Dikaia880

I completely understand what your saying, you have actually made a lot of good points. I hope I haven't come across as unreceptive or above your opinion, Triouxper is a whole other story mind you. You are right that the NHL has to try to attract the marginal fanbase, but they also cannot turn their backs on the 87% of current fans. It can be inferred that if 87% of the current fans are in favor of fighting, that it is not something that keeps marginal fans from watching. I'd also think that if fighting is going to keep those 'fans' from watching, the hitting and inherent physicality of the game will be as much of a turn off for them. Not to mention look at the UFC, and how popular ultimate fighting has become. Granted we don't want a bunch of Vegas wannabe's running around the arena's, but at the same time do we want a bunch of marginal, uneducated hockey fans who would be better off watching women's hockey? Leagues do constantly change the rules of their sport, but they should not change something that will attract only a small group of fans at the expense of the current fan base. That would be selling out. There are many many things that the NHL can and should do to attract more fans, but I have never heard someone say that they don't watch the game because of the fighting. Most of the time its because they don't understand what's going on, or have never been to a game.

As with spelling corrections, you know you're winning your argument when all the other guy has is attempts at personal insults. You're right T-bone, I do have better things to do, so I'm going to leave the office and go home now. I hope you don't miss me too much...

You know full well that you can't attach statistics to that, and asking for them is obsurd. Sioux runner's comments regarding lifting the puck, buying beer, etc. is a great comparison. I've actually only taken exception to one comment you've made, which is in regards to me as a coach and what I must have put in the minds of the youth. When I coached I tried as hard as I could to instill sportsmanship and ethics into the kids that played for me. I'll take exception to anyone claiming otherwise, everytime. You took exception to a generalization. As far as me getting a God Damned clue, I could say the same for you but that would get us right back to where your pointing out my spelling error got us, the middle of no where.

Dickzero? VERY intelligent. Why do you take exception to my thoughts on the 'average' hockey fan? If you're know so much about the game why would it bother you? You sure don't act like you know the in's and out's of a hockey fight, if you do why have you questioned them the whole time? So, If you like fights, and you have never said abolish it, what have you been disagreeing with over the last 8 pages? You know nothing about how I coached, what I coached, or even what level I coached. Now who's make the broad generalizations? Sorry, I thought they went along automatically.

The way the game is played is up to the players, coaches, and leagues. It is their sport, if fans enjoy it so be it. But outsider's should not be allowed to tell the insiders how to play the game. If that makes sense. Except for the fact that people that have played the game, have fought the fights, and taken the cheap shots have seen first hand, in game, how fighting limits cheap shots. THAT is why it has everything to do with whether you've played or not.

I assume you're reffering to me, I'm 27. Excellent post Yttrium... Obviously you seem to not understand the how fighting in hockey generally works (I say generally because it is an imperfect world.) A clean fight does not imply a lack of sportsmanship, its two men involved in something that is as old as the sport itself. If you do not like it, maybe cricket or polo will suit your ideals better. There are no hug and kisses in hockey, but things are square after a good fight. I do not dictate anything alone, the history of the sport and the people that have played it have dictated it in aggregate. There is a number of hockey fans who have no clue as to what is happening on the ice in general, and I tend to find those are the fans who think fighting has nothing to do with the game. No where have I said that an average fan shouldn't have an opinion on the game. What I do not like is when someone who has never played the game decries that fighting as a un-sportsmanlike act that belongs no where in the game. University park, beer league, intramurals, NCAA, NHL...they all have their unwritten rules. I do not expect someone who hasn't played the game to know them, but I would expect they'd have a slight idea that they existed, I do not understand how you cannot fathom that Triouxper.

Very cheesy. Not to mention very few people have a clue what the flame is for. Not to mention we are not the University of North Dakota flames. An interlocking ND that involved the U would distinguish us from notre dame, while at the same time keep up with out roots.

What is this dog I keep hearing about... Is it warm and cuddly?

