PCM

The Sioux don't do that, either. Get a clue.

That's why a win tonight is crucial.

If there's a positive aspect to last night's game, that's it. The Sioux don't look out of place against CC, even on the big ice. UND did outplay CC for long stretches of the game. If the Sioux could score some 5-on-5 goals, cut down on undisciplined penalties and play a full 60 minutes, they'd beat CC and be a very good team.

Can you accept the fact that different people relate to music in different ways?

I''m not either. But I do know what I saw with my own eyes and what my reaction to it was at the time. Maybe the problem is that Anderson's eyes are as bad as mine, which would explain a lot.

Absolutely not. He skated all the way down from near the blue line and cross checked a CC player up high well after the whistle. At the time I saw it, I thought, "How did he get away with that?" Well, he didn't. It was a good call.

Why don't you let it rest? Poncho made a valid comment about Stafford, who didn't exactly set the world on fire the first half of the season.

Someone who was at that meeting told me that Berry did indeed say that the Sioux would be sticking with Lamoureux down the stretch. He played well tonight. He deserves a chance to get the win on Saturday.

The only questionable call I saw was the one on Prpich. Jones didn't get called for a penalty that was almost an exact duplicate of what he got called for in the first period. Schneider then got called for cross checking. I didn't see it. Maybe it was a penalty and maybe it wasn't. If it wasn't, it made up for the one on Jones not called. If it was, the Sioux got a 2-for-1 deal (two committed, one called). Greene's penalty was totally undisciplined. It should have been called. A captain should also know enough not to commit an obvious penalty when his team is already down a man late in a game when they still have a chance to win. In my view, the penalty on Prpich was the only questionable call the ref made. I think the way Mike's stick broke and the manner in which he threw it away in disgust contributed to the perception that he had delivered a bad slash. Maybe it was something of a reputation call, too. Who knows.

A blatant, very obvious penalty on Jones wasn't called. You have to figure that the ref is going to take a Sioux player sooner or later to make up for the missed call. Sure enough, he gets Schneider for cross checking. So what does Greene do when the Sioux are down a man when they can't afford to be? He yanks the skates out from under a CC player directly in front of the net and puts them down two men. It was easy to see what Greene did. He deserved the penalty. Was the slashing penalty on Prpich a good call? I didn't think so. The ref probably thought Prpich slashed a CC player when his stick broke, but it looked like more of a freak play to me. Undisciplined penalties down the stretch killed any UND chance to win. However, it was the inability to score 5-on-5 that ultimately cost the Sioux the game.

Actually, Stafford is 19. But if the Sabres want to believe that he's 18, it's fine with me.

As others have pointed out, Bochenski was a star, but he's gone. Rory McMahon, Colby Genoway, Matt Jones, Andy Schneider and Nick Fuher may not be stars, but they are all very solid players in their own right. Every team needs those types of players.

It's always a pleasure to interview a hockey player who doesn't instantly lapse into "hockey speak" or sports cliches. I want to say that Drew comes across as intelligent and articulate for his age, but that doesn't give him the credit he deserves. I've interviewed people much older than him who are less intelligent and far less articulate. Virg Foss told me that after the US losses at the World Juniors Championships, Drew was the one player for the team who always came out to speak to the media. That's a tough job for any player to do, especially in a tournament of that magnitude. He represented Team USA and UND well. After speaking to Drew and thinking about the coaching aspect, I wondered if the primary difference between Sandelin and Eaves was that Eaves' more regimented and systematic approach might work better with a group of younger players. Putting more responsibility on players might be fine in college where the level of maturity is somewhat higher, there are older players who can help the younger players adjust to the coach's expectations and there's more time to adapt. But in a situation where you need immediate performance from a group of young players, I can see why Eaves' approach might provide better results more quickly if everyone buys into it. I don't think anyone was going to beat the Canadians this year. They weren't just a level above everyone else. It was more like two or three levels above. The Czech Republic was the one team that kept the score respectable against Canada, and that was only because Marek Schwarz is an amazing goaltender. Schwarz was the difference in the games between the US and the Czech Repubulic. Yes, the US defense was bad at times, but Montoya simply didn't play as well as he did last year. There's no disguising that. Russia? Team USA proved it could beat the Russians. The second US-Russia game was much closer than the score indicated. It was a one-goal game until more than half way through the third period. Two empty-net goals and a power play goal in the last second made the game seem more lopsided than it really was. As Drew told me, the US team killed its chances in that game with all the penalties it took. In retrospect, maybe Sandelin wasn't the best coach for the job. Maybe there should have been a few different players on the roster. Maybe USA Hockey isn't organized as well as it should be. If everything has gone right and Montoya had played as well as he did in Finland, maybe the US would have won the silver or the bronze. From my perspective, there wasn't that much difference between the Russians, the Czechs and the Americans. The Canadians towered above everyone else. Does this mean that major changes are needed in USA Hockey? Others will disagree, but I don't see it that way.

