petey23
-
Posts
5,806 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29
Posts posted by petey23
-
-
18 minutes ago, Big Green said:
this is not true. I went to multiple $1 games and there were about 4-5K there. Those games felt much different, as there was more of an atmosphere.
And get it $1 or free tickets is not going to generate enough money to support the program, but flat out lies need to be called out.
So there were not games with a few hundred in attendance?
I know they had the Gopher games where they drew about 5800 in 2014 and 3300 in 2015 which were far and away the largest crowds ever for a UND women's hockey game so I don't think they had multiple games with 4-5k in attendance. Minnesota averaged 1815 fans per game in 2013-14, 2394 fans per game in 2014-15, and 2037 fans per game in 2015-16 which led the country.
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, Big Green said:
I'll never understand the hate for Women's hockey. It didn't just start after the program was cut. I enjoyed watching the Women play. Like every sport it was not as fast as the Men's game, but you need to take it for what it is. No one goes to a high school game and complains that the game is slower with less skilled players. However i do agree that checking needs to be a part of the women's game as it is part of hockey.
UND should have a women's hockey team.
Unfortunately not enough people wanted to watch it.
They had $1 tickets and drew a few hundred people. When there was a men's or women's basketball game on a Satuday afternoon and a women's hockey game Saturday night you could use your ticket stub to get in free and they drew a few hundred people.
I believe UND has given the dollar amount needed to those who would like to see Women's Hockey return.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
10 hours ago, cberkas said:Have to give one of them their soap box moment.
Maybe he should have looked into how it costs $2 million a season.
I wish UND and other schools could afford a women's program and maybe some of the bigger schools could, but articles like this are disingenuous and more about virtue signaling than anything else. Hey Ryan, aren't you a reporter? He could actually do some investigative reporting and find these answers himself. I am assuming that Ryan is pretending that he does not already know the answers which gives him the premise to write the article in the first place.
In looking at USA Hockey's numbers from 2018-19 it would appear that about 15% of the registered participants are female and 40% of the Division 1 programs are Women's programs and 44% of the Division 3 programs are Women's programs. One could make the arguement that Women's college hockey is over represented based on the participant level at this point. Assuming 25 players per team would mean that there are about 1550 men playing D1 college hockey and about 1050 women playing D1 college hockey. Using the USA Hockey registrations this would mean that men have a .003 chance to play D1 hockey and women have a .012 chance to play D1 hockey.
All that said, I believe that the growth and opportunities of all girls sports across the board are vitally important! Every study I have seen shows the benefits of being involved in sports or organizations is a huge benefit for kids as they move on into their adult and professional lives.
-
9
-
36 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
Again this team was top 5 pre-season nationally and finished 6th in the conference. I'd say the plug and play approach this season with a few guys regardless of production and performance has resulted in losing and/or poor play.
Similar, but not as bad as North Carolina hoops. Preseason #1 in the country...7th place in the ACC.
-
2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:
Sometimes that is the right play, like if you're gassed and can't change (no TO).
Wasn't the case this instance, but still not the worst possible play.
He had logged about 2 seconds of ice time at this point. But yes nothing wrong with an icing, especially directly after an icing where you get possession but your lungs are still on fire.
-
39 minutes ago, Kevin G said:
24 may have saved a goal with a blocked shot on Saturday night. He looks to have a place and a role on this team moving forward, and I really hope he stays. Granted, he's -8 in only 11 games played this season. But IMO he passes the eye test much more so than 4.
Why hasn't 24 played more regularly? Did he have an injury to start the season that I'm forgetting? I just have to think there's a reason. The coaches see these guys every day, and Berry and co. know a bajillion times more about hockey than I do.
He had a shaky start on Saturday as he iced the puck the first two times he touched it...settle in nicely after that though.
-
Just now, SD UND said:
Brooks strength is he has a great ability to finish at the rim and he's a + defender with athleticism and strength... would be great if he wants to stay... IF he wants to leave, then you thank him his service and go find someone else..
He is a stronger, more athletic Brady Danielson. better defender and able to finish at the rim far better. Wasn't a great shooter in high school(33% from 3) but he has great instincts and knows how to find ways to be productive, similar to Brady in that regard.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Brooks is the least of our worries. He can't shoot. The other two are definitely a big worry as far as talent/potential go.
Brooks shot 62% this year. Granted he only shot 22% from 3 but he only attmpted 9.
Danielson shot 30% as a freshman(24% from 3), 29% as a sophomore(24% from 3), 45% as a junior(36% from 3) and 48% this season(36% from 3)
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Siouxfancrazy92 said:
I would add #24 and #32 to the possible portal list. This program is not going to look good if 3-4 guys hit the portal. Especially NHL draft picks.
People put far too much weight on a player who is an NHL draft pick. The draft is speculation and projection on an 18 year old kid...especially beyond the second round.
49% of a NHL draft picks actually end up playing even 1 game in the NHL.
By round
1st-94%
2nd-70%
3rd-54%
4th-44%
5th-34%
6th-31%
7th-26%
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, siouxforce19 said:
If I recall he was in the portal the entire year Alaska didn’t play. I think he was trying to finish his undergrad degree so he could easily grad transfer so he stayed in Alaska. I think this may have been when transferring as a non-grad transfer required you to sit out a year.
Players on teams that sat out the Covid season still had that season count towards their eligibility. Sidorski is the same situation.
Makes sense...but at same time seems like a good case could be made for a hardship case ....although in the past in other sports if a request for a special hardship comes from the UND Athletic Derpartment it usually gets denied without even being read.
-
49 minutes ago, siouxforce19 said:
He does not.
