7NationalTitles

Say for instance the Sioux win tonight and finish #4 and the Gophers finish #8 or #9. Would they really send the Sioux to St. Paul? Because if brackets match up, then #4 should play #5 if they both win first game and #1 (BC) should play #8/#9 winner. It seems to me like you lose a lot of bracket integrity by placing the #4 team with the #8/#9 teams. And hasn't the Committee harped on bracket integrity the past few years where the overall #1 seed should play the #8/#9 winner. Last year was pure bracket integrity but if the Sioux go to St. Paul in this scenario, you lose bracket integrity across the spectrum. I haven't heard this scenario discussed yet.

I have to disagree with you. As a Sioux fan, I don't get nervous when I see Wheeler with the puck. If he comes back, that's fine. He's a good player but there are a lot of good players in college hockey. It's not like he is dominating and you expect him to score each time he gets the puck. But it's nothing where a Sioux fan should worry if he comes back or not.

You forget, Gretzky loves the development of college hockey for players. That's the reason he's given or at least Gopher fans have given for Wheeler to still be in Gopherville. It certainly couldn't be that Wheeler just isn't good enough to make the jump yet. I wonder what excuse Gopher fans will come up with now that Turris left and Wheeler is still there since the excuse that Gretzky loves college hockey doesn't hold much water anymore. Some people (Gopher fans) are naive but those comments by Gretzky saying he loves the development of college hockey is purely PR in the case of Wheeler.....I mean what else is Gretzky going to publicly say. And add on top of that the fact that Wheeler looks likely to be the first top five pick in quite a lot of years to be in college all four years. Yup, Wheeler's a stud.

Question....how do you get BC #7 and Denver #6? Because Wooden said so in his prediction? Wooden has never been correct in any of his predictions for tourney selection time. Why would he start now? Also, the current pairwise says BC and Denver are tied for 6th with BC winning the comparison with Denver. So why do you and Wooden choose BC #7? Just because Wooden says so. The easiest way to do the brackets and least amount of changes involves switching #11 MN and #12 Wisconsin based on the pure 16 team selection criteria where #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, #3 plays #14, etc. Some teams are just going to different regions (Michigan out east and not to Madison) but the brackets, except for the switch of #11 and #12 all remain their bracket integrity. And this switch only has to be made because Wisconsin is hosting, otherwise everything else falls into place correctly. And as the committee has said before, bracket integrity is the #1 priority. Wooden does a convoluted cluster-f--- of messing with seeds and pairings to come up with his "logical" conclusion of brackets. This is the same philosophy he has used in prior years when he never has once predicted the correct bracket. He "rationalizes" his pairings of a #8 vs. #12 and #5 vs. #9 where integrity would have it be #8 vs #9 and #12 vs #5.

Granted it sucks that Mankato is out, but you know what, if Mankato would have won last weekend they wouldn't have to let other teams determine their fate. Simple solution...........win the series against the Gophers and you are in. Lose the series to the Gophers and play the waiting game and pray other games that you aren't playing in turn in your favor. Or win a game against a lowly Omaha team and you are also in. Or have Wisconsin's dis-allowed goal against Denver count and we may not be having this discussion. But when it comes down to the end, we all know the selection process and criteria going into the game (season) and we all live by it. Yes it sucks, but you know what, it is right there in black and white that tells us what we need to do to get into the tourney. If we don't do what we need to do and take care of our own business on the numerous occasions we had (i.e. beating the Gophers in the first round or winning one of two games against a weak Omaha team), then let the numbers fall where they may and quit the whining.

OK, there is being ridiculous and then there is being completely ridiculous. I hope you were not serious when you typed this. Either that or I hope you are on some kind of drugs or heavily intoxicated and that is what caused you to come up with this. As it has been said before: "This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. I'm more dumb for having heard it." Or something to that effect but you get my point.

