Kelley get through?

Here I come with my conspiracy theory, or opinion, your choice: I believe the committed put "12 of 16" in place so no weak candidates would be passed along to the ND SBoHE. On the committee John Q. Paulsen was one vote out of 16. On the state board John Q. Paulsen is board president and is one vote of nine? (Fewer?) And another vote is board VP Ritchie Smith. Quite honestly: I don't trust those two to be looking out for UND (given their past dealings in the Chapman-Potts matter or the violation of the open meetings laws regarding NDSU-Fargo-Fargodome). By only passing along one name, a name that 15 of 16 committee members could go along with, they've taken away the ability of the ND SBoHE to pick the weakest name (arguably in this case Johnson, as she didn't even warrant a pass along vote). Did the committee not do as requested and not pass 3 names? Undeniably. Did the committee grab some power in the process? More than arguably. Do I trust a committee made up of - the UND Alumni Association Executive VP - a member of the UND Alumni Board of Directors - someone from GF who had served on the State Board in the past - a UND grad from GF who is active on the state board - the UND Student Body President - the UND budget director - four UND faculty members - the UND Law dean - a UND Med associate dean - a former UND athlete and businessman more than I trust the ND SBoHE under JQ Paulsen's "guidance" to make this decision. Yes. Most of us didn't want Paulsen anywhere near the nickname negotiations, yet you'd let him arguably make "his pick" off of a "pick one of x" list for UND president? Seriously?

I knew it! There's some heavy lifting to be done (in FB, in BB) right now, you bet, but the groups that wanted the DI move need to be putting a shoulder to it right now (and not worry about hockey being DI already). You don't build up by tearing something else down.

Like I said, I'm not sure; I'm trusting a sometimes faulty recall. Tim O'Keefe would be the guy who I would expect to figuratively "step in front of a bullet" to protect UND. He's a hockey letterman; he's umpteenth generation UND; he's Executive VP of the Alumni Association. And he's a guy who scolded Buning in the infamous "Buning letter" saying the "old boy network" is his friends and neighbors and fellow alumni. (Sorry Tim, you write it it gets remembered.) If (I said if) my recall is accurate and he pushed for 75% approval to go to the next phase there's a good reason for it. Personally, I'd be more willing to subscribe to a notion that various forces for good pushed for "12 of 16" to keep various forces for we'll just say "not good" (cough-JQP-cough what? ) at the ND SBoHE from picking the weakest of the forwarded candidates in the even that two good and one so-so (or something like that) were forwarded by a simple majority (8 of 16) vote. In a way, the committee, made up of folks with strong UND ties (O'Keefe, Burgum, Clayburgh), kept control (or the ability to make a bad decision for UND) away from the ND SBoHE in case there's some other agenda by someone at that level.

It's not even 2/3, it's 3/4: You needed 12 of 16 votes to move forward. I remember the GF Herald story on the committee imposing that upon itself, but I'll have to go and find the details as to why they did it. EDIT: I can't find that story, but I do recall that there was a reason that the committee set that criteria (and I'm probably wrong but I believe it said Tim O'Keefe pushed for it).

A UND grad is now Secretary of Agriculture and has to clean up the repercussions of this at the Ag School in his home state. That's the only UND involvement on this one. Own it.

The latest: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=65477 Be sure to read the comments associated with that story. They're a hoot!

He's made a mistake in his life. He's getting another chance. I'm more interested in what he's going to do with that second chance than the mistake he made.

From: http://www.northlandag.com/articles/?id=27...p;property_id=1 So unnoticed suffering animals in NDSU facilities is a minor issue? Given that information, I sure am glad the Medical School is at UND. There's $12k of state funds well spent. This whole thing has to make the new US Ag Secretary (Ed Schafer, UND 1969) proud.

You make a great point about (Big Tenners) being in a position to have a great record and a fairly smooth path to an autobid every year being a great incentive to stay in existing conferences. Only one thing would get them to change their notion about that: Money. Moo-lah. Da-bling-bling. And a Big Ten Hockey Conference, with Big Ten Network, could offer that.

Let me ask this next, obvious question: Could dissatisfaction with WCHA officiating end up being a compounding factor (along with Bemidji State's efforts to get into the WCHA) to drive Minnesota and Wisconsin into the arms of Michigan, MSU, OSU, and presumably Notre Dame, and a Big Ten Hockey Conference?

Like I said .... integrity.