yababy8

More FACTs is: The Commissioner of that joke league-the league which caused all of our opinions on how to handle the name issue to change because of fear of rejection by them- proclaimed that he was told to publically state that the league would kinda feel negative about the name if it was not removed and that something bad could happen. ...How is Florida State and Illinois doing with the with the problems this is causing them???

What is very dumb is you continually attempting to assert the Kelly had no culpability in the loss of our ability to use our nickname. You keep saying the settlement agreement was made before he became President of the University. Of course this is true but what is a miss characterization of the truth is that the settlemente equated to the loss of the name. Not true. You keep saying that the students should understand the history of the situation. This is quite funny because you don't? The reality of the situation is the settlement was just a beginning of what was to be, or should have been, a challenging hiil to climb. Yet Kelly did nothing, I repeat nothing, to rally all involved to achieve the rationale, fair and just outcome ... In a two year period where we just needed to get the two nations to sanction the use of the name Kelly did nothing to promote this outcome. In fact he never even chose to publicly decry the truth of the matter which was, is and always will be that there was nothing wrong with the name-a name the Sioux people by majority clearly loved and wanted used. He never stood up as a leader one time to represent this. He never publicly supported the rationality of keeping the name. He did nothing to attempt to rally the Sioux people around the use of their name. The funny thing is they ended up doing it themselves(See federal law suit or letter to the NCAA). -Oh sure you can say that it was Sioux people who failed to support the name in time. Even though I would argue that is not the case, let's just for the sake of argument say that it is. It still has nothing to do with what Kelly did or did not do. He should have been a leader and led all to the correct outcome. Instead once again, he did absolutely nothing! He and the administration around him were beyond pathetic when it comes to how the Sioux name was handled. And for you to attempt to characterize their actions as anything else is simply pathetic itself. The truth is the truth. Look it up!

Nice!

The first mistake perpetrated by/on the people of North Dakota was that they did not process this as a BIG deal. It was and is a very very big deal. The mentality that must be present in order to aqueous to such atrocities becomes inveterated. It is indubitably a disconcerting sign of our time on so many levels that this identity rape was allowed.

From the time he has been a freshman whenever he makes a good play I snicker the words, "Burnsie's boy!". I've said it countless times for the last four years. My favorite Gaarder moment is from a through these doors epusode (I think his freshman year) where he was asked how he had done on a final he had just taken, to which he replied simply, "good enough". I throw that one out sometimes when he scores...

Come on' no one gets the shoe reference. I'm not that old am I?

Two first rounders. Two second rounders, and all their QB's. And fot goodness sakes Adrian, tie your shoes!!

I'm trying to remember who was with Parks and Mac earlier this year. If my memory serves wasn't Caggiula with them for a few games where they were clicking really well and super dynamic? I agree lately Poolman is not contributing to scoring chances on our top line. Maybe he needs to be moved to another line? The problem with moving him back to D is both Thompson and Mattson are playing really well right now so I think it would be a bad Idea to sit one of them. This means keep Poolman up because he is such a strong presence on the ice. If you did move him back I honestly think the guy that has to sit is Ladue. Not because he is playing poorly by any means. I just think he is the guy you loose the least with at this time. Go ahead and light me up for that one... After you're done I'll say this, I think Ladue needs to be on the ice so I guess that puts Poolman right back up front...

I think everyone might be missing something here. Before this weekend I intended to start a thread discussing the extreme officiating tilt which seems to occur against us in EVERY Denver Sseries. I have posted multiple times over the last 10 years commenting on how poor the calls were against the Sioux in these Denver serieses. I cannot recall the last time I was inclined to voice my concerns with respect to one sided reffing in games against anyone else. (Maybe back in the day in games against the gophers but I honestly don't recall ever doing so). In contrast, I cannot remember a series against Denver where I wasn't apaulled to the point of being driven to say something about it on here. So then vs Denver always, vs everyone else never?? Hmmm? Is it just me??

I agree, obviously head-to-head is first, you can certainly argue goal differential should be second. I'm not inclined to think that is better than overall conference wining percentage. After all, CONFERENCE points is the the main bogey here so CONFERENCE losses seems comencerate with the main goal of most CONFERENCE points. And further I think losing a game is a bigger deal than whether or not you or the other guy happen to have the empty netter go in vs sail wide... In any case if you look at the current situation I think it is very conceivable that a tie breaker goes beyond head-to-head points AND head-to-head goals. Heck look at all the OT games we gave had lately. You get splits with two OT finishes and you have even goals right there. I'm just saying it should be there somewhere and I think it should be #2...

