krangodance

I hope you're right, southpaw. Although my experiences with the web feed have not been as poor as those expressed by some posters on here I have noticed that it does ocassionally pause or pixilate for short periods of time even under the current stress load. Without anything changing I would have to think that would equate to more issues once the stress load is dramatically increased.

I would have to think blackout rules would apply. This would mean that whatever channel Midco is broadcasting on (in our hypothetical world where DirecTV has picked up Midco Sports) would not be able to show the game on days when the game is being carried by CBSSN. I'm not certain that's the case but I have noticed that when a Big Ten game is on some obscure channel (think the 600s range on DirecTV) and also on CBS or FOX then the obscure channel gets blacked out. This might only be because CBS and FOX are local broadcasts though.

That sounds right. It's still worth the effort to find somebody to perform some solid stress testing before just going ahead with a plan to switch your broadcast from SD to HD while simultaneously doubling or tripling your user base. I realize the HD broadcast will be designed to stream at whatever rate allows for the best picture with the fewest skipping and pixilation issues. This aspect will be useful when you're connecting from a less than ideal internet connection. However if the server simply can't handle the data request rate it will simply downsize all streams regardless of the size of the pipe on the receiving end, which negates the whole point of going to HD in the first place.

Thanks for the link! I just emailed DirecTV. This is a great way to get things done when it comes to television programming. TV providers typically want to deliver content that will be viewed by the largest audience so the more of us who ask for DirecTV to pick up Midco Sports the more likely they'll at least perform a cost / benefit analysis. Whether or not that will equate to them acutally adding Midco Sports to their programming is impossible to know but it's better than nothing.

Ask yourself. Would you open a point you're trying to make in a face to face conversation this way? I don't agree with a "it's been too good for too long" philosophy either but, geez, it's just an opinion not a personal attack. I don't see how such a statement deserves your response.

Thanks, Jayson. This seems like the most important question for those of us who live outside the Midco broadcasting area. If I'm able to watch all home games online in HD without streaming issues and some games in HD on CBSSN then I consider that an improvement over watching most home games on TV in SD and a few online in SD as is the situation today. This does seem like a situation that should be tested before next year. To stream HD you have to pull about 6 times as much data as you pull to stream SD. Combine this with the potential for maybe 2 or 3 times as many users of the web stream when most games are no longer broadcast on national TV and you're looking at somewhere between 12 and 18 times as much data being pulled from your server during the game as is currently being pulled. Generally you want to stress test a server at a rate between 5 and 10 times what you'd expect to actually get. This helps ensure that everything works properly even if you greatly underestimate the load you will need to handle or if some unexpected variable causes your server to underperform at an inopportune time. This means you'd want to force a stress test somewhere between 60 and 180 times what you're currently seeing for data pull rates during live games. If your server can handle that then it's probably good. Otherwise there could be issues when the new HD stream goes live next year. I'm not saying all this because I think the server team doesn't know how to do their jobs. I'm sure they're considering these implications and have or will address them. However, for many people posting on this thread, I'd guess there's some misunderstanding about how moving to HD while simultaneously increasing the number of Insider subscriptions could impact web stream quality.

I think they'd rather you went to the game. And why wouldn't you? Unless things have changed the student section at men's hockey games is one of the greatest attractions to University life at UND.

I can understand the desire to move to FBS. However I think UND is right where they belong. They are a mid-talent Big Sky team at this point and there only a few Big Sky teams who could even compete with low-end FBS teams from non-AQ conferences, such as the MAC and MWC. I personally wouldn't want to see the FBS watered down anymore than it is and I'd like to see UND find a lot more success at the FCS level before a conversation about going FBS even starts. Just my view on things.

I hope so. My first love is UND hockey but my love for college hockey in general doesn't even come close to my love of college football and these FBS vs FCS matchups are usually such a joke and a waste of a weekend, especially when it's one of the FBS teams I follow. I'd also like to see this change happen across the country so top-tier FCS teams will stop scheduling an FBS team just to get a big pay day when there are plenty of great non-conference FCS matchups I'd like to see.

