soohockey15

Weird, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Entry_Draft, this says that any player 18-20 is eligible for the draft. Now if there's something that I'm missing my mistake, but my understanding is that a person has 3 chances to be drafted.

(Trying to hide laughter...still trying...still trying...just can't) HA HA HA HA HA HA. Wow. Theres a reason he's not playing defense anymore. Because...he's...an...awful...defender. Seriously Finley is less of a liability than Radke is. They moved him to defense for the last minute of Friday's game, and what does he do? Take a stupid stupid penalty. Then last night, goes into the corner and gives an obvious elbow to a Mankato player, draws another penalty. There's a reason he's been passed on for the past 3 years in the draft.

Yeah, that's a really good point. What a mistake Hak is making by having Radke play foreward and not D. Haha, cmon now, theres a reason that they moved Radke to a position that he'd played sparingly before (and never as a Sioux). Think before you speak next time.

Welcome back to earth, Riders.

Statistics are a lot like a girl in a bikini - they show a lot, but not everything.

I wonder what will be higher...the points scored by the Bears, or Rex's QB rating... Colts 31 Bears 17 Rex: 3.6

By "almost all," do you really mean 3 out of 7?

Ha ha, you guys are making waaaaaaaaaay too big a deal about this...do you expect them to be little angels, never touch a drop of booze? I mean, cmon, they were sitting around, celebrating the weekend. Talk of suspending them? Give me a break...maybe if they both got DUIs or something, but for something petty like this, a stern talking-to would suffice.

The only way they have a shot at winning their first round game is if they get the #1 seed and Devils Lake or North is not the #4 seed (thinking that RR, South, and GPR are the top 3 seeds).

Anyone want to do an over/under on Rex's Super Bowl QB rating? I'll put it at 40, and I'm taking the under. And 40 is being generous.

Is it still dumb if it's true?

Wow, wow, wow, is all I have to say after seeing the show that the Riders put on tonight. Buried their chances on goals, played solid defense, and received great goalie play. This team will be very tough to beat, not just because they're playing so well, but because they have a simple goals in mind - win a state championship, and if this takes away from any individual accolates, then so be it. South, on the other hand, plays like a bunch of thugs. Numerous times I saw players (Wurden and Powers in particular) try to scrum with Riders after the whistle. Not exactly the thing you'd expect from the team "leaders." I was thoroughly unimpressed with South as a whole, especially Deichert. He gave up weak goals and even more bad rebounds. I thought that he had Mr. Hockey all but locked up coming into this year, but after seeing him play tonight I would be surprised if he won. South plays with no heart, and Red River plays like its the last game of the season. Plain and simple.

Anyone catch what Blake did to Crosby at the end of the game tonight? Crosby was standing along the boards and Blake came out of nowhere and stuck him right in the gut. Crosby gets up and starts pushing Blake and Blake wants none of it. I know he's a former Sioux, but he's really a little bitch. I wouldn't hate at all to see someone kick his ass.

Hmm, thats all I needed to see. Yes Dave, I know what you were trying to say. It was one game and anything could happen. But wasn't Florida convincingly the better team? I mean you can't honestly say that if those teams played 10 times the Gators would win any less than 7.

You make the worst comparisons ever. The US and the Soviets played a hard fought game, all the way to the end. It could've gone either way. Florida completely dominated after the opening kickoff, and the game was over by halftime. If it was a 27-24 game I could see where you're coming from, but this was an absolute blowout.

At the top of the conference, yes, the Big 10 was stronger in those years. I have not looked (nor cared to) at the middle, but I'm thinking that the SEC teams beat up on each other as usual. Our argument was about this year, not the past. As far as the comparison about San Fran goes, it would hold true if the SEC had no other good teams, but that is completely false. SEC was 2-0 in the 2 BCS games they played. That signifies a strong top of the conference. 7 other teams went to bowl games, which signifies a good "rest of the conference." The argument that the 10 had a better head to head record doens't hold water. It would if Ohio St. would've beaten Florida. But since Florida crushed Ohio St., a team that had been absolutely pounding Big 10 teams all year long, that point doesn't work.

