Women's Hockey

[HockeyMom]

Different rules for different genders are ridiculous. It's not like men and women would be playing on the ice at the same time and the women would get crushed into the boards.

Taking checking out of hockey is the same as taking a three point shot out of women's basketball because girls aren't supposed to be able to shoot the ball that far, or making a soccer field smaller for women because they aren't supposed to be able to run that fast and that far, without even giving them the chance to prove otherwise.

I guess I don't buy the women's boxing argument at all. That's comparing apples to oranges. Are you saying that we only want to add checking to the women's game so we can see the gloves drop, which wouldn't be appealing because women's boxing is a flop? Regardless, I can't see the appeal of two hulked up women duking it out in the ring anyway......ok, I'm not a boxing fan period.

[dlsiouxfan]

A 2-23-2 record could, certainly sound to me like a very common result of poor internal leadership - meaning from the players. It's tough for a team to win while they're dedicating their energies to "getting their coach fired for the past two years" instead of getting on the same page and working hard help make things work. Theere'll be plenty of kids to take those 18 scolarships - the kind who shut up and work vs. the kind who get to be big shots at new programs and that's why they go there. Now, a coach can do something about internal leadreship - mostly develop it, but it's hard to change it from negative to positive without kicking it off the team which looks like it's been done in some instances. And, it's not that the coach didn't recruit these players inthe first place, but beggars also can't be choosers when you're starting a new program either. If a kid comes drunk to practice or can't run a 5K do you think they should be on a DI college team? If some players are telling recruits not to come to UND then, who's fault is that? If you don't like it, leave, but otherwise you're just shooting holes in your own boat? Does that sound like a good kid to you? Regardless of talent, it seems to me that if I were Rivard I'd be thinking, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" with some of the players who have quit or been asked to leave. If you pend all your tim pointing fingers at problems instead of looking for solutions you ARE the problem. Again, Rivard recruited these kids and maybe she waited to long to cut them. Maybe she didn't have the support to cut them unless they did something huge like showing up to practice drunk. But you've got three coaches who see these kids two hours a day and 20+ players who are together all the time. It only takes one or two negative ringleaders to drag a team down and keep it down. The coach needs to do something and it looks like maybe she's trying to kick it into gear, but these players need to take some accountability, grow up, and recognize that college athletics are a privilege, not a right. They don't need to like their coach and it's not the coach's job to be liked. But either they do what the coach asks them to do and shut up about it or leave. Period. Let some kid who would be happy to run in the snow (or probably wouldnt' have to because she showed up in shape) just to have the chance to stand on ice for the anthem. Sounds to me like Rivard is trying to clean house and there are two ways to do that: cut kids or make the environment unhospitable to those who are part of the problem so that they quit. Sometimes "a fish stinks from the head". There are two heads on the team - the coaches and the team leadership. Again, coaches can help with that team leadership by teaching them to lead positively, but not if those charismatic kids are not willing to be helped. If that's the case then, time to clean house.

Like it or not as a college coach making sure your players behavior or attitudes doesn't negatively affect the team or your win- loss record is a big part of your job. It's your job as a coach to prevent atmospheres like what's going on with women's hockey from developing. If you can't control your team then you've just proven that you shouldn't be coaching. Players probably are a big part of why that team has stunk the last two seasons and off the field disruptions only made it worse, but the coach has to take the largest amount of blame. It's her job to get a team on the ice that wins games, if she can't do that no amount of excuses should allow her to keep her job.

[onlooker]

Different rules for different genders are ridiculous. It's not like men and women would be playing on the ice at the same time and the women would get crushed into the boards.

Taking checking out of hockey is the same as taking a three point shot out of women's basketball because girls aren't supposed to be able to shoot the ball that far, or making a soccer field smaller for women because they aren't supposed to be able to run that fast and that far, without even giving them the chance to prove otherwise.

I guess I don't buy the women's boxing argument at all. That's comparing apples to oranges. Are you saying that we only want to add checking to the women's game so we can see the gloves drop, which wouldn't be appealing because women's boxing is a flop? Regardless, I can't see the appeal of two hulked up women duking it out in the ring anyway......ok, I'm not a boxing fan period.

