lawkota

He didn't say UND was undefeated at Mariucci, he said EGF was.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply "spoiled" in a bad way. I have yet to meet a Sioux fan who isn't grateful for the hockey program we have. And I think the vast majority of players are grateful for the fans the program has. I should have used a different word as I can see now it could be taken as a dig against the fans.

I'm gonna blab some more cause I've got nothing else to do. While I'm sure I saw them play plenty, I don't remember the '80 team that much so I really can't comment on them. Actually, I have better memory of the '78 and '79 seasons. The '97 team was my favorite just because many thought they were a fluke and they seemed to enjoy the game so much. I agree with those above who cite the talent of the '99 team. That was an incredible team and I remember thinking after the BC loss that'll we may never have a team like that again. Nevertheless, the '99 season ended on a sour note. Whenever a thread comes up on USCHO about best team ever, someone will mention the '97 Michigan team. Most then dismiss them because they didn't win it all. As unbelievably good as that team was, I agree with the popular sentiment. You've got to close the season out with a title to cement your place in history. BTW, nice avatar PCM. What I'm wondering is - who is the "odd guy" that he talks to?

This is my 100th post, so I'm making it a big one. The 86-87 team was far and away the best college hockey team in that late 80s period. They won the WCHA by a fair margin over Minnesota who was quite possibly the second best team that year. But UND was on another plane compared with the Gophers. I remember leaving Joe Louis after the Mich St/Minn semi-final (Taz Boy was there too) and a Spartan fan asked a Gopher fan if this North Dakota team was any good. The Gopher fan was probably still a little upset (many thought the Gophs got robbed in the semi) but he said (paraphrasing) "We played UND 6 times. We beat them once in our best game of the year. They beat us 5 and it wasn't even close. You guys are going to get killed tomorrow." There was no team in the couple years before or after 87 that could have touched the Hrkac Circus. The biggest question about that team remains how they possibly could have lost 8 times that year. The 82 team did not enjoy that dominance over the other good teams of that era, notably the Badgers of 81-83 or the other Sioux teams. They didn't have an eye-popping record, nor did any of their players produce big time numbers (Sykes led the team in goals with 39 and points with 63; Murray led the team with 29 assists, although 7 other players had 20+ assists). They were also prone to unraveling, like in the 9-0 loss to Wisconsin in the WCHA playoffs. But they were an incredibly close group that had at least 10 guys who could claim to being the best on the team. Plus they had the best goalie combination ever in Jensen and Casey. Even though they were only 5 years apart, the two squads played a completely different style of hockey. The 82 team was a physically menacing squad that also had more than a handful of talent. The 87 team probably had more top end talent, but nowhere near the physical presence. I would say the 87 team was the best Sioux team ever because it is the one most likely to rank as one of the best ever among all of college hockey. But if you put the 2 on the ice, I wonder if the 87 team could stand up to the physical pounding they would take. Like tnt stated, it might all depend on who was reffing as to who would win. Also, if (big if) the 82 team could control the Hrkac line, the 87 team would never be able to handle the depth of the 82 team. I think we are pretty spoiled in that we can debate who was the best among what are some of the best teams ever to play college hockey.

The ridiculous way in which SSI is calculated would, by itself, justify not scheduling a school such as SDSU or UNC (although I think they would be DIAA independents, not non-qualifying schools). Nevertheless, NDSU is different and I think maintaining the rivalry is worth the potential negative playoff implications. Obviously the loss to UCD hurt the SSI for the Bison and they could look at that and say "we should have never scheduled that game". But funny, I've yet to hear or read that. Most Bison fans simply state had they taken care of business in the conference, the UCD loss wouldn't be an issue. SSI is but one criteria that is looked at in determining playoff participants. With 6 teams making the playoffs from each region next year, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where the NCC champion did not make the playoffs, regardless of their nonconference record. Win the conference and the rest will take care of itself.

That is an incredible gift. Congratulations to Mike. Has been and, I believe, will always be, one of my all-time favorite Sioux.

Geez, no love for my alma mater. Things may be bad in pony land this year (I quite sure they're the worst team in D-IA, will finish 0-12) but its not even close to being a bad job, especially now that the university has finally relaxed recruiting restrictions it placed on the program in the aftermath of the DP. Prime recruiting territory, a new conference and great facilities (the new stadium is one of the nicest in the country). There is no reason why the right staff couldn't do at SMU what is being done at TCU.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that we would be competitive in all other sports or that the other sports don't matter?

