siouxrunner

Two things: First, there is a link to the game webcast on Minnesota's women's hockey page. It is free. Also, take a look at page 16 of the women's program. Who is that team in black playing against UMD? Would the great minds at the NCAA really have let a picture of multiple Sioux jerseys through editing?

Matt Watkins is in the lineup tonight for Phoenix, his first game in the NHL. Congrats!

This doesn't quite fall in the "since restoration of the nickname" timeline as per the first post, but I think its relevant. (Sorry Sica) The UND track and cross country teams have felt the effects of the nickname since the NCAA first placed UND on notice in 2005. Minnesota hosts what has become one of the 2-3 largest cross country meets in the nation, the Roy Griak Invitational. UND participated in the first ever meet in 1986, and was a participant until 2005, when Minnesota declined to invite UND due to their newly adopted policy against competing against teams with NA nicknames. As a cross country runner, this is a major deal. When I was running at UND, it was one of the highlights of every season. Nearly every other regional team is invited to the meet (as well as teams from across the country). Also, UND used to compete at indoor track meets at Minnesota. Starting in 2005, UND was no longer allowed/invited to participate.

Some info for those discussing which team has supported the Minnesota state schools more over the years, UND or Minnesota. The table includes remaining scheduled games for each team: ..................UND.....................UM ...........Away/Total.............Away/Total BSU..........9/25......................3/12 UMD.....101/218................102/220 MSU.......22/54....................18/45 SCSU.....46/100..................32/90 Total.....178/397................155/367 A few things to note: UM traveled to BSU in 2000, one of only 5 non-tournament out-of-conference games they have traveled for since 2000. The four others were against UNH and tOSU. One of UM's away games against MSU was played at the Xcel Energy Center. One of UM's away games against SCSU was played at the Target Center. UND did not play BSU in 2009-10, however, BSU played at the Ralph that year in UND's Subway Holiday Classic. UND hosted BSU in the Subway Holiday Classic series in 2002. BSU requested UND as the opponent to open their new facility in 2010. UMD requested UND as the opponent to open their new facility in 2010. Here is a list of UofM's opponents in their Holiday Classic from 2001 until 2009, the years UM did not play BSU after their initial home-and-home in 2000-01: Ferris State (x2) Providence Yale Boston College Princeton New Hampshire Merrimack Northern Michigan Union UMass-Lowell Alabama-Huntsville RIT Air Force Brown Northeastern

While that sounds good and noble, I'm not so sure it is true. Try this thought experiment: Everyone on the Sioux football team is swapped tomorrow with everyone on NDSU's football team. Do you then cheer for NDSU? I don't think so. How about hockey? If everyone on the hockey team were swapped tomorrow with the players from Minnesota, who do you cheer for? I'm guessing it is still UND. There is a strange connection sports fans have with their teams, and do not kid yourself, it has as much or more to do with the jersey and the organization it represents as the athletes wearing the uniform.

You're welcome. Glad to add to the discussion. Now, since you have a lot of questions and comments in one post, I'll try to take them one at a time. I'm not so sure building a 300m indoor track is such a "no-brainer" in all cases. First, you'd need to be in a part of the country where an indoor practice facility is necessary, like in North Dakota. Then, you need the multiple millions of dollars it takes to build a facility big enough to house a 300m track and a football field. Then, even if you have a northern school with the capital to build the facility, you need a pretty large piece of land to build it on. My point is, there are a lot of hoops to jump through and a lot of time and thought to be put in before any school with a football team can just build an indoor football practice facility. That said, if you have the ability to make it through all those hoops, then yeah, it is a great asset to the programs and athletes that can use it. In the discussion linked in the previous post, there is a second page as well that has some great information in it, click the 2 on the bottom or top right side of the page. You ask if indoor track really matters. That depends entirely on who you ask. If you ask me, I'll tell you it matters to me, but not as much as outdoor track. Maybe it doesn't matter at all to you. I think if you were to ask most track & field athletes, they would tell you it matters to them, but outdoor track is where the real glory is (and, not surprisingly, where the money is made). Whether or not something like an NCAA sport "matters" is completely subjective. It obviously matters to UND enough that they sponsor the sport, and it matters the NCAA enough that they host a national championship event. As to its legitimacy, the IAAF maintains world record lists and hosts world championships specifically for indoor track & field. I think that adds a bit of legitimacy to the sport as a separate entity from outdoor track & field. If you are questioning the "legitimacy" of the sport based on the existence of multiple sizes of competition venues, then you could make the same argument for hockey (olympic, NHL and old DECC size ice surfaces), baseball (field shapes are all different), swimming (pool depth), football (playing surface, indoor/outdoor), horse racing (track length), etc. I think we can both agree that argument is foolish, at best, for those sports. There is a "standard" indoor track, the flat 200m length. Also, the races lengths don't change depending on track size or arrangement. The issue of unfairly acquired times arises when running on a banked or oversized track gives a slight advantage that wouldn't be there on a 200m flat track. The NCAA does their best to address the track configuration advantages through time adjustments to standardize everything based upon a flat 200m track. Without the adjustment, no one trying to qualify for the national meet would bother running on a 200m flat track, they would all flock to the 300m and banked 200m tracks. The appeal of indoor track for a runner, jumper or thrower is the same as the appeal of any kind of competition for any college athlete. Competition helps an athlete improve times and distances. There are other sports that have just as long of a competition season as track. Swimming & diving go through winter into late spring, just like track. Besides, most D I athletes practice year-round. Some, like distance runners, are able to more easily compete year-round. If I understand you correctly, your point is basically that running is running, it doesn't matter whether it an event is run outside or inside or over hills and fields, its all the same. While indoor and outdoor track are indeed very similar, track and cross country are very different. Running over hills on widely varying courses in cross country brings many different variables into the race, making the sport much different than running on a track. Also, XC is much more of a team sport than track. The fact that the running "season" lasts all year long, and that some athletes are able to compete all year long may seem "kinda ridiculous" to you, but to others it makes perfect sense.

