fightingsioux4life

redwing77, I didn't like Green or McCombs, either. McCombs is back to selling used cars and Green can bake in the Arizona desert forever for all I care. They took this organization and ran it into the ground with their arrogance and greed. That being said, both of them are gone, and I am very optimistic about the future with Childress and Wilf in charge of the franchise. This is a transition year (and I think there will be at least one more transition year after this), but the team already is showing more toughness and resiliance in the first three games of 2006 than during the entire Mike Tice era. The offense needs rebuilding thru the draft and free agency, the defense needs more depth in certain spots, and they have to improve the special teams coverage on punts and kickoffs. Too many long returns for my taste. But overall, they are headed in the right direction. Playoffs? Probably not. But give Childress a couple of more drafts and free agent periods to work with and this team will be a contender in the playoffs. Not a pretender like during the Denny "take a knee" Green era.

star2city, No, you got it all wrong on this one. Let JBB (er, I mean Holdem) keep posting on here. He is so good at hanging himself with his ridiculous anti-UND, anti-Grand Forks comments that banning him isn't necessary. It's good entertainment to watch him try to spin NDSU's football program into looking like a D-I power. He just wants everybody to forget who has the Nickel and who has won 10 out of the past 13 matchups between the two schools. Letting him post on here gives us a chance to counter his revisionist views of UND-NDSU football. By the way, I like the new name: Holdem. As I recall, that's what happened the last time we played the BISON in Grand Forks. In overtime. UND up 28-21. 4th and Inches. Digger Anderson stops the ballcarrier to secure the win and the Nickel until we meet again (in a couple of years)! Hmm, maybe THAT'S why JBB doesn't want to play us anymore?

dakotadan, I don't think anyone has suggested that this team should be hanging banners yet. All anyone wants is some (any!) evidence that the team is getting better or that there is some hope for the future. Maybe this crop of freshmen will be the catalyst; the sooner the better. More off the ice problems will only scare top recruits away, which is what will get us to the next level (read: championships). My main problem with Rivard is that she sets low expectations for the team; and then the team invariably lives up (or down in this case) to those expectations. All that talk about not having any Olympians just reinforces the idea that the players can't compete with other teams and most certainly can't win. That is the wrong mentality to have if you want to be competitive, which is the first step to winning. Teams take on the personality of their head coach. Rivard has not been sending the right messages through the media and that is part of the problem. Set high standards for the players and they will work hard to achieve those standards. Eventually, they will get there. That is how Blais turned around a dormant men's program in the mid-1990's in such a short period of time and that is how Rivard can build a solid foundation for the women's program. If this team can show signs of that this season, I say give Rivard another chance. If not, it might be time for a change.

Sioux-cia, Fair enough. It's a long season and anything can happen. The Falcons are getting beat by the Saints 23-3 in the third quarter!

Sioux-cia, I wasn't abusing you, I was pointing out that "Da Bears" haven't proven anything yet. If they beat the Seahawks, I'll start believing. But until then, I remain a skeptic.

"Da Bears" haven't proven anything yet. If they are such a great football team, they should have won by two or three touchdowns on Sunday. Grossman practically gave the Vikings 6 points with that awful interception in the third quarter. Thanks to the 5 to 10 yard cushions the Bears receivers were getting, Grossman had some real easy pass completions. The Vikings have to tighten that up in the future. The Vikings did do a good job against the run, something "Da Bears" always pride themselves on. If "Da Bears" can beat the Seahawks, I will start taking them seriously. Even without Shaun Alexander (who I understand will be out indefinitely with a hairline fracture in his foot), the Seahawks offense will pose a much bigger challenge to the Bears D than the Vikings did. They have one of the best quarterbacks in the league, and a solid line (even without Hutchinson). Their defense is pretty athletic, so Grossman better be on his best behavior. The Vikings weren't supposed to be a great team this year, with all the changes in the offseason and a 38 year old quarterback whose best days are behind him. A 2-1 start is looking pretty good right now. The Bears, on the other hand, have been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread all offseason. They are supposed to be dominant, but so far they haven't been (unless you count the dismantlings of the Packers and Lions). And until "Da Bears" can win a playoff game (or two), I would put the Falcons in the Super Bowl before I would put the "Grossman Gang" in it. Last year, Steve Smith almost single-handedly destroyed the Bears vaunted defense in the playoffs (in Soldier Field, no less). Unless "Da Bears" can overcome that this year, it won't matter if they win 14 or 15 games during the regular season. It's time "Da Bears" take advantage of their Super Bowl "window of opportunity" before it closes.

