onlooker

I hear you. I guess I would like to see a little more emphais on player accountability. It seems a lot of kids today that their first reaction to things not going just he way they planned is to point the finger or start a revolution vs. looking to make things work. Ultimately the coach needs to make the chemistry work, clean house, lay down the law, whatever needs to be done. When there are people working behind their backs despite their efforts it just makes that harder and what good does that do? Grass seems always greener.

Yeah, I'm not saying I necessarily like that checking's not in women's hockey, I was just explaining to the player who asked why it's not in the game. It has nothing to do with girls getting hurt and everyting to do with a decision made about marketing the game years ago. They looked at things like tennis where people watch the men's game for the rocket serve and voley game. They watch the women's game for rally's and finesse. If you watch the game for the rocket serves, you won't be impressed by the fastest women's serve b/c it doesn't stand out vs. the men. If you like the rally's you'll be bored silly at the men's games. Respectfully also, I would say that any agile defensewoman with good positioning and talent can stop any forward or force them to a poor shooting angle any time. It's simlar to women's lacrosse where the rules allow very little contact. The scoring is higher at lower levels than the men's game, but levels off with talent at the college level. The comment about boxing - I think girls should be able to do whatever they like and do it with all their heart. But, aside from boxing afficiondos, many people watch boxing to see people get hit hard and guys just hit harder and faster and that's a big reason for the lower draw and likely a continued lower draw. Not saying I like it or necesarily agree. It's just reality.

You can't check b/c when women's hockey wa heading the olympic way years ago they decided to drop it to differentiate it from the men's game. If you're about watcing hockey for the big hits, why watch smaller, slower girls do it when you could watch big, fast guys do it? Noting against girls, they're just not genetically a big, strong or fast. It's not like women's boxing has really taken off. Checking is fun for players and they like it, but you'd be surprised how many converts have come over from the men's side to see a more finesse, classic style of hockey.

A 2-23-2 record could, certainly sound to me like a very common result of poor internal leadership - meaning from the players. It's tough for a team to win while they're dedicating their energies to "getting their coach fired for the past two years" instead of getting on the same page and working hard help make things work. Theere'll be plenty of kids to take those 18 scolarships - the kind who shut up and work vs. the kind who get to be big shots at new programs and that's why they go there. Now, a coach can do something about internal leadreship - mostly develop it, but it's hard to change it from negative to positive without kicking it off the team which looks like it's been done in some instances. And, it's not that the coach didn't recruit these players inthe first place, but beggars also can't be choosers when you're starting a new program either. If a kid comes drunk to practice or can't run a 5K do you think they should be on a DI college team? If some players are telling recruits not to come to UND then, who's fault is that? If you don't like it, leave, but otherwise you're just shooting holes in your own boat? Does that sound like a good kid to you? Regardless of talent, it seems to me that if I were Rivard I'd be thinking, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" with some of the players who have quit or been asked to leave. If you pend all your tim pointing fingers at problems instead of looking for solutions you ARE the problem. Again, Rivard recruited these kids and maybe she waited to long to cut them. Maybe she didn't have the support to cut them unless they did something huge like showing up to practice drunk. But you've got three coaches who see these kids two hours a day and 20+ players who are together all the time. It only takes one or two negative ringleaders to drag a team down and keep it down. The coach needs to do something and it looks like maybe she's trying to kick it into gear, but these players need to take some accountability, grow up, and recognize that college athletics are a privilege, not a right. They don't need to like their coach and it's not the coach's job to be liked. But either they do what the coach asks them to do and shut up about it or leave. Period. Let some kid who would be happy to run in the snow (or probably wouldnt' have to because she showed up in shape) just to have the chance to stand on ice for the anthem. Sounds to me like Rivard is trying to clean house and there are two ways to do that: cut kids or make the environment unhospitable to those who are part of the problem so that they quit. Sometimes "a fish stinks from the head". There are two heads on the team - the coaches and the team leadership. Again, coaches can help with that team leadership by teaching them to lead positively, but not if those charismatic kids are not willing to be helped. If that's the case then, time to clean house.