siouxrunner

PCM's logic is sound on this. NCAA Rule 93.4 says, in part: The Bowen "goal" is a perfect catalyst for reviewing this rule and providing clarification on it, just like they did with players in the crease. Take this extreme example: With the rule as it stands today, zone entry is reviewable until the puck clears the zone or play is stopped. Theoretically a team could enter the offensive zone at the beginning of a period, keep the puck in the zone without stoppages for for the entire period, score a goal just as the period ends, and have the zone entry from nearly 20 minutes prior reviewed to see if the play was offside. This is obviously a ridiculous example, but with the rule applied as it is currently written, how else would they handle it? Rule 73.1, which deals with interference on the goalkeeper, allows the officials some discretion on deciding if a player in the crease has impaired the goalies ability to make a save. Here is some text from rule 73.1: This rule could easily provide the framework for improving rule 93.4 and avoid ridiculous offside entry reviews.

CAUTION: MATH I don't remember the exact year, but before around 1968 or 1969, freshmen weren't allowed to play varsity. So, for the sake of argument, lets say the question includes those players who played through their senior year, but couldn't play as freshmen. Someone else posted about goal scoring being different in one era compared to another, so you can't directly compare stats for, say, Caggiula and Taylor. But, with a little math you can normalize scoring and get a pretty good comparison. For example, in 1980-81 season there were about 9 goals per game on average, while in 2015-16 there were 5.59 goals per game. This means that a goal in 2015-16 is "worth more" compared to a goal in 1980-81. For example: Troy Murray scored 78 points in the 80-81 season. To get a comparison for the 15-16 season, multiply 78 by 5.59/9.02 (the points per game in 80-81 divided by points per game in 15-16) and you get 48.3. This would put him in the top 3 in scoring on the team, which seems reasonable. If you do that for every UND player for every season, the top scoring 4-year player is Jeff Panzer. In 15-16 base numbers, he would have scored around 201 career points. Combine that with the fact that he won an NCAA championship, 3 WCHA conference titles, a WCHA playoff title, was team captain, was a 2-time Hobey finalist and 2-time 1st team All-American, and I think he has a pretty good argument as the best 4 year player ever at UND. Panzer doesn't outscore Greg Johnson by much, and their personal accolades are similar, but Panzer's teams won championships, and Johnson's didn't, which I think separates the two of them just a bit more. I rank the top "four-year" players from UND like this: Forwards Jeff Panzer Greg Johnson Bill Reichart Mark Taylor Ben Cherski Honorable mentions: Danny Kristo, Ryan Duncan, Dixon Ward, Terry Casey Defense Donald Ross Chay Genoway Nick Naumenko Curtis Murphy Bill Himmelright Honorable mentions: John Noah and Russ Parent Goalie Karl Goehring JP Lamoureux Jon Casey Lefty Curran Honorable mention: Tate Maris Next season needs to get here fast...

Sic, Kelley was clearly reading from the Holy Book of Armaments when choosing three.

Every coach since Thorndycraft has had players go on to the NHL, but not every coach before Thorndycraft, so that isn't it.

Nailed it.

But you have to look at who is "best served" by seeing them through to a degree. I think the mission of the University is to prepare its students to succeed in their chosen professional career. Brock came to UND and after two years was prepared to move on to his professional career. It appears that he made the right choice for himself, and perhaps he was best served by leaving after two years. If a student in the business school had learned all she needed to after two years in order to start her own successful business (not to mention one where she would make millions), would you say she would be "best served" to finish her degree? How would that help her or the University. The fans may benefit from having players like Brock stay for four years, but certainly the players are sometimes better served by moving on to pursue their lifelong dream when they are ready.

Couple more... They added a display in the concourse honoring the North Dakota state High School champions. World Junior championship display in the concourse. A jacket for the Golden Feather club hangs in a display in the concourse. A couple extra "suites" were added in the corners of the suite level. Electronic 50/50 tickets, with the running total shown on the video ring in the arena, and with consistently larger payouts than before An NCHC logo on the ice Some new conference team banners at one end of the ice for NCHC teams A Ryan Duncan Hobey Baker display in the lobby

