Goon Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) lol i bet goon isnt too happy That's a pretty silly comment... What am I not happy about? There is hockey this weekend, I have Saturday and Sunday off and the spring is almost here... You drinking at 08:00 am? Edited February 17, 2012 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 First thing that I thought about when I listened to that podcast. I wouldn't trust Wanless as far as I could throw him... I wouldn't count on him to be the ace in the hole for UND either. Wanless has no stroke in this issue, what he thinks the president will do when seated with the other conference presidents is irrelevant, if he thinks Sac State is going to carry the ball for a school 2000 miles away against the wishes of the other presidents he is delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Going back to some post about Wisconsin/Minny playing Fla State, etc... Let's say that Minny and Wisco *would* play a Fla State team under sanction. Big deal. Who cares? The fact is they won't play a UND Fighting Sioux team under sanction. Let's focus on what affects us, not on what Minny and Wisco would hypothetically do or not do. Or we could just scream, "Oh those hypocrites!" over and over and over while our sports programs go down the tubes. Yeah, that'll give us some self satisfaction while watching us play whatever schedule we can scrape together in slowly emptying arenas and stadiums. If an institution chose to schedule 1 school which was under sanction while choosing not to schedule another school because of being them being under sanction fot the same reason, would that expose thrm to legal liability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If an institution chose to schedule 1 school which was under sanction while choosing not to schedule another school because of being them being under sanction fot the same reason, would that expose thrm to legal liability? Wisconsin follows NCAA "best practices" policy when scheduling. Minnesota does as well. Florida State University is not under NCAA moniker sanctions. FSU has the requisite tribal approvals. Playing FSU is acceptable under NCAA "best practices". The University of North Dakota is under NCAA moniker sanctions. UND does not have the requisite tribal approvals. Playing UND is not acceptable under NCAA "best practices". There is the difference. Now, if a school chose to ignore "best practices" and scheduled SanctionedTeamA but chose not to schedule SanctionedTeamB, so what? Their schedule. Their call. Scheduling a game is agreeing to a contract: it takes two willing parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Knowing what I know of Dave Hakstol, if he was given an ultimatum (change your tune or you're gone), he'd walk. Listen to what Hak said. He got a reality check from Wisconsin. They've said the 2013 game contract is off if the name stays and UND is under NCAA sanction. Dave loves the name, but he loves the program more. No he would not walk. He will do just as his father-in-law tells him to do. As for Hak getting a job anywhere do not be so sure about that. There are a lot of people out there with more experiance than Hak looking for a job everyday. Remember Lucia only got his job because Blais said no thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Wanless has no stroke in this issue, what he thinks the president will do when seated with the other conference presidents is irrelevant, if he thinks Sac State is going to carry the ball for a school 2000 miles away against the wishes of the other presidents he is delusional. I think we are in agreement aren't we? Who is to say that Sac State wouldn't vote with the rest of their members... Weren't some of their fans the ones that were complaining about adding UND to the mix anyways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 No he would not walk. He will do just as his father-in-law tells him to do. What are you basing this on? You don't know that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 No he would not walk. He will do just as his father-in-law tells him to do. As for Hak getting a job anywhere do not be so sure about that. There are a lot of people out there with more experiance than Hak looking for a job everyday. Remember Lucia only got his job because Blais said no thanks. Blais or Sandelin would probably hire Hak under them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Blais or Sandelin would probably hire Hak under them. They would both hire Steve Johnson first, who by the way was Blaisers first choice to replace him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What are you basing this on? You don't know that... Reality. Do you really think he has the convictions to walk away from 200K plus? From a land where you can think and act as if you are the king? 300K starting next year? Don't kid yourself that he would walk. Do you not think for a second that if he walked that Eades and Jackson would not apply for his job? Hence, the term reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 No he would not walk. He will do just as his father-in-law tells him to do. As for Hak getting a job anywhere do not be so sure about that. There are a lot of people out there with more experiance than Hak looking for a job everyday. Remember Lucia only got his job because Blais said no thanks. Name 1 in college hockey. And it wasn't as though Lucia was on the street when he "got" the gopher job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 They would both hire Steve Johnson first, who by the way was Blaisers first choice to replace him. Weird that Sandelin didnt hire Johnson this summer