PCM

While continuing to allow the students to stand. Sorry, but that's no compromise.

Not according to what you previously stated.

Neither do I. So what are season ticket holders doing that prevents students from seeing and enjoying the games? Let me know, and I'll get on their case, too. I see no reasonable compromise being offered by the Student Senate, which continues to back the idea that students have a right to stand throughout the entire game while occupying some of the best seats in the arena. And that's the problem. The organization negotiating on behalf of the students refuses to compromise. They don't want to sit and they don't want to move. That forces Roger Thomas to treat all students the same, even though most them don't deserve it. Like you, I don't agree that students should have to police themselves. At the same time, I also understand why the REA doesn't want to resort to the heavy handed tactic of using police or security to toss out students who insist on standing throughout every game. If you really want compromise, stop attacking the REA, Thomas and the season ticket holders. They're not the problem. The problem lies with the elected representatives of the student body, who appear to be hell bent on supporting the so-called "right" of a few students to stand at the expense of the majority who are willing to compromise. You might not have any influence with those who insist on standing, but you certainly do have influence with those you elected to negotiate with the AD.

And I've gone to games in the old REA with almost no atmosphere. So what does that prove? It proves that what Ryan Bayda said last year: You can't expect the fans to cheer when you don't give them something to cheer about. Which is what I've said all along. I wouldn't have it any other way. I just don't buy into the idea that students should be able to do whatever they want simply because they're students.

Nobody said you shouldn't ever be able to stand. I'm sure that if I'd been at last night's Wild game, I would have been standing and cheering for the last seven minutes of the game along with everyone else. But if I would have attempted to stand for the entire game, I would have been shown the door. I wonder how they got all that great atmosphere at the X without a large number of students and with all those greedy corporate suits cutting business deals in their expensive suites?

I am well aware that the players are students. I imagine that's why they call it "college hockey." As I've said in this thread, I support the students being at ice level and having as many students as possible attend the games. It wouldn't be college hockey without the college atmosphere. The students are a major part of that. But I also know that standing up during games and chanting obscenities in unison does not equal college atmosphere. Those activities also don't endear students to the public. It would be nice to think that UND students today could be as creative and original as some of the students I've read about and heard about in years past. Finally, you need to disabuse yourself of the idea that without students, there would be no UND and no Fighting Sioux hockey. The fact is, without the taxpayers of North Dakota and alumni contributions, there would no universities in North Dakota.

How do they manage to generate such atmosphere at the X without any standing students? The idea that students must stand to generate atmosphere is a myth, a way to rationalize the continuation of a rude, disrespectul and inconsiderate practice. The crowd noise during the home series with Colorado College was as loud as anything I'd ever heard in the old Ralph, especially during the second game when the Sioux came from two goals down to tie the game. The crowd noise was just as good during the playoff series against Denver. Even when the Sioux lost 4-1 in the first game, the crowd was into it. CC's coach Owens attributed the hometown crowd with helping the Sioux to build momentum and come back against the Tigers. DU's Gwozdecky thought the crowd was the advantage that gave the Sioux the edge in both their overtime wins against the Pioneers. What's the one factor common to both these series? The CC series was during the Christmas holiday break. The DU series was during spring break. Many students were gone for those five games. And yet, without the usual compliment of students, the atmosphere in the REA was great. It can be done. That being said, I support having as many students at the games as possible. I also support having them in the lower bowl.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the students originally assigned seating at one end of the arena? Didn't they complain mightily about not having the same sections they had in the old Ralph? Isn't that why they were moved to the side seats in the lower bowl around the penalty boxes?

dagies, I understand and agree with your points. But I also sympathize with those who are paying a boatload of money to see the games. I'm quite certain that the students wouldn't put up with anyone who blocked their view of the game. What gives them the right to block other peoples' view? It's a matter of being considerate and respectful.

Here's the story from today's Grand Forks Herald about the UND Student Senate's "proposed compromise" on seating. Can you say "dead on arrival?"

I also heard that the Big Sky Conference was turning cartwheels over the prospect of NDSU going D1.

The picture was taken from the press box. The players look small because the picture is really small. When you look at the larger picture, it's not so bad. I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to sit in the upper bowl who doesn't want to, only that using the picture posted is not a fair comparison of what the view is really like.

Nice red herring, Tony. We weren't discussing something the Herald wrote. We were discussing what the Forum wrote. For the record, when the Herald advanced the argument that NDSU going DI would invite more corruption in its athletic program, I stated on this board that it was a bogus argument and a poor reason to oppose the move. As I said, I recognize blatant homerism when I see it. Doesn't matter if it's the Herald or the Forum.

Yes, I can, and I did. I recognize and reject blantant homerism journalism when I see it. Sue me. Ah, the Vast Fighting Sioux Conspiracy raises its ugly head again. You, Chapman and the Forum simply assume that this was UND's doing, even though there's no proof of it. You see it as a UND conspiracy. I see it as the North Dakota legislature acting as its typical, financially conservative self. Tell me, why did South Dakota's legislature pass a similar provision related to SDSU's DIAA bid? Did UND cause that to happen to that, too?

Let's not forget about UND's one-goal win over "pathetic" Bemidji State.

Bingo.

So why isn't this news in South Dakota?

The students belong at ice level so moments like this can happen.

Sorry, but any editorial that makes this statement...

I believe the nearest arena is in Sioux Falls, about 55 miles away. As I understand it, there currently is no indoor ice in Vermillion. USD just got done begging the SD legislature for the money to put a new roof on its aging Dakota Dome. If the school doesn't have the funds for that, it's difficult to imagine where the money for DI hockey would come from.

It was in the Grand Forks Herald a few months ago.

As I stated in another thread, I would be very surprised if this happens any time in the near future. Interestingly enough, there's no mention of this story on USD's Web site or any of the Web sites for the newspapers in Vermillion, Sioux Falls or Brookings where it should be news. It makes me wonder why the Fargo Forum thinks this newsworthy.

I'd be very surprised if this happens in the near future.

Nobody cares what you think because you won't be back in Grand Forks next school year. Why you'd leave sunny North Dakota for Utah (I stand corrected) is beyond me. Sometimes there's just no accounting for taste. On a more serious note, I agree that it's not reasonable to expect students to police themselves. I suspect the hope was that peer pressure might work. In other words, if the students causing the problem felt enough pressure from other students, they might see the error of their ways to avoid losing the good seats. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

Do the students not insist on being seated together as a group? Do they not insist that any effort to move them be approved by the UND Student Senate? That's what I'm talking about. Last season, I don't recall any great outpouring of student sentiment to remove the troublemakers who insisted on standing. In fact, what I continually heard from the students was that it was their "right" stand throughout the games and that it was a "tradition." Everything the REA did to cope with the problem -- including removing the individuals causing the problem -- was derided by the students and the media. You are correct about the chain-reaction effect caused when just a few people choose to stand. It forces everyone behind and beside them to do the same if they want to see the game. Unfortunately, there are some in the arena who can't stand or who can't see even if they do. That's why it's a rude, inconsiderate practice.