jimdahl

Exactly. If you're intolerant of wrong numbers, don't pay attention to this one, either. UND is now going to go study the consultant's assumptions and outcomes and change some assumptions and tweak some outcomes. UND made a guess (about $2m immediate increase). They hired a consultant who came back with a bit bigger number (about $4m increase in five years, excluding inflation). The numbers are different, but not by the order of magnitude some are trying to suggest.

I think you're confusing someone else with me. One of the few things I said about NDSU's transition plan was that I thought they should be paying MORE attention to the recommendations from their consultant's study. A main thing I was saying about a potential UND reclassification, before such was announced, was that they should get an external assessment. You seem to criticizing UND for having to go to a consultant to get an accurate number, while simultaneously lavishing praise on NDSU for using a consultant to come up with what proved to be a great number.

That's why UND hired the professionals. UND made back-of-the-envelope guesses when deciding whether to even take this step, but making the move based on those would have been monumentally stupid. Now they have an external refinement of assumptions/outcomes on which they can move forward planning. It's a certainty that the assumptions and some of the outcomes will change in subsequent revisions as UND tweaks the consultant's plan. So, if you're intolerant of what later turns out to be "wrong" information, it's probably best to ignore this number, too. So, I may have missed it, but isn't the point of this thread that we're supposed to be getting a facilities master plan soon?

That would be great. Though our most recently designated peers range from the likes of Illinois Chicago ($8.5m 05-06) to UVA ($93m!!!), I think a lot of us think of schools like I-AA/hockey power Maine ($14m 05-06) as the athletics target peer. This would put us right there. Definitely an exciting time to be a Sioux fan. I can't wait to see how the next five years play out. Boy, I don't think so

We generally chase down multiple accounts in two situations: 1) When we notice a person is actively participating in a single conversation with two different names (usually attempting to create the illusion of consensus or increased popularity of his opinion). In this situation, we usually warn the person to discontinue that behavior. 2) When someone is being suspended/banned, we monitor to ensure they don't participate under a different name. All aliases are blocked if they do. We have rarely noticed someone register for a high number of accounts, in which case we begin to carefully monitor their activities (reading those registrations as a likely indicator that they're up to something). Otherwise, it takes a great deal of investigation to differentiate between a person with two accounts and two members of the same family posting.

Sorry for the omission -- I've definitely also heard from coaches about things on the site. The point I'm trying to make is that the lives of the people discussed here revolve around their sport significantly more than ours do as fans. We find the time to come by and read about it, of course the stakeholders named above also do. I always try to keep that in mind when formulating my own posts.

This is dangerously misleading. As I try to remind people a couple times per year, with the number of players, families, friends, girlfriends, staff, media, and stalkers that absolutely do read SiouxSports.com regularly, topics most certainly do make it to the attention of people being discussed. I think criticizing players for their play is fair game, as they've chosen to put themselves in the spotlight. However, I have also advised people to formulate it as if they were saying it to the player's mom's face, because that's not so far off.

Though Lee potentially departing certainly deserves his own thread, there's been quite a bit of discussion on this over in the Oshie thread that you may also find interesting to read.

Final Standings Despite a few attempts to stuff the box (we're not limiting you to one entry, but be reasonable, people!), no one picked Michigan St. to win it all. (If you're confused about the entry in the consensus picks, it's this mysterious outcome fellow who seems to have bowled a 300 ). Congrats seanpc03. On the flip side, churc100 should probably avoid the sportsbook

Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the results of this season's test. Despite not being linked anywhere but this thread, about 500 people were registered and about 15,000 text messages were sent (that poor intern!) There was one major hiccup (the scores coming in a seemingly random order during the MN series), and a few peculiar delays (scores not showing up for > 1 hr). Overall, though, I personally found it a highly valuable service for the target audience (people not at or otherwise monitoring the games in real-time). It'll definitely be back next year, probably with a few new options. All subscriptions are hereby cancelled and the thread unpinned, so watch for a new announcement in the Fall!

This was posted in a now-closed thread, so I'm happy to move the conversation over here... I continue to be skeptical of limiting discussion to those who happened to become fans, find the site, or decide to register in a certain time window. A lot of people tell me they lurk without posting because forums like these can be intimidating to newcomers with a feeling of being a private club dominated by the old-timers. The playoffs are the board's busiest time, when interest in the team is highest and new people and long-time lurkers are registering to chat about the games, make meeting plans, trade tickets, and join the siouxsports.com community. I can't imagine passing down that opportunity to bring in members who could become active participants. Some details that I have that may help you see what I see: * 127 new registrations have been approved since the 2007 WCHA Final Five began. * 4 people were banned in that period. Of those four, only 1 had registered in that period; three were previous registrants who came to troll/taunt after a Sioux loss. I don't think it makes sense to actively turn away 127 people interested in joining SiouxSports.com and talking about Sioux hockey to prevent 1 troll from managing to get off a few posts before we banned him.

That's not as possible as it once was. The D-II playoff criteria were amended two years ago to require 10 regular season games (6 against D-II opponents) to be eligible for the playoffs. (The rule "coincidentally" followed GVSU getting a top seed after cancelling their final regular season game in 2005, leaving them with a 9-0 record.) The rules do say that "an institution may submit a waiver request to the football committee for their consideration if a given institution is not able to satisfy this latter requirement", but I can't imagine we want to go there.

Y'all all cut it out. I don't see a personal attack, I see a cheaply veiled threat, but mostly it's just interpersonal bickering that isn't of general interest to the rest of us.

Confirmed

Not really any new information, but: Women's hockey job - Fee Throws Some discussion of the required qualifications, also, which should please some readers...

Teach a man to fish... Had you clicked "More Links" under Other NCAA Hockey on the hockey front page, you could have found that information yourself.

http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8390

Site selection team begins GFAFB visit

Yep, he updated his post. The CHN is the same as here, updated with the most current games. USCHO's does seems to be from sometime in the past, but it's tough to determine precisely when. Someone else asked once for the ability to run KRACH over an arbitrary set of dates (e.g. Christmas -> now, or Beginning of season -> 3/20/07, or so forth). It's not a bad idea and is trivial to implement, but building an interface around it will take a little time.

Actually, it's off for the playoffs. Sorry.

I'm in. Mrs. SiouxSports.com and I just got flights in Thursday morning, staying downtown.

The same point could have been WITHOUT the unprovoked and unwelcome attack on other posters.

Well, now that's your own fault. Your pick comes up as whatever you typed into the "username" box. Though your message board name is reserved for you (no one else can pick it) you can also choose an arbitrary unused name and type it in. That's intentional so people without message board accounts can participate. You must have typed in your email address.

Huh -- AZSIOUX also reported not getting his picks in right. I'll have to see if I can figure out how to make it easier / more obvious that it worked next year.

Oops -- thanks. The display of your picks has always been right, I apparently just didn't update the display of the teams from which you made those picks when flipping the leaderboard on yesterday. Fixed.