krangodance

right, but somebody posted that we only get 34 games, unless we go to alaska, in which case we get 36 games. my original post about us playing 38 games was in response to that post. this last post was in response to somebody saying we had two over the 36 game max because we played two exhibition games, but we actually played 40 if you count those two exhibition games. are you just screwing with me? cause i feel like i'm going in circles here. my guess is the individual who said we get 34 games (36 if we got to alaska) was incorrect, but i was trying to find out if there is some other factor that allowed us to play two more games, such as playing in the great lakes invitational. on a side note, i personally think this whole arguement about the importance of playing non-conference teams is a bit weak. we did poorly against non-conference teams this year and still finished eighth in the pwr. just being in the wcha allows us to consistently play tough teams. this year was one of the weakest for the wcha in years and we still made the tournament with a poor non-conference showing. don't get me wrong, i like playing non-conference teams, but i think six to eight non-conference games a year is plenty. besides, it's a crapshoot anyways since you don't know which non-conference teams are going to be strong and which are going to be weak when the schedule is set.

i'm not counting those two. those would make it 40. we had 28 conference games and these ten non-conference games: boston u massachusettes cornell (2) harvard (2) michigan state michigan tech (this was a non-conference game at the gli) bsu (2) that's 38 games, none of which were exhibition.

that's why i suggested in a previous post that inconvenience home-away series be played on split weekends, just as cc and du did this year. as for somebody saying there's a 36 game max if you go to alaska. didn't we play 38 games this year? maybe there's another rule that allows us to play more games.

an example ten season und schedule with 11 teams and 30 intra-conference games: season 1: four games - umn, msu, scsu, bsu, umd two home - uw, cc two away - du, uaa home-away - mtu season 2: four games - uw, cc, du, uaa, mtu two home - umn, msu two away - scsu, bsu home-away - umd season 3: four games - umn, msu, scsu, bsu, umd two home - du, uaa two away - cc, mtu home-away - uw season 4: four games - uw, cc, du, uaa, mtu two home - scsu, bsu two away - msu, umd home-away - umn season 5: four games - umn, msu, scsu, bsu, umd two home - cc, mtu two away - uw, uaa home-away - du season 6: four games - uw, cc, du, uaa, mtu two home - msu, umd two away - umn, bsu home-away - scsu season 7: four games - umn, msu, scsu, bsu, umd two home - uw, uaa two away - du, mtu home-away - cc season 8: four games - uw, cc, du, uaa, mtu two home - umn, bsu two away - scsu, umd home-away - msu season 9: four games - umn, msu, scsu, bsu, umd two home - du, mtu two away - uw, cc home-away - uaa season 10: four games - uw, cc, du, uaa, mtu two home - scsu, umd two away - umn, msu home-away - bsu

i came up with this same idea once, but somebody pointed out that you'd end up playing more home games than away games or vice-versa. however, this could be overcome by doing a home and away series against one team that you're only playing twice each year. simply rotate through all ten teams on a ten year rotation for the home and away series. the only situation that kind of sucks is if you're paired with uaa for a home and away, but they could split that series the way denver and cc split their last series this year where they did two one-game weekends, one in denver, one at cc. this way you wouldn't have a situation where you'd have to fly to uaa and then back home the next day. plus, it's only once every ten years so it's not a big deal.

i know many people on this forum are against it, but i really think the wcha governing body should increase the intra-conference game schedule to 30 games per team. i don't know if it is a d1 hockey restriction or a wcha restriction that is keeping this from happening, but if whomever is responsible for that decision wants to see d1 college hockey flourish rather than diminish, this is an obvious change that could be made to further that agenda. a conference anywhere from 11 to 15 members strong could then create balanced, workable schedules, which would eliminate all this ridiculousness over whether the wcha, or any conference for that matter, should expand or allow teams to die. i think all of us, the logical among us anyways, agree that reducing the number of d1 hockey programs is dangerous for the future of college hockey. as professional sports leagues have expanded, so has the number of regular season games increased within the expanded league. this is not only crucial for scheduling, but it allows the league to take in more money, which allows for further expansion. perhaps we could someday see five conferences of 15 teams each in d1 college hockey. with 75 total teams, the sport might actually start attracting enough attention from participating schools to finally get the coverage we all would love to see.