Yeah, I'm not saying I necessarily like that checking's not in women's hockey, I was just explaining to the player who asked why it's not in the game. It has nothing to do with girls getting hurt and everyting to do with a decision made about marketing the game years ago. They looked at things like tennis where people watch the men's game for the rocket serve and voley game. They watch the women's game for rally's and finesse. If you watch the game for the rocket serves, you won't be impressed by the fastest women's serve b/c it doesn't stand out vs. the men. If you like the rally's you'll be bored silly at the men's games.

Respectfully also, I would say that any agile defensewoman with good positioning and talent can stop any forward or force them to a poor shooting angle any time. It's simlar to women's lacrosse where the rules allow very little contact. The scoring is higher at lower levels than the men's game, but levels off with talent at the college level.

The comment about boxing - I think girls should be able to do whatever they like and do it with all their heart. But, aside from boxing afficiondos, many people watch boxing to see people get hit hard and guys just hit harder and faster and that's a big reason for the lower draw and likely a continued lower draw. Not saying I like it or necesarily agree. It's just reality.

[onlooker]

Like it or not as a college coach making sure your players behavior or attitudes doesn't negatively affect the team or your win- loss record is a big part of your job. It's your job as a coach to prevent atmospheres like what's going on with women's hockey from developing. If you can't control your team then you've just proven that you shouldn't be coaching. Players probably are a big part of why that team has stunk the last two seasons and off the field disruptions only made it worse, but the coach has to take the largest amount of blame. It's her job to get a team on the ice that wins games, if she can't do that no amount of excuses should allow her to keep her job.

I hear you. I guess I would like to see a little more emphais on player accountability. It seems a lot of kids today that their first reaction to things not going just he way they planned is to point the finger or start a revolution vs. looking to make things work. Ultimately the coach needs to make the chemistry work, clean house, lay down the law, whatever needs to be done. When there are people working behind their backs despite their efforts it just makes that harder and what good does that do? Grass seems always greener.

[star2city]

I hear you. I guess I would like to see a little more emphais on player accountability. It seems a lot of kids today that their first reaction to things not going just he way they planned is to point the finger or start a revolution vs. looking to make things work. Ultimately the coach needs to make the chemistry work, clean house, lay down the law, whatever needs to be done. When there are people working behind their backs despite their efforts it just makes that harder and what good does that do? Grass seems always greener.

If Rivard had inherited players from an existing program, I could buy some of your arguments, Onlooker. But since Rivard started the program and recruited the players, both walk-ons and scholarship, your arguments fall on their face. The buck stops with Rivard and no one else.

[lawkota]

Herald reports this morning that both Woosters are leaving.

Woosters to leave UND

[tnt]

What irritates me a bit is that the coach is saying they are basically at square one. You don't necessarily expect great things from a fledgling program, but what you expect is for it to grow year after year. To be back at square one is very disturbing especially with the facilities, the school and the men's tradition that can be used to help lure top-end talent. I can tell you what would happen to a professional expansion team coach that had to start back at square one after so many years. Maybe what bothers me more is the defeatist attitude of being back at square one, which basically means one thing -- very little possibility of getting the Lamoureaux sisters and being an instant contender. If they at least had a surrounding cast that could make them competitive in the league, the Lamoureaux sisters could put you over the top, because Minnesota showed the way with having Wendell, Darwitz and Stephens. Beyond them, Minnesota wasn't much better than the rest of the leauge. Better get some top-end talent in here soon, because last place just isn't going to cut it at UND, no matter what the sport, especially since it is an expensive proposition.

[HockeyMom]

Herald reports this morning that both Woosters are leaving.

Woosters to leave UND

Best of luck Cara and Cami.

I will miss hearing, "Wooster..............suh-weet!" from the avatar next season.

