Benny Baker

Again, your personal debt to your employer is completely different than the matter between UND and NCAA. Completely different; it's not even close. "the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND". Please tell me where I said this. There seems to be a lot of selective amnesia around here. UND was absolutely put on sanctions AND THE SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED ONCE UND DECIDED TO DROPS ITS NICKNAME ALTOGETHER!!!!!!! http://www.uscho.com/2012/02/29/ncaa-announces-sanctions-to-north-dakota-for-use-of-nickname-logo/

Yep, they sure do like to make it up as they go.

Sorry to hear, man. That sucks for lack of better word. "Without getting too specific". This is an issue because it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about, and as I'll explain, it sounds like your situation is markedly different from the UND v. NCAA matter. "They filed for arbitration". Sounds like you signed an arbitration clause in your employment contract. Don't sign these unless you're signing on behalf of a large, wealthy business entity. Arbitration is a distinct, separate forum from the civil justice system and offers very limited rights to employees/individuals. Simply put, different rules apply. "Without a request for payment or other notification, they went to court for a judgment." It sounds like there was an arbitration award, and you already owed money at this point and didn't pay. Therefore, your employer went to court and obtained a judgment based upon the arbitration award. Your employer needs the actual judgment to garnish your paycheck and levy your bank accounts. It also sounds like your employer was seeking monetary damages and a legal remedy. The issue between UND and NCAA is more equitable in nature. In particular, NCAA would not seek the recovery of legal, monetary damages from UND for using the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. It also sounds like you may have neglected to respond and had a default judgment entered against you. Did you respond when your employer filed in court or did you retain a lawyer? You waive your defenses if you don't assert them! So, you are correct in the sense that litigants can obtain unusual monetary judgments when they are based upon arbitration awards and the other party fails to respond or has a bad attorney. UND's matter does not stem from an arbitration proceeding, the NCAA wouldn't seek monetary damages, the state of North Dakota won't fail to respond, and it's attorney is . . . well, yeah, I guess is not that great either. Hope this makes sense.

I would agree with you if by "challenging the NCAA" you mean re-adopting the Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA has EVERYTHING to gain by imposing sanctions. Again, parties to a contract cannot sit on their rights and wait several years before deciding to enforce a contract.

"Do we know everything that came out of this meeting" Absolutely, the article addresses this right off the bat! It explicitly says that "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement". If the settlement agreement actually contained an ultimatum of either a new nickname or sanctions by August 11th, the NCAA would have put and kept UND on sanctions through the current date because "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement." On the other hand, your opinion that "The NCAA gave some time and space to Dalrymple, Carlson, et al who visited to get that done" after the August 13, 2011 meeting is patently inaccurate. The NCAA most certainly did not give UND "time and space" after August 13, 2011, but rather placed UND on sanctions. Don't you remember the jerseys the "Fighting Sioux" had to wear during the NCAA tournament in 2012. . . . when they were on sanctions? That's certainly not "time and space"; that's sanctions. Of course, the sanctions were lifted once UND retired "Fighting Sioux" and now the hockey team gets to host regionals and all that other fun stuff. "Has anyone asked them (meaning the ND officials who were sent packing or the NCAA)?" Yes, I have. I work closely with several state legislators. The article you cited tells us about all we need to know: "Emmert told a group of state legislators and school officials he would not compromise on a court-imposed settlement".

I would concede that this initially would have been a reasonable interpretation of the settlement agreement. But it's an interpretation that carries less weight every day. Another, more logical interpretation is that the settlement agreement only required UND to transition away from the "Fighting Sioux" nickname by August 15, 2011. Why is this a more logical interpretation? Because it's been almost four years since that deadline came and passed and the NCAA has not taken any action to put UND back on a "naughty" list. Please tell us why the NCAA has not put UND back on sanctions if UND has been in constant violation of the settlement agreement for over 44 months? And please don't resort to the speculative assumption that the NCAA has been waiting for this process to play out. It's simply incorrect to believe that the NCAA, or any party to a contract, can pick and choose if and when to enforce an agreement. You lawyer types out there all know that UND has legitimate affirmative defenses such as laches, waiver, etc. that would prevent the NCAA from trying to put UND back on sanctions after it seemingly allowed UND to be in constant breach of the settlement agreement without taking any enforcement action for several years. Litigants cannot sit on their rights for years and then selectively choose when to enforce a contract. The more logical answer is that the settlement agreement simply does not require UND to adopt a new nickname. If it did, UND would have been on sanctions from August 11, 2011 through the current date. That hasn't been the case, however. And what can't North Dakota be a nickname? The settlement agreement does not even define "nickname". Once again, this is an opinion as a lot of other peoples' opinions is that North Dakota and the interlocking "ND" is a suitable nickname and logo.

