jdub27

Again, he literally covers ever single angle you claim he doesn't. He lays it out objectively and highlights the benefits and downfalls of all three options. It seems like you are trying to push a narrative from his post that isn't there. I've literally heard people I know who have said that they wish it was at the X because the Final Five was better. There are a lot of people who don't realize how big of an impact on losing UM/UW/Mankato/Bemidji will have on the atmosphere.

They don't and aren't going to, so it doesn't really matter, but in your hypothetical scenario, I don't think it guarantees them entry into the B1G or NCHC. However it does remove what continues to be brought up as by far the biggest hurdle they have. Take out that roadblock and further vetting and discussion can take place, which on the NCHC side is going to be more dominoes needing to fall because they don't want to be at an odd number, whereas the B1G is already there and it solves their problem in short order.

No. It was to join the only conference that gave UND a home for both its Olympic sports and football. There were absolutely no other options on the table at the time that provided that security. No. The situation changed because the Summit members in the MVFC realized they were better off overall by stabilizing the Summit and getting it to 10 members, despite it actually being a overall negative for the MVFC, making scheduling even more unbalanced. The option came at a time where UND was looking to cut costs, even though it has been an on and off conversation since UND has moved to D-1. This move has absolutely zero to do with B1G hockey. Of course ASU would prefer the B1G or NCHC over the WCHA, unfortunately it has no leverage at this point in time, especially as they continue to drag their feet on the arena issue. All three conferences have had lengthy discussions about ASU and the main reason why they haven't got an invite from the two they prefer is incredibly obvious. Even once that is figured out, there will still be a lot of discussion on what is best for each conference going forward and nothing is guaranteed.

How did he miss that point? He literally said exactly what you claimed he missed. I think it is a pretty fair synopsis of the situation. A lot of people are pining for something that won't be what they remember and other potential costs and benefits are being ignored. He lays it all out for everyone to ponder with no bias.

Looks good. Nice and clean.

It actually happens more often than you'd think. Deadspin had an article on something like it a few years back. Nice to hear the cheerleaders are there and the University did something beyond giving the PA announcer a recording of the school song.

It has nothing to do with hockey and everything to do with spring break.

It'd be my preference if UND has some extra representation but honest question: Was it even possible to get a respectable group of either put together with spring break this week? Can't exactly force kids to put their spring break plans on hold for something that may or may not happen and even then you have to get enough to make it respectable. Could be a pretty reasonable explanation. It looks like SDSU's spring break was March 6-10th.

Here's what they used in 2015. After seeing that, I'd actually be pretty disappointed if it wasn't on the ice.

Gameday....Patiently awaiting the all-important @SWSiouxMN preview!

Perfect.

Can't imagine where that idea would come from. The football team prominently put the logo on their helmet and incorporated quite a bit of Fighting Hawk and hawk stuff into their gameday production, not to mention the staff has been the most supportive group at the University. The Betty was rocking with a "Let's go Hawks" chant when UND won the MBB title. The crowd at the REA boos any time Fighting Hawks is mentioned.

True, and tough to disagree on the timing but this is something that has been in the works for quite a while. Getting those designed, approved and built takes a little bit longer than a week or two. I applaud the effort on continuing to push the new brand, even though they will take some criticism, some of which is justified. I also wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of those things auctioned off at the Champions Ball in April similar to what they have done with other items that have been replaced.

http://siouxshop.com/store/product/27102/University-of-North-Dakota-BIG-SKY-Banner-Season-Tee/

Gaard doesn't seem all the worked up about whatever caused the miscommunication. Of course Barreiro's going to harp on it, that's his schtick. No clue what actually happened but considering the team got in Sunday night and leave already today, that doesn't leave a whole lot of extra time to take care of things in Grand Forks. Someone either didn't confirm the interview or the message didn't get passed on, it wasn't like they didn't spend the afternoon yesterday doing a ton of other media related things.

