HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Official 2011-2012 College Hockey Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2011, 01:58 PM
  #151
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
What rule is that? The NCAA is behind the push to eliminate the name, and they obviously have no jurisdiction over professional teams. The Braves definitely have a Native American logo, too. Was there some reason you included them?

Personally, I think they should go back to Flickertails.
There's been numerous lawsuits against professional teams (specifically the Redskins) in an attempt to change the "derogatory" name. In the case of the Skins, a federal court ruled that the groups suing them had waited too long to sue and the Supreme Court refused to hear the suit. That is to say, had the Redskins not been the beneficiaries of a statute of limitations, they would have been forced to change their name.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 02:12 PM
  #152
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
There's been numerous lawsuits against professional teams (specifically the Redskins) in an attempt to change the "derogatory" name. In the case of the Skins, a federal court ruled that the groups suing them had waited too long to sue and the Supreme Court refused to hear the suit. That is to say, had the Redskins not been the beneficiaries of a statute of limitations, they would have been forced to change their name.
But the UND case never made it to a federal court at all, has it? It really isn't that surprising that there would be a different result in a different court.

I don't see how the other nicknames you cited could be interpreted as derogatory at all, with the possible exception of the Vikings, a logo which might likewise be seen as the stereotyping of a group of people (Scandinavians) as warriors. The historical Vikings are long past, though, and no one ever objected to the name either.

Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 02:20 PM
  #153
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
But the UND case never made it to a federal court at all, has it? It really isn't that surprising that there would be a different result in a different court.

I don't see how the other nicknames you cited could be interpreted as derogatory at all, with the possible exception of the Vikings, a logo which might likewise be seen as the stereotyping of a group of people (Scandinavians) as warriors. The historical Vikings are long past, though, and no one ever objected to the name either.
How exactly is "Fighting Sioux" derogatory? Well, outside of an extremely little known translation issue. How about the Fighting Irish (which is apparently okay)? How about the 13 other amateur teams forced to change their names in the past 20 or so years?

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 02:29 PM
  #154
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
How exactly is "Fighting Sioux" derogatory? Well, outside of an extremely little known translation issue. How about the Fighting Irish (which is apparently okay)? How about the 13 other amateur teams forced to change their names in the past 20 or so years?
If anyone wanted Notre Dame to change their name, I wouldn't especially object - I don't like Notre Dame. Then again, I suspect that "Fighting Irish" might have once referred to the university's constituents, since it's a catholic school and there are obviously a lot of Irish Catholics. The same goes for a name like "Packers" - without the "fighting" part of course. The Packers were originally funded by a meatpacking company and I presume the players were employees of that company. You can't say that for the Fighting Sioux or the Seminoles or any other university, really.


Last edited by Deficient Mode: 12-01-2011 at 02:36 PM.
Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 03:01 PM
  #155
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
If anyone wanted Notre Dame to change their name, I wouldn't especially object - I don't like Notre Dame. Then again, I suspect that "Fighting Irish" might have once referred to the university's constituents, since it's a catholic school and there are obviously a lot of Irish Catholics. The same goes for a name like "Packers" - without the "fighting" part of course. The Packers were originally funded by a meatpacking company and I presume the players were employees of that company. You can't say that for the Fighting Sioux or the Seminoles or any other university, really.
So the 49ers were formed by former gold prospectors? The Vikings were formed by the Norse?

As for the Packers, they were owned by a meat packing company, and assigned the name of their sponsor. Circling back to Seminoles or Redskins, the Yankees name is on equal ground.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 03:26 PM
  #156
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
So the 49ers were formed by former gold prospectors? The Vikings were formed by the Norse?

As for the Packers, they were owned by a meat packing company, and assigned the name of their sponsor. Circling back to Seminoles or Redskins, the Yankees name is on equal ground.
No, the 49ers and the Vikings are an exception because there are no more 19th century gold prospectors and no more Vikings. Besides, the presence of Vikings in America was obviously a hoax, and Europeans have less ground to complain about negative portrayal in America than Native Americans do. There are, however, still Dakota tribes. "Yankees" is now a generic slang term for Americans and doesn't usually carry a derogatory meaning.