What sort of broadcasts are the other NCHC schools able to provide? If many of them are equipped to broadcast in HD that could certainly hurt UND. With CBSSN only airing 18 games a year I'd think they'd try to air as many games that are broadcast in HD as possible meaning UND games might only make the list when UND plays on the road against an opponent whose games are broadcast in HD. The Ralph may be forced to step it up if they want any national television exposure.

I might be incorrect but I don't think there's anything special about 3rd place anymore. I believe a top-2 finish is necessary to get a first round bye if you advance to the Final Five (unless one of the top-2 were to lose in the first round in which case the 3 seed would become the 2 seed in the Final Five if they advance).

It's been over a year and Blood isn't even on the team anymore yet Gopherville is still so butt hurt over this that they prowl a rival message board to sniffle about it. Wow.

This "fire Hakstol" mindset is so misdirected. How many coaches in the country don't get to the Frozen Four almost every year? Most of them. That's the answer. These posters who are so quick to throw Hakstol under the bus either do not understand the great challenge with winning a four round one and done tournament in hockey or they are choosing to ignore that fact. Take 2011 as an example. The Sioux went to the national semi-finals and lost to Michigan. The Sioux out-shot MIchigan 40-20, had only six penalty minutes to Michigan's 12 minutes and thoroughly controlled the game through all three periods. Yet the Sioux lost. Within minutes of that loss there was another "fire Hak" post on this forum. Do you "fire Hak" folks really not see the ridiculousness of that? Essentially one goalie (Hunwick) had the greatest game of his entire career on the worst possible night for the Sioux and that's what ended our season. It wasn't compacency. It wasn't poor coaching. It wasn't lack of skill or training. It wasn't a lack of chemistry. It was all the result of a hot goalie. You play a best of seven with that kind of one-sided dominance and the series goes the other way. Hakstol is a great coach. He gets this team to the tournament every year and into the Frozen Four nearly every year. Very few coaches in the league can say that.

The broadcast is not in HD no matter who your carrier is. Any differences in picture quality are related to the other hardware involved, such as the TV for example. Plus there could always be a difference in tolerance for standard definition. I have DirecTV. It's certainly clear enough but I would rather it were in HD.

In reference to the article posted above: Wasn't the MN vs HC game in 2006 a #2 vs #15? I thought the RIT over Den game a few years ago was the first time a #16 beat a #1.

What you're saying then is that for decades you've been posting on a board designed for Sioux fans to tell them that they are all envious of your team? That sounds a lot more like fixation then questioning the inexplicable and unprecendented decision by a coaching staff to not punish players who break the law. Let's see. You come on here and essentially accuse everybody of secretly loving your team and only pretending to love their own team; an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. When you're called out for such a ridiculous claim your defense is to basically repeat your ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim? There's a word for what you are: troll There's also a word for what everybody should do to trolls such as yourself: ignore Have fun wasting your days away trying to rile up a bunch of strangers on random message boards with odd and nonsensical accusations then bragging about it to all your troll buddies. Sounds like a wonderful and enlightening existence. IGNORE.

Given the circumstances this is about the most ridiculous use of this argument I've seen yet. I mean, this argument is always ridiculous because we all know nobody is posting anything about NDSU out of envy, but this is the most ridiculous use of this argument that I've seen.

There's no arguing against this post. This poll doesn't matter right now and we don't know how things will shake out. Still, though, this gives UNI a huge leg up. It's easier to stay in the top 20 if you're already there than if you're not already there. They should have to earn their way into these polls like everybody else. This isn't a preseason poll after all. We have four games to go on. They chose their non-conference schedule. They knew the risks of having such a tough schedule. They should be held accountable and they most cerainly are not being held accountable. Like I said, if they lose this weekend then what? If losing to two FBS teams and the #2 team in the country leaves them at #14 why would losing to the #1 team in the country have any effect on their current ranking? If it doesn't, should a 1-4 team be ranked so highly? Let's also consider the possibility that they lose this weekend and drop way down in the rankings, if not out of the rankings. How is that consistent? It just seems like the voters put themselves in a strange position by allowing any 1-3 team in the top 25, regardless of the subjective opinion of that team's strength.

