PCM Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 One other question, how does the Ralph compare with the Xcel? Not as a college venue, but as a state of the art arena. I've watched games in both facilities. The Xcel Energy Center is great, but the new Engelstad Arena is better. Even the Minnesota Wild players and management said so when they played their exhibition game in Grand Forks against the Thrashers last October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The new wildcard of the NCAA showing a leaning for "all sports at one level" schools/conferences has to weigh into UND's thoughts. UND might have to make the move just to keep (I'll say it) the hockey cash-cow safe. Ah yes the sneaky NC$$. I think you bring up a very good point.Ralph wanted the program(hockey) to be the best what ever the (COST). UND in return has a 110 million dollar hockey arena. That makes X-amount of $$$ for ALL programs.The Wellness center the AL buying a new floor for B-Ball.I don't think UND is sleeping at the switch. I think we have hashed out the NCC D-1AA. "If" the NCC as a whole moves up "they" can set the by-laws up.Would UMD-St Cloud-MSU-M hockey playing schools move up?We have stated and debated if rules are set why not?They stand a chance at the Pot O Gold at the end of the rainbow if their hockey team makes the FF4.UND has missed out on TWO pot's of gold.97-00. You can't tell me that isn't why DU went D1 in all sports. ________________________________________________________________________________ _____ JD,Sorry I was stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMav Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I've watched games in both facilities. The Xcel Energy Center is great, but the new Engelstad Arena is better. Even the Minnesota Wild players and management said so when they played their exhibition game in Grand Forks against the Thrashers last October. The Wild players would know. So what makes REA stand out from the Xcel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawkota Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 So what makes REA stand out from the Xcel? From a fan's perspective, not much. I actually like the atmosphere and sightlines at the X better. REA is more luxurious. Both arenas are great. What makes REA stand out over any other arena, college or pro, is at ice level. No NHL arena has close to the training facilities of the Ralph - weight room, physical therapy, two sheets of ice, etc. The men's locker room has to be seen to be believed. These are the things important to the players, things the general public doesn't see. It doesn't surprise me at all that Wild players would prefer REA - that was the intent of Ralph Engelstad, the arena was built for the players first, then the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 You can read some of the details about the facility here: http://www.theralph.com/building.htm http://www.theralph.com/stats.htm The place has a walk-in humidor to keep the moisture in the sticks perfect so their flex is just right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The place has a walk-in humidor to keep the moisture in the sticks perfect so their flex is just right. And don't forget that each player's locker is individually vented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMav Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Thanks for the info PCM, Lawkota and Sicatoka! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Ah, but do those wildly fluctuating graduation rates (because of calculational anomalies, that you admit to, and I will too) allow for players who leave school early to play in the professional ranks? Last I checked, no, they don't. In the past two years UND has lost three players to early departures to the pros (Bryan Lundbohm, Travis Roche, Ryan Bayda). When a hockey recruiting class is a handful of players that is hugely significant. That's why I asked if you really wanted to talk about this. The numbers are so inconsistent because of the (lack of) methodology of the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I think your covering your tracks. If you were aware of the inconsistencies why didn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 No, JBB. I gave the link to the source. Anyone could take the logical extention of that link to the 2002 data and put up numbers like those you provided. (As a matter of fact, I looked at UND's and NDSU's 2002 numbers back then and wondered how long it would take you to find them.) There's no omission. I over-provided data and, thus, provided your (long awaited) rebuttal. All that and I get no "thank you." Regarding the stats for hockey graduation: I don't see "hockey" as a specific line-item on that NCAA site. How do you come about such data? Did "someone tell you"? Do you believe everything you hear? I'd try to provide the names of recruits and graduations or early departures (or transfers as the case may be) if you'd like, but it may lead directly to a conversation about how, similarly, Bison football recruits of late don't seem to hang around for the full four/five years. (I don't think they're going to the pro ranks early either. I'm sure that's unfairly killing NDSU's numbers with the NCAA, just as circumstances at other places are doing the same.) It's a knife that has blades on both sides. You decide. Like I said initially: Are you sure you want this conversation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Face it, Sicatoka. JBB has caught you doing some unseemly extrapolating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I learned by observation of the best "unseemly extrapolator." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Stop trying to pass off the 2001 data as most current. Your justifications are embarrassing. By posting the 2001 data when you claim you knew the 2002 data was out there is certainly, if nothing else, an admission of your tactics. I imagine you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Like I said, if you followed the link you'd easily see that '2002' could be retrieved with a few simple keystrokes. I wasn't going to dig out all of that data. I, quite simply, let some other person do a menial task like that. (I won't comment as to who that was. ) The "Other" category contains the other sports (beyond baseball, football, and basketball which are listed individually). Since you want to talk "Other," which must contain wrestling because that's not listed separately, let's look at .... 