Furthermore, the Yankees, Packers, and 49ers to my knowledge have no insignia in which a human shape is portrayed, unlike Florida State, UND, the Redskins, the Braves, or even the Vikings - something which makes the logos of those teams more potentially offensive.

Professional teams are interesting to consider, but you can't appeal to them and pretend they're under the same jurisdiction as college teams. The NBA, MLB, and NFL insofar as they are leagues purely serve the interests of the owners. They would never try to get one of their teams to change its name when a lot of money in advertising could be lost. The NCAA obviously has an entirely different position with respect to the teams that are its members - a "governing body."

Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 03:46 PM
  #157
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
No, the 49ers and the Vikings are an exception because there are no more 19th century gold prospectors and no more Vikings. Besides, the presence of Vikings in America was obviously a hoax, and Europeans have less ground to complain about negative portrayal in America than Native Americans do. There are, however, still Dakota tribes. "Yankees" is now a generic slang term for Americans and doesn't usually carry a derogatory meaning.

Furthermore, the Yankees, Packers, and 49ers to my knowledge have no insignia in which a human shape is portrayed, unlike Florida State, UND, the Redskins, the Braves, or even the Vikings - something which makes the logos of those teams more potentially offensive.

Professional teams are interesting to consider, but you can't appeal to them and pretend they're under the same jurisdiction as college teams. The NBA, MLB, and NFL insofar as they are leagues purely serve the interests of the owners. They would never try to get one of their teams to change its name when a lot of money in advertising could be lost. The NCAA obviously has an entirely different position with respect to the teams that are its members - a "governing body."
If you want to exclude pro teams...

Superior Spartans (Superior, WI)
Cloquet Lumberjacks (Cloquet, MN)
Duluth Central Trojans (Duluth, MN - Defunct or soon defunct due to the "red plan")
A million other high school teams have this sort of name. But Grand Rapids had to change their name because it was "offensive."

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 04:01 PM
  #158
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
If you want to exclude pro teams...

Superior Spartans (Superior, WI)
Cloquet Lumberjacks (Cloquet, MN)
Duluth Central Trojans (Duluth, MN - Defunct or soon defunct due to the "red plan")
A million other high school teams have this sort of name. But Grand Rapids had to change their name because it was "offensive."
Wow. The State High School League doesn't legislate nearly as strictly as the NCAA, either. As far as Trojans or Spartans are concerned I would respond the same way as I did for the 49ers and the Vikings - you're talking about people as they're represented respectively in early Greek literature and in the 5th century BCE and there is literally no possibility of association with any current Turks or Greeks. As far as I remember the Cloquet logo, it's not particularly warlike. A Lumberjack also refers not to an ethnicity, but - like Packers - to an occupation.

Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 06:06 PM
  #159
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
Wow. The State High School League doesn't legislate nearly as strictly as the NCAA, either. As far as Trojans or Spartans are concerned I would respond the same way as I did for the 49ers and the Vikings - you're talking about people as they're represented respectively in early Greek literature and in the 5th century BCE and there is literally no possibility of association with any current Turks or Greeks. As far as I remember the Cloquet logo, it's not particularly warlike. A Lumberjack also refers not to an ethnicity, but - like Packers - to an occupation.
But you haven't established an actual difference. You say that the reason "Sioux" is offensive is because some people are Dakota or Lakota (never mind we have states named after that). However, "Viking" isn't offensive because...Europe. You say "Lumberjack" isn't offensive because...well let's change that original statement to ethnicity! And 49ers isn't offensive because [completely arbitrary timeline which is contradicted by original complaint].

Establish why the name "Fighting Sioux" is offensive (outside of the translation issue that you seem unaware of).

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 07:22 PM
  #160
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,855
vCash: 500
I look forward to playing North Dakota ________ in January.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 08:11 PM
  #161
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
But you haven't established an actual difference. You say that the reason "Sioux" is offensive is because some people are Dakota or Lakota (never mind we have states named after that). However, "Viking" isn't offensive because...Europe. You say "Lumberjack" isn't offensive because...well let's change that original statement to ethnicity! And 49ers isn't offensive because [completely arbitrary timeline which is contradicted by original complaint].

