southpaw
-
Posts
3,620 -
Joined
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by southpaw
-
-
score updates around the country:
CC 4 - UMD 0: 10 minutes left in the 3rd
MSUM 5 - Wisco 3: mankato with five straight goals to take the lead into the start of the 3rd
SCSU 5 - Tech 1: six minutes left in the third
Mich 3 - Ferris 3: final, i think this will help the sioux's rpi
WMU 5 - UNO 5: final/ot... western mich scored 3 goals in the last 7 minutes to tie it up
-
Another goal there would have been sweet.
In other scores, MSUM leads UW, 5-3!
feel free to say that 1st sentence a lot... seems to have worked this time.
-
oshie w/ a breakaway goal.
3-0 sioux
-
for those not watching tv... at the end of a scrum a du fan along the boards started going off on prpich and he just sat there and laughed at the guy.
-
great play by finley? (maybe smaby) to stop a 2 on 1 chance
-
mike prpich goal!!! great job by that line to keep up the pressure w/o fabian.
2-0 UND.
-
unless jim is being overly protective, you should be able to post a press release. the point of it is the hope that it gets copied.
-
Yeah I guess we are all big homers which is why he was selected as player of the game for Saturday's game.
being the best in one game is one thing, but when you're shut out in points the first game, then you're probably not going to get picked. especially when you have less points against a weaker opponent.
not saying it wouldn't have been nice to see toews get it, but he certainly wasn't the best freshmen this weekend. so to feel like he was jipped is a little ridiculous.
-
i'm a big sioux fan, but sometimes i wonder if people who complain like the above post aren't huge homers.... 4 assists vs the number 1 ranked team in the league or two goals and an assist vs a bottom feeder. i think kessel is the obvious choice in this one, despite the fact that he's a gopher.
-
I've got a question for someone. How come so many CCHA teams are in the top 30 in the pwr? Is their conference really that good? It seems like ohio state can lose every game and they dont move anywhere in the rankings.
i haven't done a super in-depth look at it, but it seems that beacuse the CCHA did so well during it's non-conference games, it essentially means teams in the ccha are ranked higher because they play each other so much.
like the wcha in previous years, if you beat up in non-conference games, your league will get a higher ranking, which means every conference game you play is technically against a "good opponent" even if it's just a lower-conf team.
-
drinking water here. it's too bad too... if i could have a nice cap'n morgan the 10 pm news would be pretty interesting for you all.
-
Walski in net for sioux
that's not true. i don't know who is in net. settle down.
-
according to sagard in another thread:
Fairbanks - UND needs to take over TUC.
BU - UND needs to pass them in RPI and maintain CO. 50/50.
Cornell - UND needs to retake RPI and sweep UMD who is a CO. This is looking somewhat tough as Cornell has mostly winning teams remaining on their schedule.
DU - Out of principle.
Michigan - UND needs to pass them in RPI. Tossup.
UNO - UND needs to retake RPI. This one is probable.
Providence - Sioux need to maintain razor thin RPI edge and have Providence lose to either UNH or NE.
SCSU - UND needs to take back both TUC and CO. This is a 50/50.
Also against Ohio State, Ferris, Mich State, and SLU.
--------------------------
So Far at 9:30 On Friday:
Fairbanks hasn't started
BU beat Umass
Cornless loss to Clarkson
DU is up 5-3 after 1 vs Mankato
Michigan Lost in OT to LSSU
UNO beat N Michigan
Providence lost to BC
SCSU is losing 6-3 to CC
Ohio State lost to Mich State yesterday
Ferris Lost to Notre Dame
Mich State beat Ohio State yesterday
St. Lawrence beat Colgate
-
As for leadership, I mentioned Dave Tippett a while back. That was leadership. The player that got the job done on both ends of the ice and simply willed his team to W's. I know Smaby is a D man, and it's not his fault that Stafford sleeps through shifts, but I've seen too many dumb penalties or defensive lapses by Smaby to make me believe that counts as leadership.
You use Greene Chara and Boogaard in supporting Smaby's quest to play in the NHL. Thus far Greene has played 16 (out of 56) games and Chara is really the only regular on your list. Beyond that, even suggesting that Smaby is in their company due to his size is like saying that Manute Bol and Shaq are in the same company because they are both over 7 feet tall.
