jimdahl

I think the forecheck improved a bit after Minnesota's goal (as I mentioned above), but not nearly as much as the backcheck improved. They definitely seem to lack aggressiveness on offense so far. My end of the 2nd update: That period looked much more like I expected the game to look. UNH successfully choked off a lot more of the shots, Ayers was superb. Lucia now says the way to win is to get more shots off with traffic in front of the net (I said that yesterday!) UNH failed to generate much offense. I was really surprised UNH didn't generate better opportunities on that end-of-the-2nd power play (and almost gave up a SH!) Their offense has been spotty.

After the 1st: I think Minnesota read my post about the UNH D smothering them on shots -- the Gophers seem to be doing whatever they can to put the puck on net, taking a lot of low percentage outside shots. Of course, that's not a criticism, a slapshot straight into Ayers slipped in the five-hole. Up until Minnesota scored it looked like they controlled the ice, easily skating around UNH like they did Ferris. However, I thought UNH really stepped up the neutral zone checking (in both directions) after UMN's first goal. They really started limiting the outside shots at that point, too. What's up with UNH's power play? The first one was one of the most pathetic I've ever seen in playoff hockey. Then on the power play right before the period ended they could shoot and pass at will -- it was like it was a drill with no D on the ice. UMN had two pretty good power plays; as a lot of people predicted, stupid penalties by UNH might be the key to this game.

I'll repeat my response to StreakyGophers "Who can possibly be better than Minnesota next year?" thread: I think Minnesota is going to be the best team in the WCHA next year in much the same way as everyone thought Denver was going to be the best team in the WCHA this year.

If bad things come in threes, we've had our three for the month. There was (yet again) an hour or two of forum downtime this afternoon. Apparently almost everyone who uses PHP & MySQL has been having problems the last few days as some critical pieces of software have begun to require an upgrade to MySQL 4.x. That upgrade apparently causes problems with lots of other widely used software. The downtime lasted so long because I was in the midst of a Zelda marathon and failed to check my email. Since it is such a widespread problem, lots of people are working on it so I'm confident it will be resolved soon. In the meantime, I've installed a "band aid" script that verifies the SQL tables for the forums every 15 minutes, so until they fix this problem we shouldn't ever have more than 15 minutes of downtime.

The possible way I think UNH could win is if their aggressive, physical defense can keep Minnesota from carrying the puck to the net, and leave them dumping and chasing. The ideal UNH battle plan should involve keeping UMN under 25-30 shots. Clearly Ayers being on his game could magnify that problem dramatically. "Wait, Jim," you say? "Wasn't Minnesota tested just recently against a similar team in Ferris St?" Not a bit -- Ferris was thuggy, but they were SLLOOOWWW. The Gophers had plenty of room to just skate around the backcheck (think of how many times that happened). I don't think UNH is quite that slow and I don't think the Gophers will quite have the room. So how does Minnesota win in this situation? Plenty of ways -- be willing to move the puck through traffic in the zone, or put up a mighty defensive effort and hold UNH to a couple goals. The UNH offense wasn't particularly impressive yesterday (the only time I've seen them play), but I don't how much of that was the mighty Cornell D. Keep in mind that I've seen UNH play one opponent who is very different from UMN. However, if UNH plays like they did on Thursady, I'd be surprised if Minnesota won this game on forechecks or breakaways. It's always interesting to see a finesse team clash with an aggressive D, and very tough to predict the outcome.

As the announcers said, it's pretty tricky to wave off a high stick goal on the basis of video replay when the high stick standard is no longer visually measurable (i.e. goal crossbar, some body part of the player), but rather 4 feet. It's sure to be a very controversial call. They need to put those height measurement lines like they have at 7-11 on the boards.

Hmmm... I think we're all agreeing but don't realize it (or don't want to admit it). That's exactly what I meant two posts up when I said: Like teamsioux alluded to, this isn't the 6000 fan per game team we had back in '96. Sioux football is hot right now riding a new stadium and one year removed from a national championship (despite a mediocre finish last year), so the timing is right to step up and sink in some $$$ to improve the product.

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