this topic has really gone in a strange direction. who played who the most? really? we care about that now?

this is quite a presumption. i for one cannot get directv because of an association rule in the condo complex i live in, which i think is ridiculous, but that's the way it goes. plus, a friend of mine who has directv does not get espnu unless he subscribes to a sports package, which is also ridiculous, yet very common among both satellite and cable providers. regardless, i'm most certain that few, if any, of us on this forum who don't get espnu knew we'd potentially be missing a sioux hockey game on espnu when we subscribed to our respective cable providers. on another note, b-flat.

logic would lead me to believe that those programs who went to d1 were able to do so because of their dominance at the d2 level, which would reasonably lower the bar as far as the requirements to be a dominant d2 program. then again, i think many of those teams who went to d1 did so because they had one d1 program already and new ncaa requirements would force them to either demote their d1 program or promote all of their d2 programs, such is the case with und. i would guess it's a combination of both of your observed possibilities. however, i'm only making an educated guess and i certainly do not follow the nsa conference closely enough for one to consider me a reliable resource on this topic. wait a minute, why am i even writing this? i have no idea what i'm talking about...my apologies.

same goes for comcast, which i believe is the 1st or 2nd largest cable company in the nation.

this is such a common cop out among goofer fans. they start a debate about umn vs und. as soon as they're put in their place about the real history of both teams, they immediately try to change the debate to one about which state, mn or nd, has produced more successful hockey players. this argument is basically the same as saying "haha, we have a larger population than you do". this is classic goofer back-tracking. if this was an organized debate, this guy would lose points for such an off-topic comment. well, i actually have never participated, nor even seen, an organized debate, but this should be a penalty, so i'm calling it a foul. that puts the current score at: und fan: 100, umn fan: moron

again with this non-sense? if this happens there will surely be an out-cry, but there's nothing to support a prediction like this and years of pwr vs. committee selection to support the opposite. i think the committee will get it right again. if the goofs finish high enough in the pwr, they're in. if not, we'll see them next season...and crush their season again.

it took me eight years to get a bachelor's degree because of conflicts like this during the first few years of college; not all sports related, mostly alcohol and road-trip related. after getting nowhere academically at north dakota, i switched colleges (went to mankato) and graduated from there. in my experience, i was way more suited for certain advantages of college life, that i won't go into, during those last four or five years of college than i was during those first few years. so, basically, even if you fail your test and your class, at least you get to stay in college longer, which definitely has it's benefits. i'm sure those benefits would have diminished had i stayed there much longer, but as it was, i regret nothing and would do it the same way if i could go back. i know others who couldn't do it the way i did it since i've seen too many people who screwed off for the first two or three years of college and they ended up dropping out and regretting not taking it more seriously. however, based on my own personal experiences, this is a no-brainer...get drunk, go to the game, sleep with a stranger, and if there's time, go take your precious test. bong!

xena was rather terrifying.

state funded or not, only great athletes from other countries get scholarships to u.s. colleges. their contribution to their respective sport's teams likely helps their teams do well, which in turn, brings money into the university. this is only one of many positive results that come about by allowing foreign students to get sport's scholarships. i'm guessing the argument these clowns are presenting is something along the same lines as the arguments some pose about giving jobs to illegal aliens. i have no interest in going into that, but this issue is completely different. foreign athletes are here legally and, if they're worthy of a sports scholarship, they're usually a valuable asset to their respective schools and communities. this bill is lame and i highly doubt it will pass.

oh man! i am really enjoying the picture i have in my head of this guy smiling proudly while posting this gem. he highlighted the "a-holes such as myself" part...priceless.

perhaps you are correct. i certainly don't have a vast array of observations to support the contrary since most of the college hockey games i watch are home sioux games that i watch online, which of course is an nhl sheet.

oh great. thanks a lot, sagard, now you've taken my point and turned it into gopher propaganda. "this man does not represent us" -- george carlin on the simpsons.

agreed. on another note, it looks like there's not much agreement with me that olympic ice rinks would make for better college hockey. i'm kind of surprised by that. then again, maybe i shouldn't be surprised. after all, i may have an affinity for a solid passing attack, which i think the larger ice allows for, but most people probably like the speed of games on the smaller ice sheets. i suppose it comes down to whether you prefer precision hockey or fast, hard-hitting hockey. i'm guessing the latter does sound more appealing to most sports fans. for me, there's just something about a finesse game where you can see the play development more.

