jimdahl

I guess I don't see how any of those UND quotes have anything to do with when UND starting using the interlocking ND? The ND article you linked did indicate that 1899 was the first reference to the ND in any Notre Dame documentation. While it seems very unlikely that UND was using it in its first 16 years of the school's existence, that isn't proof. Further, UND didn't start having any athletics until 1888, so they would have had to have a logo for an athletics program in the first 11 years. Pretty unlikely, IMO, but again, not proof. Teamsioux -- like Tony said, if you want to get the good teams to come to your house, you've gotta pay. UND has been traditionally reluctant to pay. That said, given UND's athletics funding, there's no excuse for having one of the worst schedules in the NCC (remember that Mesa St. was supposed to be decent when we entered into that contract).

First, it is true. A teenage kid made a mistake, plead guilty, and paid the price (restitution, community service, probation). Fortunately, most of us aren't newsworthy so the stupid things we do as teenagers don't make the newspapers.

Sorry if either of these are repeats, I didn't see them posted elsewhere. GF Herald article on Blake's breakout season. It also has a little summary at the end of Sioux currently in the NHL. Fargo Forum article on Blake's emergence

From our friends at UND athletics media relations: Jeff Anderson Hockey Scholarship

Don't get me wrong, I have no real opinion on the move, not being a regular game attendee at REA. However, the Dakota Student article did claim that there was no net loss of seats for students, just relocation of about 100 to the upper deck:

Are you trying to upload a new image or link to an image elsewhere? Perhaps changing it to "no avatar" first, saving that, and then trying to upload the new image will help. After you select the new image on your computer, you are hitting the submit button at the bottom of the page? It's tough to diagnose when we're not standing over your shoulder

Two things jumped out at me in that article: Conference affiliation The quote you included about how the Carr report recommended moving ONLY with a suitable conference and how NDSU seems to be ignoring that. I said it almost a year ago, now -- conference affiliation is such a big determinant of the likelihood of success of a division move that I still don't think UND should move unless it knows where it's going first. The "success" of a move is all about money, and conference affiliation determines the whole profit structure of the program: it determines your travel costs and who comes to your town to play (gate revenues). Though SDSU can't move without a conference, NDSU will probably go ahead either way and provide a good test of the waters. Punitive NCAA regulations NDSU is trying to get the NCAA rules changed to be less punitive. This would be absolutely great for every lower level school thinking of moving up. UND has stated that a change in those rules is of one of the few potential catalysts for a move on its part. Very brave of the NDSU officials; I wouldn't want the perception of me succeeding in my job to be hinged on getting the NCAA to pass legislation that was LESS punitive than current rules. Believe me, though, I'm rooting for NDSU in this very limited and narrow scope

It's an interesting idea. The current rules allow you to play out of division in any one sport (excepting only basketball and football). It seems like those exceptions are there because the big schools don't want some small school to declare their basketball program D-I just to get a piece of the pie without actually upgrading their entire athletics program. However, if you combine the idea of having divisions for sports instead of schools with the idea of hard and fast division limits, it could work. Made up examples: D-I football: you must have 17,000 average attendance and at least 90% max scholarships D-I basketball: you must have 5,000 average attendance and at least $1m basketball budget etc... Rather than institutions being classified (i.e. UND is D-II), sports would be. UND football could be D-IAA, UND basketball D-II, UND swimming D-I, etc... The sports would then be governed by the rules of their division; football players would have to comply with D-IAA rules, basketball with D-II, and so forth. Realistically, of course it would be nearly impossible to bring about: It would benefit the small schools and D-I legislation tends to be about preserving the status of the big schools. I also don't think you're going to see anyone rush to abandon multi-sport conferences any time soon, so those schools that are not D-I across all sports would always be the ugly stepchildren. And then, of course, there's Title IX, you'd have to attach women's programs to men's to ensure that women got the same opportunities at the same level.

Nice jersey.

You certainly bring a unique point of view to the discussion. I wonder how many sober gopher fans are going to rush in to support you on that assertion?

What a puzzling claim, I specifically remember being at last year's Frozen Four and I remember seeing a lot of Sioux fans. I also know quite a few who are going this year -- look for Sioux jerseys while you're there, I promise you'll see some. As for predictions about how our teams will do in 2006, predictions are cheap, particularly since you're likely to be long gone before the results come in. If you really had an ability to predict sporting event outcomes, you should be a very rich man instead of hanging out on message boards

Without even leaving the web site (shameless plug), I found the number 6070. However, I seem to remember that sellouts were actually reported as 6067.

Now that the season is officially over, I just wanted to say goodbye and thank the parents of the seniors who have frequented the site and board. I assume we won't see much of you guys anymore, but it's been great having those informed insights! We'll miss your boys on the team and seeing you here and at the games.