That's a good point. To take it a step further, perhaps PCM developed some kind of ingenious computer code and was able to do a "reverse" ignore where it goes into our personal account settings and automatically puts himself on ignore on all of our profiles. So I'm beginning to think PCM is actually still posting here, just that no one can see his posts and he's just having conversations with himself. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Well in his first game back against UND after the Junior's last year, he did get somewhat lit up. He was pulled if I recall. Granted, he did play well in two other games against the Sioux except for his propensity to not cover the post (which has been a problem his whole career) that led to a goal. Since the Juniors last year he's let in three goals (although one didn't count) from the center line, the blue line and the far red line. One being in his first game back against UND after the Juniors. And seriously, you can't say that being lit up on five goals by Toews in the shootout in the Juniors in such a high profile game (or whatever the number of goals it was) has had no effect on him. He's human and it has had to have an effect on him. He's had a lot more brain-lapses since that time as reflected in the three long goals he has allowed over that time.

Granted he's had some good games now and then (Final Five last year), but collectively over the past year and his propensity to let in soft goals.......Frazee has been significantly worse and I attribute it to Jonathan Toews lighting him up in the World Junior's last year in the shoot-out. Since that time Frazee has not been the same overall.

OK, apparently you missed the point of my post because your comment had nothing to do with the point that I was making. Either that or you didn't do that well in English 101. The point, so you understand, is that Garth Snow's comments are not the first time that was mentioned about Lucia or the Gophers over the past couple years. The second point is that you don't hear those comments about UND when a player leaves for the NHL. The point was not about whether Toews would be in the NHL now if he didn't go to UND even though you may think it was. Hell, even if Toews went to Holy Cross, he'd be in the NHL now. So take a moment, work your way through English 101, try to understand the original point I was making, and then come back at me again and see if you have a different understanding of what I was saying. I'm sorry, but that's all the help I can offer you. I can't teach ignorance. BOTTOM LINE! Oh and by the way, to some players, it does matter what school they choose to go to that they feel will best help their development towards the NHL. So even what you said there was wrong too. I'm sorry I rained on your parade.

One item that I don't know has been brought up, but is Snow's comments about Lucia and the Gophers are not the only time those comments have been made in recent memory of the Gophers. Similar comments have been made by other NHL teams, other players who left, or others close to the players. Take for example, when Chucko left, Calgary wanted him out at midseason but Chucko stayed even though Calgary didn't like what was happening to him. Granted, he hasn't developed much since then either but the comment was still made about the Gopher program. Eric Johnson last year had made some statements about his utilization and Kessel (and his parents) also intimated at such things. So Snow's comments are not just completely out of left field. It was also rumored that Pittsburgh wanted to Goligoski to develop in their AHL team also. Do you think that if the Blues didn't think Oshie was developing correctly or that UND wasn't a good program to develope NHL talent, that they would leave him in school and not put any pressure on him to sign since he would be playing on the big club if he were there. The point is, Snow's comment isn't just an isolated, one-time comment directed at the Gopher program (and indirectly at Lucia) in recent history. Somewhat of a pattern seems to be developing. But we haven't heard those same comments about UND's program. If I remember right, wasn't it Toews who said after he was drafted that if you want to develope towards playing in the NHL someday, you go to UND.

You asked...... Why did Phil give him the chance...? I don't know. You'd have to ask Phil, Kupchella, et al. My guess would be as a goodwill gesture to not have to throw the guy under the bus and let the two part ways amicably. He did do some good things for UND (D1 move) and perhaps the administration, because of that, felt that out of respect they owed it to the man. Why on the Thursday before the Potato Bowl...? Isn't that the week when the evaluations were received, the results of which were deemed that immediate action needed to be taken and those were the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't think we've seen all or heard publicly about all what was in those evaluations and that is probably best to keep it that way. Nebraska did it right ...your gone on Monday!....replaced on Tuesday....Move on by Wednesday... all in the same week...? Like I said, hindsight is 20/20. Who would have thought Buning would act like he has. Buning has an agenda and screwing UND is just one of the items on it.

