The Sicatoka

So Danenhauer must have talked to Roger Thomas. But tony has told us (OK, maybe only implied) that you can't believe what Roger Thomas says. Now I'm really confused. :) Be nice, I'm just jokin' around on a hot afternoon.

And that's only after waiting the special mens BB probation time (8 or 13 years, I forget). The other sports become "tourney eligible" in five seasons.

Come on, we're all "good eggs." It's just that we (Sioux and Gopher fans) "agree to disagree" on a certain subject. :)

Bobber's move was good, but the Mal Parks goal was clutch.

As with any bloated bureaucracy, you've got nothin' unless you've got the org chart!

The MnSCU schools are hurtin' bad financially right now and as stated "Goldie" will always be king east of the Red. Don't look to Duluth, St. Cloud, or Mankato. And mentioning "Red," yes, King Husker in Lincoln rules that state. Would Omaha want to be a DI with Lincoln and Creighton right there? However, Omaha's financials should look better when they move into the new Omaha Civic for hockey. (Their 8314 per game average for hockey should go up and help their revenues.) A DIAA conference from the NCC would need immediate outside help because to be a recognized conference takes six. The contenders would be: UNC, NDSU, SDSU, USD, and UND. That's only five. For the record (before someone jumps me) I said from the start DI would have a much better chance to work if the whole conference would go. It solves the schedule and travel issues (and thus a lot of the money issues).

I'm not sure who you think you're quoting but I've always said UND is a DII playing up in DI hockey because that is how they are classified by the NCAA. However, by today's standards of DI (Morris Brown University? Robert Morris University?) UND is far more "DI" than a great number of "DIs." (I've been told that UND mens basketball outdrew more than half of the DI mens basketball teams last season.) Big 10 hockey? Maybe if it formed and a non-hockey school (Northwestern, Indiana, etc.) would be allowed to have UND play as their "proxy" I could see it as a possibility (but I wouldn't hold my breath). What's all this telling me? The NCAA is a mess.

Another thought just struck me: What if this passes? How long until someone comes up with the idea that DIIs playing up should be limited to the DII number of scholarships? Yes, even though they've eliminated the DII championship (and effectively DII hockey), the NCAA still has a DII mens hockey scholarship limit, 13.5, versus the DI mens limit of 18. (It's 18 and 18 for womens.) We know that the NCAA made a move to only give autobids to DI tourney to conferences where all the members are full DIs. The WCHA had to be "grandfathered" around that one. If they are trying to do this to CC (and a few eastern DIII schools) how long until they go after the DIIs playing up?

I've said it before, I'll repeat: It looks to me like the NCAA is trying to go to a pre-1973 model with only two levels. Why do I say this? This move seems to force CC (et al) to move to DII. Why would the NCAA want only two levels? Because they lose money sponsoring championships (except for DI mens basketball and DI mens hockey). Another fine move by The Best Little Monopoly in America.

Bison Kent: On this point, jimdahl and I completely concur.

Kent: Screwed up is too strong. I figure it's "chickens home to roost." They had a lot of home games scheduled for the opening two seasons of Alerus Center. Any time you do that you end up having to go on the road afterwards (if you didn't do it up front). It doesn't surprise me. It's all cyclic.

I think what I'm reading is that UND is set up where they, if they want to play NDSU, have to play six on the road in either 2004 or 2005: 2004: 4 conference road, at New Haven, (NDSU?) 2005: 3 conference road, at CWU, at Mesa, (NDSU?) I won't even try to guess what's happening behind the scenes. And I'm not even going to try to get into the nuances of football scheduling at this point. All this for just football. Somehow they are able to put together a 37-game hockey schedule (including exhibition games) for this season without all of this discourse. Bring on the home games against Boston College and Yale*! * Yale closes out a home-home started last season there and BC starts a home-home running into next season, for all those that love this kind of stuff.

What changed such that the games wouldn't be a normal part of conference play? NDSU left the NCC. That is root cause. That's who put the rivalry in jeopardy. UND never asked to be put into the position of decision. Based on the rest of that article, and items in it already shown to be questionable, I don't know if any of us really know what UND's future home and road dates are.

The original decision, that started this conversation, was a decision by NDSU to leave the NCC thus putting the game in jeopardy. Denying that denies fact. Apparently the previous agreement remains unsigned. As with any contract a party can choose to sign or not. "Refuse" implies that it is something one party or another is compelled to do. That is not the case. Do we know why it remains unsigned? Do we know if either party has signed it? Beyond that, that's a Virg Foss article. I wouldn't be surprised if Virg erred and wrote "UND" instead of "UMD" for who is taking over NDSU's scheduling slot. He barely gets his regular beat (hockey) right. Anyone expects him to understand football schedules or mathematics?

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.