The one reason Kleinsasser was drafted in the 2nd round (44th overall) in 1999 is that he is a great blocker. It's like having another offensive lineman out there. He's just a big, Sherman tank that runs over anything in his way. He doesn't get a lot of highlight time because blocking tight ends aren't highlight material. But good blocking is just as important to an offense as catching and running. Why do you think the Vikings keep Jermaine Wiggins on the team? Because he can catch the ball and sometimes get some yards after the catch, something Kleinsasser has never been very good at. If I ever open up my Sporting News and read that Kleinsasser shouldn't be on the Vikings roster because he "isn't great after the catch" again, I think I'll throw up. That's not what he's on the team for. I think Jimmy might have a couple of seasons left in him, provided he stays healthy.

redwing77, When you have this many players just up and leave the women's hockey program (along with assistant coaches), there is something seriously wrong. If this team doesn't show at least an incremental improvement in their won-loss record this season, I think Rivard is gone. The way I look at it, if she complains even once about not having any "Olympians", I think she should be gone!

Pat Sweeney is no worse than Ed Shultz, Dana Mock and Steve Hallstrom were/are when it comes to the Bison. That's why during the Sioux-Bison games, they would put one broadcaster each from WDAZ and WDAY; to balance out the biases. When it comes to this rivalry; it's UND vs. NDSU, Grand Forks vs. Fargo, brother vs brother, husband vs wife, etc. There isn't anyone in the state with an unbiased bone in their body. I don't think that will change once the rivalry resumes.

I have been a Vikings fan since I was old enough to understand what football is. .....I was too young to remember the 1970's Super Bowl-losing teams (and I am grateful for that! ). .....I lived with the 1980's all-Defense, no-Offense teams. .....I lived with the late 1990's, early 2000's all-Offense, no-Defense teams. .....I put up with Mike "not ready for primetime" Tice and Denny "take a knee" Green. .....I cheered the day Red "cheapskate" McCombs sold the team. .....I cried my eyes out after the 1987 NFC championship game. .....I nearly threw up (literally) after the 1999 NFC championship game. .....I wanted to crawl in a hole after the 2001 NFC championship game. And I still wouldn't change my allegiance to another team if you paid me. Now that the Vikings have an owner who will spend money and a head coach with a clue, I think the years ahead are promising. But even if they aren't, I will always be a Vikings fan. GO VIKINGS!!!

How could they NOT win the NFC North with one of the softest schedules in the NFL? That, plus the fact that the other three teams in the division have too many question marks. The question for you guys is, can you produce in the playoffs this year? Last year's playoff loss to the Panthers must have been tough to swallow. Predicted order of finish in the NFC North: 1) Bears (great D + improved O + soft schedule = first place finish) 2) Vikings (Childress Rebuilding Plan, Phase 1) 3) Lions (Matt Millen must go! Opps, I could get kicked out of Ford Field for saying that!) 4) Packers (Favre should have retired) GO VIKINGS!!! PURPLE PRIDE, PURPLE PRIDE!!!

I agree. Tom Buning has been a solid leader for our athletic department. With our move to Division I, Buning will need to step up to the plate and deliver more than ever. I think he is up to it.

Before UND lost all of that talent (4 to the NHL and 1 to homesickness), I figured they would be the favorites. But after all the early departures from the best league in the nation, I think it's a toss-up. The team that adapts the best to off-season losses will have the most success. Denver was off a little last year, but they'll be back in the hunt before long. Duluth has a talented group of Sophomores coming back and will compete for a top 5 finish at the least. Wisconsin lost too much upperclass experience to be a factor. I don't know if CC has the depth. St. Cloud is probably a couple of years away from being a top contender, but I think they are headed in the right direction. I would say that the top three will include North Dakota, Minnesota and Duluth. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess what is going to happen. This is the WCHA, after all.

