PCM

Yes. Apparently it's time to type slowly again. I'll try using short sentences, too. Had UND been in violation of state law, it would have been big news. None of the news accounts or editorials related to UND-Fargo make any mention of what you allege. Chapman didn't claim it. Potts didn't say anything about it in his letter. Why do you suppose that is?

He's still not coming to UND.

The difference is that I'm not the one calling NDUS policies and procedures "state law," nor am I the one accusing UND of "violating state law." I'm also not the one misinterpreting a NDUS policy. I just did a Google search and read all the news stories and editorials I could find dealing with the UND-Fargo issue. There's not a single mention anywhere of UND violating state law or the NDSU policy to "create, discontinue or name a school, college, center or institute." Why is that? Could it be that this alleged violation of state law occurred only in your mind and nowhere else?

Mike McFeely's [url="http://new.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=77926

You mean the feature that said Pitt State beat UND 31-1?

Obviously, there is no law school at NDSU. Maybe UND should set up a branch there. ScottM might agree to be be the dean if you asked him nicely. A UND legal expert will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that NDUS policies and procedures are considered state law. The laws of the state law are passed by the legislature and are found in the North Dakota Century Code. In any event, there is nothing in the procedure you cited requiring the State Board of Higher Education to "regulate the creation of all new centers of high learning." Even if such a law exists, I seriously doubt that UND extending its services to the citizens of Fargo is the same as creating a new center of higher learning. If UND had violated state law in creating UND-Fargo, I would have expected the North Dakota attorney general to be involved. And I'm sure the the Forum's story would have mentioned such a violation because that would have been a much more serious matter.

Cite the law.

I don't even know what a "pedistal" is. Just keep showing off that NDSU education.

When you see me hanging around on Bisonville picking apart statements in the Forum and giving them a UND spin, you'll have a point.

How is it spinning to repeat Chapman's own hypocritical words?

You really do need to get a life.

The Grand Forks Herald published an editorial in Sunday's paper regarding Chancellor Potts' UND-Fargo decision.

It's time to focus on UND's next series. Brian Cavenaugh, coach of the Canisius Golden Griffins for 24 years, was fired last Friday. According to a story at USCHO: Here's a story on Cavenaugh's firing from the Buffalo News. Canisius beat Mercyhurst 4-3 Friday and tied 2-2 Saturday. The Griffs lead the Atlantic Hockey Conference with a 7-2-1 record.

Forgive me if I fail to be impressed by secondhand rumors. Show me the numbers.

Bakken's columns are usually meant to be humorous. Do you know the difference between a hard news story and a column?

That's where I'm coming from with my comments. If we can't sweep UAA at home, can't sweep a floundering UMD team on the road and can't split with Wisconsin on the road, what reason is there to think that the Sioux will sweep their remaining home series and pick up unexpected points on the road? Believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong, and I hope I am. Last season, after the Sioux went through a stretch when they were 2-4-1 and got swept by Wisconsin, practically everyone wrote them off. Yet they came back with a road sweep of Mankato (a team they should have swept) and then a road sweep of UMD at a time when the Bulldogs were the hottest team in the country. Those types of results gave me confidence that the Sioux had corrected their problems and were ready for a playoff run. Usually, I try to stay optimistic about UND's chances, but a home split with UAA and a road spit with UMD doesn't do that for me. During the last two series, the Sioux have given up big goals by playing sloppy defense at the very times they should be playing tighter defense. That shouldn't be happening. If there's one thing the Sioux should be good at, it's defense. Hakstol has said that the Sioux sometimes don't play with "killer instinct," failing to put an opponent away when the opportunity arises. We saw that on a Saturday night against UAA and a Saturday night against UMD. Hakstol has said that the team needs to learn to play with a lead. I'm not convinced that UND is solid in that area. Hakstol has said that certain players need to halt their patterns of undisciplined penalties. Nothing much has changed there, either. Hakstol has said that with the NCAA's greater emphasis on calling penalties, speical teams play will be very important. The Sioux power play continues to struggle. With UND going 3-18 on the powerplay this weekend, I see no reason to believe that the Sioux have improved in that area. Offensively, the Sioux are better with Murray back in the lineup. That's the one area I can see improvement.

