PCM

His sister wears a Fighting Sioux cape! Cool! Now we know who's responsible for Irmen's jersey-popping display.

What follows is a paraphrased version of an actual conversation that occurred in a Grand Forks restaurant in late August 2001 between a UND student and a Minnesota-Duluth student. UMD student: So have you bought season tickets to watch hockey in the new arena? UND student: No, I'm not going to go to any hockey games this year. UMD student: Why not? UND student: Ralph Engelstad has too much money. There's no way us students should have to pay to watch hockey. UMD student: Let me get this straight. You won't pay five bucks a game to watch one of the best college hockey teams in the country play in one of the best arenas in the world while sitting in the best seats in the house? I feel sooooo sorry for you!

And I DO thank you for that!

I agree. As Hakstol said last night, the lines are starting to come together and some chemistry is developing. I'd rather keep that going. SCSU's strength is its defense. The more offensive firepower the Sioux can put on the ice, the better.

As previously mentioned, it took UND's men's team 11 years to win a national championship after beating Michigan. Rome wasn't built in a day.

And you continue to miss the point. It isn't about hockey. It isn't about basketball. It isn't about football. It's about knowing how to run a successful program in a Division I sport. UND has been doing it for more than 50 years. The idea that UND needs NDSU to show it the way is patently absurd. NDSU's win over Wisconsin may mean something. Or it might be a mere footnote in the history of college sports. As with UND's hockey win over Michigan in 1948, only time will tell.

Sounds like a class-action lawsuit is on the way. I might have to add another paragraph to my disclaimer.

You're welcome. I'm sure the crap I cut comes no where near the amount I produce. I went through the NCAA rule book with a fine-toothed comb looking at every rule that I thought might apply to the situation. The added emphais is mine. There can be a review by the "proper disciplinary authority" (the WCHA) to determine the if penalties were given to the proper players, to add penalties after the fact or to increase the severity of a penalty. The rules very clearly state that there is no process to review penalties for the purpose of reducing or removing them. The rules also very clearly state that once a penalty is assessed during the game, it can't be changed once play is resumed. There is nothing in the rules saying that the referee is allowed to change the penalties he gave during the game after the game is over.

Time for a history lesson. UND played its first full season of collegiate hockey in 1946-47. On January 9, 1948, the Sioux beat Michigan 6-5. That game is now considered the turning point of UND hockey. It helped legitimize UND's hockey program and made the college hockey world take notice of the Fighting Sioux. Eleven years later, UND won the first of its seven national championships, second only to Michigan's nine. Now, it's possible that NDSU's defeat of Wisconsin last weekend is the beginning of the Bison ascendency to the elite ranks of Division I basketball. It's also possible that in 11 years, the event will serve as the basis of a sports bar trivia question.

Sorry for the delay. The kids needed the computer and then I got a phone call.

From the Green Mill, Tim Hennessy and Scott Swygman are the hosts with Sioux hockey coach Dave Hakstol. TH: The Sioux won a couple of games from Minnesota State-Mankato and got the town buzzing. They were as entertaining as any games as we

Here's a slight variation.

Great analogy. I'll use it, too. UND has already been to the DI moon and back seven times. NDSU hasn't been there once.

I'm sure that Dale Lennon and Gene Roebuck would be happy to know that their success was based on NDSU's.

Yes, I'm sure the truth that UND was successful in Division I athletics decades before NDSU ever got into them is very hurtful to most Bison fans.

So UND's winning of real Division I national championships in 1959, 1963, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1997 and 2000 didn't teach anybody anything? The idea that NDSU always leads in athletics while UND follows is absurd.

I don't believe that they've played together much until the last few games.

1. Stafford +15 2. Chorney +14 3. Finley +13 4. Zajac +12 5. Kozek, Fabian +7 Aren't you glad you asked? You can check out the whole team here.

Not possible. You're wrong again.

Some of us were trying to figure out how Zelkin and Shepherd arrived at the conclusions they did. Is there anything wrong with that?

Trust me. That's not a good look for you.

Anyone else notice that since I earlier posted the results of the SCS University Chronicle poll, the number of votes against the Sioux name have increased dramatically? They're still losing big, but they have made impressive gains.

Based on that description, the game DQ to Spirko was warranted.

You're right. Rankin got a double-minor for roughing and a 10-minute game misconduct. Spirko's penalty was changed from a fighting DQ to the same thing as Rankin's. Finley originally had a double-roughing and a game misconduct, but was later given the fighting DQ originally given to Sparky. I still don't understand how Zelkin got Finley and Spirko mixed up. It'd also be nice to know why Zelkin thought that what Finley did was worth a fighting DQ while what Oshie did wasn't. As I recall, Oshie was throwing punches, even through he kept his gloves on. As I said, I'm not sure what Finley did to warrant a game DQ. However, I also know that I didn't see everything that happened on the ice. During the post-game press conference, Jutting was asked if he questioned any of the game DQs given to the Mavericks. Jutting: "I don't know. We'll see. We'll see. I haven't had a chance to look into it. We'll see." I asked Hakstol: "Do you have any problems with the game DQs that were handed out?" Hakstol: "Well, you know what? In that situation, guys are sticking together and sticking up for one another. You know, whatever the calls that are made, that's what we'll live with. Bottom line is -- most important -- two points tonight and what the reprecussions are, we've got a week to regroup and get ready to deal with that." Strangely, Jutting seemed more inclined to question the penalties than Hakstol did, although neither coach seemed particularly bothered by them.

Hakstol and Jutting did discuss the fighting DQ penalties to Spirko and Rankin. I know because I heard them do it before their post-game interviews. Because of that, I asked each coach during their post-game comments if they were satisfied with the way in which the penalties were assessed. I'll check the tape, but as I recall, neither of them seemed to have a problem the penalities that Zelkin gave out. Had Zelkin reveiwed the tape, re-assigned the penalties, signed the official score sheet and then left the arena, I'd have no problem with the way the situation was handled. But that's not what happened.