Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
UND92

UND to cut women's hockey

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

What exactly did they do to try and save it?

Scream on Twitter, file a lawsuit against UND, you know the same as other athletes of cut sports...oh wait.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

I think it's sad that this thread basically still exists so people can go off on the twins, Brad or anyone who is even mildly sympathetic to the cut teams. 

Congrats. You won, if cutting a team can be considered winning. 

It exists in "Retired" threads and doesn't pop up on the main page unless someone recently comments on it.  So by posting on the thread complaining about the thread still existing, you bring it back to life!!  See the irony?!! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, siouxkid12 said:

If they want to bring back hockey that is fine but what men's sport is going to come back? 

Football?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a big number thrown out for the amount needed to "save" the program, I recall 30 million.  Was this number to restore the program with the over paid coach, international flavor, and expensive residence?  If so, what is the number to play at Purpur, recruit within reason, and stay away from a prima donna coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, darell1976 said:

What is sad is people bringing up the fact we don't have hockey in the media. Why doesn't Brad post about our former baseball, S&D, and wrestling sports while he is at it. People react to what is printed, not just out of thin air.

 

2 hours ago, UND1983 said:

Teams...as in plural?   No, they are sympathetic to one team and one team only.

Yes teams. Not just WIH although they are the only one most people seem to care about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

There was a big number thrown out for the amount needed to "save" the program, I recall 30 million.  Was this number to restore the program with the over paid coach, international flavor, and expensive residence?  If so, what is the number to play at Purpur, recruit within reason, and stay away from a prima donna coach?

I believe it was $60 million.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

I believe it was $60 million.

 

That’s only $285,714.29 per fan who attended their last playoff game against Ohio State.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:

That’s only $285,714.29 per fan who attended their last playoff game against Ohio State.  

They have gained thousands of fans on social media, of course probably 99% of them have never attended a game in their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:

That’s only $285,714.29 per fan who attended their last playoff game against Ohio State.  

I blame Oxbow, if he would have hit the mini-donuts a little harder this would have been down to a manageable number for all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not criticizing the decision to cut women’s hockey. I happen to understand why 2 former players disagreed with the decision and were pissed. Many people making critical remarks about the twins are the same people who can’t move past the nickname issue. We have less of chance to bring back the old name than we do bringing back women’s hockey. (No chance for either).  I am not advocating we bring back a sport we can’t afford.  I can understand that without having to rag on the twins. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iramurphy said:

I’m not criticizing the decision to cut women’s hockey. I happen to understand why 2 former players disagreed with the decision and were pissed. Many people making critical remarks about the twins are the same people who can’t move past the nickname issue. We have less of chance to bring back the old name than we do bringing back women’s hockey. (No chance for either).  I am not advocating we bring back a sport we can’t afford.  I can understand that without having to rag on the twins. 

So the 'Sioux Forever' crowd is responsible for the criticism of the Women's Hockey program and the Lamoureaux twins?  I'm not really seeing the correlation between these two groups.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Blackheart said:

So the 'Sioux Forever' crowd is responsible for the criticism of the Women's Hockey program and the Lamoureaux twins?  I'm not really seeing the correlation between these two groups.

Nope. I used it as an analogy.  I am embarrassed that UND fans have made some of the comments they have made about the twins. We should be able to separate the fact that we had to drop women’s hockey from the anger that those most directly affected would express. I compared a group with a passion for something they thought important and  having trouble letting go (women’s hockey), with another group who have a passion for something they think is important (name/logo).  I thought it would make it easier to understand. 

I guess I thought wrong. I guess with all of their dedication to women’s hockey I would have cut them some slack. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iramurphy said:

Nope. I used it as an analogy.  I am embarrassed that UND fans have made some of the comments they have made about the twins. We should be able to separate the fact that we had to drop women’s hockey from the anger that those most directly affected would express. I compared a group with a passion for something they thought important and  having trouble letting go (women’s hockey), with another group who have a passion for something they think is important (name/logo).  I thought it would make it easier to understand. 

I guess I thought wrong. I guess with all of their dedication to women’s hockey I would have cut them some slack. 

Gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only the way I feel about the situation, but I bet it rings true with a lot of other people. You can't and shouldn't fault the way anyone close to the program has felt or the way they've expressed their feelings since the decisions was made. This obviously includes the twins. Not only is it natural, but something everyone else would have done and would be doing with a sport they were apart of or with fans / alumni, felt connected to. I like I'm sure everyone else was never anti-women's hockey. 

The only problem I have with this situation is how it was handled by the local media, which was almost entirely by Schlossman. To say he was unprofessional would be an understatement. Not only do I feel he couldn't have been more one sided with his reporting, but I also felt he was doing everything he could in his position to make UND look as bad as he possibly could. I agree that UND could have handled this better, but I don't believe that had anything to do with the one-sidedness of how it was reported. Schlossman with this situation turned from reporter to activist. I expect more although in this day and age I shouldn't, from the media. Report on the situation and lay out all the facts. 

