The Sicatoka

What it takes to win the WCHA under the 28-game schedule: Year GF GA Diff 1998 127 80 +47 1999 142 76 +66 2000 112 70 +32 2001 115 80 +35 2002 108 63 +45 2003 125 70 +55 If that's any indicator of "what it takes," you have to give up 80 or fewer and be at least +32. UND last year was 103 GF, 82 GA, +21. That is pretty clear that the defense (82 versus 80) is closer to "championship calibre" than the offense (+21 versus +32). I know someone has said the offense suffered because the forwards were always back helping out; however, if that's the case, why wasn't generating shots an issue? They need to start burying all those chances.

Considering Jake has the second best returning* conference GAA (2.40) and had a conference 0.903 save percentage last year, it's tough to argue with sagard's assessment. * Yes, that's an assumption.

When you can do the job, the job is yours (ala Belfour and Goehring). When you aren't doing the job they'll find someone who can. How is that different from the rest of life?

BisonMav: No, I believe it originated at UND. The AIMsters were up there for some reason (and we'll leave it at that).

I'm not sure if the origin I heard is urban legend or not: Supposedly " .... home of the Sioux!" started with some AIM folks who wanted to send a message about who was there first. The students then picked it up. The rest is history. I do know that it started in the early 1970s.

As far as college payoffs and federal cases, dare I say "Michigan" and "Webber"? WPoS: Bochenski's situation happened before he ever got into Dean Blais' "stable." I'm sure the court's mild response to the situation (in comparison to the possible outcomes that you noted) played into Blais' decision. However, this situation involves someone already in the stable.

From the Thursday, July 17, 2003 Grand Forks Herald:

Not to disrupt a perfectly good flame-war between Huskies and Bison (on the Sioux board), but I'd like to toss out a couple of thoughts on the original subject of this thread. Looking back at results from 1998 on, only four teams have improved their number of conference wins over the prior year by more than two wins: 2002: UNC (+4) 2002: SCSU (+3) 2000: UNO (+4) 2000: USD (+3) In three of those four cases the team had had an improved record (in terms of conference wins) the prior season as well (2001: UNC +1, SCSU +2; 1999: UNO -3, USD +2) Predicting NDSU or UND to improve by three or more wins this season seems to be dangerous, especially considering last year UND and NDSU both went -4 (7-1 to 3-5; 5-3 to 1-7). Picking either UND or NDSU to add three or more conference wins this season seems rather presumptious in light of conference history. Now I'm not saying adding +3 or more is out of the question for either, but history leads me to believe you have to turn the corner (a season with a smaller positive result) and then make the big jump (ala 2002 UNC and SCSU and 2000 USD). I expect SCSU to hold around one or two conference losses (plus one non-conf) and to be the sole NCC representative in the DII playoffs. I have trouble predicting teams with five or more conference losses last year to challenge SCSU this year. I expect a sleeper, a surprise, to challenge SCSU with UND and NDSU coming in just behind them. Now the question is: Who's going to be the surprise team this year? Guess we'll all find out together in a few months. With just seven conference games each loss seems so much more amplified.

bisonguy, Are you saying the DII FB playoff selection system is now purely analytic? As a hockey fan who is used to the purely analytic "Pairwise Ranking" (PWR) system used to round out* the 16 team DI hockey field, I guess I don't have a problem with a purely analytic system. Non-analytic systems (i.e. those that include human factors) include biases based on history or who knows what. I believe analytic systems are more fair because everyone on Day One knows what they have to do to make the playoffs. (You don't necessarily have to like the formula, but you know what it takes.) A non-analytic system got NDSU sent to Delta State for a playoff game not long ago (and I disagreed with it then and I still do). * DI hockey has six autobids to the six conference champions. The other ten slots are the ten highest PWRs without an autobid. The PWR calculation methodology is available on USCHO.com.

Let me get more simplistic: Defense is a team responsibility. They did that (league-wise relatively) well last season. Offense is a team responsibility and they have left themselves many more "opportunities for improvement" in this area (in comparison to defense). When you look to offense you must first look to forwards capitalizing on opportunities. The lower lines did not do that last season. Regarding defensemen: His last season Mike Commodore was known to carry the puck out of the zone a few times. That comes with skills and confidence. I know that Schneider, Fuher, and Jones (and Greene) have the skills; I'm hoping their playing experience gives them more confidence this season. I'm not looking for end-to-end rushes, just an on-the-tape pass through the neutral zone (after they get it to or over their blue line).

2003: 125-70 +55 2002: 108-63 +45 2001: 115-80 +35 2000: 112-70 +42 1999: 142-76 +66 1998: 127-80 +47 What are those? The WCHA's league champion's goals for, goals against, and goal differential (under a 28 game league schedule). That looks to me like to win a league title (which I'm using for a general benchmark of success to talk about) you have to give up 80 or fewer and be at least +35 over what you give up. UND last year: 103-82 +21 The defense is just about at the benchmark, even with last season's questionable goaltending. I'd say offensive production is the issue at hand and you don't look to defensemen to make up that much differential. Success won't come from one offensive defenseman; success will come when all four lines decide they need to contribute on the scoreboard.

Help me out here. Can someone name Gino's offensive defensemen in the early 1980s? I can't come up with one, but those teams seemed to do OK.

