redwing77

Dunno about this year itself, but around draft time last year, rumor had it Mattson was passed over due to his strength. NHL scouts, so I read, were concerned with how easily he was taken off the puck among other things. Anyone else hear this?

Ummmmmm..... I think we're saying the same thing essentially. You state that the Hawks weren't winning because the "Dollar Bill" Wirtz wouldn't make the Hawks relevant. This means that he naturally wouldn't spend money on the team (which you state). This would mean no one would want to go and watch them because everyone they have or had that has talent will or has left. Couple that with removing the team from local programming (except when it is covered nationally by ESPN, NBC, or whatever) and voila... Disaster. I agree completely, and I thought I expressed as much. Apparently not. By the way, ESPN analysts at the time called that "Old school hockey ownership." I call it just plain retarded. I'm lost as to how you thought what I said to be incorrect regarding the Hawks. I think Rocky's leadership has done nothing but make the Hawks relevant and less of a punch line. Heh. I used to look forward to Detroit vs. Chicago because Detroit always could use more points. Now, well, if we get points at all, we're going to have to work our backsides off for them. As for my "Bob" analogy, krangodance has hit the nail on the head.

I still think it's the old powerplay screw job. I mean, look at the pure conspiracy theory laden movie plot style angle: The activists still argue how the White man is STILL screwing over the Native American (I'm going to let this fallacy lie). So, if they vote and the nickname is supported, they look bad and could be made into pariahs. If they vote no, they dance in the street. But if NO vote occurs, it is taken as a NO vote and the nickname must be retired. They get what they want, they screw over some white men, and they didn't have to risk being made fools of (trusting the will of their people rather than the will of their activistic goals). SR could vote it down. Heck, they could vote it down BAD. Who knows, but the one thing that terrifies those who are against the nickname on the SR reservation is the will of the people. You can't control the will of the people. You give them a choice and they COULD choose "wrong." This way, the "right" choice is made without taking the risk of the will of the people choosing "wrong." That's the conspiracy theory I'm buying into. Delay tactics forces the SBoHE to take the blame not them. They screw over the White man and the White Man gets the blame. Win win.

Does Doug Woog have the suitcoat stylings to make it stand up like Cherry?

Thank you for your vote of confidence. Just for clarification: Gretzky didn't have such an ability to sign veterans? Wasn't Gretzky GM too? I doubt he's as poor of a coach as those fans claim, but to let him go free without criticism is just plain stupid.

He'd fit the bill. He's cheap. He can easily step into the Uber Homer role.... Just for spite's sake, I'm going to say this is a pretty good guess as to who steps in.

It's got Don Cherry all it a tizzy because Tippett's success, to him, seems to be an affront to Gretzky's coaching prowess. He ranted and raved about that. Insane. It was amusing though. In the same breath, he explained why his perspective was hopelessly wrong. Quite classic. I don't need to criticize him any further. Unfortunately, the explanation is so long that it really is, sadly, a "you had to see it" type thing.

I wonder who replaces Doug. It's going to be interesting if they just go cheap and forget about knowledge.

I think that's rather daft. I've explained my thoughts on Chapman before and I'll repeat parts here. He screwed the pooch on finances and this is just yet another reminder of that. People talk about how wonderful a President Clinton was, if you disregard the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. Well... What's it gonna be? Chapman tried aggressively to further the interests of NDSU. He cut corners and made mistakes. Instead of trying to right them, he covered them up. To me, it's kindof like a compulsive gambler. Sure, he just lost his car at the blackjack table, but if he just bets the house on this next hand, he'll get the car back AND keep his house right? It doesn't make it right. It was the right idea to get rid of him. However, he wasn't Satan. He did eat small children. I think it is ok for NDSU fans, students, staff, and other NDSU supporters to remember the positives Chapman gave to NDSU. You can't dismiss the negatives, but you can't turn a blind eye to the positives because he did something remarkably unethical and stupid. And no, I wasn't a supporter of Clinton but (HUMOR STATEMENT FOLLOWS) I understand to a certain extent. I just think Clinton is an idiot. Yeah, he's married to evil, but he could have chosen someone a bit better looking than Lewinsky, don't you think? He was the freaking President!