Establish why the name "Fighting Sioux" is offensive (outside of the translation issue that you seem unaware of).
Honestly, how could Lumberjack be construed as even remotely offensive? Don't be dense: it's not just because a team is named after any random group of people that its name is potentially offensive. Otherwise there would only be teams named after animals and natural phenomena.

For one thing - which I haven't mentioned but I suspect is the "translation issue" you're referring to - "Sioux" is itself a derogatory Ojibwe word for the Lakota or Dakota. Never mind that, though.

As I've insinuated in my posts, "Fighting Sioux" and most of the other teams with Native American nicknames or insignia are far more problematic than the teams named after occupations (Packers, 49ers). I also gave a better explanation for why Viking isn't offensive than just "Europe" - that there is no one to offend, certainly not in America. I'm not offended myself by "Fighting Sioux", and as you obviously realize when you ask, there can be no "proof" of why it is potentially offensive. It differs from the other pathetic examples you've given as if to attribute it just to excessive political correctness in the following respects:

1. The group of people to whom it refers still exist and the name of the team can be associated with them. This excludes quasi-mythical people like the Vikings, Trojans, or Spartans. The supposed warlike features of these teams only reflect back on the literary epics and chronicles in which they appear and not on a group of people that still exists and has a collective identity today.

2. The literal (in the case of UND) or implied (in the case of the Redskins, Florida State, and Braves) "fighting" was attributed to them not by themselves but by another group of people who historically were often at odds with them. It's the difference between the "Fighting Irish" - which expresses pride in one's own group of people and their ability to fight. The "fighting" in "Fighting Irish" means something else: it's not used because the Irish are seen as a warrior culture.

This all means that a group of people has been reduced simply to a stereotype packaged in the UND logo and expressed by the team's name - that they fight, and that they are called what itself amounts to no more than an ethnic slur. Nor is the stereotype one which they ever had a hand in propagating, unlike Notre Dame. Please establish for me how "Lumberjacks" or any of the other names you suggested fits or exceeds these criteria.

Maybe that explanation seems too fine, but that's just how it is. I know I was annoyed when I lived in the US and people - high school students mostly - would still associate Germany with Hitler's regime. I would be offended if some university in the US had decided in 1950 to name its sport teams the "Fighting Heinies," had them wear jerseys that evoked German military uniforms from World War 2, and then refused to change it 60 years later because of "tradition."

Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 08:35 PM
  #162
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
Honestly, how could Lumberjack be construed as even remotely offensive? Don't be dense: it's not just because a team is named after any random group of people that its name is potentially offensive. Otherwise there would only be teams named after animals and natural phenomena.

For one thing - which I haven't mentioned but I suspect is the "translation issue" you're referring to - "Sioux" is itself a derogatory Ojibwe word for the Lakota or Dakota. Never mind that, though.

As I've insinuated in my posts, "Fighting Sioux" and most of the other teams with Native American nicknames or insignia are far more problematic than the teams named after occupations (Packers, 49ers). I also gave a better explanation for why Viking isn't offensive than just "Europe" - that there is no one to offend, certainly not in America. I'm not offended myself by "Fighting Sioux", and as you obviously realize when you ask, there can be no "proof" of why it is potentially offensive. It differs from the other pathetic examples you've given as if to attribute it just to excessive political correctness in the following respects:

1. The group of people to whom it refers still exist and the name of the team can be associated with them. This excludes quasi-mythical people like the Vikings, Trojans, or Spartans. The supposed warlike features of these teams only reflect back on the literary epics and chronicles in which they appear and not on a group of people that still exists and has a collective identity today.

2. The literal (in the case of UND) or implied (in the case of the Redskins, Florida State, and Braves) "fighting" was attributed to them not by themselves but by another group of people who historically were often at odds with them. It's the difference between the "Fighting Irish" - which expresses pride in one's own group of people and their ability to fight. The "fighting" in "Fighting Irish" means something else: it's not used because the Irish are seen as a warrior culture.

This all means that a group of people has been reduced simply to a stereotype packaged in the UND logo and expressed by the team's name - that they fight, and that they are called what itself amounts to no more than an ethnic slur. Nor is the stereotype one which they ever had a hand in propagating, unlike Notre Dame. Please establish for me how "Lumberjacks" or any of the other names you suggested fits or exceeds these criteria.

