dagies Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Like I said on GPL, UND wouldn't have suspended him if the whole nickname thing was still very much up in the air. That's a huge part of this, IMO. I don't see how the nickname issue is affecting this decision. Frankly, the publicity and "newsworthyness?" of the suspension will probably get more attention than the issue itself. So in a way the suspension is calling attention to the issue, I think. I was surprised that it was 2 games. I was expecting a game, but I would imagine this will keep the WCHA happy and the matter will be put to rest. Quote
hermit Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 IMHO it was the correct move. The responce of all of you show that hockey and not the school are important. I also think Oshie should have been suspended for longer. These people are not gods that deserve to have all of you on your knees to them geez. Steve Brekke who I have known for over 20 years should have docked him two weeks pay also. Guess what folks there are much more important issues in the world than Sioux hockey if you would open your eyes and look. Quote
LeftyZL Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 IMHO it was the correct move. The responce of all of you show that hockey and not the school are important. I also think Oshie should have been suspended for longer. These people are not gods that deserve to have all of you on your knees to them geez. Steve Brekke who I have known for over 20 years should have docked him two weeks pay also. Guess what folks there are much more important issues in the world than Sioux hockey if you would open your eyes and look. You think Oshie should have been suspended for more than a game when he hasn't been proven guilty of doing anything wrong. Once a verdict or final decision has been made in his case, then make your decision. Not before. Quote
minnysioux Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Fox 9 just had a nice piece on Hak and his blurred out finger. It did say the WCHA wouldn't take further action. Quote
HaksHomey Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Fox 9 just had a nice piece on Hak and his blurred out finger. It did say the WCHA wouldn't take further action. nothing better to report on... sounds like wdaz journalism Quote
siouxkid12 Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 IMHO it was the correct move. The responce of all of you show that hockey and not the school are important. I also think Oshie should have been suspended for longer. These people are not gods that deserve to have all of you on your knees to them geez. Steve Brekke who I have known for over 20 years should have docked him two weeks pay also. Guess what folks there are much more important issues in the world than Sioux hockey if you would open your eyes and look. your opening a whole new can of worms with that comment! Quote
Goon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Check out who wrote that article. Frank Mazzocco/Staff Writer AKA Frank Masucko. Quote
yzerman19 Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Punishment is appropriate for Hak. We have to show that we are strict. The biggest danger is losing credibility with the officials. There is plenty of politicing that goes on, and we are going to have trouble getting the benefit of the doubt now. Maybe we never did get the benefit of the doubt before either. As for Wooger, I think that was a little misleading too. I think the guy made a lapse in judgement. A player needed $500, yes there are rules, but think about if someone you were really close with needed $500 in order to graduate school, and said he'd pay you back right away. I'd float the kid 5 Bennies too. Hakstol will feel shame, he will miss a key series, and he might've added a black mark to our sterling reputation. Regardless, I am happy to have a coach who isn't a robot and I'm sure his players are too. It would've been better to throw somehting and get a bench minor however. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Here are your choices: - Do nothing and let the WCHA pick and choose; and as a bonus the opponents get tell everyone how your university has no standards - Do something and disarm the WCHA and opponents; but don't forget, it has to be strong enough to keep them disarmed. One game wouldn't be enough to satisfy the league office, thus two. But by doing this, UND now gets to walk into future league meetings and say that at least we face up to and deal with our issues. That could be very useful down the road. But the clear answer remains: It's Buning's fault. (Someone should've told Hak to hold a pen if he was going to imitate Buning at Mariucci.) Quote
Siouxmama Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Punishment is appropriate for Hak. We have to show that we are strict. The biggest danger is losing credibility with the officials. There is plenty of politicing that goes on, and we are going to have trouble getting the benefit of the doubt now. Maybe we never did get the benefit of the doubt before either. As for Wooger, I think that was a little misleading too. I think the guy made a lapse in judgement. A player needed $500, yes there are rules, but think about if someone you were really close with needed $500 in order to graduate school, and said he'd pay you back right away. I'd float the kid 5 Bennies too. Hakstol will feel shame, he will miss a key series, and he might've added a black mark to our sterling reputation. Regardless, I am happy to have a coach who isn't a robot and I'm sure his players are too. It would've been better to throw somehting and get a bench minor however. He did throw something.........almost threw his middle finger out of joint. Good for Hak for getting fired up, but didn't like what he did. Good for Hak for coming forward right away and sending out an apology. 2 game suspension for Hak, whatever. We have 2 other coaches that can get the job done. With Eades at the helm, we should be playing Wisc, maybe there'd be a bench clearing brawl! Quote