2001 and 2002 "Other" Men sports 4-class rates (as reported at the previous link): School Year Rate NDSU 2001 33% UND 2001 44% NDSU 2002 46% UND 2002 38% Those Bison wrestlers have nothing on Sioux hockey players. (But I don't think any Bison wrestlers went professional either. ) Bottom line: Neither UND nor NDSU should be tootin' the horn here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxrock Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 sioux fans who cares about the bison let them move to d-1 and get smoked and lose all there money who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 sioux fans who cares about the bison let them move to d-1 and get smoked and lose all there money who cares? We received this version: i no i have been caring about the bison moving up but i should say that all the sioux fans shouldnt care what the bison do even if they move up and get smoked every time and lsoe all there money y should we care? so i am not gonna care that much unles the sioux come up in the convo Siouxrock must be hypoglycemic when he first gets out of school. edit-hyperglycemia is also a possibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxrock Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 what r utalkin about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 So, what your saying is why use the most current data when the older data suits your argument better? Let the others find the newer data themselves and until they do I will pretend that I am right. Interesting insight into your character Sicatoka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 No, I'm saying I'll take the easy data when it's to my advantage, but, I'll play fair by leaving a source where someone, if they choose to do the grunt work, can dig out a refuting case. Please note I dug for the "Other" numbers when you chose numbers that "worked" for you. (Sense the fair play there?) Either way, (a) you avoided the "Other" numbers, and (b) neither should be tootin' horns about them. Avoiding the "Other" numbers conversation, and your past ineffectiveness with the shift key, states volumes about character as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 No, I'm saying I'll take the easy data when it's to my advantage... You are less than forthright a liar at worst. The "easy data" was outdated and wrong and you knew it. When facts are no longer current they are not facts. You purposely mislead desperately trying to make a case for UND that doesnt exist. I'm not suprised. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I had the date of the release on there. It should be obvious that annual data more than a year old could be out of date. The numbers remain the numbers and are indeed fact when properly placed in context of date, as I did. I spoke (wrote) no untruth. You found newer numbers. Good for you. But, by following your tactic, I took your dislike of UND hockey and turned it against you by pointing out that NDSU wrestling is no better. You still avoid that "Other" numbers conversation. I used accurate, contextual facts to make a case. You refuted it and make a counter argument. I, in return, showed that the case you made was a facade at best because the claim also applies to your 'client.' And I didn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks. And I can find the shift key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBB Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 It is my opinion that the NCC is not going to move toward DI any time soon. The only remaining school that may consider it is found in North Dakota. If things go well today in Salt Lake City the idea becomes even more remote. Slander and liable are defended by the truth. You are what you are, and your denials are noted. In addition to your material omissions, you have resorted to ad hominen attacks. I.e. shift key taunting as it relates to my character. You can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Poor JBB. He loves to dish it out, but he sure can't take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 You raise an issue. I point out the problem with your issue. You find something in mine to quibble about and raise a new issue. I counter-punch that. You decline the opportunity to refute my point. You exhibit poor behaviour, behaviour that you've been asked to cease. I point it out. You attack ad hominem. Strangely, you claim my observation of it is an attack. Sadly, what you are yet to determine in all of this is that I am following your very own tactics, "counter-punching" your moves if you will. Additionally, you've learned another valuable lesson. Never trust data put in front of you. I made it easy. I put it in complete source, date, factual context. You found a way to refute it, and, I admitted that even I don't trust the data source and methods after that, and offered to end the entire conversation more than once. And apparently you don't understand the concepts of slander and liable. Stating source, date, context with statements is the essense of information. Yes, information may be old, but it makes it no less factual in proper context. I slandered nor liabled no one. Can that be said of all? I've never trusted any data put in front of me and checked it to the appropriate levels, and I'll stop the statement there without an "especially data from." It's a wise way to proceed in all things. You've learned now also. I'm trying to get you to have some level of decorum, "gentlemen's rules," whilest we play here. Apparently I'm failing. At least I've made the effort. You seem testy, edgy today, JBB. Anxious? Something else important on your mind and unsure of the outcome? 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.