mksioux

The bold part is what is very frustrating about this. It's not your fault that you didn't know that because virtually every news story about this issue in the mainstream media omits this very important fact.

It was an informed, intelligent post. He was not responding your statement that $200k was a ridiculous number. He was responding to your statement "I'm absolutely 100% on board with them getting paid better."

I agree with this. USA Hockey bungled the PR on this and lost the narrative. They should have recognized that they had to give the women's team the exact same perks the men's team gets. My understanding is that those perks relate to things like the equipment budget and travel. Those are a very minor part of the women's demands, and would not have prevented this boycott. However, it would have positioned USA Hockey to be able to say forcefully that it treats the men's and women's national teams EXACTLY the same. If they had been able to repeat that message over and over, they might have had a chance. But it's too late. In the era of social media where everyone acts on emotions and facts are a casualty, USA Hockey will have no choice but to cave and and the rest of us will have to pay for it.

In my opinion, the biggest problem for hockey in this country is cost. Hockey is getting so expensive that it is simply not an option for the majority of Americans to even consider. If we want our country to do well in hockey, we have to drive down the cost and increase numbers by making the sport available and accessible to the middle class and lower middle class. We should not be doing things that make the sport even more expensive than it already is. So if USA Hockey is forced to pay the women's national team as employees, who pays for it? I assume if there were corporate sponsorship opportunities, they already would have happened. USA Hockey could cut development programs, but I suspect that would prove too controversial. So that leaves an increase in USA Hockey dues as the most likely source of that revenue. So the average family with two or three kids will have to pay even more so their kids can simply play hockey. So when I read all these stories about "equality" I just kind of shake my head. We're talking about grown women who are demanding youth hockey parents and coaches pay them so they can continue to play international hockey.

The success of their argument relies on people assuming that USA Hockey is paying the men more than the women. The media largely perpetuates that assumption by not reporting key facts, like USA Hockey does not pay the men.

As I understand it, USA Hockey does not compensate the men's national team any more than the women's national team. The difference, of course, is that the players on the men's team are on loan from their NHL club and obviously get paid handsomely by their NHL club. But as it relates specifically to USA Hockey, the women's players are essentially asking USA Hockey to compensate them more than they do the men. Am I correct in my understanding? Because the way the media is portraying this, the average person thinks USA Hockey is paying the men more than the women. When in reality, the women want special treatment from USA Hockey because, unlike the men, they don't have a professional club to pay them enough so that they can devote their life to training and playing hockey.

Bummer about drawing the early game. Those in attendance will have to start getting primed at 9 a.m.

College hockey has two choices - (1) bring back fighting, or (2) be liberal with penalties and suspensions of dirty players. Hockey is a sport that needs a sense of justice (formal or informal) to keep equilibrium.

Is there video of the hit on Poolman?

Amateur hour at UND again. Good grief.

Unwatchable feed. Camera jumping all over and is making me sick. I was expecting better from Miami.

I think the talk about North Dakota joining the Big Ten as an affiliate member is originating from the Big Ten hockey community. I don't doubt that many in the hockey community would like to see it happen and will make a proposal to the Presidents. But I find it hard to believe that the Big Ten Presidents would vote for North Dakota under any circumstances. The Presidents aren't going to care about the actual hockey team or program. They care about the academics of the institution and/or how much money the school can bring to the Big Ten. UND has decent academics and some research, but they are not up to the Big Ten's standards, and any revenue UND could generate for the Big Ten would be negligible. The Presidents at the non-hockey playing schools also aren't going to care all that much that the hockey league is "stuck" at 7 teams and an odd number is difficult for scheduling. Rather than invite North Dakota, I think they'd rather keep it at 7 until ASU gets their arena situation figured out and then invite ASU. But I could be wrong. If North Dakota is offered, they should and will accept. Being affiliated with the Big Ten is a huge deal from an institutional standpoint.

I think you're giving him too much credit. If that was his master plan, he wouldn't (shouldn't) have been so emphatic that he wasn't ever going to re-visit this issue during his tenure. He would (should) have given himself some wiggle room. Now he just looks like a fool.

I Finally broke down and bought nchc.tv, and immediately was reminded why I held out so long. The picture is awful. Hopefully it's just a CC thing.?

There will be zero appetite from the administrators from either school to bring back the Nickel. Gone are the days of fighting with the NCAA. Gone are the days of going to Standing Rock and Spirit Lake and asking for permission for anything. Those days are gone and they're not coming back. Neither side wants anything to do with re-visiting that controversy in any way, shape, or form. There will be a new trophy.

I'm sure with both NDSU and USD, what to do with the old trophies will be an item of discussion when the schools are discussing a new trophy. I don't see anything wrong with displaying them at a neutral location. That should be easy enough with the Nickel. With Sitting Bull, it's a little more complicated, but maybe it could alternate between the two states or something (but is there is enough interest in Sitting Bull to maintain an alternating schedule?).

I agree, it's not a bad trophy. Rivalry trophies are not as much about the actual trophy, as much as the significance of the rivalry itself. An old brown jug and a pig could be considered dumb too if you just look at the actual trophies. But when you take the history into account, they are among the best rivalry trophies out there. Whatever the UND-NDSU trophy ends up being, it may seem dumb at first. But after each team wins it a couple times, and a few close games, it will definitely mean something. I would also like to see UND resume a rivalry trophy with USD. Sitting Bull is obviously out in our P.C. environment, so we'll need a new one for that rivalry too.

If anyone can find a link to watch video from the press conference, much appreciated.

That is correct. Perhaps some fans of Sac State and those types of schools are voicing opinions that the Big Sky should have dropped UND immediately, but UND never would have agreed to that. Their administrators are smart enough to know that, in the long run, having UND out of the conference will save money, even if it takes a few years to transition them out.

I've thought about that too, but I strongly suspect the exit fee will be waived. Fullerton has said that the exit fee would be waived if UND went about exiting in the right way. I assume UND did that. That tells me that UND never really had strong support among Big Sky institutions (at least once USD bailed at the last minute). Perhaps some people at Montana, Montana State, and UNC might be a little disappointed, but I doubt anyone from the other institutions care all that much that UND is leaving, and some of them are probably happy about it.

What a train wreck. Good Lord some of those people need to get a grip. The UNI guy is apoplectic.

Good to hear. If there is stability in both the Summit and MVFC, then I think this is a good move.

The Big Sky was a good conference, but this makes sense. I always kind of figured this would happen if UND could ever get the MVFC to come around. They apparently have done that and therefore the move is happening. I do not think the move would have been worth it if UND had stayed in the Big Sky as a football affiliate. But I think I prefer Summit/MVFC over Big Sky. The only thing that concerns me is that the other Dakota schools would likely leave the Summit for a better conference in a heart beat. So stability is a concern that is not currently present in the Big Sky.

Do they come with a complimentary set of MVFC pom poms?

I can understand not letting them score. It probably would have been the smarter play, but Bubba is old school and I don't blame him for defending every inch. But why he didn't use his last timeout to force a kickoff after the go-ahead field goal is a bit of a head scratcher.