jimdahl

As expected, the SD Higher Ed Board of Regents has decided to allow SDSU to move if it can first secure a conference affiliation. The Regents President expressed skepticism about the proponents' arguments, but said he won't stand in the way of SDSU taking care of itself (but stressed that SDSU is responsible for self-funding the move via athletics revenues only): * The regents dictated that the schools will not get additional funding from student general activity fees or state taxes to support such a move * They cannot cut academic scholarships to fund athletic scholarships * Any deficit in the athletics budget must be dealt with by cutting athletic programs, scholarships or coaches' salaries No surprises in this step (most people thought there was very little chance of the Board of Regents rejecting SDSU's own decision, an extra hurdle that ND schools don't face). SDSU won't actually submit an application and move unless they first secure a conference affiliation (the biggest hurdle that NDSU bypassed). Nothing here to really tip UND's hand yet, as nothing's really changed. If SDSU finds a conference and then moves, it will be interesting to see if 3 teams leaving the NCC is enough to force a response from UND. http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeenne...ews/4724889.htm

At any level below NFL head coach, a highly successful coach will always have the opportunity to move up to the next level. I'm tremendously happy to have had a coach who brought home a national championship, conference championships in half his years coaching, and now has the opportunity to move up. I wish him well, whatever his ambitions! (I can understand how NDSU fans who are considering buying out their coach to make him leave have a bit more sour attitude, though).

This makes it sound like the deal is almost signed: http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story...p-6526339c.html

Odds are they were responding to the same events of the previous night that caused this thread to start. However, it's generally good advice to bear in mind when posting that this is a public forum that is visited not only by fans but by much of the UND community including athletic staff, other media, players' families, etc... For every person who posts there are nine who are just reading.

I've used my 3-year-old Sprint PCS phone to look at scores on Yahoo! Sports. I presume if you have an HDML or WML browser in your phone that you could do the same.

The vast majority of readers are passive participants. To vote in polls requires you to have a message board login, be logged in, and choose to participate in the short window that the message is active. 50 is about the number I would expect.

Engelstad: A champion for the common man Ed Koch, Las Vegas Sun

Are you thinking of Wallinheimo? He was good enough that he didn't care what we thought. He'd always put on a little show (especially at opposing rinks) skating around and shooting at the crowd with his stick, etc... I think he was around 92-95 or something like that.

It's this very "rule" that I'm calling a rumor. It's hard to prove a negative, so I can't prove the rule doesn't exist. I've yet to see ANYONE in about 4 years of USCHO discussions prove that the rule does exist, though. Once someone does, I'll then accept it as truth. In the meantime, I can't imagine why 6 Big Ten schools would want to form their own conference (as already stated, the current 5 cannot). Clearly if there were enough Big Ten schools playing hockey, they would want to form their own conference. However, that won't be a concern for a long, long time. I just couldn't let this one slide by. The reason Notre Dame is not in the Big Ten is simply because Notre Dame says no every time the Big Ten comes begging (every couple years for as long as I've been following Big Ten football). I've actually heard the proposition that it would be easier to create a Big Ten hockey conference filled out by D-II or D-IAA institutions than to invite D-I institutions who are members of other D-I conferences for other sports. Wishful thinking by D-IAA/D-II institutions, most likely. I would expect the most likely situation to be that the Big Ten would just form it's 7-8 member conference when the time came and have a hefty non-conference schedule of traditional rivals (UND, etc...)

The biggest rumor is that if a 6th Big Ten team starts D-I hockey that they will obligated to make a Big Ten conference. That's what usually starts up this discussion, when people speculate that if Penn State starts up hockey, the Big Ten schools will have to abandon their traditional conferences. Fortunately, it's not true. Though you can't form an auto-bid eligible conference with fewer than 6 teams, the Big Ten has no bylaws about its members having to play together in all sports (the usual rumor). It's certainly entirely speculative with only 5 Big Ten schools fielding D-I hockey teams. It won't even become a possibility until there's a sixth, and even then it would seem kind of silly.

