lawkota

This story appeared on USCHO yesterday on BU's new arena, set to open the middle of next year. BU Shows Off Harry Agganis Area There are some nice remarks in there regarding REA and I thought Jack Parker was very pointed in his remarks about the arenas at DU and CC. But it is this section that led me to start this thread: Can't afford something that cost half as much? It's impossible to compare costs for a number of reasons. One, building in Boston is alot different that building in GF. Two, we don't know how much of that $225 went into land purchase and site prep - two items where REA got off cheap. But I think it points out what a bargain Ralph got for his $110 million - the country's best hockey arena built on a fast track timetable in an area of the country not the most hospitable to year round construction. Edit - My brother pointed out to me that the USCHO article is misleading because the $225 million is for the entire student village which includes a student activity facilities and residence hall(s). So the point of my entire post is lost but I can't delete it. Admin??

This is what I heard: When Nike became the hockey team's "supplier" they shipped out jerseys that were not unlike the Nike ones you buy in the pro shop. Needless to say, Blais and the players were not impressed and refused to wear them. Under UND's prodding, Nike then went to Gemini to source out the Sioux jerseys but forbid Gemini from selling them to the public or even producing a replica. That is why you can't find a dazzle cloth Sioux jersey in the pro shop and also why they no longer sell the authentic jersey like they did 2 years ago. I have no first hand knowledge of this, it is just what I have been told by someone else. It might 3rd, 4th or even 5th hand. I'll be the first to admit that I'm pretty far out of the loop. I have no idea what UND gets out of the Nike relationship but I recall reading something not too long ago that suggested that Nike doesn't have to pay as much as you would think and in some cases, nothing at all. It seems alot of schools want to sport the swoosh. Pretty powerful marketing.

I also am impressed by the thoughtfulness of the letter. In previous posts on this subject I would guess that I've come across as anti-student, even though that's not the case. I can't stand the vulgar cheers, they're tired and lack imagination, and I've never understood why its necessary to stand for an entire game, just for the sake of standing. Nevertheless, if I were a student, I would definitely be leery of the administration here, despite the obvious sincerity of the letter. There is a reason why the students feel they get the short end of the stick......they do. They are brushed aside in the administration's and FSC's grab for $$$$. Yeah, it's the nature of college sports these days, but that doesn't make it right. (We have to chase the money, every other school does it. It's actually worse for the students at other schools. Sound familiar?) Students are a huge part of game atmosphere and they deserve more respect than they've been getting. Student seating for example - from when the new arena was announced until the first game, half the lower bowl (although whether this is accurate I don't know) quickly became 3 sections and then 2 as soon as it became apparent the demand there was for season tickets. More recently, what did the students want as part of the deal to sit? As I understand it they wanted help from the arena in getting the rest of the crowd involved - school song lyrics on the big screen, chants rolling around the arena on the 360 board, less piped in music. What did they get? Nothing. Where is the incentive? I think that student section has gotten worse with every preceived slight from the administration and I don't think it's a coincidence. I have always thought it would be nice to recognize the student sections before every game - like after the Sioux are introduced and before the lights come up, spotlight the student sections. Maybe use the unbelievable video capabilities the arena has to get some student vs. non student cheer contests going on. Hokey stuff, I'm sure, but my point is that the students have to be made to feel that they are more important to the atmosphere of the arena than the non-student fan. So while I agree with everything in Roger Thomas' letter, I also think that the administration owes the students something first. Maybe an apology. BTW, I think the reaction on this thread from students to the letter proves that if you treat the students as adults, that is how they will behave.

I don't see what the big deal is. Nothing beats a little taunting to rub in the fact that you won a game you shouldn't have. Hopefully, this sticks in the craw of the Sioux women and they won't throw away the game should they meet in the playoffs.

The risk I see to UND staying in D-II long term is that NDSU will stay D-I. The schools were once peers, now they are not. For many, the first impression of a school comes from athletics. The perception will be that NDSU competes a higher level than UND in athletics and is therefore "a better school". Over time that perception, and the decisions prospective students make from it, will evolve into reality. UND will then play second fiddle to NDSU in the state. I'm not saying that it will happen, but it is a risk. Now, if the Bison completely flop in D-I, playing .500 ball in a poor conference, this perception may never take hold. But if you're betting on athletic failure out of NDSU, I would make sure to get long odds. For someone that wants UND to move up, I agree completely. I don't see UND taking the same risk as NDSU.

I agree with you. I also would like to see UND move up a division. In the meantime though, the NCC is still a pretty good place to be. It is not what it was, but it is still a very good D-II conference and doesn't pale in comparison to any other.

I would like to see the contract, where can I get a copy?

