jimdahl

For the other stats geeks on the quality of 02-03 Sioux goaltending: Brandt's GAA last year actually put him at #7 all-time at UND, tied with Goehring '99. His GAA was #2 in the WCHA behind only McElhinney (as ScottM said, when your team has the puck...) Brandt's SV% was #6 in the WCHA, tied with Dubie and well ahead of NCAA ring-owning Weber. That was the big point of my stats table: I don't see any relationship between goalie rotation and winning. Low scoring in recent years stands out as a more anomalous stat. Kollar played '01-02 in front of the lowest-scoring UND team in Blais' tenure; Brandt in '02-03 in front of the next lowest since Kvalevog. The offensive slump certainly affected fans' perceptions of goaltending.

Looking at playing time of the listed counter-examples confirms for me that UND is quite unusual. Since 1996 the MOST a UND goaltender has been on the ice was 73%, then it drops to the mid-60s in a hurry, and 3 years below 50% (none of the other examples listed ever break 50%)! Apologies to disinterested people for the long stats dump: Denver split time between its 2 goalies Berkhoel and Dubielwicz 2002-03 Dubie 58% 2001-02 Dubie 58% 2000-01 Dubie 67% 1999-00 Wagner 76% UMD did with Reichmuth and Anderson 2002-03 Reichmuth 74% Minnesota mostly used Weber this year, but in 2001, Hauser had 35 starts, Johnson 6 and Weber 10 2001-02 Hauser 74% MSU-Mankato split between Volp and Jensen and Nixon had 3 starts 2002-03 Jenson 53% Wisconsin used both Bruckler and and Kabatoff 2002-03 Bruckler 55% Tech used both Ellsworth and Rogers 2001-02 Ellsworth 65% St. Cloud used both Montgomery and Moreland 2002-03 Moreland 64% As far as statistical significance, the sample of Blais' coaching is too small for me to bet too much that Blais' unusual numbers are a result of his coaching habits rather than anomolies (which I did imply). Sample size aside, 3 of the last 7 years in which no netminder exceeded 50% of the ice time, when compared to the other percentages listed above (which were intentionally chosen to show that other coach's DO play multiple goalies), is at least interesting, if not significant.

Win % / goaltender with most playing time / # goaltenders / goals for UND / goals against 94-95 .500 Kvalevog 78% 3 151 167 Blais 1st year 95-96 .513 Kvalevog 81% 3 162 149 96-97 .744 Schweitzer 45% 3 190 125 NC 97-98 .782 Goehring 64% 2 188 113 98-99 .825 Goehring 73% 2 199 102 99-00 .761 Goehring 65% 3 192 95 NC 00-01 .728 Goehring 59% 3 183 121 01-02 .459 Kollar 43% 4 134 136 02-03 .663 Brandt 47% 4 172 116 Blais' preference for multiple goaltenders is indeed unusual (ex. Lucia's netminders have received between 72-93% of play time in his 4 years), which is why that's an obvious thing to jump on when the team is down. However, I don't see any numerical relationship between goaltender playing time and team quality. Though in the Kvalevog years high GA was the problem, low GF seemed to be the actual anomoly in 01-02. Don't forget that '03 was actually a pretty good season punctuated by an end-of-season offensive collapse (goaltending did not appreciably deteriorate). As a relatively outspoken critic of "musical goalies", I do have to point out that one big difference in the 96-97 stats is that the Sioux switched goalies somewhat mid-season, whereas the last two seasons have involved more split playing time throughout. Though my personal inclination would be to try more to develop netminders, Blais' insistence on instant performance has certainly produced good results so far. My concern is more about any potential long-term effects it may have on recruiting.

An update on Beasley. Sounds like the summer league is taking some adjustment.

FYI-- CNNSI has a good explanation of free agency. In those descriptions, note that Goehring is restricted, not unrestricted.