You know I jumped all over what I thought were Greeen's stupid penalties last year, but even I concede that he has greater potential to stick in the NHL if only b/c I can't remember Smaby's defensive play being as strong as Greene's. You would agree with that wouldn't you?
I haven't looked at the TBay prospect list, but as a big baseball fan, I'm suspicious of such lists as they are fun to look but sometimes are unable to accurately predict future value.
You're just a huge ball of sunshine aren't you. I bet you were pissed off at the team and questioning leadership back in '87 when they lost a couple games.
Greene is a ROOKIE on a defense-laden team. Oh, no, he's only played 16 games this year. He must be the worst defensemen ever. Why isn't he playing with pronger on the first d-pair? You seem to have a short memory. Greene took a lot more bad-timing penalties last year, but changed when it started to go down the stretch. I think I've seen a change in Smaby's play over the past couple weeks. He's hitting guys like he knows how to, he's staying out of the box, and he's playing solid defensively. I think a lot of people put too much pressure on the Captain position. I think he's doing his job and is playing well. Well enough to be a 6/7 D-man in the NHL. Hopefully, he Tampa doesn't think so, because despite your harping on him, I'd love to have him back next year. In a year where we don't have the fearsome D-Corps we had last year, Smaby is the big mofo that will light you up if you try to come into the zone. That's the epitome of Sioux Hockey right there.
-
i was getting really scared when i was reading those updates and augie took the lead. i noticed the same thing happened at st. cloud. had a decent lead at half and then let the other team back in during the second half before shutting them down. hopefully, that will stop and the girls can just continue on their torrid pace that is set during the first half.
-
I agree this issue has been blown out of proportion. Look at some of what you people are proposing. Frist, you have to look at the overall picture which is: when the betty was built, it was NEVER intended to be a conference game arena. That's why games were played in the Ralph last year. You're basically asking REA to have seen at least one year before-hand that the atmosphere at the ralph would suck and that coaches would ask to have all games at the betty.
When the Betty was built here's where things were at:
Volleyball - Betty
Non-Conf BB - Betty
Practice - Betty
Conf BB - Ralph
Big Games - Ralph
Seems like expecting the REA to know that the Betty would be used and there would be ONE sell-out in it's second season is ludacris. People are acting like the world is coming to an end because there was a sellout. The Xcel Energy Center sold out every game for it's first three years (could still be selling out, i don't know), but people didn't act like the sky was falling because there was a lowly 18,000 seats.
Don't look at the issue as the betty wasn't built big enough for conference bball, because it was never intended for that. Look at the issue as, some changes have been made this past year and some issues are still being worked out. I know a lot of people who think they've been screwed over by the Ralph, but have a little faith that they'll learn from this one issue and be prepared next time there is a potentially huge game. I'd think once the playoffs get here, the REA will be ready to handle a 4k crowd. If not, then let's come back and discuss how the REA management is a bunch of idiots.
-
The principle point that needs to made is whether or not we're getting what we're paying for. Women's hockey has a budget that's on par with the other major sports teams on campus (WBB, MBB, Men's hockey, and football). With the budget they have we've seen them have two conference wins this season. For the investment we have put in the program we should expect to see some results or people need to be held accountable (i.e. coaches). For comparison sakes many are calling for Coach Glas' head in MBB for the decline in MBB program. Well guess what when you cut a programs budget 30 percent you see declines in performance. By that same token Women's hockey has gotten more funding every year and have we seen any notable improvement.
your point about men's basketball is moot, because of a certain 25-0 team right now. seems like budget cuts didn't affect the women... i'd say coaching, injuries and some players not being on the team this year is why they are underacheiving.
fighting sioux hockey is in it's fourth year (second in the wcha)... despite being so young, they had the fourth highest attendance in the ncaa last year. the number of fans continues to rise as the games progress. with better results, will come more fans, which would allow the rea to up ticket prices, make more money off concessions, and the school would get money from final five appearances.
it's been a year and a half of wcha hockey. before that, it was two years of taking girls off of intramural teams and whatever was left in the area. give the team some time. give the coach some time. this isn't the men's team, you can't expect them to be instantly amazing. anytime a program just starts up, it's tough for them to win a lot. (please look at nearly all professional expansion teams and their track record with the playoffs).
