Slap Shot

What I like so far about the Gophers more than the record (which might be inflated) is that some of the question marks so far have been answered: -Team chemistry -Goaltending -9 Freshmen in the lineup -Lost scoring -Team defense -Grit, determination and a willingness to initiate a hit These are not answered 100% and that list is not to suggest that they are above criticism, but Gopher fans should be happy with the start. The problem is that some fans of all teams become infatuated with an inflated W-L record and automatically start thinking about the post-season, when everyone should realize January and February will seriously test the mettle of the team. If the Gophers were to get to the FF it wouldn't necessarily be a surprise and if they don't it shouldn't automatically be considered an underachievement. We should wait until March before we should anticipate specific outcomes when there's so much hockey left to be played.

Happiness is:

You couldn't be more right. I mean last Nov and Dec sure were banner months in Minneapolis, and I hated March and April of 2002 and 2003.

As someone that doesn't ever recall a Sioux team quitting on a season (although I suppose it's happened), and given what Hak has done since being the HC, I think it's way too early to write this team off. Didn't the Sioux have a 'poor' WCHA finish a few seasons back and still make a nice NCAA run? I will say that I am not personally convinced Lammy is a qualified March/April goalie (fwiw to any of you), but all you need is your own Kohl Center series (a la UM last season) to right the ship.

As much as I enjoy a good red wine here and there, not sure I'd want to swim in a pool of it. At least not with several other people.

I imagine over time you'd be able to streamline your process and perhaps cut your overall costs, thereby allowing you to charge a bit less.

Meh. I don't take offense to it, but except for non-con games where seeing the WCHA win helps us all out at the end of the year, I don't care if UW or UND wins or loses a November WCHA game that doesn't involve the Gophers. Maybe I'm weird but I'm a Gophers fan and that means cheering for the Gophers and wanting them to take care of business. Everyone else just doesn't matter.

Ah, the annual Sioux hockey alumni banquet.

Another reminder of why I have Zippy the Pinhead on ignore. 1. Yes I do, but... 2. I see this as two parts. The first part I can somewhat accept in that professional sports typically receive more exposure nationwide and the fact is the NHL isn't that popular, but I'm not ready to accept the claim the polularity of the NHL is hurt to any significant degree because of fighting. 3. Perhaps. That said, I think it would be interesting to see the NHL adopt the NCAA's rules for a season and see what happens. It might give us an indication either way. The problem is the league would be fighting the owners who don't want to see their players miss significant ice-time and the NHLPA or whatever its called because unions never want to see rules imoplemented that 'hurt' their members. Maybe they could use it the AHL to at least experiment, but the problem there is it wouldn't necessarily indicate what would happen 'popularity' wise in the NHL.

Your point? College hockey is viewed by even less people, yet there's no fighting...

PCM and I may disagree somewhat on this subject, but he's made some solid points and he shouldn't be told not to comment.

Absolutenly nothing, but as I noted your longer-winded diatribes buried this prevailing thought in such a manner as to suggest there was something else behind your criticism of fighting in hockey. It's not a big deal and I've now noted your main point. Let's move forward.

I never claimed to know your mind, I replied based upon two other lenghty posts that went above and beyond your major point: This is succinct and to the point, and if you had simply stuck to such a short and sweet comment, perhaps your ultimate intent wouldn't have become buried. I don't think anyone would agree this kind of exchange is desired, but this says nothing about fighting in hockey because it doesn't exist in the college game. While this behavior does demonstrate players acting badly, it's not a comment on fighting in college hockey. For all we know had fighting existed in its previous NCAA form, this tit-for-tat would have ended with a one-on-one fight between Paukovich and Prpich. You certainly don't see Palestinian/Israeli "you started it" scenarios playing out in the NHL, despite the presence of fighting.