I was always on the side that this was the best decision overall for the University going forward, so I supported it from day one, so you could say I have my own bias. I went from neutral feels towards the women's program and did sympathize, because it's tough on the players, obviously. Schlossman single-handily helped grow a more negative attitude overall towards a program that is no longer here. Before this all happened I felt the same about all the sports that were cut, but Women's hockey I now see in a worse light, that can't be said for the others. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say Finland got robbed from beating the US in OT at the World Championships . Puck loose outside the crease and you call goalie interference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cberkas said:

I have to say Finland got robbed from beating the US in OT at the World Championships . Puck loose outside the crease and you call goalie interference. 

It looked like the goalie was juggling the puck and the Finnish player crashed into her; knocking the puck loose and clearing her out of the net.  The guys on NHL Network said it took them 12 minutes to review the play.  That's brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blackheart said:

It looked like the goalie was juggling the puck and the Finnish player crashed into her; knocking the puck loose and clearing her out of the net.  The guys on NHL Network said it took them 12 minutes to review the play.  That's brutal.

Puck was loose the girl went hard to the next with the puck being outside the crease. 

*

D4JHew3XkAE85_r.jpg
2:05 PM - 14 Apr 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Puck was loose the girl went hard to the next with the puck being outside the crease. 

*

D4JHew3XkAE85_r.jpg
2:05 PM - 14 Apr 2019

I've seen statements that they determined the goaltender had enough possession for the whistle as their was a delayed penalty on the play, which is what the end result was, USA Penalty for tripping before the goal. I did not see the play yet, and IIHF needs to release a statement like the NHL PR does relating to review decisions. I have never seen a goal overturned due to a whistle should've been blown for possession on a delayed penalty.

 

Edit: Just went backed and looked at it, I doubt possession was reason for overturned. I can see goaltender interference being called as goaltender was still in the crease, even if it was only one leg. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IIHF story makes no sense. Here's why.

USA took a tripping penalty on the play. It was on the goalie. Yes, the tripping was on Rigsby served by Carpenter

Now look at the video. Rigsby never had possession*. Then she trips (put IIHF Rule 185 into the mix here). And then the next player with control of the puck ... scores. There was no change of possession for a whistle. Good goal. 

I say the Fins were robbed. 

 

*If she had possession, the trip never happened because it would've been after the whistle of goalie with possession. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

The IIHF story makes no sense. Here's why.

USA took a tripping penalty on the play. It was on the goalie. Yes, the tripping was on Rigsby served by Carpenter

Now look at the video. Rigsby never had possession*. Then she trips (put IIHF Rule 185 into the mix here). And then the next player with control of the puck ... scores. There was no change of possession for a whistle. Good goal. 

I say the Fins were robbed. 

 

*If she had possession, the trip never happened because it would've been after the whistle of goalie with possession. 

IIHF just made it worse for themselves, and they have the most cut and dry rules out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 7:36 PM, The Sicatoka said:

The IIHF story makes no sense. Here's why.

USA took a tripping penalty on the play. It was on the goalie. Yes, the tripping was on Rigsby served by Carpenter

Now look at the video. Rigsby never had possession*. Then she trips (put IIHF Rule 185 into the mix here). And then the next player with control of the puck ... scores. There was no change of possession for a whistle. Good goal. 

I say the Fins were robbed. 

 

*If she had possession, the trip never happened because it would've been after the whistle of goalie with possession. 

It's actually easy to explain and while I disagree with the call, the process was handled correctly.

On ice official sees Rigsby come out of crease and trip Finn forward, arm goes up, goal is scored, ref signals good goal.

Then, the goal goes to review, where a person upstairs makes the call with input by the ref.  Upstairs says Rigsby was still in the crease, was interfered with in trying to cover the puck, and was taken out of the play illegally.

At that point, it's a no goal.  However, the penalty call cannot be reviewed, so we end up with the situation that occurred.

While not to this scale, I had a similar situation happen with AF hockey.  Guy comes in offside but it wasn't called, puck stays in the zone and offensive team draws a penalty. They score on the delayed penalty but the refs overturn the goal due to being offside.  Penalty still stands, clock stays the same, no goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, southpaw said:

It's actually easy to explain and while I disagree with the call, the process was handled correctly.

On ice official sees Rigsby come out of crease and trip Finn forward, arm goes up, goal is scored, ref signals good goal.

Then, the goal goes to review, where a person upstairs makes the call with input by the ref.  Upstairs says Rigsby was still in the crease, was interfered with in trying to cover the puck, and was taken out of the play illegally.

At that point, it's a no goal.  However, the penalty call cannot be reviewed, so we end up with the situation that occurred.

While not to this scale, I had a similar situation happen with AF hockey.  Guy comes in offside but it wasn't called, puck stays in the zone and offensive team draws a penalty. They score on the delayed penalty but the refs overturn the goal due to being offside.  Penalty still stands, clock stays the same, no goal.

Except Rigsby wasn't interfered with from covering the puck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cberkas said:

Except Rigsby wasn't interfered with from covering the puck. 

Like I said, I disagreed with the call however the process was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...