Meh. Bob is a metaphor. Ok, ok, I see what you're saying again. I understand that there are more than one entities involved in the decision process, but I see viewership in sports (and to a certain extent overall) depending upon a number of factors: 1. Success. Like live viewership (aka ticket sales), Minnesota is victim to the "What have you done for me lately" mentality. Not every team is like the Wild or Cubs or Yankees (aka "We'll sell out the stadium regardless of record"). The better the team is doing, the more people want to watch. This goes double when another local sport is doing poorly. People like watching winners. Look at the Blackhawks in the last 5-10 years. Wirtz blacked out the TV coverage locally until such time as more people came to watch the team play live. Well, no one came because there wasn't a winning product on the ice. He passed away (unfortunately, seriously) and a winning product is now on the ice. Viewership is up live and the TV blackout was lifted (may not be directly related to ticket sales). If the Gophers had played better the past few years, I'm sure the ratings wouldn't have been so bad, regardless of the quality of the FSN broadcasters. You could also point out the Twins a few years back... no one came to the games... Radio stations giving away tons of tickets in groups of 4 (That amounts to approximately $120 in ticket sales). Not an exciting product. 2. Consistency in scheduling. If you dink around the time slot or start preempting even part of the broadcast in favor of something else, you could lose viewership. Look at Family Guy during its 3rd season. Fox tried to dink around its time slot and even moved it to Thursdays. Viewership crashed and burned and they cancelled the show. The uproar was such that the show returned and was returned to its Sunday primetime time slot, but Fox won't dink around with that show any longer. And it's not always big name shows that suffer. Just ask Joss Whedon about his Firefly and other shows. Fox is NOTORIOUS for doing these things. People like watching what's scheduled to be on. If you preempt it for something else, you lose interest. 3. Promotion. If you make it look like it is worth watching or pique the interest of the casual viewer, you could gain viewership. However, if your promotion is uninteresting or vague (see #2) you'll lose viewership. This is, for college hockey, a mixed bag because college hockey already isn't a big event on TV. FSN did a pretty good job of promoting what hockey events I happened to catch their commercials for. However, if there is no consistency, there is no viewership. Maybe this is oversimplified. Maybe my examples aren't as good as what you could think up. But it's how I see it. I see Woog and Mazzocco's release more a victim of the factors above rather than any perceived lack of competence or whatever.

I'd listen to Bernie for this interview. Not much else, but I'd listen to him for this interview. I've found Bernie extremely knowledgeable about hockey but hard to listen to otherwise.

That's why I find it amusing. It's kinda like this: Bob owns a pizza company. He hires a staff to run his facility. They do well. Bob suddenly gets an itch up his crack to make more money, so he replaces all of the ingredients in his pizzas with extremely low quality, if not bad, materials. People soon start to realize just how ridiculously bad his pizzas are and go to another place instead. In a fit of rage over dropping sales, Bob fires the staff. Makes sense right? If the STAFF had been better salespeople, what the executive side of the company put in wouldn't matter. If Woog and Mazzocco had been "better" (meaning, I guess, that they wore cheerleading costumes and danced around doing all sorts of acrobatics and hoop jumping for the execs) the fact that the execs dinked around with the schedule and made other production errors wouldn't make a difference, right? And drug use isn't a problem among the white collar worker.

If Woog was right, that does provide some humor to the situation: When the team is struggling, fire the COMMENTATORs. If they only did their job with more passion, the team would've scored more and defense wouldn't have sucked.

I found there are tiers of homers in broadcasting. Some just bleed their team, like Doug Woog. Others just about cream themselves (sorry for the graphic language) every time their favorite player on their team steps on the ice (See Pittsburgh Penguin announcers every time Crosby touches the puck) or scores (see the Crow... ok, i don't know the name of the guy, but he does the play by play for the Tampa Bay Lightning. When they score, it sounds like a crow cawing...that or it's the first goal he's ever seen, first goal scored all season, and the cup clinching goal all wrapped up into one package... seriously, get over yourself). Frank Mazzocco isn't unprofessional, but he isn't the best in the college game either. He was 100x the homer that Woog was. However, when I look back, I think he lost a lot of his edge. I remember first watching the FSN coverage back during the days of the Murray-Bochenski-Parise days. Sure, I watched before then, but I didn't pay much attention. Well, every time a Sioux player hit a Gopher, Mazzocco would decry that it was surely a penalty. It was simply impossible to listen to at times. The last few seasons, every time something he didn't like happened, he wouldn't make a comment. Instead, he'd sortof moan or groan or mumble in the background. It's almost like this firing was a long time coming because he barked at the wrong crowd? I dunno. On one hand, you have to let the commentators do their jobs with a minimum of interference (provided the rules are followed and professionalism is maintained). On the other hand, they are representing the University of Minnesota. If their antics get over the top and, when confronted, the reaction isn't to their liking... things change. I don't know what the deal is with this crew. I'm not going to sit here and dance in their demise. Nor am I going to sit here and give props to UND's team. I don't think they're really any better or worse. Frank isn't the worst I've heard. He certainly wasn't Hall of Fame quality either (but then again, who is? Ron Santo was named to the Commentator Hall of Fame recently... sorry, folks, but.... whatever standards they had is now gone). However, I think that the unknown isn't always better. Big A Hg might be correct. We may look wistfully upon these past years as higher quality when it comes from the opposition side of the broadcast.