Maybe that explanation seems too fine, but that's just how it is. I know I was annoyed when I lived in the US and people - high school students mostly - would still associate Germany with Hitler's regime. I would be offended if some university in the US had decided in 1950 to name its sport teams the "Fighting Heinies," had them wear jerseys that evoked German military uniforms from World War 2, and then refused to change it 60 years later because of "tradition."
So your argument why "Grand Rapids Indians" absolutely had to be changed is because Indians exist. (same for Seminoles/Redskins/etc)

Let that sink in a bit. That is the argument that you have posited. If that's not what you're claiming, then you need to reevaluate and describe your argument, because that's what you just said.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-01-2011, 08:48 PM
  #163
Hakstol
Registered User
 
Hakstol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnesota View Post
Not advocating the name change, but couldn't they could at least adopt a more politically correct name? North Dakota sounds vanilla-lame. No identity at all.
They can't. It was in the law that they cannot have a new name until 2014-15.

Hakstol is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 07:03 AM
  #164
Deficient Mode
Step with me
 
Deficient Mode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 42,289
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
So your argument why "Grand Rapids Indians" absolutely had to be changed is because Indians exist. (same for Seminoles/Redskins/etc)

Let that sink in a bit. That is the argument that you have posited. If that's not what you're claiming, then you need to reevaluate and describe your argument, because that's what you just said.
No, once again you have willfully overlooked the complexity of my argument and simplified it to one aspect - in this case, that Native Americans still exist. Once again, the fact that there Native Americans still exist just means that there is someone who could potentially be offended by it and whom the stereotype could be seen to represent - no more, no less. My argument says absolutely nothing about Grand Rapids nor did I say anything about Grand Rapids in my previous posts suggesting that I agreed or disagreed with the name change. "Indians" doesn't refer to one tribe, so it might be considered less offensive.

This will be my last post about this issue in this thread as it's a little off-topic and you really seem to struggle to grasp why institutionalized stereotyping by ethnicity is problematic.

Deficient Mode is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 08:35 AM
  #165
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deficient Mode View Post
This will be my last post about this issue in this thread as it's a little off-topic and you really seem to struggle to grasp why institutionalized stereotyping by ethnicity is problematic.
No.

The problem is that some people are smart enough not to simply accept something is "wrong" because a minority group says it's wrong.

Naming a team "Seminoles" is offensive but naming a team "Lumberjacks" is not? Both are currently existing population classification groups. Neither actually describes the group in question. Both are baseless stereotypes. But the former is apparently incredibly offensive while the latter is perfectly acceptable.

Face it. "Seminoles" is exactly as offensive as "Lumberjacks." It's extremely disappointing that people are so brainless as to accept the extreme stupidity of claims otherwise, and that they so steadfastly refuse to even so much as consider any other possibility.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 09:59 AM
  #166
Ohio Jones
Game on...
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Establish why the name "Fighting Sioux" is offensive (outside of the translation issue that you seem unaware of).
If it was an appellation foisted on the people by another group as a pejorative, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it could cause some offence. For the same reason, the descendants of the Wyandot Iroquoian people have distanced themselves from their more common descriptor, "Huron", since that was a name given to them by early French settlers which characterized them as ruffians or thieves (or as having spiky boar-like hair, there's some dispute about this) - all despite their having been reportedly the most peaceful and conciliatory of the Iroquoian people.

In other words, it's one thing if a people choose their name themselves - it's another if the name is "assigned" to them by another party and historically used as a pejorative.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that NDak (or Washington in the NFL) is intending to use the name as a pejorative reference - quite the opposite, in fact. But that doesn't matter if the people themselves are offended by the reference, as appears to be the case.

By the same logic, someone might want to name their new basketball team the [insert place name here] N*gg*rs -- as a gesture of respect for the perseverance of the slaves and/or the tough street-smart attitude of the gansta scene (gotta appeal to the kids, yo!) -- but that *doesn't* make it a good idea.

Ohio Jones is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 10:01 AM
  #167
Ohio Jones
Game on...
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 500
... and to think that I came here just to look for updates on Nate Schmidt.

