The Sicatoka

I wonder if Freund's QB success at UND, and also being about the same height (6'0") was an influence.

Did we have more than that on Case? On Graetz? This QB from Michigan has the intangible: He seems to win (30-6 as a three-year HS starter). My guess as to why he didn't get more interest? 6'1". To that I say: Give Russell Wilson or Drew Brees a call.

Why might a former CFO of a Fortune 500 company, a guy who was rated one of America's Top CFOs, shear away some expenses? For a CFO the answers come down to: Expenses are too high or There are other intentions and priorities for those dollars. I've been at more than one company that has cut a product or division and remapped spending and used that opportunity to refocus and expand a more valuable asset.

Per UND's 2017 fiscal reporting to the NCAA, UND's men's hockey incurred operating expenses of $4,420,927 and had revenues of $5,173,599. (I have the a PDF of the report.) I'd say your estimates and assumptions are a wee tad bit off. Please return with valid data. Thank you.

You seem edgy. Too much caffeine?

Congratulations on the Clean Victory?

The very latest in recruiting tools ...

Did this Schuster name even appear "on the radar" with UND fans before this morning? Here's where gfhockey claims he knew.

How about kickoffs going 3 yards deep into the endzone.

About this Schuster fellow: There are some pretty solid FCS programs in that list. And yeah, Michigan State took a look.

Seems a specialist competition (punters, kickers) may be at hand ...

I'd take that right about now ...

I can't believe I'm about to type what I'm about to type ... I can't put it onto anyone in this junior class (with Smith as a long-shot). My best guess is Kierstad with the C; next would be JBD. And I could legitimately see Mark Senden with an A as a sophomore.

Sweet ... another winter storm rollin' on is and I'm not done moving the piles and drifts from the last.

FTFY.

You see through the fallacy of the argument given.

I accept your analysis. But now I beg a question based on the above part of your statement: If college hockey is a different game than 15 or 30 years ago, is UND adapting to the change? On defense, I'd say yes. The corps has gotten faster (and smaller) and is much more skilled with the puck than even 5 years ago. But at forward we seem to think we need a true fourth line grind line, and a third line "match" line*. Is that even relevant in today's game? And a grind line is not the same as 2016's Heavy line. They could still score and generate offense. Closest to that I've seen since is Hain-Smith-Senden. And a match line is not generating offense much less scoring opportunity. Has our offensive play and group of forwards kept up with the times? I see some are claiming next years group will. Tick. Tock. *A match line is a line that can go "+/- zero" against the other team's top line. They don't let their top guys score, but can't generate any offense.

Frankly, the only way FBS makes sense for any FCS school in the Great Continental Void (Superior WI, to Branson, MO, to St George, UT, to Spokane WA) is if a group of them band together and make it happen for themselves. Look at where G5 FBS works: geographically dense MAC, geographically dense Sun Belt. Yes, my Great Continental Void is not geographically dense, but it's as good as teams in there can hope for. And worse? Teams from outside that realm have better game options closer to home. They don't want to travel to the Void. There's no benefit to them.

"Land grant" is an anachronism that allow some to believe a university should be judged by a title. It's a hand-hold for the weak. It's straight out of the 1800s, literally.

You dare not leave any pore open or Mafia will exploit it.

To my observation we've been getting too many recruits that only emerge at age 19+. That means more than likely they've been playing 3+ years of junior, and they are finally playing against 16 year olds. That's when they start to have even remotely decent numbers. But what when they move up the level? Well, track record says they take a couple years to figure a new level out and during that time, yup, they're starting to age over the competition. Folks, Tucker Poolman is a unique exception, not the model. Where are the days of the 18 year old recruit that can come in and be an impact player because he's just that good (e.g. Toews, Parise). Where are those recruits?

So another guy who can’t score in the USHL.

We don't know the stimulant in question; however, as I've previously said, if it was caffeine just coming out and saying it would garner a lot of incredulity and pity from the average observer. Not saying what the stimulant is question is just leaves things open to speculation.

The NCAA bans ethanol, yes, "booze", an otherwise legal substance to non-minors. But what's "enough" for a sanction and how low of a level can they detect? That said, no cough syrup before the game I guess ...

Every test procedure has a "minimum detectable level". It could be some "parts per million" or "any". It's the ability of the test to find what it's looking for. That's just the science of testing. Don't believe me? Your smoke detector (testing for smoke in the air) doesn't go off when you light a candle in the room but there's still some smoke in the air. Is it detectable and above threshold? There's the questions. That said, I believe the NCAA has a "zero threshold" for Class I (Federally) illegal drugs. It has a below 15 sumpins-per-sumping "threshold" level for caffeine. Now the question is: For the stuff they test for, what are the "acceptable" thresholds? If they set a threshold level clearly they can detect at that level. Can they detect below threshold level is the other question.