PCM

Wrong. Despite being dealt some bad hands through no fault of its own, Grand Forks has done far more than survive. That was the entire point of my post. Sorry you missed it.

Hey, I said we shouldn't have a flood in '97. But did anyone listen to me? Nooooo. They went ahead and had one anyway. And I sent an e-mail to the BRAC folks telling them that we'd grown really, really fond of our ICBMs and B-1s, and that they should just leave Grand Forks Air Force Base out of their plans. But once again, nobody listened to me. A few months ago, I sent an e-mail to the Pentagon saying: "Hey! Rummie! Leave them tankers alone!" Again, my advice appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Seriously, when I read the comments from Bison fans like IowaBison, I have to wonder when they last visited Grand Forks. That it's still on the map after the 1997 flood but is also a vastly improved, vibrant and growing city is a true testament to the determination and hard work of community leaders and residents. Grand Forks survived the flood. It survived the loss of the GFAFB bombers and missiles, and it will survive whatever BRAC throws at it next. Heck, we might even survive NDSU move to DI-AA football! An article in today's Herald gives me hope that the future of GFAFB might even be brighter as a result of the latest BRAC moves. I look at UND today and see how much it's changed and grown since I arrived here in 1992 and I'm amazed. Every time I walk into Engelstad Arena I have to remind myself that, yes, this is in Grand Forks. The average Bison fan either won't admit or can't comprehend the amount of attention and prestige that the REA and Sioux hockey bring to UND and Grand Forks. There's absolutely is nothing like it in Fargo. DI-AA football will never, ever compare. And speaking of football, I've attended nearly every playoff game the Sioux have hosted at the Alerus and they've been a blast. Remind me: When's the last time the Fargo Dome hosted a Bison playoff game? Some day, when UND has lined up the financial resources, has the facilities in place and the right conference comes calling, the move to NCAA Division I might make perfect sense for UND. Until then, I'll enjoy everything that UND and Grand Forks has to offer, which is considerable given the size and location of the town.

What are you talking about?

It's even more disappointing after I e-mailed the Sun-Sentinal and pointed out their error. I received a reply from an editor saying that they would correct the story. It's never been corrected.

I know it's cheating, but could you post the right answers so we all get an A?

I saw him first!

Close enough. Sioux fans need to vote to make sure the results of this poll are properly skewed -- especially on the question about the Sioux name.

Those are good reasons. I'd also call it following the example set by Matt Jones last season.

That's a good question. The 03-04 team was extremely good and a lot was expected of it. Although the Sioux didn't make it to the Frozen Four, they did win the WCHA. They came away with something to show for their efforts. The 04-05 Sioux were expected to be good, but spent much of the season lowering those expectations. If you would have told Sioux fans last October that UND would play for the national championship, they'd believe it. But if you would have told them the same thing in mid-February, they'd say, "Yeah, right. Get real!" I think the 03-04 Sioux team underachieved. But it's hard characterize the 04-05 team because it wasn't good when it was expected to be and then became very good when it wasn't expected to be. Even though the 04-05 Sioux team didn't come away with anything other than a runner-up trophy for its efforts, the players wrote another chapter in the history of Sioux hockey that I think fans will remember for many years to come.

In my best Hank Hill voice: Dang it! NO!

Actually, although I have nothing to base it on, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

Well, it wasn't all that difficult to do. I saw a naked Czech player without even trying. Maybe it's a European thing.

I'm a bit surprised that Matt Smaby isn't mentioned. EDIT: And what about DU's Brett Skinner? I see him as a potential flight risk for the Pioneers.

No offense, Mafia Man, but I think you're buying into the Gopher spin on this. Parise did say that one of his goals was to win a national championship at UND. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the goal of every player who comes here. Parise was paraphrased in a Star Tribune story as saying that he wouldn't leave UND without a national championship. It wasn't a direct quote. It was the reporter's interpretation of something he said. Personally, I'd be very surprised if he ever actually said this to a reporter. I interviewed Parise a couple of times and discussed his goals as a player and when he might leave UND. He was always very careful to make no firm commitment as to how long he intended to stay. That's why when Gopher fans bring out the "Parise quote" on winning a national championship at UND, I take it with a grain of salt.

See. That's why I'm not a lawyer. I have never been patted down, but on several occasions (for Sioux games and WJC games), I've had cops ask to look in the briefcase I carry when I'm working a game. Media credentials don't get me off the hook. At any rate, I don't mind when they ask to look. In fact, I get more concerned when they don't ask.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express. However, before anyone concludes that REA security can no longer search people entering the arena, they need to look at these two sections from Chief Justice Vande Walle's majority opinion. As I read it, Vande Walle is saying that people entering the arena have two options: Consent to search or leave. Security doesn't have to let anyone in who refuses to be searched. Vande Walle also offers advice on how the REA could avoid the legal problems in the future by simply adding a few more words to its signs. I rather doubt that this decision is going to have any real impact on anyone's ability to sneak forbidden articles into the REA.

