The Sicatoka

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.

Of course hockey is the center of the athletics universe at UND. Seven NCAA titles at the highest level of NCAA play and drawing 250,000 people per season at $16 per ticket it has to be. It is the fuel that makes it all go. You don't hurt the goose laying golden eggs. Now regarding rules with exceptions and "minor sports" and the like: Couldn't the IAA/IAAA rule be regarded as an exception allowing teams to "play down" to where they might be able to compete? Wasn't that why IAA was created in the first place, for the minor football programs?

I think Andy Murray is practicing for a political career.

Don't blame me for the title of this thread. I'm just repeating the headline in the Fargo Forum. "Status low: Scheduling hassles among obstacles NDSU faces as an independent in

Knowing - Coach Roebuck didn't like playing in the main arena - the new one will hold 4000 - they (men and women) averaged less than that last year - there are TV and radio capabilities in there I'm beginning to wonder about this "main arena as home court" thing. We'll see. About the only thing the place doesn't have is a weight room. I guess there's one near by. And just for Bison_Kent: No taxpayer dollars were harmed in the making of this facility. ;)

I'm hoping that Roger Thomas' open items list has now been cut down to just dealing with The Rainmaker and then working on his golf handicap for the rest of the summer. (I'm guessing that whether we like it or not RT was feeling pressure from within UND to hire a new senior womens administrator to replace the recently retired one.)

Not to pick a scab here or restart anything, but in light of recent developments I don't think Roger Thomas has been idle during this time. He's hired two new assistant ADs and I'm sure he was a part of the hiring for the new head of the Fighting Sioux Club mentioned in there as well. And now add in that a BB arena announcement is expected later this week and I don't think Roger Thomas has been asleep at the switch. I'm sure Roger would have liked to have Dean Blais' extension done by now but you can't do everything at once.

The Kings took Brady Murray? I'm not surprised.

Since we all seem so interested in the predictions of such knowing sources, who's going to post the predictions of Dark Star and Grandpa Sid? The draft will be what it will be. The days after the draft will be the ones I'm interested in watching. There could be some very interesting story lines.

Here are the forwards invited to the Canadian camp as listed at CanadianHockey.ca And here is the whole invited roster for Team USA. Both are PDFs. Brady Murray is page 16 of 24 in the first link.

Follow this link to 2002-2003 USHL goalie stats. The column headings are "hot." You can click one to sort by that category. But be careful what you look at when you are there. You just might find that Jordan Parise is a better (statistical) goaltender by save percentage and GAA last year than not only Layne Sedevie, but Nate Ziegelmann too.

Mankato and that hoppy-skippy-bouncy-jump defense? The team should have a "fire" play (dive over the best run blocker?) called in the huddle as an alternate every time. When Bowenkamp sees that whole Mankato D line jump up and shift left-right-up-down-in-out-whatever call the "fire" and hit those guys when they are standing up and not ready for it. You'll push through them for at least four yards and blast a few of them onto the seats of their pants.

What I've really started to notice by watching so much of Giggy of the Ducks: The leg pads have been modified to work with the butterfly style. Look at them. The tops are square to match up when they are down: No five-hole. The insides of the knees are now what a goalie puts on the ice. It almost looks like Giggy (et al) are kneeling behind two sandbags. What's left facing the shooter is two recectangles a foot high and three feet wide each. (You see the whole "front" of the pad.) The bottom of the net is completely gone when they are down. You could just as well put sandbags down. Comparatively, when goalies dropped in the past they went down on the "front" of the pad (not behind them), even down there was a five-hole, and they, the pads, just seemed to cover less of the front of the net.

Phil Lamoureux is going to play in Lincoln this coming season and come to UND in the fall of 2004 as was the original plan when he first committed. (Wasn't that in the Herald?)

Mr. Engelstad's collection includes a Pope-mobile. Was Ralph the Bishop of Rome? Mr. Engelstad owned a car previously owned by Liberace. So could Ralph play the piano if enough candle stands were on and around it?

So I believe the concensus here is that if a player: - "keeps their nose clean" outside of school - works hard in the classroom/goes to class - stays eligible academically - works hard in practice - helps his team on the ice in games (be it scoring or another role, even off-ice*) the player should stay on the roster. Fair enough. Tough to disagree. However, do we know all of these things about any of the players (of any team) in question? Do we know everything that happens off the ice in a player's life? I'd guess far from it compared to what their coaches know. Do we know if players attend class and work hard at school? Not unless you sit in the room with them (as a fellow student or instructor). Do we have the grades of players? I hope not, or academic confidentiality died a little more today. (The most we should ever know is "eligible" or "ineligible.") Do we all attend every practice to see how hard they work? Dare I say, no. What do we see? The stat sheet at the end of a game. We base what we think we know from that, and, ultimately nothing more. We see a sliver of the total picture. The coaches see the total picture. You have to trust the coach's judgement. That's what they were hired to do, namely, make judgements, on an annual basis. * For example, David Hale's presence at games during his illness as a moral support.