Canuck

Speaking from a personal standpoint (pardon the pun), I've always thought seats in the middle of the rink are extremely overrated (unless you're there for the sole purpose of taunting whoever happens to be in the penalty box). When sitting in the center I've found it difficult to see either corner on your side, especially if you're sitting behind the player benches. I've always thought the best place to watch is near the top of the lower level in the corner. The folks in the club seats at either end also have fantastic views of the game; you can see everything developing in front of you and it really provides a great perspective. In short, I think students have been hesitant to agree to move to the corners because there is that perception that the middle of the ice constitutes the "best" seats in the house.

In Canada, yes. But you are required to take it after baptism and before First Communion. I'm afraid it's too late for most.

I can guarantee you that these fans will be sitting and - gasp - watching the game -during the play and will still be just as loud as any hockey fans you've ever heard (well, maybe not the European fans). You'll rarely see these fans stand (unless it's after a goal or because their trying to see over top or around some American lout) and yet they'll be every bit as enthusiastic as UND fans who believe the only good fan is a standing fan.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this beauty in this thread yet; check out the DII Route 66 poll at collegesportsreport.com. UND checks in at NUMBER EIGHTEEN, down from last week's NUMBER NINE!

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Just when one thinks he has the game of hockey figured out, an NDSU fan comes along and enlightens us all.

I'm aware that Mike transfered - but it should be pointed out that he didn't transfer until Blais cut him in-season. The point I was trying to make was that if you look at some players who spent more time on the bench than on the ice, all the while waiting for their "shot," then it really isn't fair to label a player like Ziegelmann a quitter. He saw the writing on the wall, and rather than spend the next four years as a practice body, he decided to go in a different direction.

This might be the most profoundly accurate description of some of the discussions on here that I've ever read. Regarding Ziegelmann, I wish him all the best and I hope he gets his chance. That's all anyone can ask for. Whatever the reason, he wouldn't have gotten it here. I find it laughable that some are labeling him a quitter. I don't remember anyone calling Jason Blake a quitter when he left Ferris State for UND, and he was leaving a situation where he already received ample playing time. Seems like a double-standard to me. At least he gave his dream a shot - playing for his hometown team. It didn't work out, so he decided to change plans early on. You have to admire his foresight. By moving on, he avoids becoming a goaltending version of Tyler Palmiscno or Mike Possin, a guy who kind of wilts away on the bench, all the while probably wondering what might have been...

Yes, he did provide the information I was looking for and I stated that. I only took exception his last statement about me stirring things up because of a position I took in another thread, which was completely untrue. I see that comment has since been removed from his post though.

I just read in the latest Hockey News that while Zach Parise is a good bet to make the Devils this year, it may be as a winger, rather than his natural center position. While this is hardly earth-shattering news (the Devils are wont to do this with younger centers), I do find it fairly intriguing, and I see it as just another reason the Devils are such a strong organization: they know how to protect young players. Obviously Parise would have to be a first or second line center to suit his style, but the Devils already have Scott Gomez, Jan Hrdina and Viktor Kozlov. If they did want him to fill a third or fourth line role, they have players like Erik Rasmussen, John Madden and Sergei Brylin filling those roles. Plus, a Patrik Elias also has considerable experience at center. Now, are all of those players more talented than Parise? No. It certainly isn't out of the question that he could unseat any of them, even as a rookie. But beyond that, take a look around at some of the centers in just New Jersey's division alone: Keith Primeau, Jeremy Roenick, Michael Handzus, Alexei Yashin, Mike Peca, Bobby Holik, Mark Messier and that Mario Lemieux guy. Rather than throw a rookie straight into a fire against guys like this, the smarter move might be to keep him away from such players and put him on a wing, where the responsibilities aren't as great and the learning curve is not as steep. Again, a seemingly simple - and like temporary - move from center to wing, but just another reason why the Devils are so successful at cultivating their own young talent.

DamStrait...THANK YOU! A voice of reason is a lovely thing on this board. I tried to pose the same question earlier and got slammed! But then, apparently I was just seeking another argument because you and I had a difference of opinion on the netting at REA.

Thank you. That's all I asked.

Yeah, that's right. Because someone disagreed with me about protective netting I decided to start another "argument" elsewhere. Please. All I asked, Sprig, was where you got the information on which to base your statement. I was merely curious if it was assumption or fact-based. That is all.

Currently, with the athletic depts. original consideration to drop internet audio entirely, Where did you hear this? I don't recall the athletic dept. making such a statement.