I'll bet Dean Blais will be thrilled to be doing some real coaching again. It'll be good to see him back behind the bench.

In today's New York Times, there's an editorial regarding the proposed memorial at Ground Zero and the controversy surrounding what should be included in it. I found this statement interesting as it relates to UND's use of the Sioux name and logo: This is another way of saying that the minority of a minority should not be allowed to dictate to the majority. But don't expect the Times to use its editorial power to stick up for those who believe their First Amendment rights are being trampled by those who claim the nonexistent right of self-portrayal. Journalists supporting free speech. What a concept.

If you believe this guy, that's not the way it happened.

I agree with the intent of this rule change. There was a game in the old Ralph in which a Lee Goren goal was waved off because the puck went in off his skate. Goren was in the process of slamming on the brakes in front of the crease when a shot by another Sioux player caused the puck to rebound off the goalie's stick, hit Goren's skate blade and deflect directly back into the net. There's no way Goren could have deliberately done this even if he'd practiced it for a hundred years. But the goal was disallowed because it went in off his skate. If the puck would have deflected upward, hit Goren's shin pad and gone in, it would have counted as a goal. Two seasons ago, Brandon Bochenski scored a goal against the Gophers when he stuck out his leg to block a clearing attempt from behind the UM net. The puck deflected off his leg and into the Gopher net. Nobody questioned whether it should have counted. If you're going to allow goals when the puck deflects off a friendly player's body or other piece of equipment, why shouldn't deflections off skate blades count, especially if goals off deliberately kicked in pucks are still disallowed? I don't want to see hockey turned into soccer on ice. As I read the rule change, I don't think that will happen.

I recall Dean Blais saying that one of the biggest problems with WCHA officiating is that there's not enough turnover among officials. He thought the league needed to set up a system that constantly introduced new blood. That's because the longer someone officiates, the more he tends to develop likes and dislikes for certain teams, coaches, fans and players.

I agree with the rule change. The ref should have some discretion to determine whether the player in the crease had any bearing on whether the goal was scored. However, I can also see it creating even more controversey, especially when there's no replay available to the officials. For example, in UND's east regional playoff game against BU when the Terriers had a goal taken away because of a player in the crease, would this rule have allowed that goal to stand or not? I'd have to look at the replay, but as I recall, the BU player in the crease did make some contact with Jordan Parise before the goal was scored. Was it enough to wave off the goal? I think it could be argued both ways. No matter what the ref decided, someone's wasn't going to be happy. In this case, the replay showed there was no question that a Terrier player was in the crease, giving the ref no choice but to wave off the goal. Hockey fans tend to think that giving officials more discretion is a good thing until one of those discretionary calls goes against their team.

Not really. When the old rule was correctly applied, it was a case of the officials calling the game by the rules, something I wholeheartedly endorse. When officials fail to call penalties or selectively call the game depending on the time and situation, then you can say that officiating is "helping to determine the outcome of a game."

I was once in Valley Dairy when in walked an older American Indian man decked out from head to toe in Washington Redskin sports apparel. I probably did a double-take. A few years ago, I attended an educational event on the Spirit Lake Reservation. A student probably around 14 or 15 years old noticed from my nametag that I was with UND. She told me that her uncle attended the university and then opened her coat to reveal that she was wearing a UND sweatshirt adorned with the Fighting Sioux logo. At Turtle Mountain Community College, an American Indian student told me how proud he was of the UND logo because it had been designed by local Chippewa artist Ben Brien. A colleague of mine from UND was visiting the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation when a member of the tribe asked him his position on the Fighting Sioux logo. He thought he was perfectly safe in stating his honest opinion, which was that he supported changing the Fighting Sioux name. But immediately after he said this, the tribal member proceeded to berate him for his position and UND for even considering changing the name. Of course, all of this is anecdotal evidence, which means that it doesn't prove a thing. However, based on my experience, I'm highly skeptical of anyone who claims to know where all or even most American Indians stand on the nickname issue.

My father-in-law served in the Navy in World War II and in the Army during the Korean War, so what GrahamKracker says he did is indeed possible. I imagine it's also possible that he was taught to use an M-16 while in the Navy without being in the Marines or SEALs. Heck, the Air Force showed me how to fire an M-16 during the early 70s when I was teen-aged kid in Civil Air Patrol.