when he had an opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't believe that for a minute because Hakstol can coach just about any where he wants pretty much. There are a lot of college hockey and professional teams that would take his services so I don't believe the hype on this one. Im not saying I think I know why Hak said what he did but, common goon, to say that he can go coach anywhere as a rationall to dismiss the hypothesis whereby he is feeling pressure regarding his contact renewal is a strech. I get the feeling from watching pretty much every one of his interviews ever published, that he bleeds green on the highest level so its a pretty safe beet that IF he was feeling pressure regarding his contact he would not dismiss it because he could just go somewhere else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think we are in agreement aren't we? Completely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Weird that Sandelin didnt hire Johnson this summer when he had an opening. Did Steve even apply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Name 1 in college hockey. And it wasn't as though Lucia was on the street when he "got" the gopher job. Guentzel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Name 1 in college hockey. And it wasn't as though Lucia was on the street when he "got" the gopher job. Doug Woog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What are you basing this on? You don't know that... Trolling. Try not to bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Reality. Do you really think he has the convictions to walk away from 200K plus? From a land where you can think and act as if you are the king? 300K starting next year? Don't kid yourself that he would walk. Do you not think for a second that if he walked that Eades and Jackson would not apply for his job? Hence, the term reality. The term reality is that Hak could get the same salary in another job as well, don't kid yourself, so I don't think we can discount what Sicatoka said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Trolling. Try not to bite. Yeah you're probably right Tedder, I should just leave it alone and shut up and color... Edited February 17, 2012 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Wisconsin follows NCAA "best practices" policy when scheduling. Minnesota does as well. Florida State University is not under NCAA moniker sanctions. FSU has the requisite tribal approvals. Playing FSU is acceptable under NCAA "best practices". The University of North Dakota is under NCAA moniker sanctions. UND does not have the requisite tribal approvals. Playing UND is not acceptable under NCAA "best practices". There is the difference. Now, if a school chose to ignore "best practices" and scheduled SanctionedTeamA but chose not to schedule SanctionedTeamB, so what? Their schedule. Their call. Scheduling a game is agreeing to a contract: it takes two willing parties. I agree with everything you say here but we both know that wisconsin or minnesota would only boycott us over the long term if it was a public policy by them to do so. They would not just choose to not schedule us and not have a public statement as to why. It would be a decree of the administration. By doing this they would then expose themselves to a standard that they would have to be consistent with or risky exposure of legal liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 The term reality is that Hak could get the same salary in another job as well, don't kid yourself, so I don't think we can discount what Sicatoka said. In your wildest dreams. Take off the depth perception blinders for a minute and think about it. Not everyone worships the ground he walks on as you do. How many Frozen Four failures? How bad he got outcoached by Red last year, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights during that game? Don't think that all that would not count outside of GF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iramurphy Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If an institution chose to schedule 1 school which was under sanction while choosing not to schedule another school because of being them being under sanction fot the same reason, would that expose thrm to legal liability? No, they may choose to schedule whomever they wish. It isn't a legal issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iramurphy Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I agree with everything you say here but we both know that wisconsin or minnesota would only boycott us over the long term if it was a public policy by them to do so. They would not just choose to not schedule us and not have a public statement as to why. It would be a decree of the administration. By doing this they would then expose themselves to a standard that they would have to be consistent with or risky exposure of legal liability. Wrong. They may schedule whomever they wish and all they need to do is state that FSU, Utah or whomever are not under sanctions by the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If an institution chose to schedule 1 school which was under sanction while choosing not to schedule another school because of being them being under sanction fot the same reason, would that expose thrm to legal liability? So? What does it matter? If they don't play us, they don't play us. the legal implications aren't important. What is important is getting the games scheduled. The lawyers can settle that issue years and years later. In the meantime, our athletic programs may suffer and die. Focus on what affects our program now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.