The only way to have been able to move on quickly is if Buning would have actually been fired the Friday before the Potato Bowl weekend. But UND, whether right or wrong, gave Buning the chance to resign or walk away amickably (spelling?). Hindsight is 20/20. So, in fact, Buning wasn't let go as you say he was. If he was, we wouldn't be where we are now. The ball was in Buning's court that weekend and who would have guessed he would have turned this around and been such an a--hole about it and drag it on for two months by requesting two different leaves now. In my opinion, the administration could be seen positively in giving the guy a chance to save face rather than be fired. Perhaps they felt they owed it to him to try to end the relationship in a non-confrontational way. On the other hand, as I've said before, Buning could have taken the high road but instead chose to be an A--HOLE by letting this drag on for over a month now. To reiterate, Buning has officially not been let go nor has he resigned....exactly like Harmeson has said. Granted, he won't have a job at UND in the future but he is still on the active payroll for now. So please tell me, Sioux-per-fan, how he exactly has been let go and UND can go forward with the next steps as if he is gone when he technically isn't gone? It's Buning's game now and UND has to play defense and follow his lead.

Huskerville doesn't have an ass like Buning though. Buning could have taken the high road with Dennis Green (sarcasm) but chose in the end to be an ass.

A simple timeline if you will so perhaps Sioux-cia can follow or anyone else for that matter..... Step 1) Buning is told before weekend of homecoming that he is going to be let go and he can either be fired or walk away amicably and save himself and UND the embarrassment of dragging this thing out. He's given the weekend to decide. Step 2) Buning takes the weekend and decides that he does not want to be fired and that he also doesn't want to resign and resolve the matter quickly (to review and reflect on a possible lawsuit?). He finds the section in the university system rules/procedures dealing with leave of absences. Buning tells the school he's requesting a four week leave of absence (in order to give himself time to see if he wants to file suit or if he realizes he's got no recourse against the school). Step 3) Speculation begins to run rampant. Varying opinions on message boards. Newspapers digging for public information disclosures. Opinion and other articles written. A circus/freak show ensues as Sioux-cia so elequently puts it. Step 4) Monday, October 15......what happens after that? Does Buning walk away and agree to a settlement or does he let things drag on or possibly file a lawsuit in the future? The question is, what does Buning have up his sleeve? To me, the whole thing could have been resolved four weeks ago during that homecoming weekend. A press conference was set-up on Monday at that time to announce that Buning was leaving (either by being fired, resignation, or mutually agreed settlement to part ways.....whichever Buning chose which one he wanted to do). I know we won't change Sioux-cia's mind because Buning is a good guy since he took the time to talk to her for five minutes and give her a little pep talk and shake her hand (does the image of Presidents kissing babies come to mind???), but.... in the end, the situation that was to be concluded four weeks ago, turned into a circus/freak show directly related to Buning's request for the leave of absence, not UND officials or any of the rest of us. And the circus/freak show could continue into the future depending on Buning's decision and course of action after next Monday. The moral of the story for those for whom it was too hard to follow......DIRECT ACTIONS TAKEN BY BUNING CAUSED THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY!

They sold them last year at Herbergers in Bismarck. Picked one up for our daughter there. They were made by Nike. Not sure if they are selling them this year again.

OK, August 20..........I see your June 12 and raise you PCM publicly concurring your acknowledgment of what you posted on August 20 (and later Sept. 5) being incorrect even though it pains him to have to say that FS1 or myself may have posted something that was accurate (deep down though I know PCM still loves me even though he doesn't show it).

X XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX PCM, that's the best picture I could draw for you for the point of my earlier post. (arrow means read above) I know it's futile to try and point it out to you since you don't like me and will always try to refute anything I post, but oh well, I've got nothing better to do right now. I'm still waiting for that hug by the way.

"Could you draw me a picture showing how it was that Hakstol signed a new contract after negotiations ended?" Things change. Didn't Jordan Parise say he would be back for another year and then left later in the summer? Things change....you know that....I know that.....so let's put our differences aside and agree on that. So one party can't end contract talks, it has to be mutual? Perhaps if you got out your pen and paper and did an interview asking questions about this rather than asking Hakstol what he thought of the black jerseys, you might find out that talks were off for a few days. Yes, the negotiations did start up again, but only after a few days had passed when Harmeson started to drive the deal to get done. So for those few days in between before Hakstol was contacted about upping the low-ball offer, contract talks were off. Contract talks can start up again, I'll give you that, but that's not to say they weren't off for a few days. Your a jounalism major, surely you can follow the steps in this process without having to have a picture drawn. You know how this works so don't play stupid just because you don't like me. Come on, can I have a big hug now? "Hakstol may very well have thought that negotiations were over until after hockey season, they weren't." So in other words, just because one person thinks something it may not be true.......Is this kind of like when someone says they are not a journalist but writes that they are a "member of the media" and "are a reporter" writing an article and conducting interviews that they actually are in some way a journalist?