Ohio Jones is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 10:30 AM
  #168
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
If it was an appellation foisted on the people by another group as a pejorative, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it could cause some offence. For the same reason, the descendants of the Wyandot Iroquoian people have distanced themselves from their more common descriptor, "Huron", since that was a name given to them by early French settlers which characterized them as ruffians or thieves (or as having spiky boar-like hair, there's some dispute about this) - all despite their having been reportedly the most peaceful and conciliatory of the Iroquoian people.

In other words, it's one thing if a people choose their name themselves - it's another if the name is "assigned" to them by another party and historically used as a pejorative.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that NDak (or Washington in the NFL) is intending to use the name as a pejorative reference - quite the opposite, in fact. But that doesn't matter if the people themselves are offended by the reference, as appears to be the case.

By the same logic, someone might want to name their new basketball team the [insert place name here] N*gg*rs -- as a gesture of respect for the perseverance of the slaves and/or the tough street-smart attitude of the gansta scene (gotta appeal to the kids, yo!) -- but that *doesn't* make it a good idea.
You're referencing the specific caveat that is unique to "Sioux." I explicitly excluded that because it doesn't explain the same action taken against other teams whose name does not include the perjorative.

Specifically, "Sioux" is the Anishinabee (I believe, could be a different native language) word for "snake." Early settlers attributed it to the Dakota and Lakota because of their interactions with the natives. I believe the Ojibwe actually used the term first...when they weren't busy ****** and murdering the Dakota that is.

That explanation is specific to this team, and a legitimate complaint. However, it is unique to this team and doesn't justify the overarching policy which is apparently completely ignorant of that situation anyway.

squidz* is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 11:07 AM
  #169
Ohio Jones
Game on...
 
Ohio Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,666
vCash: 500
That's as may be, I was just answering your (very specific) question about the Fighting Sioux. As to the NCAA's position, it's always difficult to regulate what people ought to do -- doing the right thing by way of regulation, versus doing the right thing by way of common sense and decency. That's why programs like affirmative action are such lightning rods for controversy - the end is important, and worthwhile, and will take a generation (or generations) to change society... but the means suck.

Ohio Jones is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 03:57 PM
  #170
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
No.

The problem is that some people are smart enough not to simply accept something is "wrong" because a minority group says it's wrong.

Naming a team "Seminoles" is offensive but naming a team "Lumberjacks" is not? Both are currently existing population classification groups. Neither actually describes the group in question. Both are baseless stereotypes. But the former is apparently incredibly offensive while the latter is perfectly acceptable.

Face it. "Seminoles" is exactly as offensive as "Lumberjacks." It's extremely disappointing that people are so brainless as to accept the extreme stupidity of claims otherwise, and that they so steadfastly refuse to even so much as consider any other possibility.
I don't really want to get in this conversation because it's a complicated issue both at a macro level and in NoDak's case (both sides have faults). Everyone is going to have their own opinion and for UND fans and alum, getting rid of the nickname is losing a huge part of their identity.

However, there's something wrong with comparing the same level of offensiveness to a group of workers and a tribe persecuted for over a century in one of the worst atrocities in American history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Jones View Post
... and to think that I came here just to look for updates on Nate Schmidt.
What do you want to know?

GopherState is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 06:15 PM
  #171
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,420
vCash: 500
If any of you get CBS College Sports channel, BU and BC starts in 15 minutes if you want to watch Coyle

__________________
Devil inside, devil inside, every single one of us, the devil inside.
spintheblackcircle is online now  
Old
12-02-2011, 07:06 PM
  #172
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,420
vCash: 500
Nieto to Coyle, 1-0 BU 10 minutes in.

Great wrister

spintheblackcircle is online now  
Old
12-02-2011, 07:10 PM
  #173
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
Nieto to Coyle, 1-0 BU 10 minutes in.

Great wrister
Great shot. Funny, the announcers had just talked about his lack of scoring so far, and then... boom.

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Old
12-02-2011, 07:12 PM
  #174
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,420
vCash: 500
They are both going to be good. Sharks are excited about Nieto. Would have been fun to see them go from college teammates to pro teammates.

spintheblackcircle is online now  
Old
12-02-2011, 07:19 PM
  #175
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 12,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
They are both going to be good. Sharks are excited about Nieto. Would have been fun to see them go from college teammates to pro teammates.
Could always trade us Nieto...

Dr Jan Itor is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.