Here are some reasons why the Golden Rodents are not the team to beat, either in the WCHA or NCAA: 1) Average Goaltending: Briggs and Frazee are not championship material. I'd take Lammy over either of them. 2) Shaky Defensemen: Last year, their blueliners struggled to take care of the puck in the defensive zone at times. That cannot continue if they hope to win anything other than regular season titles. And I'm sorry, but it's going to take more than Eric Johnson to make up for it. 3) No more Nodaks: Potulny and Irmen left for greener ($$$) pastures, along with Phil "Boy Wonder" Kessel and Kris Chucko. They are going to have to find scoring from other places to make up for these losses. UND lost a lot of talent to the pros as well, but I don't think we relied on any two players like the Rodents did on Potulny and Irmen. Don't get me wrong, I think the Rodents will finish in the top 5 of the league and probably make the NCAA Tournament. But they have to address the above situations if they want to win more than regular-season titles.

Link does not work for me. I think you should double-check it.

Yes! I would shell out some bucks for seats and other stuff. Why let all of that stuff go to waste?

As soon as the new Ralph opened less than 5 years ago, the administration has pretty much been determined to tear down the old Ralph. Why did they wait this long? I am guessing it's one of, or a combination of, the following: 1) To give people time to "let go" of the old building. It may be old, rusty and obsolete, but a lot of people have fond memories of that place. And a lot of people didn't like leaving it in the first place. Time may not heal all wounds, but it sure helps people get over losing an old arena and embrace a new one. 2) To allow more deterioration of the old structure, which makes the case for demolition stronger. I think when the old Ralph closed in 2001 (after the farewell game against Manitoba), the cost of renovation and demolition was about the same. Now, it's tilted in favor of demolition. It looks like a no-brainer at this point, while back in 2001 it was a tougher case to make. 3) To give the administration more time to talk about how old and decayed the building is and how it cannot be used for anything again. Personally, I think all the talk about how bad of shape the old Ralph is in has been a little exaggerated. If you listen to some people, you would think it's not safe to walk inside of. Sure, the outside is rusted, the roof probably needs work and a lot of the inside is obsolete after years without any serious renovation. But I would have to guess that the overall structure of the building is still sound. I think there are some offices in part of the building right now. If it's falling apart, why would you be able to have offices in there? Enough said. Personally, I always felt that the old Ralph should have been turned into a basketball facility. It would have given us more seating than the Betty and that is critical if we are going to move to Division I, which I think will happen during the next couple of years. Another possible use I have pondered is turning it into a College Hockey Hall of Fame. What better place for that then one of the best College arenas of all time? If it's better for UND's future that the old Ralph meet it's demise, then I guess I can live with it. But I will miss that old building something awful. The noise. The comebacks. The atmosphere. We still haven't duplicated that in the new building and I don't know if we ever will. Back to reality.

I hate to say this, but you are making some of the same arguments that the defenders of Cheryl Littlejohn (long-ago fired head Women's Basketball coach at Minnesota) made when she was leading teams to single-digit win totals (and that was overall, not conference). All I heard from the apologists was that the players should shut up and "toe the line" and that Littlejohn should get to stay as long as she wanted. I'm not comparing Littlejohn to Rivard, but when a program loses players left and right for no apparent reason and players anonymously bash the head coach in the press, there is something very, very wrong. You can pretty much bet that the Wooster sisters leaving the team was about more than "educational opportunities in Canada they couldn't get here". It's happening with Gopher Women's Basketball right now. This program has not made very much progress and it could get much worse before it gets better.

