PCM

WCHA commissioner Bruce McLeod was the guest between periods in the CC-DU game. I was surprised when he said the hockey community "overreacted" to Geoff Paukovich's hit on Robbie Bina. The WCHA went from 9 checking from behind penalties last season to around 90 this season. He's predicting that after this season, there will be another rewriting of the rules that gives referees more latitude in assessing something less than a 10-minute misconduct and less than a 5-minute major. McLeod was asked if the WCHA could use post-game video replays to assess tougher penalties after the fact if they were deserved. McLeod said that they "try not to call the game after the game." Besides that, he thought the quality of video replays around the league varied so greatly that there was no way to do it fairly to everyone. My take on this is that the WCHA is anxious to get back to the status quo, which seems to me the exact opposite of what should happen. Instead of concluding, as McLeod does, that the penalty is being called too much, I'd be alarmed that there are 10 times more CFB penalties this season than last season. Obviously, this is mostly because the NCAA made that penalty a point of emphasis, but who would have guessed there was that much checking from behind going on that was previously uncalled, even after coaches and players were warned about it? As we saw on Friday and Saturday at Denver, Paukovich is still engaging in this dangerous play and not getting called for it. In tonight's DU-CC game, a Tiger player checked a Pioneer player from behind and the CC sportscasters agreed that it should have been a CFB penalty. Instead, Derek Shepherd called it cross-checking. This demonstrates that the penalty isn't being called nearly as much as it could or should be. I would prefer that the rule remain in place as it is for at least another season until there is some concrete proof that players aren't checking from behind as much as they once did. Treating what happened to Bina as a temporary blip on the radar undoes the lessons learned as a result of that horrible incident.

You're easily pleased.

I never said he wasn't a "good guy." I said that Kent's column was written with an NDSU slant, which is my opinion. I'm quite well qualified to render that opinion. True. Overall, I'd agree. I never said Kent was being unfair or false, only that I considered his approach slanted toward NDSU's point of view.

How about this perspective: If maintaining the UND-NDSU rivalry is of utmost importance, why doesn't Kent write a column proposing that NDSU go back to the DII NCC? If we're going to look at the need to maintain the rivalry from a purely objective perspective, that should be a potential solution, too. However, I know that someone with NDSU ties would immediately be labeled a heretic for proposing such a thing. Thus, the solution for continuation of the UND-NDSU rivarly is alway framed in terms of what UND must do, not what NDSU could also do if it really, truly cared so awful much about the precious rivalry. Look, I accept the fact that by moving to DI-AA, NDSU did what it thought was in its best interest. But by doing that, it ended the rivalry. NDSU was unhappy with its DII marriage. It sought a divorce and got it. Fine. That was NDSU's choice, not UND's. Perhaps UND's DI committee will decide that it's now in the university's best interest to move up to DI-AA. And that's fine, too. As long as UND can make the move in a rational, financially sound manner, I'll likely support it. But if somone's going to tell me that UND must move to DI-AA because resuming the rivalry is the most important factor, I'm going to call their reasoning bovine scatology because that's what it is. If the rivarly was of any great concern to NDSU, it wouldn't have taken the action it did to end it.

NDSU killed the rivalry. End of story.

I wasn't going to attend the game, but now I might have to.

That's my opinion. Sorry that you have a problem with it. Nobody here called the columnist the name that you did.

I'll give him full credit for having his facts straight. That's more than I can say for many who write on this subject. However, any article that starts with the premise that maintaining the NDSU-UND rivalry is hugely important and then proceeds to blame UND for ending the rivalry is promoting NDSU spin. If maintaining the rivalry was so vitally important, NDSU should never have unilaterally made the changes that caused it to end.

Nobody here said that except you.

He might know what he's talking about, but his spin is decidedly pro-NDSU.

Nice article on Chris Vande Velde from the Edmonton Oilers' Web site. Nice comments about UND, too. Fine 'n 'Vandy' Lincoln the perfect steppingstone for Oilers pick

That was certainly part of it. But he was also genuinely upset about Prpich's slash to Paukovich's nads that went uncalled. I thought it was interesting that Hennessy and Hakstol acted as if the reason for Gwozdecky's anger was a complete mystery to them. Maybe it was, but I find that rather difficult to believe. I think that was the net effect, judging from the calls and non-calls on Saturday. Hak didn't actually say that. He said that because the Sioux took so many legitimate penalties (including Finley's checking from behind), they put themselves in a bad position to kill off the penalties they received late in the game. He said that was their own fault. I'd interpret that as Greg Shepherd believing that Gwozdecky had good reason to be upset with the officiating.

From the St. Cloud State University Chronicle: Body of missing student found

From the Green Mill, Tim Hennessy is the host with Sioux hockey coach Dave Hakstol. TH: The Sioux will close out their regular season against Michigan Tech with nothing resolved in playoffs. You could be playing SCSU here or SCSU there or MS-Mankato here. DH: There

My dog is offended by these threads and no longer wants her picture associated with them.

Send my bill to him, too.

So, once again, you've picked up on the idea that THETRIOUXPER doesn't really care for Phil.

Steal my line. I dare you.

And everything will have come full circle.

They have the Cherokee. Now they need the Sioux, which would have to be bigger, stronger, faster and safer.

Think of what this does to Jeep's image.

In that case, Sioux-cia's going to need a mighty long straw.

I agree. Sincerely, 2nd Lt. Oblivious

SS.com should get some 35-year-old Canadians on its team this year.

Maybe Hockey Mom will share her keg with you.