Snake

Dave - if you want to pat yourself on the back for winning a debate that wasn't even being had, go right ahead. My stance on fighting is this: Fighting has its place in the game as a reaction to someone taking liberties with defenseless players who are simply trying to play within the "context of the game" as you like to put it. The key word here is reaction. I don't believe it is as strong of a deterrent to cheap play as officiating. If the officials on the ice would call the game the way it is supposed to be called, and if the guy in charge of supplemental discipline (or the union) would have the cajones to fine and/or suspend some of these repeat (and even first-time) offenders more severely than is already happening, I think the game would clean up immensely. I also disagree with fighting as a way to "spark" your team if you're getting your asses handed to you on the scoreboard. Again, instigator rules and such are supposed to help curb that crap. I hate watching blowouts turn ugly, just for the sake of being ugly. As to your debate that you're supposedly having... I don't believe I stated that fighting is to be used as the major deterrent for cheap-shots. I stated that it is a reaction to the low-lifers that use the "context" of the game to make disgusting, intent-to-injure type plays on guys that are just trying to play the game. You cited European hockey and it's lack of fighting as some sort of proof that fighting doesn't belong in the game because they still have cheap-shots taking place. Again, the cause-effect relationship isn't that fighting eliminates (or deters) cheap shots. The point I'm trying to make is cheap shots result in fighting. If you properly enforce and clean-up the cheap plays - the plays you don't seem too upset about because they happen while the puck is in play - you would have much, much less fighting. If I were commissioner, I wouldn't be focusing on fighting, so much as the garbage that leads to fighting. I wonder how the first fight ever happened in hockey. Now, I wasn't there so I can't know for sure, but I bet it wasn't just because a couple guys decided to go for fun. I'm guessing there was probably some type of "incident" that led up to it. See what I'm saying? Sure, the "incidents" still happen in today's game despite fighting being allowed...but what came first...the incident or the fight? Clean up the crap within the "context of the game" and I bet fighting wanes considerably. I also find it odd that you somehow give a pass to players who supposedly use the "context of the game" to take runs at other players who are simply trying to move the puck and score. How is a player that blindsides a puck-carrier high, or cross-checks someone into the boards from behind any less disgusting in your mind than two men who agree to go toe-to-toe, each man knowing full well what could be coming his way? I guess guys have free run as long as the puck is in play, right? But, God forbid the gloves come off after the whistle...

Gee...probably because they get ejected for it... not because they're superior humans. The question of "Why don't they fight as a reaction to that style of play in Europe the way they do in Canada and here in the states?" was not in your original response. You basically said yourself that the lack of fighting in Europe hasn't eliminated the cheap shots:

Well, the picture on the webcast is far superior to the SD FCS broadcasts last year. I can actually see the puck and read the graphics at the top of te screen. Obviously, a national TV contract in HD would be ideal, but the webcast has been an upgrade for me this year.

I'm with you on this point.

Wasn't Lowell the favorite, thus making a BU win to eliminate Yale from the tourney the more "improbable" scenario?

I like how HD Internet streaming is somehow going "backward" in technology.

No worries.

I think the big difference this year is that we're just about last in every defensive and offensive statistical category.

I agree with what you say here...I was just pointing out how I interpreted the statement.

You're drawing the parallel to UND's situation, not me. I thought bringing Berry in was a solid move. I'm simply stating that the gophers were having issues, Lucia made a change, and things seem to be heading in the right direction after. The Berry hire doesn't really fit because UND was seemingly fine prior to the change.

But Woog was getting ripped by Sioux fans for failing to win the big one promptly after the '97 championship before he had his losing seasons.

Actually, it correlates nicely to Lucia firing Hill and bringing back Guentzel...so, yes, Don made a good decision and is reaping the benefits.

Which team seems more poised to hang the real one in April?

I think the key emphasis of Sica's post is STYLE, not the physical rink. The NHL style doesn't seem to fit in the college game.

But it sure helps. Many people on here (I believe you are included), believe PSU is on the fast track to becoming a respectable program. Why is that? Resources? While having the best facilities and resources doesn't guarantee a successful program, it sure makes it easier to succeed. Unfortunately, it also comes with higher expectations and fewer "excuses" for not living up to those expectations - whether they are fair or not. I can't decide if the struggles of this team are due to systems or personnel. Regardless, the head coach is responsible for both and is not above criticism. I do believe he should be afforded the opportunity to get the ship headed in the right direction again.

I had to rewind that one myself, but he kept his arm down and made contact with his shoulder.

Because the reason we can't score is because we give up the first one?

Can he score goals?

I still question the notion that this team is "talented" in the sense that we are accustomed to.

Sorry, but they were playing like this well before the flu bug hit.

I suppose they see it as a place to rest after chasing the puck carrier.

Are we sure on the talent part?

You have no understanding of the cause/effect relationship outlined by Redneksioux. Cheap shots are the cause, fights are the effect. Eliminating cheap shots would eliminate fighting, not the other way around as you're suggesting. In fact, the European league example you cite would serve to prove the point everyone else is making - that a league without fighting still has players that take runs at defenseless opponents.

We just don't play the game with the puck on our sticks...always defending.

Now, the question is can the team do something with their good fortune and get back in the game.