it depends on who you ask whether we're getting what we pay for. if we're basing it off right now, then no. but if you based any sport on it's first four years in existence, then the chances are you could say no for all of them. are we providing girls across north dakota and northwest minnesota the opportunity to have someone local to look up to? yes. and that's immeasurable. how many of these high school girls who take trips to watch the team are going to commit to the school because it was so welcoming to them. give it some time before you start going off on title 9. i'm all against making up for wrongs in the past, but i'm all for equal opportunity. give them the same opportunities that this school gave the men's team back in 1947 when it started out with barely a handful of wins in its first couple years.
-
Any idea of what fraction of last year's tickets in the Ralph were free or reduced? This year, has there been any reduced tickets at the Betty? Since tickets for all games may not be available for walk-ups - the net result should be an increase in season ticket holders for next season.
i don't think any of last year's games at the ralph were free... the only time the free bball with hockey ticket was with non-conference games when they were played in the betty and sioux hockey was playing in the ralph.
i think rea should evaluate the capacity issue year by year. if we have more sellouts, then we should seriously consider going back to the ralph for conference games only. if all we have is one sellout, then i don't think moving games back to the ralph (except maybe scsu) is a good idea.
-
This is a side-bar from thoughts on the betty that came up. below are my reasons for adding whockey at UND, compared to other title 9 sports.
the comparisons to gophers women's hockey are innacurate. the amount of money the umn has to pay per-game for ridder arena is a lot more than UND pays to use the ralph. during the 03-04 athletic year, the umn women's hockey team lost $413,788.* i don't know the numbers for UND's women's hockey but i'd imagine it's at the most double that. now, remember that women's hockey is still an infant sport. as the sport grows at UND more revenue will be added (wcha playoffs, ncaa frozen four, fan attendance). the attendance figures at ridder arena (umn) also cannot be compared to UND. there are a variety of factors that affect how many people go to games, but a major one is corresponding sporting events. ony any day in the cities during hockey season there is: t-wolves basketball, gopher men's hockey, gopher basketball, vikings football, gopher football, wild hockey, storm lacrosse. on any given day in grand forks there is: sioux men's hockey, sioux basketball, high school sports, sioux football. there are a lot more options for people in the cities, so i'd imagine that unless you appeal directly to the niche women's hockey crowd, you're not going to get a huge fan-base. in grand forks, you don't have to appeal just to the women's hockey, you can go after all hockey fans or all girls, and bring in an ok attendance. finally, the difference in UND whockey and umn whockey is ticket prices. gopher tickets are $162 for the season, UND tickets are $50. the low price brings in the fans for the beginning of the sioux whockey phenomenon. prices will slowly go up as the team gets better, but getting a base set of fans who love sioux whockey early on is important. as the team gets better, ticket prices goes up, fan support goes up and revenue goes up. simple math kids.
people have complained as to why the UND whockey team can't be successful right away, when low and behold wsoccer is successful. lets look at the competition and be reasonable. d1 women's hockey vs d2 women's soccer. in whockey you're playing the best in the entire country, in wsoccer you're playing the ncc. look at most high schools in our region and they have wsoccer. look at most high schools in our region and they don't have whockey. recruiting is less of a burden and the level of competition is lower.
Some have suggested adding other revenue-gaining sports (or at least sports that don't lose as much money as whockey). After some quick searching, i found the gophers info, i couldnt find UND's budget after a short search. but this is the amount of money that gophers women's sports LOST during the 03-04 year* volleyball ($552,346), tennis ($201,690), golf ($201,858), gymnastics ($309,254), soccer ($340,720), softball ($362,678), swimming and diving ($381,629), women's track ($514,786), hockey ($413,788) and rowing ($468,653).
looking at those numbers, the only sport we could have added is gymnastics and rowing. i'll throw rowing out the window now for obvious reasons. gymnastics has a two-part problem. one is finding teams to compete against and two, is having a place to practice. you'd need an almost full-time gymnastics practice facility. i see none in sight. the costs for the startup of the sport would be much higher than for womens hockey (see rea already there).