hermit Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 your opening a whole new can of worms with that comment! Apperance of wrongdoing creates more issues than actual wrongdoing. If a friend percieves that they were snubbed causes more friction and bitter feelings than an actual snub. Key word here is conjecture followed by assumption which are the gist of gosip. Hence the reason he should have been suspened for more. The percieved impact and bad light on the university is more dangerous than the actual. Quote
cornerhouse901 Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 I was expecting a one game suspension, but 2 games is not excessive. I think the fight at the end of the game may have been factored in. The Sioux appeared to be totally out of control on Saturday night. Quote
Goon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 IMHO, the Fighting Sioux name and logo are a done (dead) deal and has nothing to do with the suspension. I know that GPL only looks at UND as a hockey rival but there's a lot more going on than hockey. There are multlimillions of dollars coming into the University in the form of grants and contracts that have NOTHING to do with hockey. IMHO, that is one of the reasons for the suspension. I agree with you the suspension has nothing to do with the name. Quote
AZSIOUX Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 brad has news on the hak situation http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/ Quote
nd1sufan Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 You think Oshie should have been suspended for more than a game when he hasn't been proven guilty of doing anything wrong. Once a verdict or final decision has been made in his case, then make your decision. Not before. So if he is found or pleads guilty, what should his suspension be? I would say for a second arrest in less than a year, 1 game was awfully light. Sometimes when you have the privilege of playing a sport for a school or organization, guilt doesn't have to be proven before action is taken. Just ask Michael Vick. Quote
AZSIOUX Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 So if he is found or pleads guilty, what should his suspension be? I would say for a second arrest in less than a year, 1 game was awfully light. Sometimes when you have the privilege of playing a sport for a school or organization, guilt doesn't have to be proven before action is taken. Just ask Michael Vick. but when charges get dropped then whats your response?? just wondering, thanks Quote
Wreckincrew Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 IMHO it was the correct move. The responce of all of you show that hockey and not the school are important. I also think Oshie should have been suspended for longer. These people are not gods that deserve to have all of you on your knees to them geez. Steve Brekke who I have known for over 20 years should have docked him two weeks pay also. Guess what folks there are much more important issues in the world than Sioux hockey if you would open your eyes and look. But this is a HOCKEY message board, where hockey & related issues are (mostly) discussed. Now if this was an Important Issues in the World message board you would have a valid point. Quote
mikeypat15 Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Boy, good thing this guy never ended up anywhere..... Quote
hoser Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Two games is fair, the school ACTED 1st to avoid the wcha getting involved, nothing more than that. and Hermit, How would it appear if I said, "shut the *!#K up and eat your cookie!"? How would you perceive this? Quote
dagies Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Hak was wrong. He needed to apologize and I have no problem with the suspension. I thought Kupchella was way overboard, however. Quote
LeftyZL Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 So if he is found or pleads guilty, what should his suspension be? I would say for a second arrest in less than a year, 1 game was awfully light. Sometimes when you have the privilege of playing a sport for a school or organization, guilt doesn't have to be proven before action is taken. Just ask Michael Vick. I don't know what his suspension should be if he's found guilty. For one, It's not for me to judge. Second, I can't predict the future. And your last comment, did you forget about the Duke Lacrosse Team? Look what happend when the school, DA, and a city started assuming. It looks like it's going to cost the school and DA about $30 million to settle with the 3 players, or at least that's the rumor I last read. It's an iffy road with no clear answer, but it's always easier to error on the side of caution and adjust later, than to assume the worst and pay the consequences as an organization, team, or university. Also, before you say "the charges are completely different" or something to that effect, so is your comparison of Michael Vick's crimes to T.J. Oshie's charges. Quote
Goon Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Also, before you say "the charges are completely different" or something to that effect, so is your comparison of Michael Vick's crimes to T.J. Oshie's charges. I would hope not since Oshie's is a minor violation and Vick's was a serious felony. Quote
AZSIOUX Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 I would hope not since Oshie's is a minor violation and Vick's was a serious felony. thank you, joke just to use his name in any of these situations Quote
yzerman19 Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 releaving onesself inappropriately vs. runnign a dog murdering and racketeering organization...not even close. The elevator was stuck. If he had pissed himself he wouldn't even have been charged. I reiterate that while harsh, the suspension is appropriate and keeps the league out of our kitchen on the matter. Quote
hermit Posted February 5, 2008 Posted February 5, 2008 Boy, good thing this guy never ended up anywhere..... It is great where you have ended up, on a college hockey message board. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.