scpa0305
-
Posts
9,963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by scpa0305
-
-
And I explained the differences. They got approval within the deadlines required. UND did not. There are penalties for not meeting deadlines. For UND the penalties are spelled out as sanctions. That is the end of the story.
Yes, I get that. And if they lose the name because of that so be it. But if there is a way to keep the name....I am for that.
-
Yes he did. Which makes sense based on comments he has made in both this forum and the hockey forum.
Sorry that I don't agree with everything you say. I played hockey my whole life and have always been a decent judge on players. Your's was pretty weak so I told you that.
-
Did you just admit you're simply a poseur and a troll?
No, just a Sioux fan who wants to keep the name. Others started the name calling.
-
Just because you want the name retired doesn't mean you are for PC. I am anti-PC. But I am also a realist, and I see what problems await UND if they keep the name. The NCAA is the boss in this and its not like UND is changing the name to be PC, they are doing this because the NCAA said do it or get punished. Like mom and dad telling you as a kid clean your room or you will be in trouble. Did you do it (comply) or stand up for your self and object knowing what punishment was coming.
If we have to get rid of the name so do all others (FSU, IU, etc). I don't want to read anything about their tribes support them because we have some too.
-
You need to get your facts straight and so does your friend. Tribal governments are run much like governments in the rest of the country. The governing body, in this case the Tribal Council, makes the decisions for the entire tribe. Some tribes allow a referendum or initiative, and some don't. Across the country approximately half of the states allow some form of initiative and/or referendum and half don't. The United States Federal government does not allow initiatives or referendums. When have you ever voted on an issue that was being decided by the United States Congress? Never, the correct answer is never.
Standing Rock does not have referendum or initiatives in their Tribal Constitution. Matters at Standing Rock are decided by the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council has officially been on the record since 1992 stating that they are opposed to UND using the Fighting Sioux nickname. As Ira said, they have had many elections during that time and could have elected people during that time to change the policy. As a matter of fact, they had an election after the settlement was signed, and before the deadline. They decided after that election to continue the policy being opposed to the UND nickname. A group got a petition together to get approval for the nickname and had it signed by 1004 tribe members. The opposition put together a separate petition asking the Tribal Council to keep the policy opposing the nickname. They got 1012 signatures. Both groups tried to turn in their petitions, but the Tribal Council agreed to table the matter and not address either petition.
The settlement agreement set up how the NCAA would accept approval from the 2 tribes. At Spirit Lake they recognized that the Tribal Council had given approval in 2000. All they requested was written confirmation that this approval was still in existence. As a matter of fact, Spirit Lake could have given that written approval in 2005 or 2006, during the appeal process, and this whole issue would have been decided. We wouldn't be arguing about the issue and UND would not be on sanctions. UND would be in the same status as Florida State. Spirit Lake refused to provide that letter. All they had to do was write a letter saying "Yes, the approval is still effective." They wouldn't do it. They wouldn't address the issue at all until some of the tribe members forced the initative (which Spirit Lake recognizes in their Tribal Constitution). Even after the vote the Tribal Council was reluctant to provide the written confirmation until forced by the tribe members.
The settlement states that Standing Rock can decide approval in any way acceptable in their Tribal Constitution, and then relay the approval in written form to the NCAA. The Tribal Council is the only way to give approval for something like this at Standing Rock. As I said earlier, they have repeatedly stated that they do not approve of the use. There is no other way to get tribal approval, and nothing else that could be done to get that approval. Standing Rock Tribal Council members refuse to discuss the issue with tribe members, UND or state officials or the NCAA. They have made their decision.
Furthermore, Standing Rock is not the only tribe with a policy opposing the Fighting Sioux nickname. Every Sioux tribe other than Spirit Lake has opposed the nickname as has the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association which is made up of the Tribal Chairs of approximately 15 or 16 tribes in the region. Again, Spirit Lake is the only tribe in the region that has given support for the nickname. And this issue has been active with the tribes since the 1960s or earlier. The effort to save the nickname now is not the first time that tribes have addressed the issue. Just because you or your friend have not been aware of this doesn't mean that it hasn't been happening.
Nice...I guess I stand corrected. I still 100% do not want to get rid of the nickname because some liberal radicals say we are using it for the wrong reasons.
-
OK, I couldn't let that go. I have never heard of an NHL GM badmouthing Hakstol and saying he can't develop players. Maybe I missed it...
I was typing too fast....I meant Lucia got bad mouthed and believe Garth Snow simply hates players going to college route so he plucks them early. Okposo, Ness, Nelson, etc. Sorry for the mistype, again I never heard anything bad about Hakstol but I have read that Garth hates when players go to college.