Yup, I agree Yale and Providence aren't the normal powerhouses we're used to, but their examples are important for another reason. I should have been more specific because Yale and Providence both won the national championship as 4 seeds. Neither team would have even made it to the NCAA tournament under the formats used in the 1970s/1980s. So the expanded playing field in the NCAA tournament makes it easier (possible) for 4 seeds like Yale and Providence to win the National Championship where they would have been shut out from the opportunity under the tournament's previous formats. Another similar example is UND in 2014. Under the format used in the 1970s/1980s, the chance at a national title would have ended with UND's frozen faceoff semifinal loss to Miami. Instead, in part due to the expanded playing field and the University of Wisconsin, UND made the NCAA tournament.

This is very interesting! To me, it suggests that it was more difficult to make the NCAA tournament back then, at least mathematically. If we consider the early years of Gino's tenure, only 5 to 8 teams out of 40 made the NCAA tournament. That's between 12.5-20% of teams that made the NCAA tournament. Today, 16 out of 59 teams make the NCAA tournament, or 27% of teams. The fact that it's much easier to make the NCAA tournament today should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fact that there is a bigger field to defeat today than back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But in my opinion, I think it's easier for a team to the win an NCAA championship under today's format than it was in the early 1980s. For examples, see Yale and Providence.

I do not agree with the "Fire Hak" crowd, but I do understand their frustration. Hak should not be fired, he should stay. These are just my opinions.

Yup, the 2004-05 team, 25-15-5, was the team he lead to the national championship game. I wasn't attempting to diminish the accomplishments of Hakstol's teams, but rather point out that the limited opportunities to make the NCAA tournament back in the day meant that some fairly solid teams were shut out from the opportunity altogether. Like the 1983 Sioux team.

Like I said, "better than or equal to". 2004-05, 2008-09, and 2012-13. Check your stats.

1. "Uh . . . isn't this using stats to mislead." No, absolutely not. The capitalized heading clearly indicates that the subsequent list contains North Dakota frozen four coaching records. That list, as a result, contains the undisputed frozen four records of every North Dakota hockey coach. The post does not include any personalized opinion derived from these undisputed, verifiable facts. The post is not misleading in any manner whatsoever. 2. "Obviously, 1-7 by Haks in the Frozen 4 ain't good." Fair, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But in my opinion, it's horrendous. 3. "that in itself doesn't necessarily say anything about well he (sic) coached to get his team there." This is incorrect, too. The number immediately following each coach's name in the post indicates the number of frozen fours each coach has attended. For example, in Hakstol's case, the unequivocal reference to his all-time North Dakota record 7 frozen four appearances speaks volumes of his ability to succeed at the regional level. 4. "how many games (less) there were in the NCAA tourney back in the day". This is a good point, and one I often consider. However, this fact aids competing arguments and is a double edged sword for anyone who tries to use this argument to his or her advantage. Prior to 1977, the NCAA selected 4 teams to play in the NCAA tournament. So while there were less teams in the 1970s than there are today, if your team was not one of the arbitrary 4 to get selected, you didn't even get a chance to compete for a title. From 1977-1980 only 5-6 teams made the NCAA tournament. From 1981-1987, only 8 teams made the NCAA tournament. So similarly, while there were less opponents a team needed to defeat to make it to the frozen four, there were a lot less opportunities for teams to even make the NCAA tournament in the first place. For example, for anyone old enough to remember, think about UND hockey in 1983. UND was 21-13-2 and the frozen four was in Grand Forks. UND was infamously snubbed from the NCAA tournament. Interestingly, UND's winning percentage that year was equal to or better than 3 of Hakstol's 11 teams, all of which made the NCAA tournament due to the benefit of an expanded field. 5. "should some of those coaches have coached better and been in the frozen four more often?". Again, see above. UND followed up their 1982 NCAA title with a 21-13-2 record, which is better than or equal to 3 of Hakstol's NCAA tournament teams, and UND still missed the NCAA tournament in 1982 due to limited spots. Likewise, UND had a better winning percentage in 1969 than 5 of Hakstol's 11 teams, and again missed the NCAA tournament completely. Also, 1990 was the very first time UND played in the NCAA tournament without making the frozen four. That's right, 1990. So every time UND made the NCAA tournament prior to 1990, UND played in the frozen four. 6. "A lot unsaid". No, the post is factually accurate, indisputable, and not misleading.