[DenaliSioux]

What irritates me a bit is that the coach is saying they are basically at square one. You don't necessarily expect great things from a fledgling program, but what you expect is for it to grow year after year. To be back at square one is very disturbing especially with the facilities, the school and the men's tradition that can be used to help lure top-end talent. I can tell you what would happen to a professional expansion team coach that had to start back at square one after so many years. Maybe what bothers me more is the defeatist attitude of being back at square one, which basically means one thing -- very little possibility of getting the Lamoureaux sisters and being an instant contender. If they at least had a surrounding cast that could make them competitive in the league, the Lamoureaux sisters could put you over the top, because Minnesota showed the way with having Wendell, Darwitz and Stephens. Beyond them, Minnesota wasn't much better than the rest of the leauge. Better get some top-end talent in here soon, because last place just isn't going to cut it at UND, no matter what the sport, especially since it is an expensive proposition.

Don't be too discouraged and just wait a few weeks and the comments will change. Less than a month ago the coaching staff was stating 'Overall, I think we are headed in the right direction' or 'I think the team is on the right track'. This week it's back at square one with the coach indicating it was not that much of a surprise the other pair of the top two leading scores for the past two years is leaving. At the beginning of this past season it was 'wanting to be one of the top four teams' and when that didn't happen the players and team unity were the primary cause of failing. I'm sure 'a rebuilding year' will fall into place sometime next year.

[HockeyMom]

Minnesota showed the way with having Wendell, Darwitz and Stephens. Beyond them, Minnesota wasn't much better than the rest of the leauge.

Minnesota made it to the NCAA Championship game this year without Wendell, Darwitz and Stephens. I think their roster was deeper than people think.

Maybe next year, will be a new beginning for UND's women's program. I guess we can only wait and see.

[tnt]

Minnesota made it to the NCAA Championship game this year without Wendell, Darwitz and Stephens. I think their roster was deeper than people think.

Maybe next year, will be a new beginning for UND's women's program. I guess we can only wait and see.

Yes, they were deeper, but when I watched them play the Sioux that year, that was the only line that dominated the Sioux. The other lines were either even, or the Sioux had an advantage. But it kind of goes to show that once all the top talent from various teams went to play for the Olympics, the other teams were very competitive. Minnesota lost to some teams they hadn't lost to with those players and Wisconsin came out from the shadows of Duluth and Minnesota, which to me tells me that a few high-end players along with solid depth can put you on a path towards being a challenger. As women's college hockey grows, that won't always be the case, so you better become a University where people want to play hockey now. As Division II women's college basketball has grown, you see some of the bottom end teams like Mankato a bit more competitive than they were in the past, but the thing that keeps UND near the top is that their top talent can take it to the next level when the games are competitive. Let's hope the women's hockey team can achieve the same level of success and always be in the mix for the top players. Right now they don't appear to be.

[fightingsioux4life]

A 2-23-2 record could, certainly sound to me like a very common result of poor internal leadership - meaning from the players. It's tough for a team to win while they're dedicating their energies to "getting their coach fired for the past two years" instead of getting on the same page and working hard help make things work. Theere'll be plenty of kids to take those 18 scolarships - the kind who shut up and work vs. the kind who get to be big shots at new programs and that's why they go there. Now, a coach can do something about internal leadreship - mostly develop it, but it's hard to change it from negative to positive without kicking it off the team which looks like it's been done in some instances. And, it's not that the coach didn't recruit these players inthe first place, but beggars also can't be choosers when you're starting a new program either. If a kid comes drunk to practice or can't run a 5K do you think they should be on a DI college team? If some players are telling recruits not to come to UND then, who's fault is that? If you don't like it, leave, but otherwise you're just shooting holes in your own boat? Does that sound like a good kid to you? Regardless of talent, it seems to me that if I were Rivard I'd be thinking, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" with some of the players who have quit or been asked to leave. If you pend all your tim pointing fingers at problems instead of looking for solutions you ARE the problem. Again, Rivard recruited these kids and maybe she waited to long to cut them. Maybe she didn't have the support to cut them unless they did something huge like showing up to practice drunk. But you've got three coaches who see these kids two hours a day and 20+ players who are together all the time. It only takes one or two negative ringleaders to drag a team down and keep it down. The coach needs to do something and it looks like maybe she's trying to kick it into gear, but these players need to take some accountability, grow up, and recognize that college athletics are a privilege, not a right. They don't need to like their coach and it's not the coach's job to be liked. But either they do what the coach asks them to do and shut up about it or leave. Period. Let some kid who would be happy to run in the snow (or probably wouldnt' have to because she showed up in shape) just to have the chance to stand on ice for the anthem. Sounds to me like Rivard is trying to clean house and there are two ways to do that: cut kids or make the environment unhospitable to those who are part of the problem so that they quit. Sometimes "a fish stinks from the head". There are two heads on the team - the coaches and the team leadership. Again, coaches can help with that team leadership by teaching them to lead positively, but not if those charismatic kids are not willing to be helped. If that's the case then, time to clean house.

