82SiouxGuy

Playing with better quality defense would probably mean fewer high quality shots against which should result in higher save percentage and lower goals against. Still probably a backup to Dell, may compete with Gothberg for a while.

I think the argument is that you get used to playing on one size sheet of ice or another. It isn't about conditioning. It's about angles for passing and for lining up checks. It's about timing for passes and for setting up plays. It's about knowing where your teammates are. Playing on a big sheet of ice leaves more room to maneuver, the smaller sheet is more physical. It just changes the game in small ways and teams have to adjust. That's why teams are trying to get second sheets of ice that are the opposite size so they have a chance to make adjustments the weeks they are going to have to play on a different size rink.

I believe that all conferences use a best of 3, all in the home of the higher seed, for the first round of their tournaments. Pretty much every year there are teams that pull off the upsets, like Michigan Tech this year. For a national tournament you would think that the teams would be even more closely matched than the top and bottom of most conferences. 8 vs 9, 7 vs 10, 6 vs 11 and 5 vs 12 would almost always be pretty close matchups. The main advantage is that the best teams would advance more often than the current situation. Football is always a 1 game situation. College hockey almost always plays a 2 game series. So a best 2 out of 3 is as good a fit for college hockey as a 1 and done. All levels of pro hockey use a multiple game playoff system.

You mean the 52 years between 1949 and 2001 for Boston College? Or the 32 years between for Michigan from 1964 to 1996? Or the 14 years for them now since 1998? Or the 23 years between 1979 and 2002 for Minnesota? Or 16 years for Wisconsin from 1990 to 2006? Or 35 years between 1969 and 2004 for Denver?

There has been plenty of activity since then. The telling fact is that the list stops in 2003, and the NCAA made their policy in 2005. It seems pretty obvious that whomever was creating the list stopped doing it in 2003 for whatever reason. Otherwise they would have listed all of the schools that changed their name from 2003-2007 as a result of the NCAA policy. The internet is full of abandoned web sites that live on for years and that list is just one example. You can find more information on efforts to end the use of NA nicknames at http://www.aistm.org/1indexpage.htm. Look at the recent news articles list and you will see stories from Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, DC and many other locations in recent years.

Here is a partial timeline of efforts to remove Native American nicknames and imagery from the sports world through 2001. I found it at http://www.nativevillage.org/Messages%20from%20the%20People/timeline%20for%20Indian%20Mascots.htm and tried to edit out the high schools, community colleges and pro team references as well as most of the civil rights orginizations and other type groups unless I thought they were interesting. You will notice the first official NCAA position on the list comes in 1998. I don't know if they had a position before that. ESPN has done stories on the issue going back to the 1990's. The US Census Bureau took a position in 1999. Most of the larger colleges removed all NA nicknames or imagery during this time. If you go through the list on the web site you will see a lot of state education associations taking positions and a lot of high schools removing names, including Grand Forks Central and Dickinson. You may also notice that the late 1990's was a very active time for this issue not just at UND.

Wow!!! Now that is a leap. That might be a world record for the long jump. If you know anything about the US government you would know that they work on things for a long time before they issue statements like that. They were probably working on the issue for years before issuing a statement, not just 3 months. If you truly believe that Ralph's letter was the catalyst for the United States Commission on Civil Rights report, as well as the NCAA policy on Native American imagery you are really delusional. UND and Ralph Engelstad are not the center of the universe. Native American nicknames and imagery being used for sports teams have been an issue for many years. UND was just part of that issue because they had an active opposing group. The NCAA targeted 33 schools, not just UND. And this was just the first wave of their efforts to remove ethic or culturally sensitive nicknames. They will come back and try again to remove the rest of the Native American names. They will move on to others until all human-related nicknames are removed from college sports. This wasn't a vendetta against UND. You really do like conspiracy theories, don't you.

No. But according to a statement from Bernard Franklin of the NCAA they were working on it in 2001. http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/109th/fc/ncaa121506/franklin.htm Maybe this quote from the original press release announcing the policy will help you. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0305/doc_0.pdf From the same press release. Besides Florida State, Utah and Central Michigan, I know that Mississipi College got to keep the Choctaws, I think that Catawba College got to keep Indians by becoming the Catawba College Catawba Indians, and I believe at least 1 other school got off the sanctions list and got to use the Native American nickname.

No, I don't. I've met him a few times at events around Grand Forks and at UND. He likes to talk with people and is easy to approach. But I don't know why it would make a difference if I did work for UND. It doesn't mean that I couldn't be objective. Try it some time.

