7NationalTitles
-
Posts
152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 7NationalTitles
-
-
Let's hope from a Sioux perspective that Wheeler signs. We do not need to see him another year in the maroon and gold. In the case of Turris....he obviouly had no loyalty to college hockey....even Parise and Toews stayed two years. Good riddance Turris
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.
-
Wow, they certainly signed Turris quickly after leaving Wheeler in Minnesota for three years. I wonder if Blake will sign now too?
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.
-
I agree with Wodon's prediction, except I would swap out Denver-Clarkson and BC-Minnesota for attendance purposes. Unfortunately, I feel the NCAA will favor attendance over bracket integrity and North Dakota will be in Colorado Springs instead of out east where they should be. Here are my picks:
Northeast Regional — Worcester, Mass.
4. New Hampshire vs. 13. Notre Dame
7. Boston College vs. 11. Minnesota
East Regional — Albany, N.Y.
2. Miami vs. 15. Niagara
6. Denver vs. 10. Clarkson
Midwest Regional — Madison, Wis.
1. Michigan vs. 16. Air Force
8. St. Cloud State vs. 12. Wisconsin
West Regional — Colorado Springs, Colo.
3. North Dakota vs. 14. Princeton
5. Colorado College vs. 9. Michigan State
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.
-
What about this change:
NCAA tourney bids determined by conference playoffs.
WCHA, CCHA, Hockey East and ECAC all get in if you finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the conference tournament.
Atlantic Hockey and College Hockey America each get the conference winner, then there are two at large bids determined by the selection committee.
The tourney is then set up with 1 west vs 8 east and 1 East vs 8 west.
so, you then break it down into East and West
In this year's tourney it would be:
WCHA: Denver, MN, UND
HE: BC, Vermont,
CCHA: MI, Miami, Northern MI
ECAC: Princeton, Harvard, Cornell
Atlantic Hockey: Air Force
College Hockey America: Niagara
At Large: Well, using either PWR or KRACH, it seems pretty obvious that CC belongs in and so does New Hampshire
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.
-
I just put him on ignore and that solves everything.
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.
-
That would hold more water if two of his best games as a Gopher -- both late-season matchups versus UND last season -- didn't come AFTER that game.
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.
-
Sioux tinted glasses aside, what a tough fall for Jeff.
I predicted he'd be #1 goaltender by January of his freshman year because of how bad Briggs was in big games. Didn't happen.
He was very good in international competition and in juniors against tougher opponents but it didn't pan out in college.
Baffling to me.
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.
-
Do you actually think it matters to a top talented player like toews or okposo which school they go to. Of course they will pick one of the top programs in the country. Toews would be in the NHL right now with or without UND. BOTTOM LINE!
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.
-
Nebraska fires there AD on Monday at 11am....Hires Replacement (Interm..maybe..?) Tom Osborne on Tuesday by Noon....
End of story.....
Ours will live on forever, and do not give me the LOA excuse...UND officials (Phil) could tell us he has been let go. At least then the staff and committee on D1 could replace him and go on.
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.
-
Others Universities seem to be able to fire their AD why can't UND.....
http://www.journalstar.com/huskerextra/foo...87196520867.txt
I'm guessing there will be no LOA in Huskerville...?
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.
-
Sioux-cia, when you say "I'm not talking about Buning's job performance. I'm talking about the circus/freak show we're calling his firing", how can you put any responsibility on UND for what it has become? Are they responsible for him pulling the leave of absense out of a hat? If you want to call it a circus/freak show then go ahead, but remember, and that is you and the rest that feel that way, who is responsible for what it has become, Mr Buning and he alone is responsible for it. He could have just walked away but chose not to do that. He alone made it into what it is, and I am sure in his future job search it will come back to haunt him.
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!
-
Anyone have a site with these on it other than the Ralph site.
I saw them on another site but can't find it now.
Thanks
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.
-
Since folks are into quoting me, and timelines, I'll follow suit and note I long, long ago said:
Instead, the Herald was clued in to start digging really hard. How? By this site. The Herald has more than once said things about "internet sites" discussing the situation.