-
3 pretty good seasons by UND goalies in the last 10 years.
Jordan Parise
Season Team Lge GP A PIM Min GA EN SO GAA W L T Svs Pct
2005-06 U. of North Dakota WCHA 33 3 6 1959 68 0 6 2.08 24 8 1 943 0.933
Jean-Philippe Lamoureux
2007-08 U. of North Dakota WCHA 42 1 8 2508 73 0 6 1.75 27 11 4 1004 0.932
Aaron Dell
2010-11 U. of North Dakota WCHA 40 2 0 2349 70 0 6 1.79 30 7 2 857 0.924
Yeah, Phil's year was nice. So was parise's. Dell had an extremely strong team in front of him, one that should have been handed the Nat'l Championship if it wasn't for one of the most unlucky hockey games I have ever seen. That game proved to anyone watching that the better team does not always win.
-
.
Not when one of those good goalies name was Mike Lee.
Haha yeah, but I would've taken him in a second for our team. He would have came here if Eidesness wasn't already here, only to have Eidesness lose his job halfway through that season.
-
The NCAA has already won. They have a policy in effect that is supported by a super-majority of their members. The policy is not going away, if anything it is going to get more inclusive. The NCAA has a signed agreement with the University of North Dakota, the State Board of Higher Education and the State of North Dakota saying that UND would live up to the policy and the settlement. The settlement eliminates any possible lawsuits unless the other party breaks the agreement. The NCAA isn't going to break the agreement.
What do you believe is going to be gained by keeping the nickname? The NCAA sanctions are just starting to take effect. They are cumulative, the effects will get worse over time. The NCAA isn't going to back down from their policy, and there is no way to force them down. If you believe that the NCAA is going to back down or that the NCAA is going to weaken the sanctions, you are horribly wrong. The NCAA has a history of keeping sanctions in place. They have UND right where the NCAA wants it. Keeping the nickname will hurt the entire athletic department, including the hockey program (since you seem to be a hockey only fan). Minnesota and Wisconsin will not schedule hockey games with UND after this coming year. Losing major rivals, and 2 of the biggest schools in college hockey, is a major blow to the program. Other schools will probably take the same policy at some point, which will make it even worse.
The people that you are calling "true Sioux fans" are not really University of North Dakota fans. If you are really a fan of the University of North Dakota you need to realize that keeping the nickname and continuing the sanctions is very bad for UND. It is time to retire the nickname.
Sorry but I respectfully disagree. They should always be the Fighting Sioux. Yes, you seem to know a lot about this so I guessing you are correct in saying the agreement was signed by all parties, blah blah blah. However, we are not looking at this from 5,000 ft. By that I mean why the name is being taken away in the first place. Certain people find the name offensive except the tribe which our school is named after. That is silly to me. You are correct in saying we will lose potential games (WIS, MN) however, I believe that will only be in the short term, also, we will not be running into them much any longer due to the conference realignment. As for the other sports, you are correct, while I am a fan, I am not a die hard fan. Simply because the division they play in. I lived in GF my whole life and went there, however, besides hockey I only follow football and I much rather watch Div 1-A football.
You all may be correct that the name should go, but that is simply the easy way out because the NCAA has pinned us into a corner. I just think this isn't a fair way to go about things. MN is full of BS, don't they have the Warrod Warriors with an Indian head logo?
-
1
-
-
Cast not the first stone.
It's the Standing Rock Tribal Council who is not allowing "people to speak out". (There is a difference between the elders and the Tribal Council.) However, that's how the laws at SR are written and SRTC is within their governing powers.
Oh OK.
-
This is a great example of how misinformation has allowed someone to form an opinion and would vote based on what he or she may believe is an honorable reason but hurts UND. All tribes had an opportunity to have their voices heard. The Standing Rock Tribal Officials wouldn't respond to UND officials on a number of occasions and when they did their answer was they were opposed to UND keeping the name. The people of Standing Rock had ample opportunity over the years to elect representatives who would have supported the name. They did not. The Spirit Lake Tribe also had an opportunity to speak out on behalf of UND in 2005 and had they done so the name would be there without sanctions. "These people" you refer to had ample and multiple opportunites to speak out. There were open forums and there were committees over the years. There have been many opportunites to participate in the discussions. The agreement with the NCAA involved the parties with "a horse in the race". UND, the State of N.Dak. and the NCAA. Whether or not we wanted to sit at that table or wanted someone else including Tribal Officials to sit at the table, is not something we can force on the NCAA nor the courts. (The courts just decided that).
