rochsioux

Hard to score without getting shots on goal. They had 39 in the first two periods and also missed the net and had shots blocked. If you didn't know the final score but only knew that und was up 4-3 after two and had 39 shots on goal but would only have 40 for the game, how confident would you be that they won the game, especially given that bsu had 15 shots and 3 goals in the first two periods and would get 10 shots in the third ?

When the shots by period are 20-19-1 (according to the box: http://www.uscho.com/box/?date=20090102&am...su&gender=m) then the 3rd period should be a major concern. With a one goal lead entering the third you need to keep putting pressure on...they were very fortunate thast BSU didn't tie it up at the end. Wonder what the posts on the board would look like then ? If the third period play was by design then they need to reconsider their plan.

Not a good 3rd period. A good team should put them away and not leave it up to a post to save the win. I don't understnad why they backed off on the forechecking pressure, BSU looks to be a horrible team breaking out from their end. That said, these games with BSU are probably meaningless. The most realistic chance to make the NCAA's is to win the WCHA tourny. To do that they almost have to finish top 3 which is possible.

Pathetic effort...too often in games like this, a game we should win, we play with no emotion, fall behind and then continuing playing as if we should have no problem coming back, then with a few min left someone must point to the scoreboard and realize we are behind. They work hard for a few min, score a goal, pull the goalie, game over, another loss. This is a terrible Michigan State team. To lose one of the few remaining non-conference games left this season to them is extremely disheartening. At this point in the season we needed to win this game and we come up with this kind of effort. They just made their path to the NCAA tourny much harder.

I see Notre Dame is ranked #1. Here is their record so far: Teams with winning record: Denver (13-5-1) 0-1 Miami (12-3-3) 0-2 Boston C (9-5-2) 1-0 Ferris State (9-8-3) 2-0 Teams with losing record: Sacred Heart (4-9-2) 2-0 N.Mich (3-10-3) 2-0 Providence (3-12-1) 1-0 LSSU (4-8-6) 1-0-1 Bowling Green (5-10-3) 4-0 West Mich (2-10-4) 1-0-1 The teams with a winning record have a combined record of 43-21-9. Notre Dame went 3-3 against them. The teams with a losing record have a combined record of 21-59-19. They went 11-0-2 in those games. The strength of schedule looks extremely weak. I will give them credit for winning games against poor teams but right now I find them a very suspect #1 team.

If someone made that statement then they can't do simple math...unless a family = 60-70 people.

The score was 1-0 Harvard. Ocurred during the 2005-2006 season during the xmas break. I believe we were missing Oshie, Toews, Chorney, and Lee to the WJC.

If I buy your premise that this is a rebuilding year (which I am not ready to do so), it would make no sense to split goalie duties between Eidsness and Walski. The whole point of a rebuilding year is to improve for the next season. Playing Walski does not do that. I would rather give playing time to Harrington if I was going to play two goalies in a rebuilding year. Eidsness is the starter and should play most of the games this season. Not only does he give us the best chance of winning but he gains valuable experience for future seasons.

Not sure but I believe Eades coaches the defense.

I don't see the glaring weakness at goaltending right now. Is Eidsness as good as JPL was last year ? Of course not, but that doesn't equate to being weak in goal. Let's look at the last 6 games (AA, UMD, Cornell). Eidsness started all games except for the first Duluth game where he came in to replace Walski approx halfway into the game. In these games Eidsness faced 145 shots and allowed 11 goals for a save % of .924. His GAA was around 2.00. Given the level of competition and the fact that four of the six games were at home, IMO a good team would have gone 5-1 or 4-1-1 in these games, instead we went 2-3-1. Had we scored 3 or more goals in the games we would not have lost even once. The problem right now is not goaltending, it is a lack of offense. When you see how much we struggle on the PP it is no wonder we are having trouble scoring. In those six games we scored 16 goals which is an average of 2.67 goals/game. If you exclude the one game we scored 7 goal, we only averaged 1.80 goals/game in the other five. The lack of offense is the reason we are struggling to win right now.