If that wasn't your point, then your most recent self-righteous diatribes were a waste of time because that's exactly what they insinuated - that fighting and enforcing in the NHL are out of control. Perhaps if you spent a bit less time thumbing your nose at anyone that has a differing opinion and more time simply trying to make a point, you wouldn't have so people supposedly misunderstaning your superior point of view. That onus falls upon you, not me.

PCM - your longer post, if even meant facetiously, suggests that fighting in the NHL has in recent years increased and become a bigger problem than before, which is far from the truth. Personally, I wouldn't complain if they penalized players in the NHL for fighting a la the NCAA, but let's not pretend the NHL is now policed by organized thugs exactling vigilante justice at their every whim.

Saying that a line of thinking is strange and or is uncompelling is the same as saying it is illogical. Of course this issue of semantcs doesn't matter. I think your pov has merit we just don't agree as to the 'necessity' of fighting remaining a part of the NHL. While I see no need to remove it I wouldn't object to at least instituting penalties that are more in line with those given in the NCAA.

Pardone moi. If that's the case, then I agree that your question to Eskimos didn't make sense. There's nothing illogical with someone following college and professional hockey despite the differences in rules regarding fighting.

PCM - I think if your question were re-phrased to: "Why do you think fighting should remain a part of the NHL but not a part of the NCAA game?", it would better convey what you're getting at. Of course I could be wrong and you might be implying something completely different.

If fighting in the NHL were somehow "banned" I wouldn't complain, although I'd almost rather see the league institute rules/penalties a la the NCAA as a first step to see the results. However I repeat that I think people are exaggerating how much fighting happens in today's NHL. This is a link to the total# of fights by team through October 12, 2006: http://www.hockeyfights.com/leaders/teams/ While Anaheim seems to have a fight per game, 21 teams have 5 total fights or less, 14 teams have 4 or less and 9 teams have 3 fights or less total. To take that further, there have been roughly 70 total fights this season, which is about 2.2 fights per team and less than 0.5 fights/game for the entire league. I'll repeat that if fighting were taken out of the game completely I wouldn't stop watching the game nor whine about it, but I just don't think it's the problem some make it out to be. I also don't take issue with those that would like to see it banned because I think there's some logic behind the argument, but some of the reasoning is also flawed.

People are trying to paint a picture that fighting in hockey is out of control and I'm simply trying to add a bit of perspective. People are claiming they can't let their kids watch an NHL game because of all the violence when the reality you're more likely to witness a game without a fight than with one. Not only has the league made it a more penalized act, not only are goons that do nothing but enforce becoming a thing of the past, but fighting is rarely about fighting for fighting's sake and mostly about atonement. Personally I wouldn't miss fighting in the NHL if it ceased to exist, but some of the criticisms waged against it are pure hyperbole.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone here defend Bertuzzi for that heinous act.

Fighting in the NHL isn't what it used to be since the addition of the instigator penalty (Fedoruk received 19 minutes of penalties to add insult to injury). For the most part, fighting now is limited to retaliation for a goalie getting run, a smaller forward getting boarded, etc., etc. While that Boogaard punch was painful to watch, he wasn't the one to blame and he even skated away from Fedoruk the first time the guy tried to pick a fight. With the salary cap, limited rosters and new rules that have opened up skating, teams can't afford to carry a player that is nothing but a goon. Boogaard can skate, and he's only been in 4 fights this season while the Wild have played 10 games.

Try this: http://hfhelper05.hockeyfights.com/cf1907/...uk_boogaard.wmv

Why is Minnesota ranked #3? 1. Why not? 2. But more importantly, who cares? I think every Gopher fan would trade all the #1 rankings last year for a victory over HC.

[sigh] Sprig - I'm a Gopher fan - you expect 100% hugs and kisses? That doesn't change the fact I defended Hak in that regard, have defended UND regarding their nickname, have defended RE over the whole Nazi b.s., among other issues. I'm not trying come off as a saint - I of course make mistakes but I am trying to imporove the rapport as much as I can. Rome wasn't built in a day...