The SBoHE fought to keep the name until it became clear the NCAA was not going to allow them to keep the name without approval of the tribes. That was another opportunity for the tribes to have their "voices" heard. At some point the SBoHE relaized the futility of trying to force our opinion on the NCAA and have been trying to retire the name once we were unable to get those "voices" you refer to to be heard and approve the name.
Vote however you wish, but learn what the heck you are talking about before you make a decision. Misinformed voters like you could very well hurt UND athletics beyond repair. NDSU, SDSU, recently joined the growing list of schools who are heeding the recommendatin from the NCAA that no NCAA school schedule UND. The possibility (not certainty) that UND will be removed from the Big Sky is real. To vote against UND because groups of people didn't care enough to take action when they had the chance is not a good reason in my opinion. As time goes by there is something new every month providing more evidence of how keeping the name will hurt UND and UND athletics. Anyone foolish enough to believe it won't hurt UND hockey as well is just palin foolish.
The people who matter most in this discussion are not the people of Standing Rock and Spirit Lake. It is the student athletes, the students, the fans, the alumni and the rest of the UND community that will be directly affected and hurt by the NCAA sanctions.
You're crazy and not completley accurate as well. Native elders were not allowing their people to speak out. Get your facts straight....most of us know this by now. It wasn't until there was an uprising within their communities that this recent call to keep the name even started. I have a boyhood friend who is from the standing rock tribe (actually sent him what you just wrote) and he said you are absolutely full of bologna.
-
1
-
-
The NCAA is trying to wear down the ND people into doing exactly what a lot of you are already doing....giving up. I am glad there are true Sioux fans standing their ground and voting to keep the name.
-
1
-
-
Since it's that time of year, I'll throw out a golf analogy, which may be full of sh**. This from a fan who really liked Eidsness.
There are some guys who, if you golf with them often enough, you grow to expect some things. I golf with one guy who plays at about a 9. He knows what to do with his clubs and is fully capable of putting together a 73-75 at a fairly challenging course. But if he's hitting the ball real well and scoring at or near par, I can almost guarantee he will cough up a double or triple somewhere along the way to blow his low score. It's not pressure, because we don't play for money, and he might hit the tough hole on the front nine. Maybe it's concentration. Maybe he's just a good but not real good golfer.
Eidsness seemed that way to me. He was real good for the Sioux, and I expecially liked his maturity. We were lucky to have him. But I was never surprised to see the softie--usually just one.
I suppose statistics would disprove what that analogy suggests about his play, but hey, it's summer. It would be a treat, though, to get a goalie who, when he is on, is just plain shut-down. Might be what is needed for #8.
That's all I was trying to say. With all our good recruits it seemed as though what we have been lacking is a goalie who will simply steal the game away right from the get go. It's funny how St. Cloud always seems to have good goalies (plural). We can out shoot them by 25 and still lose 2-1 even though they only had 11 shots on net. I am excited for next year though.
-
Agreed. Dell is 14-1-0 in March. He is clutch. I don't really care too much about his save percentage when his winning percentage is that high.
Yeah, true. He is clutch and hasn't dissapointed at the end of the year.
-
Dell had a .924 save percentage in 2010-2011 which fits in your definition of "the norm". That was in 40 games with a 1.79 GAA. You appear to have some kind of grudge against Dell considering your original post on the subject.
Yes, you may be right. I guess with all the outstanding forward and defense recruits who come in, I have always waited for an awesome goalie (one that will make it to the next level). Dell did just fine, however, there were a few times he let some softies in which I cannot forget. I still think his numbers are strictly a product of the defense we had. If the gophs goalie from last year was playing on the Sioux's '10-'11 team...end of story. I mean look at Chris Noonan (NIA), Parker Milner (BC) and Conner Knapp (miami). Every other teams top goalie has a good GAA and save %...except ours. Even in '10-'11 dell was first in GAA but 8th in save %. A couple other top GAA goalie from that year were also top 5 in save %. Long story short, I should have never said he was a terrible goalie...point taken. He is just simply one of the worst goalies in the WCHA at controlling his rebounds. That's it.
Alright, I'm done with this topic. I hate arguing with fellow Sioux fans. Sorry for mentioning this.