the basic question that has lead to all this back-and-forth is this: is the bison's accomplishment of making the ncaa tournament the biggest accomplishment in north dakota state history? you threw out a fair stat so let's evaluate it. 16 of 58 d1 college hockey teams make the playoffs, which is approximately 27.6%. 65 of 334 d1 college basketball teams make the playoffs, which is approximately 19.5% based solely on numbers, it is clearly more prestigious to make the bb tourney than the hockey tourney. however, the sioux haven't simply made the tournament, they've won the whole thing. let's evaluate that: 1 of 58 d1 college hockey teams wins the national championship, which approximately 1.7% 1.7% of 334 is 5.678. since i'm a numbers guy, i'll admint without hesitation that if ndsu makes the final four it will be the greatest accomplishment in the history of north dakota as there is a lower percentage of basketball teams that reach that level than there is a percentage of hockey teams that win the national championship. i don't give much weight to the argument that the level of national exposure should be taken into account. just because there are more basketball fans than hockey fans in the country doesn't make the accomplishment of representing that sport any greater. however, i'm willing to give a little bit of weight to that fact (like i said, not much). therefore, if ndsu can make it to the elite eight, that qualifies as the greatest division one sports accomplishment in the history of north dakota. i believe that would also be the greatest accomplishment in the history of the summit league as well, which would be impressive. should the bison make it to the elite eight, this year or any other year in the future, the following season i will post a large picture of myself on this forum sporting a bison basketball jersey at a sioux hockey game. beer in hand and a smile on my face. until then, any further suggestion that winning the summit league championship is as big an accomplishment in the history of north dakota sports as what the sioux have accomplished in hockey will continue to be viewed by any logical person as proposterous and you know you're only kidding yourself to say otherwise.

i really don't think this happens. i did run one scenario on the pairwise predictor that put the gophers at a tie for the last spot in the tournament with ohio state. in that scenario, ohio state had the higher rpi so they won the tie-breaker. since the two teams didn't play each other in the regular season, the committee would traditionally go with rpi to break the tie. if this scenario does become reality, that would be a good test. based on the way they've handled ties in the past, the last spot would go to ohio state. if this plays out and it goes to the gophers, then it's time to holler tampering. however, it's unlikely this scenario will come to be and, if it does, my guess is the committee would do the right thing and break the tie fairly.

i was all about getting a number one seed until i read some of these posts. now i'm thinking a number two seed would be more beneficial. i definitely don't want to go through the gophers on their home ice. michigan already has it out for us, so that's a risky option as well. i'll take yale over the other options hands down. plus, i had completely forgotten that the goofs play on olympic size ice. that is a clear advantage for any team in that regional who is used to the bigger ice. personally, though, if i had my way, i'd make every college ice olympic size. i think it suits the style of college play better than the nhl size ice.

19 out of 330+ < 6% 14 out of 58 24% spinning statistics won't work when your comments are directed toward me. besides, i was defending my team against a previous poster's attempts at making yet another comparison between the bison winning the summit league and the sioux winning seven national championships. i still contend that that is ridiculous. perhpas you disagree or perhaps you're just defending your team. i find it ironic that you would call me out for arguing against such a point, which was linked off the und hockey site by the way, by critiicizing my decision to post on a basketball thread when so many of your fellow bison fans are posting anti-sioux material on a sioux forum, basketball or not. ah, sports, what would we argue about without them? it's certainly more exciting than religion or politics.

i read this a few times. maybe i'm missing something being referenced or responded to here, but i cannot make sense of these questions.

it's called parity, something division one college basketball is lacking more than any other sport at any level. even college football has A and AA among it's division one teams and that still lacks parity compared to college hockey. as a season goes, college hockey is way more exciting than college basketball because anyone can truly win any game and seeding moves a lot throughout the season, even up until the last week of the conference tournaments. that being said, if ndsu wins even one game in the ncaa tournament, that's quite an accomplishment, especially for the first year they're eligible for the tournament. but, summit league? come one, let's not get so cocky just yet. you're barely better than a big city's high school basketball team. don't compare this accomplishment to what the sioux hockey team has done, it makes you look ridiculous.