US College Hockey Online has posted my article about Drew Stafford on its Web site. I interviewed him regarding his experience at the World Junior Championships.

Yes, but against Canisius and Mankato, I'm not sure that's a huge accomplishment. The Mavs made the Sioux penalty kill look mediocre.

It could happen. First, CC is pretty banged up. The Tigers will have two or three players out with injuries. Granted, this is not as bad as having Nate Hagemo playing injured after the WJC. Marty Sertich and Brett Sterling would also have to be out of the lineup in order for it to have the same impact that Hagemo's sore shoulder had on the Gophers. Second, I thought Zaba played out of his mind in the Sunday game of the Tiger-Gopher series. Can he and/or McElhinney string together terrific back-to-back performances? Maybe CC's goalies won't be as sharp as they were against Minnesota. (Think of Team USA vs. Belarus.) Third, I think Lamoureux is due to steal a game or perhaps even a series for the Sioux. This would be similar to what Brandt did last season in Duluth at a time when UND appeared to be on the ropes and the Bulldogs were red hot. Fourth, every weekend, I hope that the Sioux offense comes together to do more than generate chances. I imagine that Stafford, Murray, Zajac and Porter will figure out that they're all "go-to guys" and start scoring rather than passing. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? Finally, CC might be emotionally drained after its big sweep of Minnesota. The Tigers have one less day to prepare than usual. You have to figure that they'll be extremely tired from a full weekend of skating through Minnesota's thick air. I'm not saying that the Sioux will sweep or even split with CC. But I don't think it's as far out of the realm of possibility as some might believe.

I'd think that the opportunity to play hockey in the Phantom Assist Capital of the World would have a lot of appeal to any offensive-minded player.

Don't forget Zach Parise's immortal words: Reading these boards is almost a waste of time.

And Virg Foss. Don't forget The Virg. He'll be royally ticked if his role in The Vast Fighting Sioux Conspiracy isn't recognized.

Yeah. Just exactly what does Hakstol think he's doing? Doesn't he know that we want a team of Mike Prpich and Robbie Bina clones who stay all four years? We don't need no stinkin' marquee players at UND! Down with Hakstol! (For the sarcasm impaired)

I don't care what the stats say. It's an urban legend, and it needs to die. How assists are awarded has nothing to do with technology. The official procedure is that whenever a goal is scored, the referee tells the official scorekeeper (who is a WCHA official) down on the ice which players the goal and the assists (if any) should go to. The scorekeeper records what the ref told him and informs the PA announcer, who announces the scoring. The statskeepers (usually in the press box) then record the goals and assists as instructed. The official scorekeeper and statskeepers don't have creative license to add assists. The referee reviews and signs the official score sheet after the game. He isn't going to sign the sheet if it includes "phantom assists." Now, we've all heard and seen scoring changed after it's been announced. That's because when the ref isn't sure what happened, he'll ask for the goal to be reviewed so the scoring is accurate. Or sometimes a sports information director, someone on the stats crew or someone in the media takes issue with what the ref says he saw. When tape is available, it's reviewed. Sometimes the tape isn't conclusive. The players themselves are then asked who touched the puck in what order. Usually they can agree on what happened. (This occurred a couple weekends ago when Nick Fuher appeared to score on a slapshot from the point. The goal was initially awarded to Fuher. However, Travis Zajac was in front of the net at that moment and it looked as if he might have tipped the shot in. But it was difficult to tell from the video replay if he actually did. After the game, Zajac and other players were asked about the goal. They said that he'd tipped the shot. Therefore, the scoring was changed to award Zajac the goal and Fuher an assist.) When scoring is changed, the sports information directors from both schools have to agree to it. UND can't arbitrarily decide to change the official scoring simply because it wants Jeff Panzer to win the Hobey Baker Award. The ref would notice it. The WCHA would notice it. And if UND got away with it, so could all other schools in the league. The idea that the WCHA would sit idly by while UND added wholesale "phantom assists" is so ludicrous that I'm constantly amazed that normally knowledgeable hockey fans buy into it. And let me cite another example of how the scoring works. I believe it was two seasons ago when Peter Sejna of CC was on a scoring tear. He had an impressive string of games in which he had at least one point. It might have been a school or WCHA record. In any event, when a game against the Sioux at the Ralph was over, Sejna had no points. It appeared that his scoring streak was over. Someone from CC felt that Sejna should have been awarded a second assist on one of the Tigers' goals. The CC SID and the UND SID reviewed the video well after the game had ended. They both agreed that Sejna should have been awarded the assist. Thus, the scoring was changed because representatives of both schools decided it was accurate. Sejna's streak remained alive, and UND lost the bragging rights for ending it.

He's on NDSU's schedule.

What is a "sudo-reporter?" Someone who reports on hockey in Sudan?

No. If you don't like it, don't read POI. SIMPLE!!