-
OK, I don't think you are following me. Yes I agree because Saunders was on the WORST team in the league and, I guess, he was a decent goalie his save % was decent and his GAA was not all that great (opposite of Dell). Well that just leads me to believe that he may be a decent goalie, because his save % is good. However, due to the terribleness of his team, his GAA will be bad. You sort of made my point. Now if a below average goalie plays for an outstanding team, yes I would expect his GAA to be low, because his defense is good. Now if you had a great goalie, on a great team, I would expect both the save % and GAA to be pretty high (thus "follow" each other). I am a Sioux fan, but if you would go take a look at other good goalies you will notice those two goaltending stats usually follow each other unless for two reasons. 1. There is a good goalie on a terrible team, 2. There is a weak goalie on a good team.
If you don't agree, then don't. We'll agree to disagree. I would simply like to give someone else a shot this year. I know last year we didn't have the options and Eideness never really panned out either. But yes, he too had a lot of wins and a decent GAA because he was on awesome teams. Went down way too much and could not cover the top shelf.
Although from the looks of the numbers you produced Eideness's save % was not all that bad last year. 92% or 92.5% and up should be the norm if you have a low GAA. Anything below that means either you let in a few softies each game without getting too many shots or you never bail your team out when they let someone through.
-
I'm not following these "who's save % follows their GAA" or "a good save% can't follow a good GAA" statements.
(shots on goal faced) * ( 1 - save percent ) = goals allowed
You normalize that equation to a 60 minute game (based on total minutes played) to get GAA.
Even if you have a rock steady save percentage through the year, your GAA can vary based on the number of shots you face. The number of shots you face is controlled not by the goalie but by the teams in front of him (and that's teams, plural, because it's both how many do your guys let on goal and how many shots do the opponents attempt).
If your save% isn't following your GAA (and by "follow" I assume you mean "inversely follow" as save% going up should make GAA go down) you need to look at the other factor: shots on goal faced.
Here are numbers for three NCAA goalies this past season:
Goalie Minutes GA Shots save ratio GAA SPG A. Dell 1799.87 80 797 0.900 2.67 26.6 Eidsness 718.9 26 326 0.920 2.17 27.2 Saunders 1534 95 1013 0.906 3.72 39.6
Note that Dell has a worse save ratio than Saunders but a better GAA. That's the "shots faced" (SPG) factor. Saunders was seeing about 50% more shots per game than either Dell or Eids.
OK, I don't think you are following me. Yes I agree because Saunders was on the WORST team in the league and, I guess, he was a decent goalie his save % was decent and his GAA was not all that great (opposite of Dell). Well that just leads me to believe that he may be a decent goalie, because his save % is good. However, due to the terribleness of his team, his GAA will be bad. You sort of made my point. Now if a below average goalie plays for an outstanding team, yes I would expect his GAA to be low, because his defense is good. Now if you had a great goalie, on a great team, I would expect both the save % and GAA to be pretty high (thus "follow" each other). I am a Sioux fan, but if you would go take a look at other good goalies you will notice those two goaltending stats usually follow each other unless for two reasons. 1. There is a good goalie on a terrible team, 2. There is a weak goalie on a good team.
If you don't agree, then don't. We'll agree to disagree. I would simply like to give someone else a shot this year. I know last year we didn't have the options and Eideness never really panned out either. But yes, he too had a lot of wins and a decent GAA because he was on awesome teams. Went down way too much and could not cover the top shelf.
-
Players and the game itself are about much more that stats. An excellent GAA and Win% is a reflection of team defense- something the Sioux pride themselves on. One of the key components of team defense is also likely to have a negative impact on save %- limiting opponents' shots on goal. The Sioux really limit the shots on goal from outside with their shot blocking and cycle play...it is tough for opponents to get shots when the Sioux are forechecking well and keeping the puck deep in the other zone. Another key aspect of save percentage is quality shots- this speaks poorly of team defense- or more appropriately speaks of defensive or mental breakdowns resulting is really good looks at the net from prime scoring areas.
When I watch Dell, what I've seen is that more often than not (clearly everyone has an off night) he makes the first and usually the second save. When goals are scored on third or fourth attempts in a flurry, that is the whole team's fault and especially the d-men for not getting to their man or clearing out the puck...Brad Berry anyone?
First save is about goalie positioning and seeing the puck, second save is about rebound control, third and subsequent are about the players who play outside the pipes.
Yes I do agree with you regarding the style of defense played by the Sioux, however, where I don't agree with you is that a good save% can't follow a good GAA. I am not trying to sit here and bash Dell (although it kind of looks that way), because all in all, the guy was never supposed to start in the first place, however, his rebound control has to improve before the next level, which is also the reason I think he comes back for sure. He was decent in all facets of goaltending besides rebound control. Even two seasons ago when we had the most outstanding D core I had seen in some time (on any college roster) I just thought he let in too many softies. Last year was a terrible season for him (not counting the end of the season, which I guess matters most) but I really have never seen a goalie get pulled that much.