Well you got me, I left out an R in your name and in embarrassed. You know, they say you've won your argument when all the other guy has left to argue about is your spelling. You're quite wrong about me, I'm not here to impress anyone with my "wisdom." I would like to know, however, how I am misguided or arrogant (other than because I disagree with your view on the subject?) Oh, and while we're on the subject of spelling and grammar. You probably don't want to have that extra space in-between truth and the question mark in the first sentence, and the commas go inside the quotation marks. And this, in general, makes no sense... What are you talking about reason and truth?

Because, how many clean hits have taken out star players? Enforcers are there to influence other players into hitting lighter or not as often. Eh, sort of. I think what I was trying to say is that fighting is going to be influence to all but the biggest guy. Also, rarely are there two teams that go up against each other that don't have two guys that could beat the crap out of each other at any given point. I was saying they are fundamentally different and that's why paybacks and enforcement is different. Football its settled in the piles and on the play to play basis. Football is based on contact and hits, cheap shots are standard and accepted more times than not. Baseball, if one guy gets beaned, you can bet the other teams guy is getting beaned. Those end up in worse fights than in the NHL don't they? Hockey isn't based on contact like football is, and cheap shots aren't accepted as part of the game. In football a defenseman has to make a hit to stop the other team, in hockey a good D-man wouldn't need to use contact to get the puck. The use of contact then causes tempers to flare whether it is legal or not, and because it you can't simply cheap shot the guy in the bottom of the pile on the next play, fighting and overt paybacks are the common place retributions.

Again, you are mistaking what I am saying. Why would I be embarassed? That was not directed at you or PCM. I was directing that comment at Thetiouxper, I question the amount he knows because he has said nothing reasonable so far, unlike others. Saying that "having played the game isn't proportional to knowledge of the game" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I'm not saying you cannot have a vast knowledge of the game without having played to a certain level, years, or etc. What I am saying is that without having played or been very closely associate with the sport beyond the level of fandom, you aren't going to understand the unwritten rules of the game (or that of any sport.) And certainly having experience playing the game is directly proportional to the knowledge one has of any sport.

Sorry if that came off as something I meant to say. Of course I don't think that, but the fans at Engelstad are by far the least educated fans I have ever come across. The point I am making is that I don't expect people who barely understand the game, to understand the complexities that happen during the game on the ice. The things that are said, the things that happen, and the way things work.

Thank you southpaw. He understands exactly what I'm saying. Who made me an expert on proper hockey etiquette? I guess no one, other than my 20+ years of playing, ref'ing, coaching, and watching the game. I would think playing, ref'ing, and coaching the game would be directly proportional knowing anything about hockey. Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to go ahead and assume you are like a lot of the Sioux fans out there. They are fans, not because of the game, but because it is the thing to do in Grand Forks. Half the crowd at Englestad has no clue whats going on, which can be judged by the amount of oh's and ah's that go on when a dumped puck gets mistaken for a shot. Actually "Fair Fight" isn't an oxymoron at all, "Jumbo shrimp" now that is an oxymoron. There aren't any guarantee's in hockey or life. If I cheap shot someone or put a good clean hit on a star forward (mind you not all fights start from cheap shots) I'm likely to get hit in return and very possibly get into a fight. Is it likely to influence the amount of hits and the force I use on the ice, yeah it is, unless I know the other team doesn't have a fighter or anyone bigger than me. Hockey is fundamentally different than football, baseball, or basketball. You cannot compare the physicalities of those sports to hockey. I sorry, but that is not how it works. Win or lose, its over MOST of the time. There will always be that next thing, the goal in fighting isn't to elimate all, but to intimidate the other team into not doing it as much.

Have you ever played a game of hockey in your life, this post shows your complete ignorance to the game and how its played.

