rochsioux

Taking an average of the other schools is a ridiculous measurement. What I would like to see is the number of student tickets alloted vs. the number of students enrolled. My guess is that the UND students have a much higher percent than most (maybe all) other schools in the WCHA. The main reason the students got such a large percent of the seats in the Old Ralph was that they helped pay for the building. My guess is that UND has 15-17% ticket allotment for the students (2000-2200 tickets for 13200 students). Not sure how many tickets schools like Minnesota make available for students, but they have 40,000 students which means they need to give 6000 or more tickets to the students to be comparable to UND. I believe Mankato State is similar to UND in enrollment and I doubt they allocate 2000 seats to their students. Lower bowl vs. upper bowl is a useless debate since all student seats in REA are excellent for watching hockey. Some schools such as MN only have one bowl so how can you compare locations ?

I have to agree with REA to some degree on this one. I'm not sure there was even one game last year where the students used all their seats in the upper deck. If 307-310 did sell out it was because the remaining student tickets were bought by the public. If you sell these as season tickets there will be a lot of empty seats for each game. The big problem is that the cost of the season ticket is so cheap that someone may purchase them with the intent of only going to select games. As long as the students can't sell out 307-310 for most games how can you expect REA to change their policy ? I agree that is sucks for the diehard fans but you still can get tickets. As far as the cost, why can't REA lower the price of the student single game tickets to match what a season ticket costs (about $4 ) ?

If the students can't fill the seats they get why should REA even consider improving location or the number of seats alloted to students ? If the students don't go because the seats are in the upper deck then they are pretty spoiled. If they want to see hockey then go to the game, sit in the upper deck and work to improve the atmosphere and quit whining about everything. Focus on what you do have: the best hockey arena in the country and one of the best teams every year. Every one of the student seats is a good seat. I travel 400 miles to Grand Forks 5-6 times each year to see games. My only way to get tickets is buy the few single game tickets that they sell, generally in section 311. These are some of the "worst" seats in REA. They are upper deck in the corners at the end where the Sioux only shoot once, and I pay $20-25 per ticket, not to mention ticketmasters ridiculous fees (+hotel, gas). I am NOT complaining, I am happy to be able to get a seat. My only other ticket option is if the students don't sell all theirs which was almost every game last year. However, to get these tickets I have to wait till the Thursday before the games so I would rather buy the single game tickets in advance so I can plan the trip. This year I couldn't get tickets for the Saturday Gophers game. Maybe I should complain to REA that more tickets should be placed in the public single game ticket allotment that goes on sale in September since the students didn't use all their tickets last year.

If you say the line starts at 8 am Friday it doesn't take a genius to figure out that some people will try to get there earlier to get an advantage. This had to be known in advance and some plan should have been devised for dealing with this. If the plan was to do a lottery then this should have been published ahead of time. In the end there is no perfect system when more people want tickets than there are seats available. A lottery will distribute the tickets randomly (assuming it is run fairly) but it will not respect the diehard fans more than a casual/social fan. The ticket distribution needs to respect the diehard fans as it is those fans that bring the atmosphere to the area. The only way I can think of is to track student attendance and deny tickets in future years to those that didn't use their tickets a specific amount or at least drop their priority. Given the demand for tickets and the minimal student cost to purchase, I think it is reasonable to expect those students that get tickets to actually use them for most games. REA should also sell rush tickets after the game starts and these tickets could then be used to sit in the student section if seats are unoccupied. If there is concern that casual student fans will show up late then you could deny entry once the rush tickets start selling or the first period is over.

Here is the contact info, you may want to call them and ask about tickets: Fly the Ralph

I agree with you on the free radio broadcast. Just find it hard to complain about since it doesn't cost me anything...however, with dataflix I am shelling out $$ so I have every right to expect that they will provide the service I paid for.

