dagies

Was that Garret Clarke?

If we're going to sell sponsorships, how about HEEEEEERRRRRRRRE COME YOUR UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA....PONTIACS!

To be clear I wasn't advocating cheapness. I was advocating hitting them with legal checks until they don't want any more. Then you outscore them.

I see your point but my take is to borrow a term from Chili. Batter them until you "impose your will upon them". Sure, you'll take a few penalties but make them afraid to get close to the net or go in the corners.

Marvin will get his at some point, just like Paukovitch did. Sweep this weekend is the most important goal. Everything else should be 2nd place to that.

Not sure anyone was suggesting if the goalie pads were smaller the Sioux would win more games. Seems to me this tangent came up in the perspective of goals scored 20 years ago vs. goals scored today.

He's coming to UND! (awwww dammit, that's just internet talk too)

Or Ian Kidd just about killing the guy from Duluth (I should remember his name but I don't). Overall I think you and I would agree on the subject, but to say it would eliminate that stuff? That I'm not so sure of.

Between face-offs

I agree with you here. I'd rather try backing the equipment sizes down rather than increase the net. However, one or the other....

I watched 2 periods of Friday's game. I don't recall that at all. I recall thinking the Sioux were outplaying Denver. It's just that they didn't score.

I think they could because of the goalie play. I watched a couple of those old early 80's games and it's amazing. The goalies were all stand-up style and it was amazing what got through sometimes. I agree with whoever said it earlier that the goalie position had the greatest potential to increase in proficiency, and between styles and technology (equipment growth) it has fulfilled much of that promise, IMO.

Gotcha. I think my premise would still hold that even with 6 jurors, if only 1 was arguing a different point of view from the other 5 this would have lasted longer than 30 minutes. Therefore we agree that this most likely hinged on the defense completely blowing up the prosecution's case. Chris might want to think this was a jury who wanted to fraudulently let a hockey player go. With the quick verdict I'm fairly convinced this was about evidence, not ethics. It takes 30 minutes just to get 1 person to be the foreman. If this was a mafia related trial I might be more inclined to think someone got to the jury. I highly doubt Hakstol sicced MacWilliam or Davidson on the jury. Besides, everyone knows tDon is in Minneapolis, not North Dakota.

Just to be clear, we're on the same page here.

I sat on a DUI/Refusal jury less than a year ago in Hennepin Cty. It was quite interesting, IMO. The defendant was a person of color, and in and out of trouble, in and out of employment. The jury members were mostly Caucasian, employed, and frankly annoyed at having to spend time away from work at jury duty (all except me, I loved getting out of work). I was very much afraid of a 12 Angry Men scenario, where everyone would be more interested in getting back to work than giving this guy a fair shake. As the jury foreman, I was especially worried as I felt the responsibility to make sure this didn't happen fell on me. However, I was extremely surprised, pleasantly, at how seriously everyone took their responsibility except for 1 juror. 1 juror was certain after 5 minutes and wouldn't give the time of day to any additional deliberations. Everyone else put their heart into it (and for reasons that had nothing to do with my influence, either). We had 2 counts to deliberate: 1. Did he refuse to blow, or was he physically incapable of blowing in the Intoxylizer? 2. Was he driving under the influence of alcohol (since they couldn't get a legit read from the Intoxylizer). I think just about every juror went into the jury room certain they would find this man guilty on both counts. I know I was pretty sure, but I was willing to have an open mind and be swayed either way depending on the deliberations. We had 1.5 days of testimony, and we literally spent a WHOLE day deliberating these 2 points. Actually, it took us about 1 hour to find him guilty on the refusal count, and the rest of the time on the DUI. We went back and forth, and members swayed this way and that as people argued their points of view. In the very end we found him guilty on both counts. But not before this guy had his fair shake. My feeling coming out of that jury room was that if this guy could get a fair shake from this group of jurors, our system is working fairly well. My experience is completely anecdotal, but if Frattin's jury deliberated for only 30 minutes on this case, there are only 2 options: 1. You had 12 completely fraudulent jurors that cared about nothing but getting a player out of trouble or 2. This case was blasted apart in the court room. Completely blasted apart. I don't care what Chris says because he'll continue to say whatever he wants. IMO, even if this is Grand Forks, I find it very difficult to believe that after jury screening (assuming both attorneys were present) that this jury was stacked with Sioux hockey lovers that would sell their soul to get this kid off of a legit charge. I don't buy it. Maybe there were some members like that, but not 12. All you need are 2-3 people who stand up on their principles and this deliberation would have lasted at least a few hours. No way it ends in 30 minutes. This was all about the evidence in some way shape or form. This wasn't a biased jury.

How much negative PR could there be, really? Except for the schools affected how much PR is there on this issue around the country? I submit it's a back page story everywhere except those locales affected directly. No one really cares that much.

Until the Sioux are filled with low-character, slough-offs, I will always root for them and think they have a chance in every game.

I agree with you. We should be more concerned if this team wasn't generating chances and wasn't playing very hard. We're very frustrated as fans because chances are being generated but we're not scoring. That means we're just about there. One of these games someone is going to pay, and hopefully it starts tonite. They said goalie interference on TV last night but the box just says interference and the replay shows Knight pushing a defender out of his way right before the shot. The refs arm goes up right at that time. I don't think this call had anything to do with the goalie.

Wasn't his problem that the Sioux had had several PP in a row? Maybe I'm mistaken.

They did, he went for a walk on the ice!

Friday Gregoire Sat Marto

That's an incredible read.

I just would have liked to have that name on our team.

At first I was embarrassed that a Sioux fan would post this to a reasonable fan of another team who has been a very good guest, IMO, on this site. Then I realized with that level of arrogance you must really be a gopher fan in disguise so I felt better.

Mazzacco on the 3-0 goofer deficit: "Well, they got their fair share of the breaks last weekend and the weekend before. They need to generate something on their own tonite."