Most of the time, its over no matter who wins, if its a fair fight its over. If some guy comes up behing Paukovitch and bertuzzi's him, that's not a fair fight. But if geoff and a Sioux player square up and drop the gloves (as it almost always happens) the fight ends it. There isn't going to be a sucker punch in a fair fight. It is, actually, a conclusion to that event. Does Paukovich end his cheap shotting ways, eh probably not, cheap shot artists with get their shots in. Does is make him think twice on who he's hitting, does it make he throw less cheap shots, you bet. I've been in many fights, a winning fight or a losing fight will make you think twice about who and how you're hitting. Because its an imperfect world. That's not something you could measure. But if you watch both games on a regular basis, and aren't like a lot of our fellow Sioux fans you'd see what's really going on during the game. Not just the checks and the shots.

If you watch the fight you'll see that boogaard didn't drop the gloves until Fedoruk had already come up on him gloves off & fists in his face. Who wouldn't fight back in that position? This is a college game, had fighting been legal Paukovitch would have found himself in a fight no question, in my mind that would have ended it. The problem is that instead of being able to fight him Prpich goes and throws a cheap shot, cheap shots bring more cheap shots, especially in college hockey where there are no true enforcers. The amount of cheap shots is substantially lower in the NHL, partially due to maturity and partially due to fighting. Fights don't bring more cheapshots in the NHL. College the maturity level might not be there and you'd end up with more stickplay and what not.

Not really what I said at all, although a nice attempt to spin it that way. Neither the enforcers or rules will ever stop cheap shots, because its a physical sport and unless you take away the physical stuff there will ALWAYS be fighting and cheap shoting. Enforcers keep the cheap stuff to a minimum. If I'm paying a superstar millions of dollars a year, you bet I'm going to have a guy who will be able to keep him protected. Then you wouldn't be stupid enough to get into a fight with him, so you're a hell of a lot less likely to do something that will get a guy like him to the point of wanting to start something. There isn't fighting in pee wees, obviously not what I was saying, again nice spin though. The point I'm making is that a lot of you guys seem to have a lot of time riding in the stands and little on the bench. You think you know what is going on down on the ice, but you truly seem to be mistaken. It happens all the time...

Until the stick gets up under your mask or you get a nice hook to the larynx. Stickplay is way worse than fighting. I wonder how many of you have actually played hockey at a level past pee-wee's... Having Boogaard doesn't give the Wild any more incentive to throw cheapshots. There is an unwritten code in hockey about fighting, sometimes it gets broken. Fedoruk broke that code in a couple ways. Someone already tried to fight Boogaard, it should have been over. Boogaard didn't want to fight him, Fedoruk should have dropped it. Fedoruk paid the price, but the other Wild players aren't going to go out on the ice ready to stick someone because they can hide behind Boogaard, because they really can't. Fighting is a part of the game, while there are still cheap shots and goalie getting run, there would be much more of it in the NHL if there weren't enforcers. Cheap shoting shouldn't happen, but a legitimate fight is no worse than a clean hit. While there isn't "fighting" in college hockey, how many scrums are there? How many times is the game delayed for 5 minutes breaking something like that up? There were at least 4 at Saturday's game against Mankato. I'd rather watch two guys have a quick clean fight, than a bunch of guys dancing around getting nothing accomplished but increase the number of retalitory cheap shots & sticking.

The UND flame logo should not have anything to do with athletics, it is a horrible looking logo. The interlocking or overlapping ND has been used at North Dakota for a long time and was used well before Notre Dame used it. I had a sports marketing class in undergrad at UND and we had a discussion with one of the licensing reps for UND and she said there was an agreement between the two universities. If I remember correctly Notre Dame is supposed to use the interlocking logo when it is by itself, however the overlapping ND, that UND only uses, can only be used by Notre Dame when accompanied by another mark of the university such as a clover leaf. Here is their licensing information which has some explaination of usage. Notre Dame Licensing sheet. I sent an email to a friend in the UND marketing dept, who should be able to tell me what the actual agreement was, I'll let you guys know. But unfortunately Notre Dame will always get away with using the overlapping ND because they're bigger and obviously more well known.