Exactly. I didn't say that anyone got injured. I said the type of hit delivered to Murray was potentially career ending and should have been a penalty. The replay showed what happened and how Murray lost his helmet. The replay also showed Anderson standing there watching the play unfold with an ideal view. It was a flagrant penalty on a dangerous play. Anderson saw it and did nothing. A short time earlier, he had no problem putting UMD 5-on-3 for a full two minutes for two hits that didn't come close to rivaling what the Bulldog player did to Murray.

Nobody got hurt. Nobody has to get hurt for it to be a penalty. Had Matt Greene done the same thing to an opposing player, I have no doubt that he would have been penalized. Heck, Anderson probably would have given him 5 for it.

Had the Sioux swept UAA, as they should have, a split at Duluth would have been okay. Hakstol himself said on this week's coaches' show that because of the UAA loss, the Sioux must pick up some points on the road. They had a chance to do that at UMD, but but didn't.

After listening to the first period on the radio and watching the last two periods on TV, I can't be that positive. I guess I don't see the progress that you see.

Prpich scores a nice goal, gets blasted to the ice by a Bulldog well after the whistle and there's no call. I thought hitting after the whistle was a penalty. Guess not. With the Sioux on the powerplay late in the third period, Murray gets blasted into the boards with the Duluth player applying the elbow to Brady's head for good measure. Anderson stands and watches the whole thing. Not only is there no call to put the Sioux 5-on-3, but play stops with the puck loose in front of the net because Murray has his helmet ripped off, thanks to the Bulldog's attempted decapitation. I thought the NCAA said it was going to crack down on hits to the head. Guess not. Stafford scores on the power play. As Prpich celebrates, Reichmuth slashes him in the legs and another Duluth player blasts him and knocks him to the ice. Apparently slashing, hitting after the whistle, roughing and unsportsmanlike conduct are no longer penalties. Now, before anyone attacks me for criticizing the officiating, I will say that with the exception of the 5-on-3 power play goal UND gave up, the other three were the result of sloppy team defense. In addition, when the Sioux could have stuck a dagger into UMD's heart by captializing on their power plays, they didn't. The Sioux have nobody by themselves to blame for losing this game. That being said, the inconsistency in the officiating is simply mind-boggling. I won't say that Anderson was wrong to give UMD a 2-minute, 5-on-3 power play late in the third period of a tie game. I thought the calls on Greene and Jones were borderline, but they were made. So be it. The Sioux paid the price. However, when the puck goes down to the other end of the rink after UMD scores on the 5-on-3 and Anderson simply ignores two flagrant penalites (one potentially career-ending) that could have changed the course of the game, I have to ask: What the heck is going on? There's simply no consistency, and I'm sick of it.

Thanks for showing up, happy. You have the honor of being the first person on SiouxSports.com to make my "Ignore User" list. I'm sure it works just as well here as it does on USCHO.

Looking at the USCHO box score, I see that none of the goals in the game were scored 5X5. Great win for the Sioux. Excellent game by Jordan Parise. Murray looked like he was on fire. Fantastic sniper-like goal by Jones. McMahon played one heck of a game. Let's get the sweep Saturday.

That's why you should believe in miracles.

Right. That's what Kupchella said in his letter, and I agree with it. That's a valid point of view, although as an SDSU alum, I remain unconvinced that it was a good move for the Jacks. But that's a different discussion. Exactly what you said: Keeping up with the Chapmans. You're right that technically, UND can't be "forced" to do anything. However, if the NCAA waters down Division II to the point where it's no longer tolerable for UND to be associated with athletics at that level, the university will essentially be forced to make a change.