This is a fair argument. As they said in one popular 80s show though: "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life". You want that big payday? Hey, I don't blame you. You want two big paydays in one season? Go right ahead. But understand that if you put those tough games on your schedule and you end up 1-3 through four games then we can't make a statement that you're worthy of being ranked. That's the risk / reward you have to weigh. Fortunately it's a long season so the world isn't crashing down around you yet but you get what you sign up for. Unless you're UNI apparently.

It's clear that he knows exactly what you're saying. What's just as clear is he said nothing about UNI being a bad team or UND being better than UNI, which can't be stated definitively either way at this point. What he is saying is whether it be UNI, UND or any other team, a 1-3 team should not be ranked #14 in the country when their only win is over a DII team. You'd never see this at the FBS level. If Cal beat Maine then lost to Alabama, LSU and Stanford they would not be in the top 25 because, even though those are highly ranked teams, there's nothing to suggest that Cal is worthy of a top 25 spot in this hypothetical scenario. If, however, they went on to win the rest of their games including wins over USC and Oregon then they'd likely be a 20 - 25 team in the rankings since their only losses would be to teams ranked above them and they'd have quality wins to show they're worthy of top 25 consideration. So, just like UNI could eventually make a case for a #14 ranking, they haven't done that yet while other teams have made such a statement. Those other teams should have earned the right to hold those higher rankings until future games prove otherwise. I simply don't see any objective way somebody can argue against this. What seems to be lost here is that it's up to each team to decide how tough they want their non-conference schedule to be. Scheduling a bunch of cupcakes will make it easier to get wins but you don't get the attention of voters that way. Scheduling a bunch of tough matchups, on the other hand, does give a team the chance to prove they're a top tier team but it also puts them at risk of starting off, say, 1-3. It's up to the team to decide where the right balance of risk and reward lies for their team. If losses in tough matchups mean nothing then basically a team can schedule four FBS teams from AQ conferences knowing that a win will get them noticed but a loss carries no risk at all. That's just plain illogical. None of this really matters since UNI will eventually have to prove themselves but this calls into question the integrity of the voters.

Exactly. UNI could still earn their way back into the top 25 but right now they have no business being there.

I agree. And I wouldn't expect them to be ranked.

I'm trying to figure out where I compared 2012 Northern Iowa to 2011 UND. Or suggested UNI would still be ranked if they lost to SIU.

That one is a total mystery. Their only FCS game is a loss. Sure, it's against Youngtown State who's ranked 3rd in the nation but it's still a loss. As for the losses to Wisconsin and Iowa. Yeah, those were both close games but I thought that wasn't supposed to matter. Besides the Wisconsin game was only close on the scoreboard. Wisconsin owned that game from beginning to end and Wisconsin is looking worse then I've seen them in 20 years. Iowa just plan sucks this year so that game should carry no weight. I realize this will mostly work itself out over the next few weeks as more games are played but rankings this early do matter since wins over higher ranked teams mean more than wins over lower ranked or unranked teams. Look at it this way. UNI plays NDSU next weekend. Based on the logic used to put them at #14 there's no reason they should fall in the rankings if they lose to NDSU. That means they'd be 1-4 and ranked #14?! If UND beats Poly I'd say the best we can hope for is #23 with a 4-1 record. The following week UNI plays Southern Illinois. If S.Illinois wins that game and UND loses to E.Washington does that mean S.Illinois will leapfrog UND? Based on the current logic used to rank these teams it appears that would happen.

Sports Network Rankings: http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/misc/tsn-div-1aa-poll.htm