PCM

I'm a fifth columnist.

Yes, I believe that was the response to a question about hiring a new assistant coach. I was was at the news conference. I just had time to e-mail a photo to USCHO before getting back to work. In talking to Hakstol afterward, he said that if any Sioux players are going to turn pro, it'll probably happen within the next month. If it doesn't happen by then, it probably isn't going to happen. Keep your fingers crossed.

By the way, the reason for the long delay between the end of the news conference and the long wait to post the story on USCHO, was because I had a real job to do before I wrote the story. Such is life...

Thanks! I was afraid that I'd have to post the link myself. Then there'd be real hell to pay.

And now let's tar and feather this stupid, dirty Gopher fan!

Who's your daddy-in-law? I'll accept full responsibility for not leaking your name to the press.

I've seen instances where a new coach comes in and takes a team that's underachieved all the way to the top. After all, familiarity breeds contempt, and you have to wonder about that factor during the course of the long college hockey season. Sometimes changing the coaching part of the equation can provide the needed spark for a team to excel. I'm hoping that's what happens with Hakstol because at this point, the stage is set for the Sioux to have a championship season.

Great! Just great! Now I have to leave town!

I left that job three years ago.

If you want to talk about something else, why did you ask me so many questions? For the record, I have a BS degree in journalism from an accredited school and spent six years working full time on three different newspapers, as well as five years as a professional freelance writer. I have 19 years of experience in the field of media relations. My work with USCHO is an unpaid hobby that I do for the enjoyment.

Now there are two gunmen on the grassy knoll? I must really be getting behind on my conspiracy theories.

I have great respect for the late, great Herb Brooks. Perhaps you were living in a cave at the time of the Herb vs. Virg incident and therefore failed to see the humor of my comment. Or maybe you're one of those thin-skinned, easily offended PC folks. Whatever the case, you have my sympathy for having absolutely no sense of humor. I'm also sorry to hear that you don't appreciate the need for integrity in journalism.

Sorry, still no sale here. News should not be based on rumors. It should be based on verifiable facts. I've seen firsthand how the use of anonymous sources is abused by the media to create stories. Maybe you need to go through that experience before you're properly disgusted by it. The problem is, most of you have no idea what you're giving sanction to. You'll never convince me that using anonymous sources is a good idea, especially in cases such as this.

I received a vision from Herb Brooks.

I know that you must be holding back the tears. Don't fight it. Just let them flow.

If the purpose of the news conference is to announce the hiring of Hakstol as head coach (which I suspect it will be), in no way does it prove that Thomas called Hakstol and offered him the job before he even applied for it. All it proves is that UND went through the internal application process and that Thomas decided to hire Hakstol, the only internal candidate. It also proves that an anonymous leaker can make a mockery of the hiring process and create embarrassing problems for the university. But, hey, why should anyone care as long as we can read about such groundbreaking events as the alleged selection of a new head hockey coach a several days before it actually happens? That's the important thing, right?

Oops. CRR beat me to it.

Just posted on UND's Web site.

I think Virg accurately reported what his source told him. The question is whether the source actually knew what he/she was talking about. That's where I'm skeptical.

Of course, they'd also deny it if it wasn't true. Nice position to be in, eh?

The anonymous source might very well have believed that what he/she said was true. It's also possible that the source misconstrued, misunderstood, misrepresented, embellished or misinterpreted what he/she heard or was told. Another possibility is that the source might not be "in the loop" as much as he/she claimed. But not knowing who he/she is, we have no way to discern how knowledgeable or well-connected the source is. The question I'd ask is: Why is it so important for the source of this information to remain anonymous?

There's a possibility that I've grown cynical or jaded in my old age. However, based on my experience, people tell things to the media because having certain information publicly revealed is either to their advantage or somebody else's disadvantage. People always have reasons or rationalizations for leaking information, and the media always has reasons and rationalizations for using it. But when you strip those away, the bottom line is that the leaker has something to gain by making the information public. There are times when it's necessary to preserve anonymity, such as when the consequences of revealing the source is literally a matter of life or death. But the hiring of a new hockey coach at UND doesn't quite fall into that category.

Talk about your oxymorons. Look, deeks, having worked in journalism, I know what my experience is with anonymous sources and journalists who use them. My opinions weren't formed by watching ESPN. To me, any time I see an anonymous source quoted in a news story, it's code for "lazy journalism" or "sloppy work." I'm not saying that this is the case with the Herald's story because I truly don't know. However, your faith in anonymous sources is extremely misguided.

Who is right about what? Did I ever say that Hakstol wouldn't be hired?