What spin? Those were the facts and actual dates. Kelley took office in 2008, almost 4 years ago. He wasn't in charge of the nickname, the SBoHE was and you know it. And he isn't smug. Have you met the man? Have you talked to him, or are you basing all of your impressions on simple blind hatred of whomever is involved in the process? You and the others like you would have thought it was too fast if the name change was timed by the formation of a glacier.

The picture itself is rather dark, so I wouldn't base anything on that. It will be interesting to see them on television under good lighting, or in person, to see if the color is a better match. Getting a perfect color match on cloth is a lot harder than on paper, but I would bet that the real color on the jerseys will be closer than it looks in the picture.

Fast? The first complaints about the name started more than 40 years ago. Real complaints took place through much of the 1990's which is why Baker dropped the geometric logo and why Kupchella was looking at dropping the nickname. The NCAA started looking at Native American nickname issues in about 2000. They implemented the policy in 2005 and it was supposed to go into effect in 2006. UND sued in 2006 to put things on hold. The settlement happened in 2007, with a deadline to get approval by 2010 and the name needing to be changed by Aug 15, 2011. None of this has been fast. It is excruciatingly slow and dragged out.

They have been storing things in the arena. I think that most of it is gone. The department that is located there is preparing to pack up as soon as their new space is ready. Anything actually part of the building like paint, asbestos, and Hoffa won't be removed until the department gets moved. They didn't have a date the last I heard, the new space needed more work than was originally planned.

They are working on getting everything out of the old Ralph. The department that uses the entry addition is waiting for their new space to be remodeled. The building should be empty by summer at the latest. The building will probably come down this summer.

Your impression.

The actual operation went quickly. But they were told in August that it was going to happen so they had time to set up a plan. Besides, they had started the planning process before the law was passed. So they probably just had to dust off the file and put the plan in action.

That was the goal for both the SBoHE and the UND administration. But the SBoHE were the ones that set the timeline in place and made all final decisions. UND administration implemented the plans.

They were following orders from their bosses, the SBoHE. What happens when you don't follow direct orders from your boss? You don't work there any more. Blame the SBoHE if you think they moved too quickly, Kelley and Faison were just doing their jobs.

Team photos would fall under the hockey team or marketing department duties, not the President of the University. Faison maybe could have checked on it, but that should fall to the coach or the head of the marketing department. Marketing should have thought of it, coach should have scheduled it.

You whine and complain on this forum about the issue not getting enough coverage, or that it isn't covered the way that you want. First, why tell us? Do you think that we could do something about it if we wanted to? Complain to the people that aren't writing the stories. My guess is that you won't get the results you want, but take a shot. You ask the question here so I give my opinion. Then you get mad because you don't like my opinion. If you don't want the opinion, don't ask the question. Second, why do you think that they are "avoiding the issue"? Do you believe that there's some huge conspiracy? Have all the news outlets in the country gotten together on this one story just to leave out that part? In your mind, why aren't they including that part of the story? Are we the ones to blame? Let me guess, somehow it's Dr. Kelley's fault. Maybe he controls all of the media in the country just like he controls 2 different collegiate conferences.

Not only that, he was in a college hockey facility with about 5,000 people. A place that was full of people that were interested in college hockey and very familiar with UND. He said that 10-15 people asked him about it, people that were near him in line or where he was sitting. That should be the main target audience of people that might actually be interested. People in Alabama or Utah are going to have even less interest.

Obviously, yes. If writers and editors thought that tribe members bringing the lawsuit was more interesting they would print that. They are in the business to drive traffic to their sites, sell newspapers and attract viewers. If they thought it was a hot story they would use it, and probably beat it to death. You find the story fascinating. Not everyone does. It has been covered, and those same people don't think that it's interesting enough to keep repeating.

Obviously, not everyone finds the story as interesting as you. You couldn't possibly believe that there is a national conspiracy to withhold the fact that people on Spirit Lake have filed a lawsuit against the NCAA. It has been told, and yet people don't really care.

People don't care. It isn't as big a story as you think it is.

That support has no meaning to the NCAA. And it doesn't change anything legally for the settlement or the NCAA. Therefore the support doesn't help to promote any kind of negotiation. There isn't going to be any vote that will be binding on the NCAA. Also, even though there is support on Spirit Lake, the fact is that every Sioux tribe other than Spirit Lake is officially opposed to UND using the nickname. And it is the official position for every other tribe in the region. Those are the factors that the NCAA is going to consider and the factors that they considered when creating the policy.