As Sauer said in his INCH column when asked his favorite arena: So far we haven't given opponents much reason to fear the new REA. Give it time...

Though computer rankings have flaws of their own, looking at the RPI tells an interesting story: http://slack.net/~whelan/tbrw/2003/rpi.shtml UND is #7. Despite having the #1 record overall, our strength of schedule is #39. There's been enough interleague and league play such that RPI is becoming relevant this time of year. (BTW -- we're also #7 in PWR). One could make the argument that UND has done all they possibly could, given that they've had an easy schedule. What more could you ask of a team than putting together the best record in the NCAA? I guess my answer is that we could have been more convincing against mid-tier SCSU and Mankato. It's all academic at this point, as the Sioux will play more difficult opponents soon and get a chance to prove were they belong.

The thing that bothers me about Wisconsin is that you can be up on them 5-0 in the third, they'll get a goal, and the Kohl Center will go crazy with the sieve chant. They even sieve the empty net. The M-I-N-N-E-S-O-T-A is definitely annoying, but I think only because I'm the opponent. I had season football tickets to the gophers a couple years when I was a student there, and it's quite a different feeling to be on that side of 40,000 people chanting the same thing in unison. Gotta admit, UND has nothing similar. It's sort of the same feeling I get when Wisconsin breaks into "varsity" or when that old Wisconsin guy leads the crowd in big cheers -- angry, but probably somewhat respectful because we have no such traditions (no, the chicken dance and beer song don't count).

I still disagree with this, as did your consultants, as did SDSU's consultants, as does the SDSU administration. Oien has stated explicitly that SDSU will not move without a conference. Well, this is tricky. As you've pointed out, hockey is a very different sport from football or basketball for schools the size of UND or NDSU that play "big time" hockey but "small time" football and basketball. Take UND: 21 home games this season * 11,000/game = 231,000 through the turnstile For an NCC school to generate that sort of gate from another sport would be hard: Football-- assume 5 home games, average attendance needed: 46,000 (not gonna happen). Basketball-- assume 15 home games, average attendance needed: 15,400 (not gonna happen). That's why UND is so concerned about hockey -- they're getting the gate that a Minnesota gets in football or that North Carolina gets in basketball. No NCC school is going to hit those levels in football or basketball any time soon. That's why NDSU has been so interested in hockey for 20 years (despite lack of an interested fanbase). Further, another profitable sport and relationships with schools such as Minnesota and Wisconsin could actually have made it easier to go D-I. Ironically, those exact benefits are keeping UND from moving (grrrr) because they already feel "big time" enough.

Don't suggest this on USCHO or fear the wrath of some users who will point out (impolitely) that it's been discussed before. It's all economics. Not enough college hockey fans to buy the game.

How absolutely odd. Though Babich did indeed have 5 years coming into 2002 (so add 1 to get 6), I'm certain that Lennon just joined the Sioux in 1999. However, I've certainly got to give you credit, JBB. It was definitely an honest mistake. I also would've quoted the stats off the NCAA web site without any fear of them being wrong. Update: I just figured this out. That years/record is all-time for the coach so they include Lennon's two years at University of Mary.

I know it's heresy, but I think the insidecollegehockey.com power ranking is a better representation of the current relative strength of teams. The polls seem very reactionary to each weekend's results (anyone who lost must plummet, anyone who won must climb). Therefore, a little winning streak (despite against mediocre teams at home) vaults you up in polls. Looking at Mankato's relative ranking and at how much of a challenge they gave the Sioux at home doesn't make it seem like the Sioux are THAT much better. Of course, as kiork said, finding a way to win those games is what makes a championship team. Hopefully the Sioux can ride this momentum into a much more difficult second half of the schedule.