Spot on. When I saw the numbers Czarnick (14-26-40), Barber (15-24-39), and Caito (5-16-21) put up three years ago as a sophomore and two freshman, respectively, along with McKay's (1.38 GAA .946 SV%) and Williams' (1.94 GAA .924 SV%) goalie numbers as freshman, and not to mention Coleman and Kurarly, I figured that Miami would steamroll the NCHC its first two seasons. It's a shock that Miami did even win an NCAA playoff game in the past two seasons. Fire Blasi!

I think you mean "imply"; fs4l inferred that you were offended. I don't want to speak on behalf of everyone, but the fact that a person takes the time to post on a message board about, well anything, strongly implies that the person probably has some semblance of enjoyment when talking about that subject.

Indeed, there is. Right next to the Frozen Four banner.

I am not exactly sure. If I had to guess, I would tend to think the melt down had to do with two things. First, it was the first time UND lost back-to-back games in well over a year. Second, UND looked awful against Denver, which was the final game before the NCAA tournament. So I think the meltdown had more to do with UND not looking ready for the NCAA playoffs than it had to with not winning a conference playoff championship. As for me, personally, I was not too concerned because I knew UND was going to be a number 1 seed in Fargo regardless of their performance in Minneapolis. That Denver game didn't mean much, if anything, for UND. And correct, Engelstad Arena does not need "fan" banners like that 12th man nonsense.

Yup. But his car was in his garage so I couldn't get to his tires. I can drop off your basketball arena photograph montage at his house tomorrow morning, too, and let him know that MafiaMan wants banners up at Engelstad for every achievement, large and small, in UND hockey history. Make no mistake; I don't want Hakstol fired. I am, however, disappointed in the ability of his teams to capitalize at the end of the season.

Except that Dave Hakstol, himself, has said that UND "does not hang second place banners". So you may be better served showing your endless series of college basketball arena photographs to Coach Hakstol if you desire Engelstad Arena to start hanging regional title banners or NCAA tournament participation banners. I don't think anyone on this forum has ever said that other schools do not hang second place (and below) banners. Indeed, Mariucci Arena has been the focal point of these discussions for some time on this message board.

Fire Bucci!

NORTH DAKOTA REGIONAL TITLE BANNERS: Dave Hakstol: 7 Dean Blais: 3 Gino Gasparini: 3* *No regionals. 8 team playoff with four winners advancing to frozen four (82', 84', and 87'). Prior to 1982, NCAA selected the four participants in the frozen four, which was essentially the entire NCAA playoffs).

I'd love to say "yes", but the answer is "no". Eichel and Boeser are the same age. Eichel accelerated his education, entered college early, scored 71 points, and won the Hobey Baker while Boeser stayed in the USHL like most other high school kids. I do not see Boeser scoring anywhere close to 71 points even if he stays through his junior season at UND.

NORTH DAKOTA FROZEN FOUR COACHING RECORDS: Gino Gasparini (5): 8-2 Dean Blais (3): 5-1 Bob May (2): 3-1 Barry Thorndycraft (1): 2-0 Bob Peters (1): 1-1 Bill Selman (2): 1-3 Dave Hakstol (7): 1-7 _____________________________ 21-15

Completely disagree. Scholarships are one-year deals. Brock fulfilled his obligation to UND when he played hockey for the only two years he was on scholarship. The focus should really be on universities that drop players' scholarships for injuries, underperforming, better recruits coming in, etc.

I swear I also heard Zane referred to as "Zack McIntyre" and "Zane McIntosh" on two different occasions. It's one thing to generally not know the name of a college hockey player off the top of your head. It's another when you're broadcasting the frozen four and can't correctly pronounce the names of one team's leading goal scorer (Cajulia) and their hobey hat trick finalist and richter award winning goalie. That's the kind of Busch league announcing one would expect when listening to an AM radio broadcast of a local high school basketball game. Mal-prose, I mean, Melrose, is a joke.

Sandelin and Mark Osiecki in 1997; Sandelin, Jeff Bowen, and Lee Davidson in 2000. Hakstol has never been associated with a UND team that has won a national championship either as a player, assistant coach, or head coach.