Yes, your topic was finding a conference. An option would be to find two conferences (football and everything else) as NDSU is exploring. Yes, my conversation would better fit in there.

bisonguy, There is a distinct football point of view to your post. There is no problem with that; however, there is more to Division I(A, AA) than just football. A team needs someone to play against. Just by the sheer number of games, basketball scheduling needs to be a major concern to a team looking to move to Divison I. A conference solves many of the issues. Good existing Division I connections could also solve many of those issues (albeit via the non-conference route). Go back to your evaluation of 60 teams playing DI hockey last year. Yes, 35 are Division I (A, AA, or AAA). What fraction of the 35 play basketball, or the other sports that have many games (volleyball, baseball, softball, etc.)? A BB/hockey home-and-home over two years (hockey here, hoops there followed by hockey there, hoops here the next year) becomes something that could be offered. Will hockey help to find a conference? Probably not, especially if the conference is football focused. Will hockey help with Division I scheduling for sports outside of hockey? It can't hurt.

It is Lakota, but you need a much better dictionary. UND has not begun the process. Based on my observations, that would require faxing a letter to the NCAA and the NCC and holding a press conference. NDSU will find a home eventually. They left a good one before making reservations on a new place to call home. Carr Sport Associates defines that as a wrong path. NDSU's administration should have been more clear, you bet. Division II has not reached a point beyond repair. Let me be very direct here: You pointing out passive aggressive behavior in others is quite ironic. Why? Because the scrolling marquee at your site has been known to include the phrase "hockey sucks." Explain why that particular phrase on a site to discuss NDSU athletics.

How much more clear can one be? I'll only comment on propositions 5 and 6: 5. The Carr Report to NDSU directly, objectively refutes this opinion that you hold. 6. Nearly 50 years of national championship caliber play and reputation in Division I ice hockey will be equally useful to UND if they were to choose the Division I path. I'll let jimdahl take on the rest of your propositions.

jimdahl: Thank you. I was begining to wonder what argument was happening that I was missing. tony: I believe you are looking for a fight that does not exist. You are parsing every possible statement for any possible hint of impropriety towards NDSU and believe you have succeeded, even when there is none to be found. You state "I stated some facts as well as some opinions, not arguments." What have we done that is any different? Both jimdahl and I have both clearly stated that we believe UND should look at Division I(AA). What more clear statement do you want?

So why is my writing style so important? Sure, I'm passive-aggressive and I know it. But why focus on that and not the points brought out? Plus you're pretty good at the return volley when you choose to. (And sometimes you have to ask yourself if I'm not doing it just to grind your gears. ) So, let me express my observations clearly: Carr Report said: Strategic Plan, Improve the Athletic Support Systems, Secure Acceptable Conference Membership, then (and only then) Begin to Reclassify. UND appears to be better following the steps of NDSU's consultant's report than NDSU is. However, I do not know if that is course or coincidence. I, as previously stated, hope it is course but do not know this. Regarding the Forum article on facilities: I find that to be a very rational approach in method and timeline. Where is the $8-10 million for the expansion coming from?

Not to interrupt this conversation on VOI but what I know of Travis Roche's future was on the wedding announcements page of a newspaper this past weekend.

What'd I mince there oh great literary sage? And that's not simpering. That's a summary of the current state of affairs. I'm thinking you need more jocularity in your life.

Current FargoDome revenues really aren't working in favor of a new arena right now. Like I said, they'd be wise to let that dog sleep for a few more days. Don't get me wrong, its day may come, but now is not the time. It's too fresh in too many minds.

Yes, the BSA is the primary concern (but, yes, there are plans for that). However, that doesn't solve the "total space available" issue, training spaces if you will. (Both Taylor and Thomas have expressed concerns in that area in the past.) As of fall 2004, with REA-SC, the only UND Athletics tenants of Hyslop (main arena area) will be baseball, softball, and indoor track. I'm sure a no-cost extra 50000 square feet of training space for basketball and volleyball didn't hurt Roger Thomas' feelings at all because total facilities conjestion is going to drop. Regarding "FargoArena": That 63% no vote is only two or three years back. It would be wise to let that dog nap for a while longer.

They are definitely improving the facilities for their programs, and the improvements are, how shall we say it, "top level" caliber. UND is putting themselves into a position where if they decide to move the pieces of the facilities puzzle are already firmly in place (and generating revenue) and this opens options. Did I mention that Rob Bollinger and Jeff Bowen are now working nearly exclusively on efforts to endow all of UND's athletic scholarships? (That would mean no more annual big drive as the interest off the endowment money nest egg would fund the scholarships annually.) As a reference point, Northern Colorado completed a similar drive just before they announced their move to Division I. This again looks like a move that just opens up options.

One is taking the charge right in approach and will have a lot of issues to work out down the road (the primary being facilities). One is taking a measured approach, cautious if you will. They are laying in infrastructure (facilities and revenue streams) that will benefit them no matter which road may rise up to meet them. As easily as one approach could be spun as retentive and overly reserved the other could be spun as arrogant and pretentious. I too believe that the NCAA moves will push UND toward DI. But when everyone is DI what good will that be? It's almost like things are reverting back to the pre-1973 model (two levels). Watching someone else and using them as experience by proxy isn't a bad thing in my opinion. (As a matter of fact it follows directly with the rest of the approach being taken: reserved.)

While NDSU continues to search for a Division I conference, UND continues to build Division I caliber facilities, like the new REA - Sports Center. Facilities in place and paid for is money that won't have to be raised later. Quality facilities generate cash flow for the athletics program. What a horrible situation to be in come whatever may.