Did I mention that datflix sucks ? It is completely unwatchable today...I wish someone with REA cared enough to come on here and explain the problems and what is being done to permanently resolve them. They have had a year to fix this, completely unacceptable for a paying service. I can't complain about the Sioux audio not working since it is a free service and they have no obligation to maintain it. BTW, I think the Sioux scored to go up 17-0, not sure cause I am only get one or two second snippets at a time.

Kick-off out-of-bounds, CW ball on 35. 8 yard pass completion on first down. 2nd and 2. Not sure what happened but CW has a first down on their 47.

Dataflix video rarely gets more than 5-10 sec before buffering, very hard to follow game.

Sioux do nothing on offense, 43 yard field goal attempt is good. Sioux 3 CW 0 11 min left ? first half.

Sioux recover fumble, ball on CW 25.

Sioux ball, own 35. Sioux timeout. 3rd and 6.

BTW, dataflix still sucks

1Q just ended, no score

Looks like the men's hockey only pass is $99.99 which I think is the same as last year but without the women's games. It also appears that all games will be available except the two with Maine on 10/8 and 10/9, not sure why those are being left out. I sure hope the quality is better this year. I would even be willing to pay a bit more for a better and more consistent feed.

I have a radical idea that would improve the game and result and more scoring - enforce the rules on hooking and holding. Can't tell ya how tired I am of seeing someone put a stick in a players mid-section for a second or two to slow them down. This definitely reduces the number of odd-man rushes and therefore good scoring chances.

I will have to respectfully disagree. I believe you can verify that Parise did not touch the puck when it was above his head by watching the replay from the viewpoint of the shooter. You can follow the puck until Parise first touches it and to me it is obvious that his stick is not above his head. This validates my conclusion on the replay from the goaltenders view that Zach does not touch the puck when it first looks like he may have...it is an illusion and the puck has not yet reached his stick. Taking all this into account and Zach's comments after the game and I am pretty confident that he first touches the puck somewhere between waist level and below the shoulders. This still may be, and possibly was, an invalid touch but it is not clear cut as most of the posters on POI would like people to believe. None of this changes the outcome and so I will let it go at that.

One of the reason I decided to analyze the tape further and post my thoughts was the comments that were posted on POI concerning Parise's statements after the game. I think Zach would know the difference between touching the puck above his head or at the waist level even in the heat of battle. Therefore, I would tend to give his statement more credibility vs. those posters who didn't see what happened or listened to what Frank and Doug had to say...they did no objective analysis of the play, only saw what they wanted to see. I think Parise's statements were much closer to what happened then what the posters/critics on POI say, i.e. the puck was touched much closer to the waist level then above his shoulders/head. The criticism of Parise's statement just shows me that they are not interested in objectivity, only in finding ways to put down Zach. Given what I see in the replay I have no doubt that Zach believes it was a valid tip and as such he has every right to be angry that the goal was disallowed. I think the tip was higher than the waist level but not so high that his statement can be discounted so easily.

PCM, the view I am referring to is from behind the net. Be careful when watching not to be fooled when it looks like the puck and his stick become one...the puck has not yet reached the stick (at this point his stick is above his head). This is obvious as you follow the replay frame-by-frame. It looks to me that when he actually deflects the puck his stick shaft is parallel (or very close) to the ice. He is also bent over at a what looks like 150 degree angle, not standing straight up. Again, to me is is close enough that instant replay wouldn't overturn the call.