more like of the Decade.

I love Playfair's quote. "It is what it is. I'm not going to apologize for it. It

Frattin and the Hobey- Though I agree with the sentiment that he won't get the Hobey, he does have the "Feel good story" element attached to him. He gets to UND and is overwhelmed off ice, starts drinking, starts breaking team and societal (law) rules. Gets suspended. Spends the next 6 or 8 months cleaning himself up, returns and is a different hockey player. SERIOUSLY. Look at Frattin before the suspension and compare it to after. I see two different players. Second, I don't want Fienhage to go, but I suggest he go to Kamloops. He'll get more playing time. Since he's a solid Dman, it will only help his pro prospects. I just can't see him staying here minding the pine. Third, I can see Eades leaving.... when Eades decides to move. For those looking for his ousting, well... you'd best hope Cary wants to go because O'Keefe isn't going to fire him. Hakstol isn't going to fire him. Faison isn't going to fire him. Looks like that crowd is SOL.

I'm not a big fan of European hockey jerseys. I think Duncan gets lost in all the wild colors and ads.

Well, let's play devil's advocate with all of you and play WILD GUESS MONDAY on the AZSioux prediction. Genoway - He may have to turn pro to prove that he's not damaged goods. Yeah, he could probably still do that by playing a super senior year, but he's not getting younger and, at least in football, they draft your replacement the year after you sign. If the money's good or the opportunity just the same (aka an NHL deal or.. if the pros isn't what Genoway wishes to pursue, a good job track offer) he might just want to do that. I can see Genoway leaving and I can see him coming back. I'm ok with both. LaPoint - Is he NHL ready? HEH! I'm a big LaPoint fan but even I have to say NO. However, he had a great year one year removed from a horrific injury. It would not surprise me if Florida, a team that isn't really NCAA friendly overall anyways, asks LaPoint to sign to play in the AHL to keep closer tabs on him. Speed is still an issue and they may want to see what they've got up close. Fienhage - Let's face it, he truly is the odd man out. Davidson has been good, sure. Gleason a great surprise off the starting block (I predicted he'd be sitting a lot this year and Fienhage playing more), but what's left for Fienhage now that N. Mattson and D. Forbort are coming in? If LaPoint and Genoway stay, when's he going to play? Davidson would already be the odd man out. I can't see Buffalo being too pleased with his lack of playing time. To make matters worse, he wasn't all that bad this year. He made a few freshman blunders, but he was basically a redshirt freshman anyways. Yeah, it's nice to be super deep but this isn't the NHL or even the AHL folks. We're here to develop talent. There's not much you can develop at Fienhage's expected level by making him a backup and practice D. I think he will transfer. I think Buffalo might want him to. I know I'd want him to if I were the GM of Buffalo. I'd want to see if he was going to grow any more or did I pull a David Fischer out of the 3rd Round? Harsh of me to say. I think Fienhage will be good (so transfer to the CCHA, ok?), but at this rate he only has the probability of increased playing time as a senior (barring injury or early departure). Personally, I'd rather not lose anyone.

Wow. That's the best summary of this year I've heard yet. Thanks for being more eloquent and even keeled than I.

Nope. Still not time. Next topic.

Thankfully, you're not. Maris is a goaltender, not a defenseman.

I don't care whether or not the petition vows anything either way as long as there's a vote. Up or down, who cares. Let em vote.

NHL.com lost credibility today. They have BC, Miami, UW, and.... SCSU in the Frozen Four.

I remember holding the sign and making it onto the jumbotron because of it!