PCM

By no means is it a stretch. I'm told repeatedly that if even one American Indian takes offense to UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, it should be changed. So how many people need to take offense at names such as Hoosiers, Vikings, Vandals, Trojans, Fighting Irish, Ragin' Cajuns etc. before the NCAA policy against nicknames based on race, ethnicity or national origin goes into effect? Or was the NCAA simply joking around when it claimed that its policy applied to nicknames other than American Indian nicknames? The NCAA itself says the policy is intended to end racial stereotyping at the events the association sponsors. The NCAA claims that it's critically important that such events have an atmosphere of dignity and respect for everyone who attends them. So in other words, if I go to the Frozen Four as a UND fan and a Boston College fan calls me a white trash flatlander Nazi-loving hick (which is no stretch at all), there should be an NCAA cop nearby to toss out the person who offended me, racially stereotyped me and robbed me of my dignity and respect. Because unless the NCAA plans to do that, the idea that every person at every NCAA event must be treated with dignity and respect is a hopeless, uneforceable pipe dream. The fact is, the NCAA has selectively chosen to invoke a certain core principle (to the exclusion of the one quoted in my signature below) for the express purpose of singling out certain members with a selectively enforced policy that only applies to a minority of a minority. Bingo. Thus, there's a potential group of people who could be offended -- for whatever reason -- by the use of practically any nickname. What would the NCAA do if such a group claimed that a particular school's nickname was stereotyping them because of their national origin or ethnicity? What would the NCAA do if the same group of Native Americans who claim to be offended by the two feathers in William & Mary's logo decided that they were also offended by NDSU's use of the sacred bison in its logo? Is that a stretch? The NCAA has already demonstrated that it's willing to turn a blind eye to tribes that object to Central Michigan's use of the "Chippewas" nickname at the same time it turns a blind eye to the Sioux tribe that's given the okay for UND's use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo. At what point do you begin to recognize the NCAA's policy as the hypocritical, selectively applied sham it is? Yes I do get. I also understand that it's possible for groups of people of certain races, ethnic backgrounds and national origins to just as easily object to the nicknames of other college sports teams if they choose to do so. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they couldn't.

You should learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

There currently isn't a connection between the two nicknames, but there's no reason there couldn't be if people from the potentially offended group chose to make it an issue. Get it?

That's fine. The argument that 87 percent of all current NHL fans would stop watching the NHL if fighting is reduced doesn't fly with me, either. I never claimed that reducing fighting would trigger a "huge influx of supporters and followers." I have no way of knowing that. I said that based on my experience, the fighting allowed in the NHL creates a negative perception of the game of hockey, which hurts the entire sport. I could very well be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

No. I'm asking why a hockey fan who believes fighting is an important part of the game would bother to follow college hockey in which fighting plays such a small (nearly nonexistent) role? That was the point of the question.

Exactly. I've heard Lennon say this several times on his TV and radio shows. Any team Lennon coaches is going to be a reflection of his approach to the game. While I, too, have at times expressed frustration with the offensive play calling, I can't argue with Lennon's record of success using this approach. When it doesn't work, it's easy to criticize. But more often than not, it does work.

I thought I was.

You're probably right. Then again, I argued for years with NHL purists that the pro game would be improved by allowing the two-line pass. I was told over and over again that it would never happen.

I don't think fighting is out of control in the NHL. I do, however, think a lot of it happens for no other reason than to have a fight to entertain the crowd. I realize that hockey is a fast, physical game played with sticks that can be used as weapons. Tempers are bound to flare and there will be fights on occasion, just as their are in college hockey. This type of fighting generally doesn't bother me because there's almost always a reason behind it. That doesn't mean it's always a good reason, but usually it's not difficult to understand why a particular fight occurred. When I watch the NHL (which isn't often), I see too many players dropping the gloves for what I consider dumb reasons. It just ruins the game for me. And I believe it ruins the game for many other sports fans who might otherwise give hockey more serious consideration.

Let me ask the "it's part of the game" supporters a question. If the NHL implemented rules that made fighting as infrequent in the pro game as it is in the college game, would you quit watching the NHL or being a fan of professional hockey?

Then why do you bother to follow college hockey?

I understand that most NHL fans want fighting in the game. The question is, does keeping fighting in the game hurt hockey's image to the point where it prevents the game from becoming as popular as it could be? I think it does. As long as the NHL has no intention of expanding its fan base, then keeping the game as it is becomes a no-brainer. But as long as the pros choose to keep fighting as a major part of the game, it will always be viewed by many sports fans as being on the same level of professional wrestling. Is that a fair perception? No. But I know from firsthand experience that the image of hockey as a sport for brawlers stops many people from developing an interest in it. And that's too bad because hockey is an amazing sport to watch and play. It has always irked me that much of the public sees hockey as a sport of senseless violence and fighting rather than a sport of speed, creativity and skill I know it to be.

I hate it when that happens.

Maybe they know and understand their team and their players better than we do?

You certainly did! Thanks for the great recap. Very informative and interesting.

I hope all you Satans enjoy your Ferrari cake at the big Halloween party. (Sorry. I couldn't resist the South Park reference. )

Yeah, it was my fault. Thousands of people in Grand Forks follow my lead.

The Dogs actually had some success in the second half when they started mixing in some running plays. But maybe that was just because by that point in the game, UND had no reason to play the run.

Nor in the early 70s.

Not to mention two of the best defensive teams in the country.

At least I know how to use the "shift" key.

The game-winner, in fact.

They called it typing when I took it in high school. I barely passed.

I never took it off. I forgot to put it on until the second intermission.

Thanks. You did a great job with it last night.