Indoor tracks aren't just 300m or 200m. Most are 200m, and that is considered the standard for NCAA qualifying times. However, there are flat 200m tracks, banked 200m tracks, undersized tracks (sometimes 180 yd) and oversize tracks. Oversize tracks can be 230m, 300m, 307m (as in the Dempsey Indoor facility at the University of Washington), 330m, even 400m. You can see a comparison of NCAA qualifying times for various indoor track configurations here. As to "why" tracks are 200m instead of 300m, the answer is probably a combination of cost of the structure and traditional indoor building purposes. An indoor facility with a 300m track will be more expensive than one with a 200m track, and it will require a significantly larger footprint. Indoor football practice facilities are a modern invention compared to indoor hard surface courts for basketball and volleyball. As such, most existing indoor tracks are 200m. Older ones, like the track at Hyslop, are even shorter. A typical flat 200m track, like the one at the BSA, can still fit multiple practice basketball courts in the infield when aligned with the goals along the straightaways, and a competition basketball floor in the middle aligned with the goals facing the curves. Telescoping bleachers can be used then to extend the seating areas up to the edges of the competition court, like they are in the BSA and like they were in Hyslop. An indoor football practice facility with a football field and a track needs a 300m track to make the "field" wide and long enough to effectively practice plays. A 300m sized facility can also be used for baseball, softball and soccer, but usually not for basketball and volleyball. Also, many parts of the country don't need indoor facilities for football, soccer, baseball and softball, adding to the rarity of indoor 300m tracks. However, everyone needs indoor facilities for basketball. You can find a decent discussion of the merits of 200m flat vs 200m banked vs oversized tracks here.

UND has never played a game in Florida

I read it as f.p. saying Gregoire would be one of the best ever at playing along the wall. While he is certainly very good on the wall, a subjective claim such as that would hardly stand up to any real scrutiny. The takeaway from f.p.'s post is mainly that last line stating that he believes Gregoire would improve his situation by returning for a senior season. The rest of his discussion has merit, but take the statement in question for what it is - hyperbole.

On the official game record there is a game listed between the Varsity team and the UND Freshmen. The game was played December 11, 1953. The varsity team won the game 8-7. This could be what they were remembering. I'm guessing his memory of the game being between the freshmen and seniors is also probably off, as the teams then didn't have enough players on a roster to split in such a manner. The '57-'58 team had only two seniors, Jim Ridley and Edgar Willems. Another player, Joe Armbruster, played the second of his two seasons that year as well. The '58-'59 team had 6 seniors, still far fewer than you'd need to field a team. Still, a fun memory nonetheless.

Thanks!

how much was the single game broadcast?

Friday - Hextall Saturday - Genoway

...Waiting to see the announcement on the men's 2010-11 incoming class...

Depends on what you mean by "from Ohio." He would be the first ever to have a hometown in Ohio listed in the media guide. Sometimes players on the team list a hometown different from where they were born or grew up. T.J. Oshie, for example.

I'm disappointed to see the low score for Men's Cross Country. XC has typically been very good as far as academic achievement. What's going on?

Disappointing end to the season, but like most of you, I'm already excited for next year. Aside from the obvious, like conference titles, etc., I've put together a list of things I hope will happen for next season, in no particular order. If my wishes all come true, I think we hang another green banner...add your wishes for next season! 1. Frattin stays on the path he has put himself on and doesn't leave for Toronto. The man will be a beast next year. 2. Brad Miller Time season 3 3. Chay Genoway overcomes his post-concussion syndrome and plays hockey again...I don't care where. 4. Blood stays, Gregoire stays, Malone stays. 5. A pair of these for Joe Gleason (ignore the first picture) 6. The Ralph continues moving toward being the most difficult place to play in the country for opposing teams, if it isn't already. 7. Two extra home games in mid-March.

Sica, I agree about retiring the number for both teams, men and women, but I don't think the he died before his senior year. Casey played from 63 through 66. I believe freshmen weren't permitted to play back then, and they wouldn't be allowed until a few years later (please correct me if I'm wrong here) so he was a senior for the 65-66 season. He died two years later, in July 1968. RIP

New school record in the Men's Indoor 3000 on Jan 30 at the Bill Bergan Invitational (Iowa State) by Josh LaBlanc, 8:33.46.

Where have all the goals gone? In a nutshell: Avg. goals/game w/Genoway - 3.667 Avg. goals/game w/o Genoway - 2.474 Avg. goals against/game w/Genoway - 1.556 Avg. goals against/game w/o Genoway - 2.562

The current team is scoring at a rate of 2.86 goals/game, which is the lowest in the history of the program (post WWII) On the other hand, the current team is allowing only 2.21 goals/game, 4th lowest in the history of the program (post WWII) Personally, I think this says as much about the team's struggles to score as it does about the rise in the importance and competence of goaltending throughout hockey. It would be interesting to see where this season's goal/game rate ranks when adjusting for differences in NCAA-wide scoring each season.

Toews Marto

Friday - Malone Saturday - Toews

Fri - Malone Sat - VandeVelde

fri-hextall sat-kristo