Instead of a dismissal that could have been readily handled quietly, behind the scenes, by "mutual agreement" or some other polite phrasing in a news release, we now have a mess, a very public and unforgiving mess.
And those on the "inside" could've smirked knowingly what "mutual agreement" really meant while the "unknowing" masses speculated if winter was too cold for a guy originally from Florida.
As an added bonus we now have the "Buning letter" to Harmeson (it's a good read if your name is "Joe Chapman" and you need a laugh at your neighbor's expense). I'm sure it's being copied to eternity by some of UND's "friends". I'm guessing they'll be enclosing a copy to everyone on their Christmas card list.
I'll give you August 20 .... if you give me June 12.
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).
-
Could you draw me a picture...In sicatoka's mind and according to his sources the negotiations had been stopped sometime between Aug26-29,(those are the dates he indicated to me) when it is now apparent to everyone he was off by a roughly a week or more. So his posting:
"Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... Yeah, pretty sure." is not correct. Not even close based on the dates he himself has indicated. Heck the contract had already been agreed upon by the time he said the negotiations were called off. I for one am waiting for his retraction on that earlier post. Sorry to all if that seems trivial(it is to me also) but the post he made was directed at me. When I post things some people are quick to jump on me as being for lack of better words arrogant, but yet I havent seen anyone jump on him for his "arrogant" posts(and that one in particular). So if he made the comment, and it is now obviously incorrect, I was hoping he would post something similar to "Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however .... I guess I was wrong and they were right".
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? The way I see it, for negotiations to be over, the two sides negotiating (i.e. Hakstol and UND) both have to stop negotiating. Obviously, that didn't happen.
The e-mail published by the Herald shows that Hakstol wanted to stop negotiating after he received an unacceptable offer from Buning. That result wasn't acceptable to UND's administration, which then stepped in and came up with a better offer. So while Hakstol may very well have thought that negotiations were over until after hockey season, they weren't. The fact that he signed a new contract before the season started proves it.
"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?
-
No where in this post do you prove anything. Do you expect "The Sicatoka" to be receiving real time updates of the situation? If he was, then there are more problems than we think in the Athletic department. If a reasonable person heard info even on the 19th that contract negotiations were underway, a post on the 20th stating this info can not possibly be expected to take into account real time events that are currently breaking. Furthermore, even if Hak decided before the 20th to call off negotiaiton, until he notifies Bunning, they are ongoing. Hell, depending when the President stepped in, there might not have been any break in the the negotiatons. You really are grasping at straws here.
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?
-
A while back I posted that negotiations were underway.
A couple skeptics asked me if I was "sure" via PMs.
Like my post said, I wasn't going to say more then. Now, however ....
Yeah, pretty sure.
Further.....
Since someone insisted upon invoking my name ....True or False:
Contract negotiations to extend Hakstol's contract with UND have been, and are, underway.
True.
And that's all I have to say about that, for now.
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.
-
Petty, very, very petty....
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.
-
-
If that's the case, what was the point of keeping up the steady drumbeat of anti-Buning posts for months? What was the point of telling people to flood Twamley Hall with e-mails and phone calls to do something about Buning? What was the point of "insiders" castigating anyone who dared to suggest that there might be another side to the story or that all in the athletics department might not be as bad as it seemed? Why did the "insiders" invest so much time and effort in berating anyone who dared to post something positive about Buning?
I find it interesting that all those who so desperately wanted Buning gone suddenly want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their role in making it happen.
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 should probably confess my role in this whole fiasco and beg forgiveness. You see the Bunings and I met over a couple of beers the other day and I told them that he was to be fired on Monday.
Obviously both Tom and Debi were more than a little surprised at the revelation. I did have to explain that the firing had been delayed, as it was originally scheduled to happen 16 July. But I told them in no uncertain terms that I had it on good authority that Monday would be it.
I'm sure the Bunings spent a lot of time over the days after our meeting weighing their options. While the leave of absence concept seems a little lame, perhaps it was the only thing they could come up with on such short notice.
So, again, I am sorry for whatever role I might have unwittingly played in complicating this situation. Had I not told Tom he was to be fired, I'm sure the whole thing would already be behind us.
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.........
PWR predictions
in Men's Hockey
Posted
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.