The Sicatoka

Political influence seemed to get FSU on the fast-track to winning an appeal with the NCAA. So where's North Dakota's congressional delegation been on this has been the question some here have asked. Well, that's easy, sort of. The Associated Press says Sen. Dorgan has been taking questionable money and favors from certain tribes. Plus, toss in the fact that Sen. Dorgan didn't recuse himself from co-chairing the congressional hearings looking into the dealings of Jack Abramoff, the man who directed a tribe to make a questionable donation to Sen. Dorgan, and you can see why Sen. Dorgan may want to lay low. http://news.google.com/news?q=Dorgan+Abram...tab=nn&oi=newsr

And Sparky gets no love for his "three-goal" hat trick.

Gee, I thought I read somewhere that Mr. Engelstad died in 2002. Dewey beats Truman, eh? I guess this is still about Mr. Engelstad though. I wonder what it cost Myles Brand to get Schaap to do that.

Basic information. http://www.fightingsioux.com/info/ticket/

(cough) Solen (cough) Sioux (cough-cough). And it couldn't be any more confusing than hearing: "The Mavericks play at UND this weekend." "Which Mavericks? Omaha or Mankato?" or "The hockey team plays the Huskies this weekend." "Which Huskies? Tech or St. Cloud?"

Well-qualified, eh?

The only way I could be more well endowed is fiscally.

To quote the "EMPIRICAL EFFECTS OF DIVISION II INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS" study by Orszag and Orszag for the NCAA DII presidents, they do it by increasing the amounts of athletic support from "institutional support, state government support, and student fees." Let me translate those for you: Institutional support is university discretionary funds (from various sources like donors who don't specify a use for the money, or outside grant program funds, or interest on bonds held) that could go to any department or program but that are funneled to run athletics. State government support is just that. Student fees is just that. Here's a striking paragraph from that report's executive summary:

I really can't argue with point brought out by bincitysioux. However, I keep coming back to money and conference. Answer those and the decision is easy.

I don't think "who" is as important as "what" in this case. She's probably there to represent the interests of the Greater GF business community.

A press release from Dr. Kupchella's office:

This one deserves a thread of its own. The Fan 1390 AM radio out of St. Cloud has given reports that SCSU is forming a committee to look at a possible move to NCAA Division I athletics. http://d2football.com/board/index.php?showtopic=9442 Very interesting. Add this into the mix: [url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=110192

Now toss in whispers that SCSU is looking at DI ....

Ask people who've sat with me at games: I predict our offense. You're all just lucky I'm not a DC for a conference opponent.

My past comments were lost when the board went down. I'll try to summarize: 1. Move from a hyper-conservative to more balanced or moderately aggressive offensive scheme. If I'm going to watch a loss on the road due to three turnovers can they at least be downfield interceptions and not fumbles in the backfield. 1a. Shake things up. I can sit in the stands and call our offense based on down and distance and game situation. If I'm doing it so is Pat B. and Bubba. Try something other than run over right guard on 2nd and 7. (Look at tape. That's more than half the time I bet.) 1b. Shake things up some more. Four wide with Dressler and Chappell in the slots next year could be scary. Running even hints of wing-T motion from that set-up (with former backs in the slots remember) would be miserable to defend. 1c. Shake things up some more again. You'll need more points because the defense won't have what it had this year (no disrespect intended to the returners). 2. Use the weapons. A weapon not used is not a weapon. Get the ball to the people who can do the most damage. The top of that list is Weston Dressler. Sure, he's not big. So what. He could get hurt walking to class. 3. Big receivers (Ahlers, Lueck, Stattleman) played a huge part of Bowenkamp's big year. The big receivers need to become our big receivers (which makes Dressler and Chappell even more effective). But none of those matter unless: Get solid line play out of both sides of the ball. Nothing else can work if you don't control the lines.

You missed one: Let's get Andrew Jackson out of the Oval Office.

To help my understanding of what you are saying: Instead of the schools "picking" a level, their level is set for them by objective criteria (what they do in terms of attendance and I'd assume fiscal support). Am I correct?

From the link: Yes, Dr. Kupchella has anything but a modest proposal (for NCAA overhaul) and clearly he's promoting discussion on the merits of the proposed and present systems. Thanks for noticing.

With the influx of "mid-majors" (jumbo shrimp?) to DI the Super Six conferences (ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, Big East, plus Notre Dame) have whispers of their own method of "preserving the status of the big schools" swirling about them: Leaving the NCAA and forming their own consortium and making TV deals that they don't have to share with the rest of the wannabes and hangers-on.

Here's where I believe the NCAA should simply eliminate its sport requirements and only have a simple statement: You must be compliant with Title IX of federal law. Why have two separate bureaucracies trying to accomplish the same thing.

When I first posted this I figured I'd be gutted and hanging in someone's garage or shop by now.

A look back at where a notion this crazy appeared here in the past .... As far as hockey, to soothe the fans of some other schools why not replace "UND" with "Johns Hopkins" and "hockey" with "lacrosse" to feel better if that's what it takes.

I've been warning of that for a while now. See Post 15 here.

Which would be shortened to something pronounced "eff-ewe".

I don't go around saying bad things about you, do I? ;)