jimdahl

UND's PWR not likely to move much in bye week Having lost none last weekend, we can still afford about two more losses... I also always find it fun to see how much our ranking can move on weeks we don't play.

Please note in the forum terms and rules, to which everyone agrees when they register-

That's my favorite but for those who prefer an alternative, I usually recommend CHN.

You must be looking at USCHO... their columns are somewhat misleadingly labeled. Their number of pairwise comparisons won is 29, but winning more is better, so winning 29 is good for being #2 in PWR (PairWise Ranking). As to the topic of the thread... I agree. It's been a long time since I've heard anyone talking about where a college hockey team was in the polls, or hoping to rise in the polls. Experts seem to think KRACH is a better non-biased ranking, and PWR is all that matters for the tourney.

Added in a comment here. Minnesota's in pretty good shape. Winning just over 50% would still make them a likely tournament selection.

Don't forget that I'm not doing the conference tournaments, which will affect the final PWR. A full run gets the autobid anyway, so ignore that scenario. However, it is possible in the tournament to get 3-4 wins and only one loss, though likely only 1-2 of those wins against TUCs. The target probably isn't really #13 like I keep saying, but instead something like #17, to leave enough room to climb.

UND's road to the NCAA tournament is getting steeper The full article also includes a look at this week's impacts of the Wisconsin series, a look at this week's "on the cliff" team -- Mass.-Lowell, and the most dynamic (from a PWR perspective) series of the week -- Northern Michigan vs. Miami.

I think it's a question of when we find out about the changes. The only definitive source I know of is the NCAA Championship Handbook, which isn't yet available for 2012. It could contain language in the selection criteria that differs from last year (which happened in 2010-2011 change, when no one knew a particular change was coming until we all saw it in the Handbook in January 2011, half way through the season). However, this year the guys at CHN and USCHO have already found out about at least one change through their contacts on the relevant committees, so it's a decent guess that there won't be any more changes.

Some may have noticed Minnesota's precipitous fall in PWR (9 spots, from comfortably in the tournament at #7 to out at #16). It's one of the most extreme examples I've seen of the volatility problem with tracking PWR this time of year. When you look at Minnesota's PWR details, you see that they lose a lot of comparisons that are only using 2 criteria -- RPI and either TUC or COP (the other not being in use due to lack of common opponents, or the other TUC not yet having played 10 games vs TUCs). Minnesota was previously winning a lot of those comparison by a hair, having a slightly better RPI (.5468 before last night's loss), and thus the tie-breaker in the 1-1 comparison. However, that RPI was pretty mediocre for being #7 in PWR (the curent #7 has .5537) such that a loss push Minnesota's RPI low enough (.5608) that a lot of those comparisons flipped. The good news is that it should be just as easy to climb rapidly with a few wins, but Minnesota really needs to improve its TUC record (.5000) to reliably cement itself a spot in the top 10, especially as that criteria comes into play vs. additional TUCs (6 current TUCs aren't yet using it, with TUC records of .4375 to .5833).

Do you know anything about the current setup? e.g. Does this involve the transfer of some existing distributed IT/jobs to UND, or are those functions already centralized but just getting a new building?

As some of you may notice, some big sites around the Internet (such as Wikipedia, google, Mozilla, Wired, icanhascheezburger, and reddit) have gone dark today in protest of the SOPA / PIPA legislation currently working it's way through Congress. In short, in an attempt to provide stronger copyright enforcement tools, the bills have the potential to significantly harm any sites built on user-generated content (e.g. link sharing, wikis, message boards, etc...) by putting responsibility for the copyright-compliance of user-generated content on the site owners. No one knows exactly what future enforcement of such a law would look like, but you could imagine the RIAA seeking to shutdown a site for a user posting a link to an unauthorized video stream, or a link to instructions on how to rip a DVD. Note that existing laws and enforcement mechanisms do already prohibit sites like message boards, wikis, and link sharing from hosting copyrighted content. Under the current DMCA Safe Harbor law, copyright owners must notify the offending site and ask them to remove the content, and only if the site does not comply can the copyright holder seek additional action such as a forced shutdown. If you're interested in more details, you can get better legally-informed opinions by following the links to any of the sites above and reading why they're choosing to go dark for the day.