That would be my quess. And it would be wrong to attribute every FSC dollar to hockey. However, you must take into account that the contributions to UND that come from REA are net figures, not gross. And since REA is an entity distinct from the university, its revenue would not be included in the figures reported. If you factor in the gross revenue that REA gets from hockey (suite and club seat rental, concessions, merchandise, etc), it would certainly add at least $2-3 million in revenue. I don't know if this would be enough to make hockey a bigger revenue generator than the entire NDSU athletic department, but it would be close.

MSU-Billings? Are you joking? I've never heard that MSU-Billings has considered football, even as a pipe dream. It's a mid-size commuter school that has a small athletic department. Yes, they've had D-II basketball success but that's about it. They field 12 sports (5 M, 7W) or 14 if you include co-ed cheerleading. Their alumni base is small and scattered so they would have considerable trouble raising money to fund scholarships. In the Montana university pecking order, they are down the list. Even if they had football, they would be a questionable fit in the NSIC, let alone the NCC. The University of Mary would be a much better replacement than MSU-Billings. You seem to want to enter into a serious discussion but you are starting with the premise that the NCC is in trouble right now and needs new members. I disagree - a 7 member conference can work and until another regional steps up and looks to build an athletic department comparable to what the NCC schools have, there is no reason to expand. SDSU & NDSU can't be replaced, so why rush out and add just anyone only for the sake of having more than 7 teams? Convince me why 7 teams won't work - something more than "seems to be a bit marginal". All that changes if another NCC member leaves but there is no sense debating that though as there is nothing to indicate any other conference member leaving.

You made no statement of fact, you offered an opinion. And then you fail to list even a single "huge issue" - so where's the dialogue? Plus, your sig line taunt makes you less than credible, at least in my mind. My opinion is that with 7 members, the NCC is fine. The member schools are going to have some difficulties in scheduling but I believe that the NCC is doing a great job in their approach to this. Encourage the scheduling of of the 4 indies in football. In basketball, I believe you will see much more interplay between the NCC and NSIC. The membership appears to be set for the short term. I had feared that UNO would bolt to the MIAA if both NDSU and SDSU left but that does not appear to be the case. Nevertheless, the conference has little margin for error with its current membership as you are correct in that there aren't any worthy substitutes in the area.

When this was first announced and through the early fall, this legislation appeared to be a slam dunk. But the schools (is it 8 or 12?) affected have done a great job of lobbying their position and now many articles indicate the vote will be close.

There is nothing ridiculous about the questions posed in that post. Zach's point totals are not that impressive, he was sub-par against BC (for good reason), and he is the most hyped player in college hockey. If you hear the hype but look at the numbers only (or only saw him play against BC), you may come to a similar conclusion. However, we who see him every week know differently. I think that the poster was trying to get a feel for what people more familiar with Parise think, not to flame.

Wouldn't a better tactic be to simply ignore the flamer? Or, if that is beyond your capability, then just lobby your admin to ban the guy. In other words, deal with it. But please stop coming back here and whining about the message board etiquette of Sioux fans on POI. We can't do anything about it here. If it makes you feel any better, I would vote for pileofcraponice's banning on POI though. In fact, I think all Sioux fans should be banned from posting on POI, then we could all watch the rodents feed on each other.

Admin, is the what-if calculator feature still available? I can't find a link to it.

17 seconds left and face-off in Canada end.

Face off in US zone - last chance for Canada. TO, USA.

xtra attacker - 1 and change left. Icing on US.

3 minutes remaining. BTW, thanks to sdd for the audio link.

O'Sullivan Scores!!!!!!! 4-3 US, 5 minutes left. Off the defenseman. A little puck luck is always nice.

US is playing very strong right now. Announcers say Canada defense looks like they have tired legs. No assist to Parise on the Kessler goal.

Kessler from Paris-eh It's all tied.

Canada up 1-0. My audio is really bad so I have caught the specifics of the goal.

Let's be realistic - we are not going to see a true playoff system anytime soon. The bowls mean everything to the BCS schools. Its a week of pageantry and fun for the team and alumni. Sure, its easy for the college fan to cry for a playoff, but the schools themselves don't want it if it takes away the chance of spending a week in Pasadena soaking in Rose Bowl week. You can argue that its easy to incorporate the bowls into a playoff system but that ignores the week leading up to the game which, to the big time schools, is just as important as the game itself. The best we can hope for is a 4 team playoff after the bowl season, which means extending the season into mid January. After a few years of this, maybe the bowls will lose their luster as a primary goal. When it is the propect of playing for a national title, and not playing in your conference's bowl game, that drives a school, then a true playoff will result. While the BCS isn't perfect (it's not even very good), it is no worse than the old system of letting the polls decide who is national champion. As a fan, I am taking something positive out of this mess. I get to watch a very good, no, a classic Rose Bowl matchup that could very well produce the AP national champ. 2 days later I get to see Oklahoma and LSU battle in New Orleans for at least a share, if not the outright, national championship. The last 6 years, only one game has mattered. At least this year, 2 games matter.