NDHockey

I guess I'm the type that wants to see who drafts a player, how high they go, etc. It's not like we have never seen a kid get influenced by an NHL team and jump ship unexpectedly. Especially the Rangers.

Considering all we judge on is what she described to them (since you were criticizing her employer on how they handled it), it is a moot point about whether there were other instances outside of her experience. They can only judge on what they know at that point.

According to her own story, he never touched her in the sexual areas described by your link. So I'm gonna say no in this instance.

I guess the way I see it is the person that was being bothered by Teague was satisfied with the course of action. If she's not going to complain about how it was handled, it is hard for me to. It was pretty clear that they were willing to pursue it further if she wanted to. I'd also point out that while what Teague did is slimy, it's not like the newspaper was allowing a murderer or rapist to go free. He didn't do anything illegal in that sense. His "skills" at pursuing a woman are obviously brutally bad but being an sleeze isn't against the law either.

I completely disagree with you on the paper enabling anything. They gave the victim the option to decide how she wanted to handle it because it was a situation that could drastically affect her career. Two of those options they gave her was the paper contacting Teague to cease the behavior or contact his superiors. The victim was the one that decided to keep it under wraps for her own personal/professional reasons. I'm not sure how that is enabling anything when you allow the victim to decide how she wants to handle it. Not to mention, as big of a clown as Teague is/was, he wasn't doing anything illegal under those circumstances. He was definitely wrong to bother her but it wasn't illegal either.

You guys act like Rob Blake traveling to meet with a player and convince him to sign is uncommon but he did the very same thing before Johnny Brodzinski signed.

Waterloo's problems are not their top line forwards. Their issue has been lousy goaltending and the defensive group has not been good all year. Even our D recruit Shaw is a -5 and that is only in only 18 games played. This coming off of last season where he was a +8.

There is a little too much of a fantasy hockey attitude with some fans when it comes to recruiting. It's like they think we have endless room for next hot recruit. At some point, they need to be rational.

I think at least one of those guys end up in the WHL. Probably both.

I know you can defer players but you can only do so much of it before you end up hitting a wall. Even if you defer one guy for a year, it is still a scholarship you have to account for a year later and most of these guys that you might bring in next year are still going to be there the year after. At some point, the numbers simply don't add up. My belief is we will not see Boeser, Matthews, or the two kids from Penticton coming here and Hak probably knows it. So he doesn't sit around waiting and goes to Plan B options.

Count me as a bit of a skeptic. At some point, the numbers and scholarship just doesn't add up to more and more. My bet is the coaches already have a good idea of how things are likely going to go and decided to pull the trigger on other options.

If sibling connection matters to her, I would bet she would be more likely to play at Ohio State with her older sister.

Neither of those two guys were really being hyped as star recruits that would likely be recruited by those kinds of schools. At least not at age 16 or 17. They did turn out well though. Jackson is being hyped and yet no "traditionally successful" schools are there? Just seems a little odd if he is truly of that caliber in their eyes. I doubt all those schools have no room either.

OK, my mistake on the one year out of the last handful of seasons that CC did something. You guys have low standards for what makes a good program if you consider what they've been doing to be good. This isn't the CC of the 1990s and early 2000s. They have taken a few steps back. Scott Owens didn't lose his job because they have been doing really good in recent seasons.

CC hasn't been "good" since 2007-2008. You're giving them credit for things they did many years ago rather than what they are now. Miami is good. Although we'll have to see how they do in the future now that they are out of the weaker CCHA. The first year results weren't great. The point is I think it says something that we really don't see any of the traditionally successful schools making a push here.