I was at the game last night and from my view I had no idea if the high-stick call was correct. Fortunately I had taped the game so I had a chance to look at it. If you have the tape watch the replay from the goaltenders view frame-by-frame and watch the rotation of the puck. Parise's stick initially is way too high when the shot is taken from the point (I'm sure this is why Frank and Doug kept saying the call was correct, they didn't WANT to look closely at the replay). As it approaches he lowers his stick for the deflection. You really need to watch the puck rotation otherwise you will think the puck is deflected sooner than it is. At the point where I believe it was deflected his stick was parallel to the ice...very close to the 4 foot level, hard to tell. If instant replay was used and analyzed correctly, I think the call would be "inconclusive" and would have to stand. So whatever was called (goal/no goal) would have to stand. It is not as obvious as some people would like to think. Parise's said he hit it at waist level, looking at the replay it was close but maybe a little above. He also said Shepard told him that it then deflected off a Sioux player (not a Gopher) before Murray scored. It is very obvious that no Sioux player touched it and that it deflected off a Gopher player...it is equally obvious that the Gopher player did not crontrol the puck. If Shepard really thought the puck hit a Sioux player and not a Gopher then he is even worse than I thought. If he meant that the next player to control the puck was a Sioux player then I would agree. An interesting sidenote is that Vanek looks like a spectator on the play. He did nothing to tie up Genoway or Murray, just stood around and watched the play. Another interesting high stick occured on the first gopher goal. When Greene tried to wrap the puck around the net it was knocked down by Fleming...this could have been called a high stick as it looked like his stick was as high as Parise's, the difference was Fleming's stick started low and went high and Zach's started high and went low. Fleming then hit Irmen and he scored the first rodent goal. I really don't care for Shepard's officiating. Watching the entire game replay there are numerous penalties that could have been called both ways. Even at the end Murray gets held/tackled with 4 seconds left, obvious enough that is has to be called. I cannot believe that the Sioux did not get one powerplay chance in the last two periods...it was not from a lack of infractions on the ice. Also, when the Gophers had a powerplay Shepard could have easily called another penalty on the Sioux for a 5-3 advantage apparently he didn't want to. Please just call the infractions without regard to anything else. Otherwise it just seems to be a random event when a call is made which then results in fans thinking a conspiracy is in place. BTW, is there a new rule that was modeled after professional wrestling ? It's OK to hold someone as long as you release it prior to a five count, and if you don't release well, that's OK too. There a times a player is pinned and held to the boards for a long time when the play has moved on. I better quit on the officials or this could go on forever.

I think the series will come down to penalties. The Sioux cannot afford any 5-3's and need to keep the 5-4's to a minimum. I have seen most of the games this year and I am very confident that they can beat any team even strength. Even in the BC series I thought the Sioux had a definite advantage when the side were even, but BC had a much better power play/special team play. I like the fact that Greene was benched last Saturday, this should send the right message and I don't expect him to take any bad penalties this w/e. I would like to see the Sioux get off to better starts...It seems like they give up the first goal too often. They cannot expect to rely on third period dominance to win a national title. If they don't improve on the start there is a very good chance they will get beat in the playoffs. I would also like to see the goalies get above and stay above a 90% save rate. If they do these two things I really like their chances at title #8 this year. I think both teams will be pumped up and come out flying on Friday. If the Sioux can come out of the first period without trailing they will win. I am a bit worried that the Olympic ice and emotions could get the better of them and result in power-play chances early. They need to adjust quickly to the larger ice and can't afford to fall behind 3-0 like St.Cloud. My guess for Friday is 4-3 Sioux. Saturday will be a good test for the conditioning of both teams. By the third period there will be a lot of emotion and energy expended on the w/e. The hard-hitting will also take a toll. Last year the Sioux went into the 3rd period of the Sat. game tied (? I think it was 3-3) with a powerplay to start. There was a delay to start the period (ice wasn't set up) and then the Sioux gave up a short-handed goal and it was all downhill from there. This year the Sioux seem to be much better shape and that has translated into 3rd period dominance (averaging over 2 goals in just the 3rd period). My guess for Saturday is 5-3 Sioux (empty netter).

Not sure why...works OK for me and didn't ask for a password. Here is a part on the signs: Fournier's return to North Dakota garnered plenty of attention. He began his college career in Grand Forks before transferring to UAA -- Fournier said he wasn't happy here; the Sioux questioned his physical fitness and commitment -- and the student section in The Ralph greeted him coldly for his first game back. One sign read, "Chris, Want Fries With That,'' and a student next to the one holding that sign dangled an empty container of McDonald french fries over the plexiglass in warmups. Another sign read, "Chris, Keep Your Chins Up.''

Anchorage Daily News Mentions a few of the signs in the game recap.