Again that is not correct. They go by win percentage in head-to-head competition not in overall conference record. While head-to-head win percentage does take in to account the number of losses, under these current tie breaking rules if the difference in losses between to tied teams came from outside of head-to-head play then the difference in the number of losses would not be considered above a coin toss. There is a little bit of an exception to this from the 5th tiebreaker rule which states, "If not determined by (1) or (2) or (3) or (4), the seeding for the NCHC Tournament shall be determined by comparison of the winning percentages of the teams tied in the standings against the remaining highest ranked NCHC teams, successively, until the determination is accomplished or all NCHC regular-season contests have been considered" In this rule, if teams had a different number of losses, then mathematically speaking that would be flushed out before they moved through a head-to-head comparison of every other team in the league but it is by no means a direct measure of difference in overall league losses. In any case overall league wining percentage is not a tiebreaking criteria.. ... not sure what compelled you to tell me to "settle down" as I am merely pointing out a flaw in the tiebreaking rules? Well a flaw if you believe as I do that losses should be a criteria before a coin toss...

That is not correct. As an example, look at the current standings: Three teams tied with 36pts. All three have the same number of wins. We have one less loss. That should, at some point in the tiebreaking order, be considered. It is not. It certainly should be a consideration before a coin toss? The league missed the fairway on this one...

I just found the tie breakers and it looks like fewer losses over all isn't even on the list. Looks like it comes down to a coin toss before losses are considered? http://www.nchchockey.com/page/show/878714-tie-breakers

I'm wondering who holds a tie breaker in a situation where the standings are as they are now. We are tied for first in points with two other teams yet we have one less loss. So does the less losses give us the decision or would head to head trump that? I.e. what is the order of tie breakers?

Yikes! What do they get to do for 5 hours in the middle of the night. I assume they don't rent hotel rooms for 4 hours waiting?

Good set of takeaways! I agree with all of it. It's nice to see you mentioning Mattson and OD. If I remember correctly you were dogging them a bit a while back? I think the key to Mattson is he has to make a point to be super aggressive around the net and end boards in the D-Zone. Offensively he is a driver and we need him in the game for that cause.

Don't get me wrong, I only used the word pony as a play on words for Malone. Fratten was absolutely awesome at what he did; power skate through anyone and blast a lazer accurate shot past the stunned net minder. In the end what else do you need in a forward.. Shortly after his return from his expulsion his junior year I predicted he would be a Hobey Baker finalist the next year so no one can accuse me of undervaluing him at all. I just think this group brings much more to the table through their puck moving and associated playmaking. They are fast and quick yet slow the pace down in a moment to let a play develop which takes a combination of pace, timing and vision. I have posted many times over the last several years on here about my opinion that our forwards need to be more deliberate around the net and not play so frantically. Think of how Rocco would basically spinout because he was not respecting timing as he did EVERYTHING fast. This is the first group in a long time that I think excels in this area...

Oh I can't leave out "should have done" vs "should have did" That is Cober's favorite..:-)

He had the ability to score with that shot like non other but it was a bit of a one trick poney- pardon the pun. :-) He did miss on his chance against Michigan. One of the things I read which drew me to start this thread was in last weeks Tuesday chat Brad Schlossman stated that this forward squad was not as talented as the '11 squad. I disagree with that. I think we have much more skill in this group, aside from the physical aspect of course. I say there is no way we don't score a goal with this team vs that Michigan team. Zero chance. Hehe

I can assure you I know very well the difference between s possessive pronoun and a contraction... Its just hard to catch when you ' re posting on yourrrr phone while driving.:-) ...if you ' re going to be a grammar Nazi why don't you work at teaching the entire state of North Dakota that it is "should have gone" or "should have come" Vs "should have went" or "should have came". :-)

People voted for it because they had a gun to their head. And yes the gun is still sitting on the table but that doesn't mean people don't want to keep the name if there would be a way to accomplish that. And it certainly doesn't speak as to what any public sentiment is with regard to just being North Dakota vs getting a new nickname. I also do not agree with you that the younger crowd has less passion for the name. On the contrary just look at the players words to hear their passion for our name. ...I'm suprised Fiason hasn't gone gestapo on them.

Yes that it correct. And in a universe, perhaps deep within an atom which is a part of the granite which makes up the Sioux logo in the lobby of the Ralph, there is a planet in a solar system much like our own(just much smaller:-)) where there is a university where fine skating beings not unlike ourselves play a game pretty much the same as the one we call hockey and after loosing their name which honored the native beings of the land where they resided to the whims of foolish zealots for a period of a few dozen revolutions around their sun chose to again be called what they should have been allowed to all along. Like everything else it's happened an infinite number of times. Which is a bit far from never. Hehe :-)

To bad your not a billionaire and I won't be alive in 50 years or I would give you a trillion times better odds in your favor than the ones you posted and bet you a penny that they get their name back within 50 years. Then If we are successful and reason finally prevails and we again are free to call ourselves what our name is I, being The richest man in the world, will throw a big party where I will make every Sioux fan who never gave up a millionaire. :-)

I still thinking seeking the council of a of a statistition might do you some good. :-)

Spot on. This is exactly how I would compare them. Aside from this year since '07 the most confidence I have had in a team was the '06 DOT line team and I did not feel good about things when we were down. I recall the first game of the regional when Michigan got up on us early I was thinking it was game over and when we came back I was suprised. In '97 I was not suprised, I was expecting it..