I think Wyo has been pretty consistent in claiming both teams looked pretty bad. Being a pretty results-oriented guy myself, I'm pretty happy with UND's performance, though obviously saw plenty of ways each team could have played better... but UND played better than NDSU, which was the primary goal for tonight.

Final attendance: 7169

59-54, Final, UND wins. Congratulations guys, another step forward.

And not much offensive rebounding. Combined, it was a lot of up, shoot, miss, down, shoot, miss.

Crowd looked decent on TV, anyone hear an attendance number yet?

I thought the issue was the cameras and truck, not so much the broadcast signal? Did FSN (are those the same people who send the same feed that I get on FCS?) bring their own cameras and truck, so this game is locally available in HD while most REA-produced home games aren't? My FCS feed is the same as always... not HD, but a whole lot better than streaming audio over my laptop.

Me too. I love seeing the Dahlstrom and other G.F. ads while watching Sioux games in D.C., much better than a national Pepsi ad or whatever. Thanks to all the sponsors for making it possible for me to see Sioux hockey on TV, which I couldn't just a decade ago!

I'm sure most have seen this elsewhere, but there's been so much discussion on the potential effect of the nickname's retirement on alumni relations and fundraising that it seems to deserve a mention in this forum. Record Alumni Donations To UND Despite Nickname Retirement - WDAZ I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion. FY2011 for UND ended on June 30, when the nickname retirement was in a much different (and more confusing) place. So, even half of FY2012 will have occurred with the name in place. The effect, if any, would be in the next couple reports. I'm not predicting any negative impact myself, but I know others see things differently.

And for those who like to dive into data trends themselves (like OSU getting knocked out of #1 for the first time this season), you can now play along at home. I'm pleased to announce the newly revised ranking trend charts, now with historical data back to the 2004 season. NCAA Hockey Ranking Trend Charts

Minnesota-Duluth passed Ohio State in PWR (and KRACH) last weekend, knocking OSU out of #1 for the first meaningful time this season. It comes down to the narrowest of RPI margins on the head-to-head, UMD .5899 OSU .5874. Ohio State's next opponent (Michigan) is enough stronger than UMD's (Nebraska-Omaha) that Ohio State is quite likely to retake the lead if they sweep.

Well then, it seems like that's the big difference between you and most of the people you're disagreeing with. It's not that they're turncoats, not real UND fans, NCAA plants, or are even less tolerant of potential sanctions than you; they simply believe that the sanctions will come through as threatened and you don't. Being optimistic about the Spirit Lake action and wanting to see it completed is certainly a reasonable position. My only concern is that I fear a lot of people signing the petition might not be as well informed as you, and instead incorrectly think that the petition itself is somehow going to force the NCAA not to put us under sanctions. I'd hate to see the people of N.D. think they're making a certain choice, then be surprised to find that they just voted to put UND under sanctions.

While that would certainly make things interesting, it won't actually prove that, either. Alas, the petitions don't actually make any mention of the corresponding harm, they just say "UND must be named Fighting Sioux". So, the petition drive is certainly gathering some signatures from people who don't realize that passing such a law will put UND back under NCAA sanctions. There's simply no way for us to know how many signers realize it and want to reinstate the name anyway (like you) or how many incorrectly think that passing the law will somehow force the NCAA to drop the sanctions. Unfortunately, I would guess a lot of the signers think the latter, but there's really no way to know.

Thanks.... USCHO and CHN both have it wrong, which is why I didn't notice the conflict. I suppose I really need to also start comparing to undsports.com which does say 7:37pm. Fixed.

They prove nothing of the sort, liking a "Long Live the Fighting Sioux" page and not supporting the petition drive aren't mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the vast majority who post here have supported almost every effort to keep the name in any way that didn't result in NCAA sanctions. There's a big gap between supporting the name and wanting to force the school to keep it against its will in the face of those sanctions. I wouldn't guess that many who have clicked those "Like" buttons deliberately support the latter to quite the extent you do, in that such a position certainly isn't spelled out on them. I would guess that majority are just people who support the name and are sad to see it go, like most of us here.