Let me repeat this for you so you understand. I don't expect him to have real time updates. So I'll let his August 20 post go because of the timing. But yet, now here's the part you should read slowly so you understand since you missed this point in the earlier post, Sicatoka came online on September 5 and patted himself on the back after Hakstol signed his contract to state that what he posted on August 20 was still correct on September 5. Certain people tried to tell him contract talks were called off on August 20 via pm, but he didn't believe that and went on to make his post on September 5. So I'll give you credit that he may not have had real time access to information, but in the two weeks leading up to September 5, if he actually had the correct information and filled in all the pieces over that two-week span, he wouldn't have tried to re-validate his August 20 post by posting what he did on September 5. Those pm's that he referred to were correct in stating that Hakstol had called off contract talks on August 20 but he didn't believe that (because he didn't know that) and that is why he went on to make his post on September 5 to try and prove that those pm's were wrong. Do you get it now or do I need to draw you a picture?

Further..... Now, Sicatoka, I find this interesting. You posted on August 20 that contract negotiations were currently underway. Later on September 5, you quoted your August 20 post in order to prove a point that contract negotiations were underway and to pat yourself on the back. Yet in the Herald article reporting on an email from Hakstol to Buning on August 20, it was stated: "In an Aug. 20 e-mail to Buning, Sioux men's hockey coach Dave Hakstol said he wanted to drop discussions on a contract extension, which many felt was long overdue. "I have carefully reviewed your most recent proposal (Aug. 15) and it remains unacceptable," Hakstol told Buning. "I am completely committed to achieving our goal of bringing home our eighth national championship during the 2007-08 season. It is my intention to focus all my energy towards preparing for the coming season. I do not, therefore, think it appropriate for this continued negotiation and the distraction it creates to continue at this time. We can discuss this matter further at the conclusion of our hockey season." I have one question, how, on the same day, can contract negotiations be underway as you said they were on August 20 and also be called off on August 20? Or did you get your information at 11:00 am and negotiations were called off at 11:01 am? I'm guessing though (well actually I'm stating this as fact) that Hakstol didn't come to his decision to call off contract talks the morning of August 20 and notify Buning that same day since Buning's prior proposal was August 15, so by deductive reasoning, that leads me to believe Hakstol had made the decision to call off contract talks prior to the day he sent his email to Buning. Like someone once said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however...... I ask you one question, isn't it now true that those pm's to you were actually correct and it was you who was incorrect? What's that? Oh sorry, I thought I just heard the faint sound of eating crow.

Thanks for the love. I try. I'm not the one who made the original quote. If he didn't want to have it brought up again, he shouldn't have been so arrogant and made it in the first place. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.

I'm not absolving myself. I think my drumbeat has been pretty clear and have said things on the inside weren't as rosy as they looked to the average person on the outside. I'm sure what I said didn't change anybody's mind nor did it cause anyone to call / email Twamley. Buning's actions spoke for themselves and it didn't need the help of posters from here to help nudge him out the door. Now it's coming out from those being surveyed what it was actually like on the inside and how they felt which isn't too far off than what was being said by those against Buning on here. Yet people didn't want to believe it then and still don't want to believe it. Now they want to blame myself and other for our role in all of this and our responsibility. If you think that, than I must have more power than I thought. And if I'm that powerful, what cause do you want me or others to pursue next? That's just good stuff right there. I'm powerful and have influence....ha ha! Good times....good times.

I have to ask, was this done out of loyalty to the Buning's or for what other reason. I don't see in any way how it would help the administration to inform the employee about this before it happens. Doing so allows the employee to come up with alternative plans to pre-empt any action the University would or was planning to take. I would think that informing him of this would undermine any procedures the school already had in place to get the thing done and to keep it from getting all muddied. Hmmm......interesting.........