Kozek has had very little PP time, mostly when the top 2 PP lines have been out too many times or when his line is out to end the last 20 secs or so. You may have a point on the puck handling skills but as bad as our PP has looked this season I think I would look at putting him on the PP unit. After all, he tied for the team lead in goals scored last season. It's not as if we are having great success on the PP with the players we are using. Saturday night we had Toews on the 2nd unit which to me is a slap in the face to Kozek. Toews didn't even dress on Friday night, he hasn't scored a goal yet but he is on the PP while a guy who has proven that he can score goals sits on the bench. If I recall correctly, scoring goals is an important part of winning hockey games.

Can't agree. You make it sound like Kozek played on the same line as Oshie the whole season which isn't true. He played with Oshie less than half the season. Oshie assisted on 5 of the 18 goals and was on the ice for 3 others, including one unassisted goal in Duluth when the Duluth defensemen messed up in his own zone and Kozek picked up the puck and scored, hardly caused by Oshie being on the ice. He scored 10 goals without Oshie being on the ice at all. Not trying to take anything away from Oshie as it would be a big benefit to anyone to be playing with him. It's just that the stats don't back up your claim, IMO.

Not true at all. Oshie only assisted on 5 of Kozek's 18 goals. If you want to include Duncan then 6 of Kozek's goals were assisted by Oshie and/or Duncan. I really don't understand Haks use of Kozek. He tied for the team lead in goals with Duncan last year while not getting anywhere near the powerplay time that Duncan gets while constently being moved around on different lines. Kozek was a top scorer in the junior leagues and showed last year that he is capable of scoring at this level. Yet he is rarely playing with other players who can set him up and very rarely gets any powerplay time. I just don't get it.

Extremely pathetic effort tonight. Extremely. With approx 5 min left in the second we had 6 shots on goal ! Sorry, but that effort will not beat anyone. I am getting tired of seeing Genoway screw up in the offensive end which then leads to a 2 on 1 or breakaway the other way. It is especially bad given that we have unproven goaltending. Genoway is a junior and I expect an upperclass defensemen to play much better. He can't sacrifice on defense to try and make a play on offense. The third goal tonight was cause by his attempt to jump up on the blue line and try to knock down a clearing attempt. Not impressed at all with AA, they will end up near the bottom of the league as they do almost every year. To play this bad against them is embarrassing. Eidsness needs to play almost every game the rest of the way. Walski is not the answer and we need to find out what kind of goalie we have in Eidsness. I think he will be a good one but he will have his ups and downs this year. Until he is comfortable and playing well the defense cannot afford to take chances that lead to odd man rushes. In 2005 we had a lot of freshman defensemen (Chorney, Lee, Finley, Jones) but we had a proven goalie. In the opener against Miami that year, the defense was terrible but Parise bailed them out. This year we have been playing one or two freshman, a converted forward, and two sophomores. It usually takes till midway thru the soph year for the defensemen to be comfortable. We don't have a proven goalie that can bail out bad defensive play. I've seen some good things out of the team this year, but tonight there was not one positive to take away. I still think this team will be very good, maybe sooner than we expect but tonight was a giant step backwards.

I think the reference to 101 behind the goal is referring to the Kohl center. This thread is about away game ticket info. There was a post reminding that tickets for the wisc game at the kohl center went onsale this week. The next post was talking about tickets available in section 101 so I think that's what caused the confusion.

Since the refs seem to be actually enforcing the hooks/holds/interference this year (along with some phantom ones), I think it is best to be in an offensive mindset. The more pressure that can be placed on the opposing teams defense the more powerplays I would expect to see. We can draw a lot of penalties if we keep up a relentless forecheck and cycling down low. So far this year we are averaging 37 shots/game and giving up 28. I like those numbers. I think the goaltending will improve as we go and getting the defense healthy will also help the goaltending. Even though we are only 3-5 so far, IMO we are passing the puck MUCH better than we were at this stage of the season last year or any year under Hakstol. If that continues (and gets even better), and the goaltending and defense comes around, I think we stand a very good chance of winning #8 this season. Goaltending and getting/staying healthy are the keys.

No way I want to see any more teams added to the WCHA. It is already too large. The problems I see: 1. Reducing the number of conferences is NOT the way to expand college hockey. 2. We already have an unbalanced scheduled, let's not make it worse. I do not want to trade games with Minn, Wisc, and Denver so we can play conference games with Bemidji and UNO. 3. I believe adding the CHA teams to existing conferences would greatly increase the chance of a Big 10 hockey conference. An 8 team league is ideal, home and home series with each team, total of 28 games. They should never have expanded to 10 teams.