And for the record, the only thing I've ever been "cloaked" in is buffalo wing sauce. Oh, and once, in college, I woke up cloaked in my own vomit.

Um, ok. Anyways, while I do share in the sentiment that far too many fans don't pay the proper attention to the game while sitting in these "danger areas," in my opinion that still does not overide the fact that this safety precaution is needed. The game has become so fast, particularly the velocity with which the puck travels, that even the most focused fan is in danger of being struck by a puck. To me, personal safety (for everyone) is more important than a minor inconvenience (for some). Instead of continuing to argue semantics, how about those of us in favor of the netting call it a "necessity" and those of us against it call it a "necessary evil?" The bottom line is, these nets are being installed for two reasons: 1) to protect the safety of the paying customer and 2) to protect the team/organization from any kind of liability lawsuit. In the grand scheme of things, in my opinion, this should not warrant significant criticsm. Obviously we'd all prefer to not have to look through netting to watch a hockey game. Obviously a best-case scenario would not have netting obstructing anyone's view, nor would a best-case scenario have anybody being injured by an errant puck. But since this is simply not realistic, we have to make do. Which brings me back to my original point (which, I might add, was never aimed at people like DamStrait); don't complain about it if you have yet to watch through it. DamStrait has and doesn't like it. I have and don't mind it. We have a right to complain about it or defend it. But if you complain without trying it, well, then you're bitching just to bitch, which is why I made the "complaint department" crack in my original post.

You said it yourself; I stated my opinion. I don't recall saying anything that implies my opinion is gospel. Now, if you'll go back and re-read my post, you'll see that my problem lies not with people who don't like watching a game through the netting. My problem lies with people who are complaining before they even experience it. Sorry for not toeing the "bitch-about-everything company line" on this one.

Some of you guys are unbelievable. Nevermind this change came as the result of the death of a child. And nevermind someone was classy enough to imply she'd still be alive if she'd have "paid attention." I find it fascinating that the majority of the people complaining about the protective netting are the same ones who have never watched a game through it. At the same time, the majority of those defending it have actually seen a game through it. How about you wait and see how it affects your "viewing experience" before you bitch and moan about it. But then, I forgot, this site is the complaint department, isn't it? I myself have seen countless games through protective netting. Does it take a brief period of adjustment? Yes. For maybe a period. Do you notice it after that? No. Let me pose a question to those of you whose lives are about to being turned upside down by a hanging freaking net: When was the last time you heard a baseball fan say, "You mean I can have your tickets right behind home plate? Hell yeah! Oh s&!t, no. There's that damn net hanging there and I can't see a thing. Nevermind."

Early word is there may be a similar book done on Fighting Sioux football next year.

IF memory serves me correctly, I believe WR Mike Juhasz is another of the few who have not redshirted, although his was lifted in-season because injuries drastically depleted UND's receiving corps. But I digress... You are correct, UND's policy has always been to redshirt ALL freshmen, except in the most extreme circumstances.

Actually, the world junior tournament is an amateur event...but that really has no bearing on whether or not UND football is being advertised properly.

It's on Thursday.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals (AGAIN), has anybody ever considered the possibility that there just might be a university and/or NCAA-imposed deadline for athletes to register for classes in order to be eligible for their scholarships for the upcoming year, and thus that could be the reason Bochenski does not have his scholarship? I'm just curious, since everybody seems so quick to pin this on Coach Hakstol's shoulders for some reason. It's funny how people with zero inside knowledge/information are already pointing fingers at a coach who - to paraphrase - is making mistakes before coaching a single game. How about we just wait for the situation to unfold before: A) Thanking Bochenski for three good years or B) Ripping him for being selfish or C) Ripping our coach for lord-knows-what-reason

Amen.

Guys...I put my pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of you. But after I put my pants on, I make gold records.

Schweitzer was plagued by a bad groin injury in 97-98. I think when he was initially hurt, the presence (and ability) of Karl may have caused Aaron to come back before he was fully healthy and he never completely recovered from the injury, which obviously hinders your effectiveness. To his credit, he was one of the few players who actually showed up in that regional loss. The next season Schweitzer played for Team Canada and actually posted really solid numbers (I believe Fred Brathwaite was the other goalie on the roster). The next season he bounced around the low minors, and one of the teams I remember him playing for was the Colorado Gold Kings or something like that. Last I heard he went back to school and finished up playing in his hometown at the University of Regina.