I hate to say this, but you are making some of the same arguments that the defenders of Cheryl Littlejohn (long-ago fired head Women's Basketball coach at Minnesota) made when she was leading teams to single-digit win totals (and that was overall, not conference). All I heard from the apologists was that the players should shut up and "toe the line" and that Littlejohn should get to stay as long as she wanted. I'm not comparing Littlejohn to Rivard, but when a program loses players left and right for no apparent reason and players anonymously bash the head coach in the press, there is something very, very wrong. You can pretty much bet that the Wooster sisters leaving the team was about more than "educational opportunities in Canada they couldn't get here". It's happening with Gopher Women's Basketball right now. This program has not made very much progress and it could get much worse before it gets better.

[D1sioux]

This whole situation is becoming a embaressment to the university....I am assuming that the boss's hands are tied since the head coach for the women's hockey team is the favorite of a certain administrator residing in Twamley Hall....if this isnt taken care of....this could damage future recruiting....kids talk amongst themselves a lot...word will get out of the real reasons these things are going on...and it will affect the program until the situation is taken care of.

[stafford_rules]

i just hope it shapes up before i get there.

[redwing77]

Well, according to USCHO, there is a defenseman from Clarkson, I think, that is transferring to UND... so, is this a new beginning or are we becoming the women's hockey version of Quinnipiac?

[GREENEY]

Nothing great every comes with out adversity.

It is so sad to say but if rivard was a man she would have been fired.

If this was the mens team the coach would have been fired...

St. Cloud and BSU fired their coaches whos records were much better and the coaches are not know for being the bigest iodit in the history of Hockey.

Tom Buning needs to change her job title too.

The highest paid cheerleader at UND

That is truly what she is if she didn't have her staff she would have screwed the team up

even more.

It is a tragedy that she still has a job and even more of a tragedy that Buning supports her.

Who will be the voice of the athletes if even he will not listen

What if it were his child on the team....

[HockeyMom]

Nothing great every comes with out adversity.

It is so sad to say but if rivard was a man she would have been fired.

If this was the mens team the coach would have been fired...

St. Cloud and BSU fired their coaches whos records were much better and the coaches are not know for being the bigest iodit in the history of Hockey.

Tom Buning needs to change her job title too.

The highest paid cheerleader at UND

That is truly what she is if she didn't have her staff she would have screwed the team up

even more.

It is a tragedy that she still has a job and even more of a tragedy that Buning supports her.

Who will be the voice of the athletes if even he will not listen

What if it were his child on the team....

Olson wasn't fired at Bemidji, he "stepped down" whether he did it on his own, or was told to- he left.

Right now, I think it's safe to to say that Rivard will be the coach next season. Hopefully Paul and Dawn will be back next year.

Do I agree with it? Doesn't matter, I'm still going to support the team.

Bottom line is that Buning must believe in her enough to give her one more year to prove if she can or can not get the job done.

It is so sad to say but if rivard was a man she would have been fired.

If this was the mens team the coach would have been fired...

So what are you saying here? That Buning is only letting her stay because she is a woman and he's afraid that if he fires her, she'll come back and say that she was fired because of her gender? That's such a crock of sh**.

[GREENEY]

So when the AVATAR calls you crying..... and you watch the games and

see her becomming a worse player...

And at every practice she is more and more fustrated.....

You can talk then...

I guess i thaught you were a women's hockey fan...

not a womens hockey coach fan.....