No idea if he would want to play another year or not if he did? Would love to have him if he did(could). His improvement from last year to this year has been amazing and he was pretty good last year.
I wonder if he would not have a case to file a hardship appeal? Many players were given an extra year of eliigibilty due to the Covid season(19-20). Alaska shut down their program due to COVID and other reasons for the 20-21 season. Not sure why he did not enter the portal for the 20-21 season?
-
45 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:
I know he's completely off the radar but 6 could have outplayed a couple Dmen last night.
I said "WTF are you doing" 5 times in the first period last night just regarding #4.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:
Bet Johnny Tychonick will play pretty well this series.
I always liked the offensive side of his game but he saw the writing on the wall and chose to leave rather than compete for a spot.
Kierstad, JBD, Sanderson, Kleven, Frisch are all considerably better but he could have competed with Moore and Bast or maybe just Bast for the 6th spot as maybe we don't bring in Moore until the following season...can't remember the timing.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Siouxfancrazy92 said:
I can assure you its not a locker room issue. The coaches decided that he wasn’t good enough. They choose to go with veteran players. Rumor has it that 6 already has multiple offers from several top 10 programs for next season.
He should have played the last two seasons in the USHL. He turns it over too often and is easily outmuscled in puck battles. Sometimes getting drafted is a curse because family and family advisors think they need to rush development and get kid to next level to get to their goal of playing pro hockey quicker and many times this ends up stalling their development instead of expediting it....and NHL teams swing and miss on draft picks quite a bit.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, MafiaMan said:
So I’m curious…do any of the resident eggheads here see ANY scenario that pole vaults North Dakota from its current position to about #12 in the Pairwise after this weekend? Surely, this guy jests…
I got us to #15 with a couple wins and then a highly improbable threading of the needle for results of the teams ahead of us and directly behind us this weekend.
We would need perfect results in about 20 games this weekend.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:
Is that a big loss for us? We're we on his radar? Was he on ours?
Doubtful. I am guessing he is getting some scholarship money from Augie. If UND offered I am guessing it would have been as a hometown walkon.
-
1
-
-
-
Have 2 tickets in section 106 for Saturday night.
-
78 Million....sign me up as a bust.
-
Just now, F'n Hawks said:
No surprise here. Hopefully he does well.
Who were the other finalists for the job?
-
10 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:
are you saying we would've won in 2020?
Hard to say with hockey as a bad bounce can turn a game and in a 1 game eli mination that can end the season.
If i was a betting man, wait I am, I would have had UND at 2-1 to win the national title in 2020 and Cornell at 4-1 and the field at 20-1.
-
1 hour ago, MafiaMan said:
Sprinkles are for winners.
How about Sparklers?
-
27 minutes ago, burd said:
Fair point. I've also been an adult Sioux hockey fan since 1970 and have seen a lot of bad teams. As far as unmet expectations, a lot of fans will remember those teams around '89-92--the Greg Johnson years. They had some awesome offensive talent during that time (Johnson, D. Ward, R. Romaniuk, N. Eisenhut, et al.) and were rated #1 early in one of those years. Still, they just never produced (that I recall). Goaltending? Overall bad defense? Gino gone stale and ready for pasture? Just the wrong combination of talent? Some of the GF posters here will have a better idea than I, but I've thought about those teams from time to time this year.
I was in school during the Hrkac Circus championship team.
The following season we had quite a bit of turnover as we lost several players early to Professional hockey. People forget that Hrkac, Joyce, Belfour, and Kidd all could have returned for the 87-88 season. The 86-87 team averaged 5.5 goals a game and gave up 2.6.
In 87-88 we were a .500 team going 21-20-1. Team scored 4.2 goals a game and gave up 3.7 goals and save percentage was under .895.
IN 88-89 we were 22-18-1 and scored 4 goals a game while giving up 3.3 a game. Jason Herter, Dixon Ward, Dane Jackson, abd Justin Duberman were all freshman on this team.
In 89-90 we were 28-13-4 and scored 5.6 goals a game(more than the Hrkac Circus) and allowed 3.8 a game and the goaltending was not good. Greg Johnson and Dave Hakstol arrived on campus this season.
In 90-91 we were 24-17-2 and scored 4.8 a game while giving up 3.9 a game. Lost Blais and Serratore as assistants and didn't really bring in any big recruits. Goaltending remained an issue with save percentage under .880 as we still have not replace Belfour 4 years later. Gino's dual role as athletic director has caught up with the program and the loss of great recruiters would set the tone for the final 3 years of the Gasparini era. I will say that Gasparini did hit some home runs in coaching hires for men's and women's basketball, baseball, and football during his tenure. We also lose Cary Eades as an assistant.
91-92 the slide really starts as we go 17-21-1 and scoring drops to 4.3 a game and we give up 4.9 a game and save percentage is under .880
92-93 is the bottoming out at 12-25-1 as scoring drops to 3.6 a game and our defensive numbers are n ot even posted on Hockey DB.
93-94 is the rock bottom as we go 11-23-4 and scoring drops to 3.1 a game and we give up 4.3 a game.
2 seasons for Blais to right the ship and we are back.
-
2
-
-
Smart play by UND. CC goes with 1 forward and 2 dmen for the opening shift. UND gets control, sneaks Blake in and a couple nice rotations and movement and we still get Blake isolated on a forward.
UND to cut women's hockey
in Women's Hockey
Posted
You said I flat out lied?
You said they had several games where they drew 4-5k a game....there was 1 game where they drew over 4k in the history of the program.
On average by season over the course of 13 seasons UND drew 864 fans per game(ranging from 309 per game in 06-07 to the high water mark of 1485 in 11-12). the cost of those tickets varied from free on up to I am sure $15-20/game.