Please. Provide a source. You've obviously been asking around. The "phantom assist" jab is directly at every high scoring playmaker. North Dakota is not alone in this talk, nor is it under a higher level of suspicion. The buzz surrounded Senja last year; it followed Kariya and Hrkac around, as unbelievable as that might seem now; I even remember some talk about the quality of Aaron Broten's assists during his 100 point year. Throughout his early career, there were many commentators who claimed that Edmonton gave Gretzky assists simply because he was in the building. It's jealousy, pure and simple. And the more successful your program is in turning out high scoring players, the more the talk will be directed at you. As PCM pointed out, the latest attack on UND started with Wong's comments about Panzer in 2001, which is too bad because it placed an asterisk (in other fans' minds) on what was a fabulous senior season, one that should have ended with a Hobey Baker award. I don't know if Wong's comments affected the voting but they were inapproriate all the same.

LOL - very true, TCT I lived in Mpls when Mariucci opened and I don't recall Gino, Sauer or anyone else being required to praise the facility which, at the time , was the finest in college hockey. I think the fact that Lucia is evasive says alot about what he thinks about the facility. But he could call it a dump; hell, he could truly believe that. It still wouldn't stop me from getting a shiver up my spine every time I walk through the door.

Yes, I meant the USD/NDSU game at the Fargodome. Sorry about the confusion.

Well, I'll bite. I would think the students would want general public attendance because it brings revenue into the athletic department which helps fund, in great part, the sports. That means less of a burden on the students to fund these activities themselves through student fees. In addition, athletics is what is the lightning rod for a large portion of the alumni. It brings them back to campus and keeps them interested in their alma mater. Generally, that interest translates into giving and giving helps the students. Are you in the midst of exams? The student section was half full at the UNO game, easily the worst student turnout of the season. The student turnout at the Bison game was equally poor and I think exams was given as the primary reason. I can understand that.

I would rather see how things play out before I think about what I will probably be saying. I'm upset that UND is considering not renewing the series, but I'm beginning to understand the reasons and therefore am not placing blame. I just want 2 more years. You said yourself you want the series to continue that long, how are we different? PCM, yes, that might happen. It may turn out playing the series two more years will result in two embarrassing Sioux defeats. But you don't know that. I have confidence that UND will be competitive with the Bison short term. Dale Lennon wants the series to continue so he must believe the same thing. I agree with you on the hypocrisy angle in Bakken's column BTW; it is wrong for NDSU to paint UND as the bad guy in this debate.

Only if they lose the games. But if the Nickel is that important then, take off the table. Simply state UND will continue the series but as long the two schools are in different classifications, the Nickel is not up for grabs.

Leaving aside the question of who's to blame for a second - Why shouldn't UND schedule this game for the next two years? Why they should: 1. It is the biggest sporting event in this state. 2. It fills the coffers of both schools. 3. The competitive advantage gained from additional scholarships will not take full affect for 3-4 years. 4. On any given Saturday..... If Bakken's reasoning were adopted by all schools, i.e. that teams on a different playing level should not compete against each other, then UND wouldn't have any nonconference opponents.

True, it was NDSU that made the decision to un-level (admittedly, not a word) the playing field. They did what they thought best although it's a bit over the top for Bakken to suggest that they should have been thinking of the rivalry first when making their decision. UND should also do what's best for it. In 4-5 years, the competitiveness of the rivalry may be such that it makes so sense for either team to play the game anymore. But that will not be the case in the short term. Play the game for two more years, then reassess. Alot can happen in two years, the most dramatic being UND moving to DI also. But, IMO, there is no good reason for this rivalry to end this year.

I though Brandt was a little shaky at the start, but settled down and made some good saves down the stretch. Judging by the play this weekend, I would agree that Brandt is #1.

SFiP: Marvin, McMahon and Canady played together and had a strong defensive game. They never really generated any chances though. Marvin was especially sloppy with the puck. Jones played, I don't know how much ice time he got but he seemed to get the least of all the d-men. At first, I thought Smaby and Green were paired together, but the last half of the game Green paired with Schneider and Smaby and Jones saw less ice time. Fuher and Ryan Hale were very good. I didn't really notice Porter. I think he was juggled between lines. Stafford was very impressive, obviously. But on his goal, I can't figure out why the BC goaltender felt he had to pokecheck the puck away when his d-man had Drew wrapped up fairly good. That goal was pretty and the product of a great individual effort, but it was a gift. Murray had a good game but in the first period and into the second, the Parise line was lost. I don't think you can overstate the job Quinn Fylling did last night. Until Bochenski took over the game, Fylling was the best Sioux player on the ice. BC is so dangerous in the offensive zone and they just don't let you clear. One of the best teams I've seen in this area. However, they are not good in their own zone (at least they weren't last night) and once we figured out how to break to center ice, we owned them. The crowd was great. I was surprised that official attendance was 10,300 because it seemed more full. There was a smattering of empty seats though. One note, I heard that the students left 900 tickets on the table for the series (500 last night and 400 for tonight) that REA was able to resell.