-
wow... everyone just settle down. i'd hate to see what happens if we have any more sell-outs. perhaps the world would explode?
if you think the betty wasn't designed as a non-conference/volleyball/practice facility then you weren't around last year. the betty was used for: non-conference basketball games, volleyball and as a practice facility. none of the ncc games were played in the betty, all were in the ralph. please explain to me then why you can't believe that it was intended as a practice/volleyball facility.
i'm going to give the UND administration a little bit of credit by choosing to have the betty rather than renovate the old ralph. financially, it made sense (cost was higher to renovate than build the betty), promotionally it made sense (anyone remember getting into the basketball games free with your hockey ticket on a friday or saturday night last year? get people hooked and you'll attract them to more games, which means more money for you). it worked for me. i hated basketball, but with a game before sioux hockey, i was able to get in some basketball before a hockey game. after the first couple games, i never missed a basketball game that year. still, the only basketball i watch is the sioux, but i'm willing to drive from fargo to see a big game (sioux v scsu). all because they promoted getting into basketball for free with your hockey ticket.
originally here i made arguments for whockey, but i've decided to get it out of the "thoughts on the betty" thread. i've created a new whockey discussion thread and placed my comments there.
-
Agreed, starting women's hockey was probably the most shortsighted move UND administration ever made. Their had to be some other women's sport we could have started that wouldn't chew up cash like women's hockey does. Having it is basically like burning money and it doesn't matter how much we ever win it'll never pay it's way. Secondly, for all the resources we're throwing into it we better start to expect more bang for our buck. Their needs to be some accountability at the coaching level, if any other program that was getting the budget women's hockey gets consistently underperforms like they do their coach would be searching the want ads.
i'm guessing, but i believe that the system for playoff hockey for women is the same as the men. right now, UND doesn't get any money if their men's team makes it to the frozen four. this is because we are not a d-1 school. if UND goes d1, then that will change. the same can be expected with womens hockey. consistently there are 3-4 womens teams each year (umd, um, ohio state, etc) who can be expected to be in the wfrozen four. when (not if) UND makes it to the frozen four, not only will fan attendance be up, but we will start to get money from participating in the event. UND makes the jump and the two sports that were d1 before any other north dakota sport will start bringing in more money.
womens hockey is a feeder sport. it's like lacrosse. most high schools in north dakota don't have womens hockey teams. many in minnesota do. with THE major university in the state adding the sport, it will only add to the number of teams at high schools. the sport is relatively young and much like lacrosse can only gain support. give it some time, you can't expect the team to be making the playoffs in the first 5 years, maybe even the first 10.
-
moorhead playing centennial on fox sports net right now... mhs up 2-0 with a goal 8 seconds in and a shorty a couple seconds ago.
-
i breezed through the posts above this, so i'm sorry if i'm repeating someone.
i'm not sure where to start because there are 3-4 different issues going on with the betty. i think the decision to hold the game in the betty was a bad one, but i also can see where the admin was coming from.
from what i understand, and up until this year, this was the case:
the betty was built as a volleyball arena and a basketball practice facility. if you look back to last year, the non-conference games were held in the betty and the conference games were in the ralph. i believe that was always the intention when the betty was built. during big games (like thursday was), the ralph would be rockin, and the atmosphere would be amazing. last year attendance wasn't as good as it is this year and so the ralph seemed dead. way too much space with way too little fans. a lot of complaining by fans and coaches got all games moved to the betty for this year. i think that was the best thing that could have happened.
the games are way more exciting in the betty because you're so close and it's a small-town atmosphere with big-city amenities. up until thursday, the betty had never had a sellout. sure you can say it's a huge game and there is a chance it will sellout, but at the same time, it could be a horrible turnout for some odd reason (the weather). it would have made sense to have this game in the ralph, but i can see why they didn't. i'd imagine in the future, they will be better prepared.
the betty was never intended to be the new hyslop. it was for non-conference basketball and volleyball. only after complaining last year did the betty turn into the full-time basketball arena.
-
characters, it's been a good night... unforunately i work tomorrow night, so i won't be able to join all of yuo.
it's been a pleasure, go sioux.
Sioux/DU
in Men's Hockey
Posted
bucky scores, 6-4 mankato, about five minutes left