Some if this is speculation but I believe when they left Grand Forks they expected that Joe would be able to play so they decided to leave Fienhage at home. Once they got to Colorado the altitude may have been a contributing factor to deciding that Joe wasn't recovered enough from the concussion to play this w/e.

I don't think Joe will be playing tonight.

This is all I found: http://www.collegehockeyatthejoe.com/purchase.asp

We need Finley back ASAP. Fienhage is not ready for this level, he should be playing juniors. I have no doubt he will be fine given time he is just not ready to be playing nightly in the WCHA. I would like to see Genoway benched for a game but we don't have enough defensemen. Chay is great with the puck but he makes way too many mistakes, especially for a jr. The penalty he took at the end of the second was unacceptable and IMO it is the biggest reason we lost. Without that penalty Wisconsin doesn't get that first powerplay goal. That would have been a dumb penalty for a freshman defensemen, but for someone with as much experience as Chay it is unacceptable.

Huh? So someone feels harmed by the logo. There is always a minority group that will feel harmed by something. Not too hard to believe he was a politician. IMO, if we have to rush into a decision, then we should announce that we are going to continue to work with the tribes but at the end of 2010 if there is no agreement then we are going to keep the nickname and accept the sanctions. The NC$$ can blow it out their a$$.

fixed

If they announce a nickname change anytime in the next year it is because they want to get rid of the name. They don't want to take the chance that a change in tribal leaders might lead to a more receptive climate to keep the Fighting Sioux name. I still believe that the only real reason the state/UND sued the NCAA was to get a retraction on the university being "hostile and abusive". Once they got that they surrendered the lawsuit and almost immediately we saw press releases that it was hopeless to keep the name, the tribal leaders reiterate their opposition, we need to begin forming committees, this needs to be resolved quickly, etc. Bunch of garbage. If you are really sincere about wanting to preserve the name then you take as much time as possible (3 years) to explore all possibilities, including the possibilty of tribal leadership changes. If there were any indication that the tribal membership as a whole was against the nickname then we are fighting a losing battle, but I don't believe that is the case. Changing the nickname right now under these circumstances and without using the entire 3 year period will only increase the bitterness and problems that will surely follow.

Why is there such a rush on resolving this issue ? The settlement is less than a year old, we still have two years left. Let's say November, 2010 comes and we have no agreement and have done no preparation for a nickname change. So what ? None of the revenue sports will be eligible for the playoffs anyway, except for hockey and the regionals are already awarded to other sites. What do we really lose by waiting ? We get one chance to keep the Fighting Sioux name. Let's wait it out and see what time brings. When are the tribal leaders up for re-election ? Maybe, just maybe, they will be voted out and we will see some new leaders that might be more receptive to the nickname. If the tribes would have a vote of all members on this issue and they voted against the nickname then I would say it is time to move on. But every poll I have ever seen on this issue would suggest otherwise. This seemingly rush to eradicate the nickname suggests that the state and university leaders want to change the name. IMO, there is no other way to rationalize the "settlement/surrender" with the NC$$ and the idiotic way that Goetz has handled this issue since the surrender was announced. Here's the quick summary: Oct, 2007 North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem announces surrender that gives UND 3 years to get approval from both Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. One month later: "North Dakota's Board of Higher Education could act to retire UND's Fighting Sioux nickname within the next few weeks rather than send a delegation to discuss the matter with leaders of the state's two Sioux tribes, board president John Paulsen said". Goetz decides to "try" and has meetings with the two tribes. Goetz: Uh, we asked them if they were against the nickname and they said they were. I guess that does it, time to start forming committees. That's the best they can do ? Wow, who would have thought that they would still be against the nickname a month or two after the surrender agreement with NC$$. Either the "settlement" was a complete sham or the state board are a bunch of idiots, or both. Since the surrender we have been spoon fed stories that seem to be part of a plan to prepare people for the name change. Where are the leaders on this issue who want to keep the nickname ? I don't think there are any in the ND legislature or in the UND admin offices. It is really sad. Had I know this was the type of leadership we would see on this I would never have contributed to the legal fund. So what. Either way UND will have to pay. My understanding is that REA turns over all profits to UND. If so, then even if REA paid for the logo removals it would still cost UND.