Q's time to shine. One of the all time best at UND deserves to go dancing and can't see him allowing anything to prevent it. Time get it done and cut the nets down.

Considering how many fans complain about the semi's and finals being on a Monday/Tuesday, I'm not so sure. Regardless, Sioux Falls had done a great job with the tournament.

The team didn't help matters by not clinching home ice until the last possible moment. In the past they were able to sell/release the tickets sooner.

I disagree a little bit on the disingenuous comment. Due to how simple the RPI calculation is, I'd argue it is just as disingenuous when people use that as their only argument on why one team (or conference) is better than another. RPI is very easily manipulated and credit to the Summit for making an effort to improve their schedule to bump up their RPI. I wish the Big Sky would be able do more of that as well, but there just isn't as many options, though I do agree that the teams need to make more of an effort for the good of the conference. It is what it is at this point though. Just want to point out that, Lunardi's bracket today has UND as a 15 seed (vs. Baylor) and SDSU in a play-in game (vs. Mt. St. Mary's, winner plays Villanova). I agree on the Summit conference tournament. I can see myself making that, whereas Reno would be a much tougher sell.

Not sure I can agree with that. All teams lose games they shouldn't during the year, it happens. Which of the years do you think they underachieved and lost out when they were clearly the more talented team? They have yet to be upset in the conference tournament, losing to a 1 or 2 seed each year. The women's team, who you claimed to be more consistent, have now been upset two years in a row. This isn't saying I didn't expect them to win any of those years. I think they were on par talent-wise at least one or two of them and had a legit shot at winning, I just don't think they lost to a clearly inferior team in the tournament any of those years.

I think the first one is a fair question. But I think it is also fair to add in that both the nickname issue allowing other schools to say UND may not be eligible for postseason play (even if it was a stretch/lie) and not having a true D1 conference to recruit to until 2011 significantly hurt the MBB. I also think the type of players UND was able to recruit led to a lot of the things brought up in your second question. Is the fact that all of that has finally washed out through the system a coincidence or was it part of the problem? My personal opinion is that MBB was hurt more than any other program by those two issues and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Big Sky has only been a 16 seed twice in the last decade. 2016: SDSU - 12 and Weber - 15 - Summit 2015: NDSU - 15 and EWU - 13 - Big Sky 2014: NDSU - 12 and Weber - 16 - Summit 2013: SDSU - 13 and Montana - 13 - Push 2012: SDSU - 14 and Montana - 13 - Big Sky 2011: Oakland - 13 and UNC - 15 - Summit 2010: Oakland - 14 and Montana - 14 - Push 2009: NDSU - 14 and Portland State - 13 - Big Sky 2008: ORU - 13 and Portland State - 16 - Summit 2007: ORU - 14 and Weber - 15 - Summit Avg for the Summit: 13.4 Avg for the Big Sky: 14.3 While the Summit has had a slightly better seed in the last decade (less than 1 spot), the respect and attention nationally is a little bit of a stretch. As has been stated a million times, the Summit has had a lot easier route to boosting their RPI strictly based on proximity to higher ranked schools and having a couple extra OOC games to schedule. As I stated earlier in this thread: the Summit has 9 teams and went 4-28 against top 100 teams, however of those games, they played 15 against top 50 RPI teams (0-15). The Big Sky has 12 teams was 3-25 against top 100 teams, however they only played 6 games against top 50 RPI teams (0-6). Games against top 100 teams is almost identical in terms of record and games played, but the difference in games against top 50 programs has a huge effect on RPI.

I have a pretty good feel for how much freedom he had, though to an earlier point, pleasing the masses doesn't always equal a good microbrew. Need to find that happy medium to please the regular crowd and the beer snobs. Brewers usually have the recipes but don't have the rights to the names but it isn't hard to duplicate what what they were already producing. However if what I heard is correct, I'm excited about what Rhombus will be having in the near future.

The owner was the head brewer from Rhombus, so I imagine it will taste a lot like that.