PCM

C'mon, Grey Eagle. You know darn well that if UND had managed to beat Boston College in OT during the 2001 Frozen Four and become the first team to repeat in 20+ years, all Sioux fans would be saying it didn't count because the team was lucky.

Here's an update on the D-IAA situation at SDSU. O, what a tangled web we weave...

No need to apply at UND. I've volunteered to write the Sioux recaps on USCHO for another season. I will try to do this again in the upcoming season, but I can't guarantee that I'll always have time to listen in and type up notes. I hope that between forecheck and I and anyone else who cares to contribute, we can keep it covered.

I was surprised that Mike Jacobs cared so much about Sioux football. I didn't think he said anything that I haven't heard others on this board say.

If you have a cable modem, you should have some type of software firewall running. I use Norton Internet Security, which includes pop-up ad blocking. For good measure, I also use the pop-up ad blocking feature on the Google tool bar.

Being disappointed about UND's performance doesn't mean that I'm no longer a Sioux fan. I certainly hope that the loss to Mesa was a temporary setback and that the team will rebound for a good season.

When President Champman talked about the need for competition while pushing for programs to duplicate those at UND, he was all for the principles of free-market capitalism. I don't recall that the Forum had a problem with his position. But when UND uses the principle of supply and demand to set ticket prices, suddenly the Forum is offended.

This game was a carbon copy last season. Fall behind early. Rally to come from behind. Lose in the end.

I now know that the problem I had with the Webcast lies somewhere with Norton Internet Security. If I totally disable NIS (as opposed to just turning off the firewall), I can watch the free video clips on DataFlix. However, that is not an acceptable solution. Either I need to know how to configure NIS to allow the Webcast through or DataFlix needs to figure out what's happening that cause NIS to block the Webcast. As I mentioned above, I can watch streaming video from many other Web sites that use Windows Media Player and Java with absolutely no problem. Because turning off the NIS firewall doesn't solve the problem, I assume that DataFlix is doing something that NIS intrusion detection interprets as an attack that must be blocked.

Classy post, Tuk. I'm already beginning to regret that I pulled for NDSU to upset the Grizzlies.

I don't know what in the heck was going on, but I tried to watch the Webcast of the UND-Crookston game and couldn't get it to run at all. I logged on three separate times. I received three e-mails saying that I had successfully created an account. But every time I clicked on the link to watch, nothing happened. My account information shows that I watched the game several times, but I saw nothing. I e-mailed DataFlix and they responded. None of their suggestions worked. Strangely, I was able to watch the third quarter of the Grizzlies and Bison via the Montana Webcast. I can also log on to other Web sites and watch streaming video using Windows Media Player 9 and the latest version of JavaScript. But DataFlix doesn't like something about my system. I tried turning off pop-up ad protection because that interferes sometimes. I tried turning off my Norton Internet Security firewall. I uninstalled all media players on my PC and re-installed the latest version on Windows Media Player 9 and the latest version of JavaScript. Finally, I did a complete reinstall of Windows XP. Nothing I did made any difference. I can't even watch any of the free content on DataFlix.

Gee, that certainly took long enough.

mksioux, to address your point, I believe that people should be able to post firsthand information that they know to be true and factual (i.e. court records or an eye-witness account). Even at that, there's still some danger. Did you really see what you thought you saw? Were the court records you saw supposed to be sealed? Are you providing a legally correct interpretation of those records? Also, it was not my intention to accuse schmidtdoggydog of deliberately posting information he knew be false. I understand completely that he believed the information to be true and from a reliable source. Under the circumstances, I probably would have believed it myself. Would I have posted it here or on USCHO? No. Unfortunately, the information wasn't true, and if Jake Brandt doesn't have enough to worry about, he now must also deal with a false accusation floating around in public. Some have commended schmidtdoggydog for being truthful and forthright in admitting on this board that he made a mistake. I also commend him for that. However, the same information was originally posted on USCHO weeks ago, which is far more widely read than this board. Wouldn't it be a good idea to set the record straight there, too? And while it's all well and good to admit that you're wrong and that you made a mistake, the victim of your mistake must still cope with the damage you caused. Attempting to clear your name of a wrongful public accusation is like attempting to un-ring a bell. Once the information is out there, it takes on a life of its own. I am speaking from firsthand experience on this issue. So, once again, be careful about what you post. That's not a "gag order" because I have no power or authority to issue such an order and wouldn't even if I could. It's just some friendly advice.