[sigh] Yes, that would be nearsighted, if it were true. I don't believe he thinks that. I disagree with him but not because he doesn't have a clear grasp of the situation. Perhaps you know him better than I though. I've only talked to him a couple times. Most of my conversations are with others in the athletic department or FSC. I know now that I won't change your opinion of Kupchella as anything other than a "Chamberlain" and we've bored the other posters long enough. Besides, bantering with you is Sicatoka's job.

I'll admit that reductions are coming but that only affects 2 sports, neither of which is the bread and butter at UND. If scholarship reduction were off the table for football, would NDSU's decision have been the same? How about if they had been successful in adding DI hockey? If the NCAA adopted a policy of all sports/single division, would UND's position change? Nevertheless, my primary point still stands. UND is in a different position from NDSU and I don't feel it's fair to paint their administration as ignorant or nearsighted simply because they have adopted a different path. That is what tony implies on a regular basis and it's inaccurate. You may disagree with me on a wide variety issues, that doesn't make me stupid. BTW, UND hockey has been on ESPN a total of 8 times since 1987. That's not much and the ratings aren't all that great. But how many times will the Bison be on ESPN (or other network) in the next 20 years and what will the ratings be for those games? Lower level DI is a better level of competition but it flies just as far below the radar as DII.

tony, as near as I can tell, UND is focused on perserving the NCC as an elite DII conference. Obviously, that is becoming increasingly difficult but it is something they have stated they are willing to work for. I have been assured they will be active in finding quality schools to fill the huge voids left by NDSU and SDSU and they will fight scholarship reduction. While scholarship reduction is a ominous threat, it is by no means a done deal. When (if) it happens, they will have to reassess their position based on the degree of the cuts and their effect on the DII programs, specifically football and basketball. In the end, though, they may just have a different philosophy of what athletics is for. I believe that Kupchella believes that athletics serves as a diversion for students and an attraction for alumni. In other words, it is not important within the scope of the university's mission. Of course, it helps if your programs can generate regional, or even national, recognition for the school. They feel that they get this from the hockey program and the occassional national title in DII. They also feel that a step up to D-I will not add anything in this regard. In this respect, I agree. I happen to disagree with the underlying philosophy though. I believe that a university, a state flagship university, should strive to the highest level of competition it is capable of, that includes athletics. It should stay with its peers. That being said though, I am not calling Kupchella uninformed or nearsighted. We just disagree. And if I can accept that, someone who desperately wants UND to follow NDSU, what can't you, someone who shouldn't care.

I understood it perfectly. I just thought it was dumb and inapplicable. Chamberlain and Churchill led the same country. Chapman/Taylor and Kupchella/Thomas lead different institutions. If you can't at least acknowledge that UND and NDSU view the DII situation thru different tinted glasses, then you have no business in this discussion. My point was that UND does understand the changing landscape in DII. They have not adopted a pollyanna attitude, hoping that things will stay the same. You continue to imply otherwise. You're wrong. In the final analysis, UND may regret not moving up with NDSU but it won't be because they didn't fully appreciate the landscape. It'll be because they misjudged the effect on their institution. The same can be said for NDSU's decision. You don't know.

Another one for the books, oh king of the analogy - equating the deterioration of Division II athletics to the threat of a Hitler-dominated Europe. Priceless. Do you think these things up on the spot or do you use a cheat sheet? Oh, yeah, you qualified it by using a smilie. How clever. Of course, you are implying (again) that UND has its head in the sand. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. The athletic department and administration know exactly what is on the horizon in Division II. NDSU moved up a division. That is a decision based on the information at hand and how it impacts their institution. UND is staying put. That is also a decision based on the same information and how it impacts their institution. The institutions however, are distinct. I disagree with UND's position and hope they will change course but I have never stated, nor do I believe, that they are acting without full knowledge of the situation. They have just come to a different decision. There is no right or wrong here.

It is a very nice arena, as MavRick's pictures show. However, as a multi-purpose arena, it is difficult to compare it with REA. It seats almost 15,000 for hockey so I'm a little surprised at the "low" attendance for the opening game, even though it was an exhibition. They have the Maverick Stampede there this weekend (with Minny, Wisco and Maine) so it will be interesting to see the attendance figures. In addition to what Jim said as to cost, also keep in mind that it was built by a public entity. Governments tend to be inefficient in everything they do. There is no way the City of Grand Forks could have built the REA for $110 million. I have heard from a couple people who were there, that when Ralph first toured the completed building, he remarked that he couldn't believe what he got for his money.

I agree, parking for the Wild game was the worst I've experienced. Not only was it slow exiting (I always exit to Gateway from north of the arena) but it was slow entering as well. On the plus side, it appears that the undeveloped lot northeast of the arena will be open for parking.