It's easy to measure that Bochenski's infraction is worse than Brandt's alleged infraction (felony vs. misdemeanor). However, trying to compare the severity of any legal infraction to Minnesota's NCAA rule violations is tough. State and Federal governments don't particularly care how many NCAA rules you break. The NCAA isn't particularly concerned what laws you break (with a few exceptions). The two sets of rules are on completely different scales and have completely different punitive enforcement schemes, so are really quite difficult to compare generally. I'll go out on a limb and claim that I think most NCAA athletes would find an NCAA violation that prevented post-season play or removed eligibility to be a much worse infraction than a felony plea that resulted in community service and restitution.

Here is the AP version of the Herald coverage Sicatoka quoted. North Dakota coach wants more details on goalie theft case

Digging through the SiouxSports.com archives revealed this article: July, 1997 - Kallay denied eligibility appeal What I reported at the time was:

I've always thought a good open air commercial development near UND could really succeed. What UND is really lacking that a lot of other campuses have is a good collection of shops / restaurants / bars near campus (think State St. in Madison). I think students would embrace alternate eating options within walking distance (a mix of small cafes, burrito joint, Starbucks, etc...). Also, Grand Forks would be a lot safer at 1am if there were more watering holes near campus. Throw in some clothing stores, a shoe store, etc... interspersed with the sidewalk cafes / bars and the campus could have a real jewel. This is one area in which I agree with UND's "patience". Don't throw up a bunch of junk just because the land is open. Plan carefully to put in services that students and the community want near campus, and that will make UND more attractive to potential applicants.

The Cap Times reports from Eaves that Suter will play at least one year at UW.

I agree, the requirement to find a conference before moving is particularly onerous and Davis is definitely in a unique situation. The bottom line, though, is that NDSU hired a consultant who was an expert in reclassification and that's what the expert consultant recommended. It takes incredible hubris to tout the consultants' opinion that reclassification will succeed, as NDSU did, but then to simultaneously ignore the steps that the consultant indicated were key to the validity of the analysis. Keep in mind that SDSU had the same consultants and got the same recommendation. However, the SD government followed the report and forbade SDSU from reclassifying without first securing a conference. Even with that onerous barrier, the SDSU administration still seems to think SDSU will reclassify next year. I guess that will be the real test of how realistic such a restriction is.

The point, Tony, is that you're listing random propositions that have absolutely nothing to do with Sicatoka's point: UND is following NDSU's consultants' recommendations better than NDSU is. Again, he even allowed as to how he didn't mean to imply that it's evidence that UND is secretly plotting a D-IAA move, he just found it interesting. You didn't like what Sicatoka said so listed a bunch of "propositions" that you wanted to talk about. No problem, many of them may be fine discussion points; however, it's confusing because you're claiming your propositions are a response to Sicatoka's original point (in bold above for handy reference), though for the most part they seem entirely unrelated. Yes, we all know UND has not hired any consultants, he said UND is doing better at following NDSU's consultants' report. Yes, we all know UND has not announced any reclassification, but that's not relevant to his point.

Nice try. One only has to scroll up to see what Sicatoka actually said: Sicatoka said that UND is following NDSU's consultant's own report better than NDSU is. In that same post, he even allowed as to how he wasn't claiming it was an intentional path to a transition, but rather could just be coincidence. It has nothing do with UND having announced a formal reclassification study or not, nor has anyone claimed that NDSU will never again belong to a conference. It seems like you were just trying to throw out as many non-connected tautologies as you could to dispute arguments that no one is making.

* - if UND were to reclassify, that is.

While there are people in the administration who want to see a move studied, I'm not sure any of us (certainly not me) meant to imply that UND has secretly decided to reclassify as D-IAA and is just waiting to see what happens. I'm just applying the filter of "how would this affect a division reclassification" to most of the sports news coming out of UND because I'm personally interested in UND reclassifying. UND's improvements will give them among the best facilities and funding in D-II. Many D-II fans have observed that every couple years, the top schools remaining in D-II leave for D-IAA. While UND's improvements don't demand that UND reclassify, they certainly put UND in a better position for a future reclassification than if these improvements were not made. That's of keen interest to those of us hoping for reclassification.