Your "facts" seem wrong in a way that drastically shifts the statistics in favor of your argument. Lennon joined UND in 1999 so has coached 4 seasons. His record over that period is 36-12 (game results tallied from this site): 1999 9-2 2000 8-3 2001 14-1 2002 5-6 Babich joined NDSU in Spring of 1997, so has finished 6 seasons as Bison head coach. His record over that period is 46-23. (cite: http://www.gobison.com/mens/football/coaches/) Using the real numbers it's quite a different picture, isn't it? Lennon, 36-12, 4 years, 1 national championship, 2 NCC titles Babich, 46-23, 6 years As far as this season: if you need to pick on a rival's 5-6 season to make your own 2-8 seasons more palatable, I hope you find a new rival soon, you may need one!

Hmmm... wasn't this tried last year? http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?ac...act=ST&f=1&t=68 It's kind of crazy. Apparently we have absolutely no patience to try to develop a goalie, but instead feel the need to somehow immediately put up a championship caliber team. That's a lot of pressure on whoever sits between the pipes.

Nice camera! I've only used older CoolPix, but the old model had a long lag time between hitting the button and image capture. It was also pretty slow at getting ready for the next photo, but that was because I was set at the highest resolution and it used an old Compact Flash card (apparently the new CF cards are significantly faster). My Minolta Dimage uses SmartMedia, which is noticeably faster than the old CF cards. The delay between pressing the button and the capture still seems like forever when trying to capture action shots. I have lots of funny pictures of an empty bobsled track from the Salt Lake Olympics. With bobsleds moving 90mph, I never even managed to get a close shot of one with a film camera (non-SLR).

Well, for Wanless, who as far as I know was unemployed, it was a great opportunity. For already employed coaches, I'm not sure Sac State is actually a better final destination than UND (depends on how much you value nice weather, I guess). However, I definitely agree that any ambitious coach who wanted to end up at an even better school could have a great opportunity to use Sac State as a stepping stone. Rebuilding any sort of a program there would be a fine feather in the cap and help line up better D-I coaching jobs. Some coaches also might relish the challenge of trying to build a new program rather than ride in the comfort of an existing (usually) successful program. I guess it all depends what motivates Dale and what his ambitions are.

Hey, we resembl... er... resent that remark. Fortunately, NDSU managed to save us from actually being worst. We are going to miss you when you're gone Back to the D-IAA move--there's no doubt the transition period will be difficult and have a negative impact on recruiting, but it is only temporary. I think that's a big part of UND's hesitation, they're afraid to go through the years of pain. Thomas hinted at as much in the earlier statement about how if the rules became less punitive, that may sway them.

Makes me wonder if Lennon's chances to move weren't hurt a little by this season? I suspect he appeared on a few D-IAA institution's "short lists" after the 2001 season, but he failed to sell himself this year. However, as dbarker pointed out, I'm not sure everyone would consider Sac State a better coaching job than UND. There's a lot of overlap between D-IAA and D-II, and UND is (usually) considered near the top of D-II and Sac State near the bottom of D-IAA. If he wanted to use it as a stepping stone, it's probably a great opportunity; if he's not that ambitious, it might not be a much better job. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out JBB. I actually hadn't heard it before.

Just because an article in the Fargo newspaper happens to be about wrestling doesn't mean Star2City can't quote it because he's a fan of a school without wrestling. Absolutely ridiculous. UND has won 7 D-I national championships. How many have SDSU or NDSU won? UND has 4 more sports than NDSU. You're barking up the wrong tree on this one, SDSUFAN. I don't think even JBB is going to jump in to Sioux-bash with you on our sports sponsored vs. NDSU's.

Nope. There are quite a few sports that only one of the schools has exclusively. For men, NDSU has wrestling, UND has swimming & diving, and ice hockey. For women, UND has hockey, swimming & diving, and tennis. I think, also, that when NDSU becomes D-I, indoor/outdoor track will become separate sports.