It is because shes a woman

[redwing77]

Wow. Greeney, I can't believe you said those two things:

1. First, no matter what you think, right or wrong, you have to remember that Hockeymom is a women's hockey fan whether she agrees with you or not. Right or wrong isn't dictated by whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with you. If it were, I could say that the sky is green and you'd be wrong because you said it was blue. It's not. It's green because I said so and those who disagree with me are wrong.

2. The gender card. I'm loving that one. It's like "The only reason why that man is going to prison is because he's black!" No, the only reason why that man is going to prison is because HE COMMITTED A CRIME. Gender-schmender. Gender and race cards are only used when you have nothing to back up your claims. They are meaningless antagonistic charges that don't hold water anymore. Like Rivard or don't like her, that's not the issue. Gender isn't the issue here.

Rivard isn't panning out, but this will be the first (?) season where UND has a full compliment of scholarshipped players on the women's side of the arena. Maybe that factors into it. Maybe you are right and that, if Rivard were the coach of the men's team she'd be fired, but why wouldn't she? The men's team is a storied team with tons of history and tradition. The women's team is new, unburdened by a long history and the high expectations that go along with it. This team is entering a conference where they have to face three programs (UW, UMD, and UMN) that are already "storied" and is expected to compete right away?

Sorry, you're flat out wrong. I don't hold any expectations of the women's team. Maybe Buning doesn't either. That may be a problem, but really, it's out of our hands. I don't know of any who post here that is supportive of Rivard or think she's a quality head coach, but I don't think the decision to retain or firing can be laid down by comparing the women's team to the men's team and throwing out the gender card to wave around like a petulent child.

EDIT: And one last thing: bringing in her kid and then insulting the kid's mother is just low in my opinion.

[HockeyMom]

So when the AVATAR calls you crying..... and you watch the games and

see her becomming a worse player...

And at every practice she is more and more fustrated.....

You can talk then...

I guess i thaught you were a women's hockey fan...

not a womens hockey coach fan.....

It is because shes a woman

Did I say I was a Rivard fan anywhere in my post? Didn't think so.

IF the AVATAR has a chance to play any college sport, it's her decision where to go......and she would choose her coach in that situation. She would be an adult at that point, and I would respect her decision. The only thing that I would make her do is research where she is going and make sure that that program provides her with the tools to get a great education.

And if, the avatar calls me crying that she doesn't like the coach, (which I doubt that she will because we play by the rule- there's no crying in hockey) I'll do the same thing that my parents did when I played sports- not bash the coach and blame everything on him/her no matter how much I think the coach is wrong. Something that is pretty much unheard of in this day and age.

I had no idea that my parents didn't like my high school basketball coach until about 8 YEARS after I graduated and the coach's contract wasn't renewed. When I asked my parents what had happened my mom's response was that it was about time, and she thought she was a terrible coach when I played and it cost us. All I did was stood with my jaw on the floor, because I didn't have any idea how they really felt. I respect that.

[stafford_rules]

Olson wasn't fired at Bemidji, he "stepped down" whether he did it on his own, or was told to- he left.

Right now, I think it's safe to to say that Rivard will be the coach next season. Hopefully Paul and Dawn will be back next year.

Do I agree with it? Doesn't matter, I'm still going to support the team.

Bottom line is that Buning must believe in her enough to give her one more year to prove if she can or can not get the job done.

So what are you saying here? That Buning is only letting her stay because she is a woman and he's afraid that if he fires her, she'll come back and say that she was fired because of her gender? That's such a crock of sh**.

Dawn is awesome.

[Sioux-cia]

So when the AVATAR calls you crying..... and you watch the games and

see her becomming a worse player...

And at every practice she is more and more fustrated.....

You can talk then...

I guess i thaught you were a women's hockey fan...

not a womens hockey coach fan.....

It is because shes a woman

So which one is your kid?

[whockeyfan]

So which one is your kid?

...or which player are you?

[stafford_rules]

Paul Colontino has left to take a job as associate head coach at Mercyhurst.

[UND Fan]

Paul Colontino has left to take a job as associate head coach at Mercyhurst.

Is that a loss?