krangodance

maybe nhl.com administrators plan to burn down all the hotel rooms occupied by rit and new hampshire players in the hopes that the ncaa will just push both uw and scsu through.

as mentioned, masn is broadcasting the st cloud / northern michigan game. uscho.com says the game starts at 4:30 but my directv channel guide shows the game starting on masn at 6:00. anyone know if the start changed, directv's guide is incorrect, or masn is showing a replay?

i meant to reply to this one. therefore...awesome!

awesome!

if you have directv, here's the schedule for the weekend: friday: 2:00 denver vs rit 614 4:30 st cloud vs northern michigan espn360.com 5:30 cornell vs new hampshire 614 8:00 wisconsin vs vermont 614 saturday: 12:30 boston college vs alaska 630 3:00 miami vs alabama-huntsville 614 4:00 north dakota vs yale 668 5:30 den/rit vs cor/nh 614 6:30 bemidji state vs michigan 668 8:00 wis/ver vs scsu/nm 614 sunday: 4:30 bc/uaf vs und/yale 614 7:00 mia/uah vs bsu/mich 614 as you can see, only the st cloud vs northern michigan game will not be broadcast on directv (provided you have the sports package). perhaps that one will get added before tomorrow as well. that would be sweet.

i disagree. my order is: 1. make fun of those who called for hakstol's job (just until saturday though) 2. win a national championship (i'm not on the team so i don't have to have the "take it a game at time" mentality.

okay...sorry. i'd like to strike yzerman19's handle from my post, but ticklethetwine is staying (i think he was probably a skippy anyways).

oh hell yeah

is that a prediction or do you have some inside information?

amen. the ncaa could sell games at $2 a game all season for all teams and make a killing.

i didn't have a problem with posters this season who pointed out the fact that we're not having a great season when we, in fact, were not having a great season for a good portion of the season. the posters that got me going earlier this season were the ones who were calling for hakstol's firing because we were struggling at the time. the post i'm referring to most specifically was this one: http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?showtopic=13494 on that thread, the majority of posters were making comments essentially saying that hakstol needed to go because we hadn't won a national championship in his first five years. posters like yzerman19, irish, and especially ticklethetwine left posts on that thread that would make one think hakstol hadn't accomplished a thing since taking over as head coach. i finally replied on page six with this: "it's all about results. four frozen four in five years. a couple seconds away from making it again last year, which would have made it five for five. i'd say hakstol is giving the team more than a chance, but anything can happen in a single elimination playoff system and things just haven't worked out for us on the biggest stage lately; hardly worth firing a coach over." i know i was a bit off since our loss last year was in the first round, not the second, but my point is still valid. now here we are ranked 5th in the nation and playing in our sixth consecutive national tourney in six years under hakstol. in a later post on that same page i did call ticklethetwine out and pointed out how badly we'd all be making fun of our rivals if they had a coach as top-notch as hakstol and they were saying the sort of things about him that ticklethetwine was saying about hakstol. i hope we go all the way this year, but anybody criticizing hakstol's performance in his first six seasons as head coach will likely only be happy if we get a coach that wins six national championships in his first six seasons as head coach. good luck finding that guy.

if they were smart, they'd throw the wild on channel 45 in the twin cities and put the sioux/gohers game on fsn north. the wild have nothing left to play for, whereas the gophers can still make the ncaa tounament, but they have to win 2 of 3 this weekend to stay alive. i would think more minnesotans would be rooting for the gophers this weekend than the lowly wild.

saturday night's game is on fsnhd, but i'm guessing fox isn't going to send an hd crew to the ralph. i just don't get it, i live in mn, but yet i can watch hockey east and ccha games in hd all the time, but rarely do i get to see a wcha game in hd. i can only remember one this year in fact.

i didn't say anything about legit or illegit. i just gave the facts. it should be noted that only a couple of their national championships were unanimous since there were several organizations awarding the nc at that time and they rarely all gave the nc to the same team. i mean, seriously, a 6-1 record won over some of those organizations some years that the gophers won. unless there were only like ten teams in the nation, i don't understand how that works out.

it should also be noted that all six of their national championships in football were before a game was actually played to determine the champion. therefore, all six are based on poling.

lies! they've won 5.

"they would also be inferring that someone who is gay is also boring, teaches nothing, and is a waste of time" those are your words and your thoughts, not mine. i'm done with this silliness. sorry to everybody else, i should have never got involved in the first place.

let's assume somebody had to take a class for work and the class was boring, taught him/her nothing he/she didn't already know, and was generally a waste of time and corporate dollars. if he/she referred to that class as gay, you'd assume that he/she thought the class was interested in other classes of the same gender and that he/she held that against the class? context, my friend, is very important in language. i consider it a good thing that the word "gay" is slowly being removed from our vocabulary as a way of demeening somebody simply because of their sexual preference. i'd ask you to stop propogating that out-dated use of the word, but something tells me you're not the type to view things from another angle. forgive me if i'm incorrect in my assumption.

thank you. my point exactly, only you did a better job of making the point.

don't pass off your closed-minded definition of a word on others.

tough talked a woman no less.

i don't think he meant that kind of gay. that's your interpretation.

i don't know if that is true or not, but rpi is only a tie-breaker. your pwr is determined by the number of tucs (teams under consideration) that you beat in each comparison.

personally, i think the pairwise could be updated so that all 58 teams are compared to all of the other 57 teams. why not rank every team 1 - 58? that way every game truely counts.

yeah, the pairwise needs to be overhauled. i mean, as long as you beat all the tuc teams, you can lose to every non-tuc team you play in a season and it won't affect your pwr.