I don't think anyone is disputing that UND is being particularly cautious, to the point of not even formally studying a move yet; a sharp contrast from NDSU, which decided to jump in head first and work out the details on the way. Those styles reflect the current administrations, but not necessarily the fans. I know a lot of UND fans who wish that UND was being more aggressive, just as I know a lot of NDSU fans wish NDSU was being a little more cautious. That said, I can't imagine why any Sioux fans would demand that a division reclassification precede using the profits from our highly-attended and profitable athletics programs to replace aging facilities.

No doubt hockey is king at UND. I have a bit different take than BisonMav on how that affects UND's willingness to consider D-IAA: UND's marquee sport being revenue positive helps athletics as a whole. We've already seen a willingness by the UND athletic department to use the success and revenue of the hockey program to benefit other sports (REA sports center announcement was quite timely for this point). UND hockey is currently at its peak with tremendous new facilities, high attendance, and recent national success. While that means the gap between attention toward hockey and other sports is at its widest, in absolute terms the other sports will actually benefit from the increased revenues. UND's marquee sport already being D-I eliminates worries about reduced competitiveness following a move. A school like UND can be more competitive in D-IAA football than in other sports which aren't tiered. However, moving to D-I/D-IAA doesn't actually hurt hockey since UND already plays hockey at the D-I level. This is a sharp contrast from if basketball were king at UND, where there would be a legitimate concern about our ability to compete nationally at the D-I level. With hockey as the driving sport at UND, there's no concern about whether we'd rather compete for D-II championships or D-I conference championships; hockey would be completely unaffected by a move. It's no secret that I'm proponent of NDSU & UND moving, so wishful thinking certainly colors my interpretation. UND has definitely shown extreme caution in this area, and I suspect at this point will wait until NDSU's situation stabilizes so it can fully integrate NDSU's successes/difficulties into its own analysis.

Here's the word from UND. Looks like the $7m cost will be covered by current athletics revenue sources and increased revenues from the new venue. Though vague, I assume this means REA revenue. The men & women basketball teams will play in the main REA whenever possible. Looks like 4000 seats in the new REA Sports Center. The shrine to hockey is turning into a multi-sports complex. That will be great for the other sports, giving them the benefits of the largesse of REA, but will it dilute the benefits for hockey? How long before the basketball teams start wanting more basketball decorations in the main arena (since it is now their home, too)? Will putting basketball floors in and out regularly affect ice quality?

They got that info from TB (so not a mistake by the author at HF), though UND has not announced any written or verbal committment. That help? (Edit: Alright, here's another reference for y'all: sports.tbo.com)

I did my part, I went to two games at the Kohl Center. I suspect UND beating UW in attendance will continue to be the exception rather than the rule in the future. UND selling to capacity because of a very new arena coincided with UW having an awful season as the warm glow has worn off their newish building. Until someone builds something bigger, I would still expect UW to lead the NCAA in attendance most years in the medium-term future (unless UW stays a cellar-dweller). For now, I'm quite happy to see UND packing in over twice as many fans per game as they did just 6-7 years ago, and being #1 is a great testament to the building, its staff, and the team. While the joke is that there's nothing else to do in G.F. on a Friday night, making it "the event" in town was not a sure thing; going to the hockey games was something only a few thousand people did on Friday nights when I last lived there in the early 90s.

Expansions nears vote (GF Herald)

Fox Sports draft capsule for Beasley

I'm sadly forced to agree with BisonMav that Josef's is perilously closer to being on UND's football schedule than NDSU's. I can even keep my comment on topic by stating that I hope NDSU's move to D-IAA lights a fire under UND to at least bring in quality D-II opponents if they stay D-II (however, unless NDSU football loses miserably every year in D-IAA, how long will Grand Forksers tolerate UND being in a "lower" division than NDSU?)

The SI mock draft shows Suter at #3, Vanek #7, and Parise #10. Frankly, that strikes me as a little high for Vanek and a lot high for Parise. I suspect Mr. Dolezar knows better than I, though, and it would certainly be great for the WCHA and college hockey if it turned out that way.