Having lived in the Twin Cities, I'm forced to agree with JWG that Minnesota fans (the state, not the school) are the most fair-weather I've been around. However, I also have to say that UND has definitely had fair weather fans. Again, it's tough to see now because we're in a period of relative success. Anyone who we went to hockey games in the early 90s knows what I'm talking about (I think all 2500 of us probably still know each other).

Point, Sica. The Forum reports:

Alright, tough guy, I have the Internet too. The rule changes you quote are from 1999 (though not in effect until 2002), DePietro was drafted in 2000, so they definitely weren't in response to DePietro. DePietro opted in after he was in college but while he was still too young, so would have lost his eligibility even if that new regulation had been in effect. The DePietro issue was that he was a young true freshman, so couldn't opt-in after his freshman year without losing eligibility, whereas almost all other hockey players who have played one year in the NCAA can. I will give you that it looks like that new regulation is what allows Smaby to put his name on the list without losing eligibility.

You have to "opt-in" if you're 18 or 19 (20-year-olds are automatically eligibile). Opting in when you're 18 forfeits your NCAA eligibility. Therefore, the soonest NCAA players can be drafted without losing their eligibility is when they're 19. HOWEVER, it doesn't go by your age the date of the draft, rather it goes by your age on Sept. 15 the year of the draft. So, any players who are 19 or older on Sept. 15, 2003, can be drafted in 2003 entry draft without losing eligibility. Players who are 18 or older on Sept. 15, 2003, can be drafted in 2003 but lose eligibility. Anyone who is 20 can be signed as a free agent and doesn't have to go through the entry draft. Edit--There's also currently a loophole by which players who have been drafted from the NCAA can stay in school for two years, then leave, and become unrestricted free agents despite having been drafted, but that will certainly be closed in the next CBA. As usual, someone will correct me if I got it wrong or missed a detail

1999 was Maine, BC, UNH, and Mich State in Anaheim. One of my personal favorite road trips ever (though everyone else seems to rip on the Anaheim finals, I thought they were awesome). Vermont made the tournament (not to be confused with the Frozen Four if Wiseguy ever reads any other threads) in 1996 and 1997. In '96 they won their first round game, then played a multi-OT game against bye-rested CC, who went on to win. I think in '97 they were one and out.

It's funny how critical you are for someone who is wrong. It's the NCAA hockey tournament. The Frozen Four is the final round with four participants (what did YOU think four meant?) Just like the NCAA basketball tournament is NOT the Final Four, the round coming up with only 4 participants is (ask IUPUI if they made the Final Four, they'll answer no). I did reply, twice. Why don't you address the substance of either of my replies? I listed all the ways I could honestly think of that you could say UMD was better than UND this season and vice versa. Looks like the Sioux dominated. I then pointed out how you admitted your motivation was jealousy of how everyone thinks the Sioux are a great program and I reiterated that we think they are a great program because of their storied history, their recent successes, and even that they did better than UMD this year.

The way I interpreted the meaning of this thread (cause it's what I was thinking myself) had nothing to do with the "regular" Gopher posters who come by to talk Sioux hockey (and sometimes a little smack). We kind of even like some of you. Rather, in the last day or two it does seem we've been inundated with newbie fans of other schools (look for the single digit numbers by their names) who want to talk about their school instead of UND in the UND hockey forum.

From his own admission, yet another of the random visitors trying to talk about things other than Sioux hockey is here because of his jealousy of the attention the Sioux get. Perhaps people think the Sioux are some great college hockey team because they are? I won't bore you with the history becuase I'm sure you know it. Not to just dwell on the past, I already tried to use facts from this season to compare the Sioux to UMD. Sure, it wasn't the best year in recent memory for UND (2 championships and 4 MacNaughton Cups in the previous 6 seasons), but the Sioux are still currently a better team than UMD.

Sigh. This is a pretty active thread in the UND hockey forum talking about an article in an NDSU newspaper about UND hockey. Activity in this thread has nothing to do with any of us caring about NDSU or any other D-IAA or mid-major sports. In fact, the whole point of the thread is some NDSU fans' obsession with UND's hockey program.

Coming to a hockey forum to make a post that says nothing other than you don't care about hockey is a ridiculous waste of the time of everyone here. Talk hockey or leave this forum.

Alright, this thread is worthless. Let's stay on the topic and take the personal bickering to email or USCHO. UMD won the head to head this year UND won better record, better conference finish, better PWR, better RPI, better Bradley-Terry, higher finish in the polls, and made the NCAA tournament. Demonstrating absurdity by example: UNC beat Duke in the ACC tournament. I wonder how many UNC fans are taunting their Duke friends right now claiming they're the better team? H2H is really only meaningful as a tiebreaker for teams with identical records, and UND/UMD were definitely not tied in outcome this year.