mksioux

Note to writer (I hope he's not a journalism major): REA is NOT responsible for seating at Sioux hockey games (except when people are blocking the view of the suiteholders). And REA is not responsible for the no student drinking policy either.

And on a related topic, the GF City Council voted for the deal with Canad Inns. The article in the Herald states, "The first phase is to build an 11-story luxury or near-luxury hotel attached to the north entrance that would feature a restaurant and gaming facilities by December 2004, in time for the World Junior Hockey Championship. Another 11-story tower would be built in a second phase." That's good news for the tournament.

As everyone knows, if a player leaves on his own (without a release), he has to sit out a year. I'm far from an expert in this area, but I believe if a player is cut from the team, he can transfer and does not have to sit out for a year. I'm not sure what happens if a player's scholarship is reduced/eliminated but he is not cut from the team. In such situations, I'm sure most coaches would grant a release to a player who decided to transfer because his scholarship was eliminated/reduced. Granting a release would allow the player to transfer without sitting out a year.

It's not Virg's problem...Dean knew exactly what he was doing when talking to Virg. Generally, I'm not a big fan of contract negotiations through the media. However, if RT is not communicating -- at least informally -- with DB, then I guess DB has to do what he has to do. Too bad though really. Hopefully something gets done and gets done fast.

(Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but...) IMO, the signing of Jordan no way implies that Zach will be here all 4 years. It certainly implies that Zach is coming back for at least 1 more year, but not 3. And I'm sure Blais is still in control of the team and his recruiting. Jordan put up impressive numbers (not stellar, but impressive) and appears to have earned this opportunity on his own, regardless of his name.

Settling? All the odds were against us. We had never played together, we were on the road, and we had only 7 players. But, if you must blame someone, it would surely be the fault of our coach. And btw - I didn't see the "out-of-shape over-the-hill" group. What week is that camp?

The Senate probably did what they did because many students (including some on this board) were making such a big stink about not getting center-ice seats. I've said all along, seats on the end without restrictions would be much better for students than remaining at center ice with restrictions. I would not have like assigned seats when I was in college. It takes an enourmous amount of the college experience away from the students. The student Senate should have conceded the move to the end and they should have concentrated their efforts on keeping the same # of lower bowl seats. The atmoshpere is only going to get worse. Out of all the options, I think this is the worst decision they could have made. Very poor move IMO.

Anybody know the Ducks track record regarding their development of U.S. college players? Do they tend to pluck them out early or let them develop in college?

When did UND get a mascot? In any event, all this speculation is a moot point, because Kupchella isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

VERY interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Maybe because it's the Cup playoffs. I've been to regular season Wild games with almost no atmosphere. Like them or not, college students are an integral part of the college hockey experience. While the atmosphere at NHL games can be exciting (especially in the playoffs), the student section is one of the ways college hockey distinguishes itself from NHL hockey. I don't think you'd fine too many college hockey fans that would want college hockey to emulate the atmosphere typical of most NHL hockey games. (the Ralph has gone as close to that line as they should)

I'm certainly not an NHL draft expert, but from what I've heard, Parise is projected to be a late first rounder.

From the mailbag in the Herald today. And, no, I'm not the writer....just throwing it out there.

Come on people. Enough with the students vs. season ticket holder crap. Yes, there would be no UND without the students. And yes, UND would be too expensive for anyone to attend without alumni contributions and the taxpayers. Everyone knows this. Who cares! Both sides can coexist. I'm old enough to not want to stand for an entire hockey game. But I'm young enough to remember when that was fun. I also realize that people who pay money for tickets don't like an obstructed view. For whatever reason, fans tend to be louder when they're standing. In the long term, I think the atmosphere would be better to place less restrictions on the students. But this means moving them to a place where they will least obstruct the view of others. I wish that would be the south end, but everyone says that's not a possibility. So I guess the north end will have to do...with as many lower bowl seats as possible. With regards to profanity in chants...I get a kick out of it as long as it's creative or original. This debate likely falls along parent/non-parent lines. I don't have kids, but I'd like to think that a hockey game is as good of place as any for them to learn the swear words they're eventually going to learn anyway.

I couldn't disagree with this more. As an alumnus, I think the students are the main source of atmosphere. A college hockey game without the band, the chants, the young ladies, etc. would not be a college hockey game at all. Christmas or Spring Break games are not nearly as fun as games with a strong student presence. College hockey without the students would be like NHL hockey without as much talent. I also think that some of Federov's comments are not helpful either. Nobody's goal is to destroy the atmosphere. You're not going to get anywhere by saying things like "if you want to sit, watch your boring sports like baseball..." Comments from either side like "Stand or go home" or "Sit or go home" don't add anything meaningful to the discussion. If the students have a right to stand, then the rest of the people have a right to see the game without having to stand for the entire game. The problem is that the AD can't appease both sides with the students at center ice. The solution? Move the students to the end so they can stand all they want while not obstructing the view of others...but give them the same number of lower bowl seats that they've enjoyed the last two seasons. Isn't this a logical compromise? Why can't the students and RT see this?

UND lost 13-0 and 5-0 to Minn-Duluth last season. Nobody will expect UND to compete for the league title right away, but they might be capable of an upset of Minn or Minn-Duluth in any given game. The did have wins against Bemidji State and Mankato last year. Hopefully they can avoid last place in the league. In other news, I see that the women signed a new player to a national letter of intent.

What a depressing story. It kind of sucked me in for a while. But I think we need to keep in mind that this writer from England came over here with the "Buffalo Commons" angle for his story. After all, his story would be quite boring to his readers in England if he came all the way to North Dakota to write about a full service University or a $100 million hockey arena. That's not to say that North Dakota isn't facing dire problems because it certainly is. Regarding the American Indian angle, I don't think it does anybody any good (including the Indians) if North Dakota becomes so unpopulated that it loses it's infrastructure system. The story notes that the Indians are actually improving their condition because of their casinos. But it fails to mention where most of the money going into those casinos comes from. If North Dakota loses people, those casinos lose money.

Please elaborate.

The students get section 111 and the first 5 rows of Section 110. Here's the GF Herald story about it.

I'm not saying Pohl wasn't good for the Ice Cats. He may have won the award if he hadn't been injured...I have no idea. But without following the team in some detail, it's impossible to say. Team MVP awards are very unpredictable because they are usually chosen by teammates or coaches. They're not chosen by coaches of other teams, the fans, or the media. Therefore, reliance on statistics is less prevalent in team MVP voting than league MVP voting. Many things that go unnoticed by the casual fan (not to mention someone only following the team through box scores) are often very important in team MVP voting, such as leadership, work ethic in practice, attitudes, off-ice issues, etc. One glaring example (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), is that I believe Quinn Fylling won team MVP in '01-'02 on his USHL team that included Thomas Vanek. Obviously, Vanek scored more points than Quinn, but the coaches and/or teammates determined that Quinn was more valuable to their team. There could be lots of reasons for their decision that don't show up in the box score. I seldom (if ever) complain about who a team votes as their MVP because the team should obviously know more about themselves than I do about them. My attitude is that the end-of-the season team awards are solely for the players. In sum, unless you watched the Ice Cats play on a consistent basis, coming on the Sioux board and saying Pohl is more deserving than Panzer is simply flaming...and nothing more.

As anyone who has followed hockey for a significant period of time knows, the team MVP does not always go to the highest scorer on the team. There are other factors that come into play, some of which were mentioned in the press release. It's possible that Pohl may have won the award if he had not been injured, but unless you followed the team beyond box scores and statistics, I don't think the opinion means much.

Does this make the Wild the "Mankato" of the NHL?