I agree, John. This is a truly tragic loss for the game of hockey. My condolences to Brooks' family and friends.

Really? This is the false information you posted on USCHO on 7/16/03: And when some questioned whether it was true, you followed it up with this gem on USCHO the next day: So much for speculation.

I saw that in your previous post. It's still secondhand information, regardless of how much you trusted the source. While I realize that legally and financially it might not make sense for Jake to sue anybody, why risk it? And what's the point of needlessly and falsely smearing somebody's reputation? People need to think twice before posting such information. You, more than anyone, should understand this.

I have to admit it, the exact same thought crossed my mind.

This is why it's not a good idea to repeat negative secondhand information about someone, no matter how good the source. If you don't want to risk being sued for libel, don't post any information that you don't know for a fact to be true.

I guess you missed this thread posted the day the TV show aired. I was a bit surprised that the topic didn't trigger more discussion on this board. On the other hand, Greg's situation was covered by the local media long before ESPN got decided to do a story about him.

I watched the show and it's a very sad story. I got the impression that the Jets and their doctors didn't care all that much about Lotysz because he wasn't a high-paid superstar. The show left some questions unanswered. For example, is the NFL Players Association involved in this? Shouldn't it be? Also, is the Jets organization at all concerned about what their team doctors did to Lotysz and what they might do to other players on the team? I'd like to see the Grand Forks community do something to help the Lotysz family.

Who said anything about hockey? Not me. This is assinine. It's ridiculous. The attacks Bison fans launched against the UND fan for merely pointing out what an NDSU supporter had written and posted online were bad enough, but to drag it here and use it as an excuse to attack Sioux fans on this board is totally pathetic. Mr. Administrator, please lock this thread.

Oh for cryin' out loud, get over it already. The UND fan did nothing but post a link to a Bison fan site on which some NDSU fan bashed the Montana Grizzlies football facilites and the city of Missoula. Don't you think Montana fans might have some interest in that?

I concede nothing because I never claimed the Sioux had anything other than average goaltending. Nobody is even arguing that point. My point is that in the first half of the season when the Sioux were an offensively potent team, they beat the opposition in spite of some horrendous goaltending. They came back and won games in the third period because of their ability to score. In the last third of the season when the scoring fell off significantly and the power play all but disappeared, the only teams the Sioux could beat were Denver and Wisconsin. And remember, UND was 2-2-1 against seventh place DU. In five games, the Sioux were outscored 13-11 by the Pioneers. Otherwise, I agree with your last post.

OETKB, I agree with your analysis. I think the reason the Sioux started the season outmatching everyone offensively was because they were in excellent shape and had spent much of the summer playing together. But that only took the team so far. Eventually, as other teams got into game shape and began to jell, UND's advantage began to fade. The Sioux needed to kick their game up another notch and it never happened. Not to pick on James Massen, but I recall another post-game comment he made late in the season to Tim Hennessy. It was something to the effect that the Sioux players believed they could outwork any opponent in the third period. If you looked at the stats at that time, it absolutley wasn't happening. The Sioux were consistently being outplayed, outshot and outscored in the third period. Yet for some reason, the mindset among players seemed to persist that the Sioux were a good third-period team when, in fact, they became less and less of a third-period team as the season progressed.

Outshooting the opposition means nothing unless you can also outscore them. The fact remains that with the exception of two games against Wisconsin, the Sioux were in a scoring slump for the last third of the season. That's very uncharacteristic of a Blais-coached team and hardly a formula for success with average goaltending -- especially at playoff time.