A few more things... The logo at center ice is different The cooling coils under the main ice sheet have been replaced The center hung scoreboard was replaced after a fire damaged the old one The NHL team banners representing teams that have had UND players no longer hang in the main bowl, instead they have been moved to the concourse and in their spot a large blue banner with the words "You're in Sioux Country" is there, along with seals or coats of arms of the two ND Sioux tribes The number 12 was retired long before the arena was built, but a banner was hung for Casey on Jan 7, 2011. Engelstad's number 23 was hung in 2002, I believe. There have been more All-American pictures added to the concourse There are more Conference Championship banners in the rafters A banner has been hung on one end of the main bowl showing years that a Conference Tournament Championship has been won The video board along Gateway Drive was replaced this summer A few of the large player pictures around the concourse have changed Seats from the Old Ralph were added along the sides of the hallway at the bottom of the stairs leading from the Olympic rink to the ice level of the main rink. Commemorative jerseys and pictures have been added to the main bowl section entries for concert/performance acts that have been to The Ralph No more goal judge booths.

Ugly design, or just ugly?

DaveK, how do you know the "risks and hazards greatly outweigh the benefit of slightly improved visibility."? You cannot prove to me that more face protection equals a much safer game. You have to consider risk compensation*, which is a players' natural tolerance for risk when playing with or without a face shield. With full face protection, a player may feel less susceptible to injury and act in a riskier manner than he would have with less face protection. Without a full face shield, that same player may play a more cautious game in areas where face injuries would typically occur. Then again they might not. I would argue that we don't yet know for sure. If the hazards of no face protection are so great, why do we not see players in any of the professional or semi-pro leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL, WHL, CHL, etc.) wearing a full cage? The only time I see anything close is when someone already has a broken jaw or face-bone. One would think that if the risks of playing without a full cage were so great, at least one player would wear full face protection. And don't try to tell me it is a macho, peer-pressure thing. I can believe that for some players, maybe even the majority of players, but not every professional or semi-pro player. The conclusion that I draw from that is that there may be risks to wearing a half-shield, but the rewards to the player (better sensory perception on the ice) are enough to outweigh those risks. Full cages for under 18, and half shields with optional full shields at 18 and up is the way to go. It's what the players and coaches want, and they understand the risks better than anyone. *Risk compensation is widely accepted theory in behavioral science, although the degree to which it affects behavior is difficult to measure objectively due to the number of variables to take into consideration. DaveK, here's a little light reading for you to help you drop the level of hyperbole in your call for full face protection. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00057886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/buckle-up-your-seatbelt-and-behave-117182619/?page=1 http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

Yes, seriously. Mandate full face protection for players under 18, and mandate a minimum of 1/2 or 3/4 face shield for 18 and older. Leave full face protection as an option for anyone who wants it. You are correct, full face shields or cages will prevent gory facial injuries (although I don't know why it matters if they are gory or not). However, once the players turn 18 we consider them to be adults. Having played hockey for their entire lives, often in leagues where half shields are allowed, I'm sure they can make an informed choice about what type of face protection is right for them. If you give the option either way, I don't see any issue with allowing 1/2 (or 3/4) shields.

Site work on the indoor facility is going on now, and there are a few semi trailers lined up to drop off structural steel. Should see construction ramping up soon.

I think I'm going to have to watch this a few times today.

I'm reading in a lot of places that UND doesn't have the offensive firepower that Minnesota has, Minnesota is the heavy favorite, and one stat that is often cited is UND's goal-per-game over this season. I think a more telling stat is goals-per-game since December, which was about when this team started to get healthy. Throwing out the highest individual game goal total (9 against Miami) and lowest (0 against Denver) UND has averaged 3.2 goals-per-game over 25 games. In that same time period, again throwing out the highest (7 against RMU) and lowest (1 against Wisco) single game goal totals, the Gophers are averaging 3.09 goals-per-game over 23 games. Even more important than goals-per-game, is goal differential. Since December, not counting the highest and lowest single games, UND is averaging 1.92 goals against, while Minnesota is allowing 1.83 goals per game. In that time span UM played a combined 8 games against Michigan State and Penn State, the 6th and 7th lowest scoring college hockey teams in the country. UND played 5 games against CC, the 4th lowest scoring team in the country. UND goal differential since December: 3.2 - 1.92 = 1.28 UM goal differential since December: 3.09 - 1.83 = 1.26 I don't see a heavy favorite there at all. To me it looks like two very evenly matched teams.

No, the US has 3 gold medals and at least one UND player was on each team.