jimdahl

I'm a big fan of the reduced crease size (I understand it's being changed to become identical to the NHL crease instead of the current half-circle crease used in college). It's way too easy to get a crease violation yet be nowhere near interfering with the goaltender (the entire point of marking the crease). Right now, if you're coming from behind the net to the non-action side for a setup, you have to consciously skate around the crease that's jutting out to the side of the net.

I definitely agree on the "big losses at home" and "big wins on the road" being poor indicators. I don't see how either of those provide additional insight about the quality of the team. The fact that it was a win or loss is already recorded in winning percentage. The strength of the opponent is already reflected in RPI. Why over- or underweight a game because it's subjectively considered "big"? Of course, bringing in worse teams who manage to win the "big" games does make the tournament more exciting (and, hopefully, thereby increases revenue).

I actually interpret the proposed rule changes as removing some of the current bias toward weaker conferences. It makes sense to make such changes now that CHA was granted a berth (there's a BIG gap between WCHA and CHA in talent). The proposal to change RPI from 35-50-15 (wins, opponent wins, opponents' opponents wins) back to 25-50-25 makes strength of schedule more important. The increased weight on strength of schedule will favor middle teams from the big conferences over top teams from the small conferences. Similarly, changing the definition of TUC (teams under consideration) to .500 RPI instead of .500 record will also favor the big conferences. The other considerations (such as adding a strength of schedule to the last 16 games criteria) also seem to be part of the movement to favor teams who play a more difficult schedule.

They do specifically mention hockey as one of the nine "sports with large, loyal and passionate audiences". However, as they mentioned, they seem to be making deals on a conference-by-conference basis. That seems likely to favor the supports that are played under the umbrella of the basketball conferences (i.e. Big Ten). I wonder if having it's own conference schema hurts college hockey in its ability to negotiate television contracts. Big Ten can make a collective bargain for all of its supports, whereas WCHA comes to the table with only one sport (or two, if you want to count it that way). Anyway, a place for more obscure sports to get airtime is always a good thing

This is clearly premature after just one .500 season, but I was pondering how long it would take for the Sioux hockey bandwagon to unload? I remember going to games in the early 90s when they could barely fill half the 6000-seat Old Engelstad. The new Engelstad is a sellout because of both the recent success of the team and the novelty of the new arena. How long will the REA continue to sellout, and moreso, require large donations to the Fighting Sioux Club to get good season tickets? It strikes me that a county of 66,000 people can't support selling out a 11,500 seat arena in perpituity. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the fair weather fans shakeout so it becomes possible to pickup tickets to a weekend series when I visit G.F. However, it could be genuinely depressing if in two years the attendance at Sioux games is 3,500 people in the new Ralph. Of course, when the Sioux put together a winning season next year, this is all moot.

Not much new in the article except to note that they're soliciting comments from the athletic directors of member institutions. The article also mentions SCSU's protests and the SI article. http://www.ncaa.org/news/2002/20020401/active/3907n02.html

I think I want one: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%7E458922,00.html

I'm inclined to agree, Kirk, that the +/- seems a little high.

Gotta say, I'm not offended: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ities_2 A bunch of students at Northern Colorado have decided to name their team "fighting whities" in an attempt to offend white people who don't understand how native american names are offensive. Personally, I find it demonstrates just the opposite -- I'm not offended at all. Frankly, "whities" is kind of a stupid name, but I would be similarly unoffended had they gone with a white ethnic group ("Fighting Norskes", "Fighting Irish", etc...).

More commentary on the Harris poll cited in SI (from the Mankato Free Press): http://www.mankatofreepress.com/columns/bo020311.html

I understand putting in single-season players. The goal, after all, is simply to name the best players who ever played in the WCHA. One would expect some of them to have left early. If you start to draw a line, do you disqualify someone who left after 3? On a related point -- if there's no bias against single season players, how did CuJo make the list but not Belfour?

The final group was released March 7. It included two additional UND players: Karl Goehring (G, 1997-2001) Bill Reichart (F, 1954-57) That's a total of 7 of the top 50 players in WCHA history from UND. http://wcha.fansonly.com/sports/m-hockey/s.../030702aaa.html

My biggest fear of moving to D-I would be the budget. UND would clearly have to cut a lot of the negative revenue sports because the costs would go up dramatically and football/hockey/basketball would not be able to subsidize them. I think UND is doing the right thing by sitting and waiting. Let NDSU/SDSU/UNO/etc... dip their toes in the water and see what happens. If NDSU comes running back to D-II, it will have been an expensive and embarrassing mistake they made. If all of UND's premier competitors go D-I successfully, then we can more easily and confidently follow.

Well, the UND Alumni site simply states: Makes it seem like there won't be a regular satellite transmission (they usually give the coordinates if there is).

I have to agree. Whining that the fix is in before the game even begins is a little weak. To me it looks a lot like he's just preparing to lose, but putting his excuses in place. In any game, if you go in on a witchhunt for bad officiating you can usually find something to complain about (in either direction).

It actually may not be so easy to catch the games in the Twin Cities: http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/1908444.html

Group 4 was released Feb. 15.

I have to agree that looking at Denver's recent games alone can provide a glimmer of hope. Certainly UMD's 3-3 tie is the biggest cause for hope. The recent losses are pretty tight games against CC/MN/SCSU. It's worth noting that Denver also split with MN in their December meeting and that the SCSU series were the first meetings between Denver and SCSU this season. Though Denver did drop two to CC recently, the games were tightly fought 2-3/2-4 losses. In the previous meeting this season, Denver won equally tight games 3-2(ot)/3-2. I'm not sure the recent string of losses actually reveals a change in the Denver team, rather a really difficult stretch of the schedule. That said -- I no absolutely NOTHING about the Denver injury situation which could certainly change things dramatically.

Cool. I'd noticed a discussion in Hockey-L about the trifecta + Hobey, of which the only winner was Broten. However, it seemed a little unfair to include the Hobey (an individual honor) and not any of the NHL individual honors a player can win. Eddie has won a couple of Vezinas and a Calder in the NHL. One could argue his merits, but I'm not sure Broten won any individual honors in the NHL.

No, they're certainly not God, but to get more than 2 points off them would require UND's best play of the season and Denver's worst. Denver's only conference losses have come against Minnesota, St. Cloud, and CC (though note that Denver doesn't have a losing record against any of those teams). Against more UND-like teams (UW, AA, Mankato) they are not only 8-0, but outscored those opponents 37-12 in those games. UND facing opponents of Denver's caliber (only SCSU is currently close in points, but I'll throw in Minnesota) is 1-6. Having gotten only 2 points off Duluth last weekend, I'm not sure I see what A-game the Sioux are bringing to the Denver games that will overcome those trends and bring about 2 points, let alone more than 2. One bright point -- the teams I listed as being "like UND" are very close in conference standings, but UND actually outscores them by about 20%. Here's hoping I'm wrong...

Apparently there's a lot of optimism here about getting 2 points off Denver.

We won't even talk about Elizabeth Berkley and "Showgirls". She underwent some surgery before that role.

Here is not only "Friends Forever", but also "Did we ever have a chance". It's not pretty: Zack Attack

Will this be UND's first year since '96 without a Hobey Baker finalist?

I thought multi-year scheduling deals were pretty common. However, if not, it's entirely likely that the Michigans of the world don't want to bring in UND because it's now a weak team. Just as we don't want to play the creampuffs, the Sioux are now a creampuff