It doesn't matter that the CHL still produces more NHL talent than D-I. Don Cherry won't be satisfied unless the CHL is producing all the talent like back in the early days of hockey. Cherry represents the Canadian monopolistic view of hockey, which says that "only Canada should have hockey because Canadians invented it". Well, the people in this group better get used to seeing more Americans and (gasp!) Europeans in the NHL, because that trend isn't going anywhere. I acutally like Don Cherry, his entertaining style of commentary makes it worth watching HNIC. He's a lot better than Kelley Hrudey (enough of "Behind the Mask" already!). I just don't like his narrow-minded, xenophobic views on hockey at all levels.

A legend has been taken from us much too early. Kirby Puckett died this evening from a massive stroke at the tender age of 45. He was a first-ballot Hall of Famer and one of the best clutch players ever to play the game. His performance in Game 6 of the 1991 World Series was one of the best ever. If you wanted to win a ball game, he was one guy you wanted in your dugout. Every time he stepped to the plate, there was a sense of anticipation and excitement. My prayers go out to his family, friends and former teammates. Does anyone else have any memories or thoughts of Puckett?

Excuse me for being biased toward the NCC, but I think the region title will come down to UND vs. Augustana or St. Cloud. I don't think UND will get tested until the semifinals and I don't think either Wayne St. or Concordia-St. Paul will be able to knock off either Augie or St. Cloud. I am not sold on the strength of the NSIC this year or the RMAC (the Really Mediocre Athletic Conference). The committee is always head-over-heels in love with that conference. If UND wasn't undefeated, they probably would have found some excuse to give the regional to Wayne St. But that's another topic. Anyway, I think we're going to have to beat either St. Cloud or Augustana to get to Arkansas. And based on what happened today at The Betty, I hope it's St. Cloud.

HockeyMom, Okay, I stand corrected on this year. But Rivard has used that in the past. I don't think she should get canned now, but if there isn't any progress during the next couple of years (finishing in the top half of the league, for example), then I think it might be time for a change.

I voted yes, it's time for Glas to go. I think Buning should offer him an administrative job if he steps down on his own. Otherwise, tell him to clean out his office and hire some new blood. One thing I am tired of hearing from Glas is that he just can't recruit big guys to his program. Then, we'll get the crap beat out of us by a big man in the paint and lose. It seems that all the good programs in the NCC can get big guys, except for UND. It's time for a change.

The program is extremely young, so it's a little silly to start talking about the program going in the wrong direction. That being said, I am getting a little tired of finishing at the bottom of the league every single year and losing to other teams in the bottom half of the standings in addition to losing to the national powers at the top. And if I hear Rivard talk about how they can't win because "other teams have 'The Olympians' and we don't" one more time, I am going to throw up. That is like Rich Glas of the Men's B-Ball team complaining about how D-II teams can't recruit big guys when almost every good team in the conference has at least one big man, or even two. Should we expect a conference or national title this soon? No. But if the program doesn't start showing at least some tangible signs of progress in the next couple of years, it might be time for a change at the top. Getting the Lamoreaux sisters to come here could pay immediate dividends and legitimize our program instantly. If not, it could be years and years before it happens. Having said all of that....Let's keep hope alive!!!

This is one of the most frustrating parts of our team. We take shots from the face-off circles, the blue-line and we always want to fire the puck into the goaltender's chest. Then people wonder why every team we play has a "hot goaltender". I am so sick and tired of hearing about how every goaltender we play is great, while our own goaltenders don't get the recognition that they deserve for being consistently good every night. The new hockey writer for the Heraldo always names the opposing goaltender as the "Key Player" of the game when we lose. A couple of weeks ago, Colorado College goaltender Matt Zaba was the "Key Player" of the game in our 3-2 loss, even though we were outshot by a considerable margin! How often do our goaltenders get that type of positive press? Not often enough! And this is our own media doing this, not sportswriters in Minneapolis or Madison. Are there hot goaltenders? Yes. Can you use that line every single time you lose? No. The solution to the above problem is the topic of this thread: Get guys in front of the net, create screens, create chaos and get some deflection and rebound goals. Goalies at this level will stop most long-range shots if they can see them. This is one problem with having skill on your team, players get too fancy. I think that is part of the problem on the Power Play as well.