All in all, yes he has been an average goalie with a great defense and some would argue that is all we need to get where we have the past few years. Also, he has played well in the playoffs for the most part. I am just really excited to see what Gothberg has to bring. I was able to watch him in the playoffs this year (against Lincoln) and he is very good. Hakstol will have a pretty tough decision to make.
-
No way they split up the Parks-Rowney-MacMillan line....at least not to start the year. As for the first line, I say they go with fire works right off the bat since they know they have an abundance of dudes who can fill that 3rd/4th line, by that, I mean Kristo-Knight-Grimaldi. Let's see what happens. Pattyn should definitely get the first crack at filling a fourth line role. Plug the rest of the third/fourth lines with harding work frosh's and defensive minded, energetic forwards.
As for the Dmen, no need to discuss. They are jacked up.
As for goalies, hopefully Dell leaves and we can all start watching a goalie who's save % follows their GAA. No super knock on Dell, but besides the end of the season, the guy was pretty terrible given the pedigree of many of the players in front of him (especially two years ago). His save % has always been absolute garbage considering his GAA.
As for the team (as a whole), I hope this is the year. We're due.
-
1
-
-
I agree, I think the CHL sees hockey gaining popularity in the U.S. and they see the NCAA as a threat to their ability to make money. They don't want to see college hockey become the main route to the NHL for Americans and they see this as a turning point. I think that's why they are being so aggressive lately.
Ditto
-
whether we like it or not, a large majority of the blue chip prospects are going the chl route. that is a fact. the problem is how do we combat the fallacy that the chl is a better path to the nhl? that is where the problem lies. both are good leagues and both have a proven track record of producing top end players, but the chl has no problem spreading lies and ignorance to try and get a step up on ncaa hockey. fact is, college hockey is catching up and more and more players are choosing that route. the people in the chl know this, and this is there way of again gaining the upper hand. there will always be the prospects who choose the chl over college hockey for some of the numerous reasons mentioned in this thread, but when you throw in the chl's dirty tactics on top of it, of course us college hockey fans (and probably coaches and colleges too) will get annoyed. It's not an even playing field because colleges can't fight back. And now that College Hockey Inc. let Paul Kelley go, it seems we are back to square one.
Yes, now we are talking. For the last 30 years or so MOST (but not all) blue chips have been going to the CHL. Excluding the last 2-3 years, US college hockey has started to pull some of these top prospects (Parise, Toews, Van Ryiemsdyke, Erik Johnson, etc) and the the CHL knew things were starting to turn. They then had NHL GMs bad mouthing college coaches saying college hockey stunts these prospect's development (Lucia and now Hakstol). I somehow wish college hockey could leave the NCAA and start their own governing body. With all the NCAA regulations it is true, it's not even a close fight with the CHL because they offer money under the table. Also, players actually get NHL experience (for either 9 to 17 games) and they can still get sent back to their major junior team. College needs some sort of perk like this to get these top end recruits.
-
Long story short....I really hope Berry comes back because that guy's earlier post is somewhat correct. He did pull in a lot of top end recruits that probably would have been playing in the CHL without Berry great recruiting efforts.
-
This was the only logical explanation since the announcement was made to let Eades go. Berry is IMHO one of the best college recruiters in the country and brought in some of the best recruiting classes UND has ever seen, and on top of that he has a reputation for his work on the blueline.
Eades was just simply not doing a good enough job here. We have seen a steep decline in the recruits under Eades tenure, have started losing several blue chip recruits in the past 18 months and have witnessed a blue line that has been plagued by inconsistency.
When I was in college I was witnessing Toews, Oshie, Stafford, Parise, Chorney etc... on a weekly basis and I am looking forward to getting back to that. I think this will have an absolutely huge impact on the overall program if it does happen and give props to Hakstol and Co. for realizing that change is needed.
Haha yeah right, the Sioux have lost out on some defectors but please do not say they have poor recruiting. You watch....Parks and MacMillan will be studs.
-
Just stop while your behind. You know everything possible about the CHL but you are a HUGE Sioux fan. Just stop the charade.
Settle down buddy.
How will you vote June 12th?
in UND Nickname
Posted
It depends on how bad. First off, yes I am a Sioux fan. I was born and raised in GF, I went to UND, however, you are correct that I follow hockey much more in depth than the rest of the sports. We'll see, again, like I said. I guess it would depend on what types of sanctions would actually happen.