I don't have problems with people's opinions. Usually. I have a problem when that opinion is wrong, however. The thing with me is that I don't hate either conference. The reason you think the Big 10 is better is because of your hatred of the SEC. I can still hate a team but admit they're good. You, however, can't. Your only argument is record against each other in bowl games. Ok Penn St. is better than Tennessee and Wisco is better than Arkansas. I'll give you that. But when the #1 team in the league gets absolutely trashed by the #1 team in the SEC your arguement is basically void, as the Big 10 is not nearly as deep as the SEC (9 bowl teams to 6). Why, Dave, do you think no one has come to your side of the argument? It is because you are wrong. You will not find one person who will logically argue this point on your side. Give me your reasoning on how you still think the 10 is better when the SEC has 2 teams ranked higher than the highest ranked 10 team. It just makes no sense.

The reason I called you a tool is because you, in fact, are a tool. I have given you endless statistics proving why the SEC is better and you refuse to believe them, only say that the conferences play different styles of football. You give the SEC credit for having stronger top teams than the Big 10, yet still think that conference is better, even though only 6 Big 10 teams had winning records. No worry, I'm sure Illinois and Miss. St. would have a good game, and maybe thats where the Big 10 has the advantage. Just look past the clear location bias that you have and try to realize what everyone else has been saying. You think it is just a coincidence that no one is backing you up on this topic? Nope, you're just wrong.

He plays for the Fargo legion team in the summer.

Ha ha, you know that we have been right all along. There is no way that anyone can possible argue that the Big 10 is better than the SEC. I'll leave it at this - why would Florida get into the BCS game playing such a weak SEC schedule, and Michigan doesn't get in playing the "smashmouth" Big 10. Tool.

So they all have "finesse" defenses? The same "finesse" defense that stuffed Ohio St. on 3rd and 4th and 1? The same "finesse" defense that disrupted Ohio St.'s offensive rythym all night long? If they had a "finesse" defense, Ohio St. could've run all over them. Hey by the way, speaking of smashmouth, how bout Wisconsin "smashmouthing" themselves to -5 rushing yards against Arkansas, and Arkansas "finessing" themselves to 230 on the ground. You are probably the only person who would continue to argue this. Florida BLEW OUT the team that had been dominating the Big 10 all year, and you have the guts to say that the Big 10 is the better conference? Does that make sense to anyone? Florida played tough games all year long against SEC teams and then have the BCS game over by halftime, while Ohio St. plays 2 good teams all year long. You have no arguement. Oh, and the SEC had 2 of the top 3 teams, so the 3 in the top 8 argument doesn't work, seeing as the SEC had 3 in the top 9 in one poll, 3 in the top 8 in the other.

How is the Big 10 a smashmouth league and the SEC is a finesse league? Just when I think your arguement can't get any weaker you say this and give me even more to tear your argument apart. You really cannot say, now that Florida crushed Ohio St. that the Big 10 is better. Both top teams in the conference get blown out, and the top teams in the SEC crushed their opponents. Big 10 was 2-4, SEC was 6-3. SEC had 6 top 25 teams to finish the year, Big 10 had 4. What evidence do you need to show you that you are wrong? The Brett Farve analogy could work if the SEC wasn't the best conference, but since it is, they deserve the attention they're getting. Your view on athletics in general is so warped it is absolutely astounding. Try to defend your Big 10 now, I'd love to see your comeback.

Umm, Minot beat Bismarck, so I'm not sure where you think Bismarck is that much better.

So now you're blaming Ohio St. loss on the "smashmouth teams" they play week in and week out? That is so far from the truth. Florida crushed Ohio St. on both sides of the ball, and their schedule was far from a cakewalk. Defenses like Auburn and LSU's are just as fast as Florida's, and there isn't a defense in the Big 10 that compares to any of those 3 teams.

Why would you be pissed off? Because your kid can't hack it? Sorry, its not 6th grade anymore, the best players make it, everyone else gets cut. If they can't make the JV squad, they probably shouldn't be playing anyway. High school athletics aren't about being nice and fair, its about winning games, and adding Simonson gives them a better chance to win games.