The Sicatoka

Too bad we don't have that school from Amherst, MA, the Minutemen, on the schedule this season. Image that poster.... (picture of Jones, Greene, Smaby, Schneider) (caption:) Weapons of UMass Destruction Maybe if we can get them to knock a few opponents really hard and shatter a few panels it could become a standard ... Weapons of Glass Destruction

Have they gotten rid of the red ink on wrestling, baseball, and lacrosse championships? I hadn't seen those numbers positive as of yet (but I'll admit I haven't looked for probably two years). The one I knew was getting close to black ink (then) was DI womens basketball. PS - Expect to see Amy Ruley and a couple of friends to stop by and "talk" to you later about that "eliminate womens sports" thing.

The NCAA puts on three championships in a lot of things today. Putting on championships costs the NCAA money (except for DI mens basketball and DI mens hockey). Fewer championships means less dollars spent on them and I'm sure the NCAA number-crunchers are well aware of that. Is three divisions best? The chair of the DI Board of Directors poses that question himself. As far as debating two vs. four divisions, we fans (of all schools) didn't roll out the two division talk as much as the chair of the DI Board of Directors and the president of the NCAA did. " .... blurring of the lines between classifications ... " and " the line between them (DI and DII) is much less distinctive ... " are some strange statements coming from those highest levels of the NCAA folks. They almost sound like they see things in terms of "scholarship", excuse me, "grant-in-aid" granting programs and non-"grant-in-aid" granting programs.

I'd guess about the same percentage sponsor lacrosse. But I'd also guess that we could point to Johns Hopkins Lacrosse as a model of success (by the criteria implied by Dr. Kupchella) also. Finding what you can succeed at (on the field and off, meaning fiscally which could mean either "self-sufficient" or "engine for an entire department") and consistently doing it is success: Johns Hopkins Lacrosse North Dakota Hockey Denver Alpine Sports (there have to be others)

How many were in the pro shop? The Penalty Box? Wandering the concourses? Gawking at the arena itself? Most season ticket holders give exhibition games away to folks who aren't there just for the game. And hey, why not hire that counter at The Al too?

It's a bunch of bull ....

Kupchella in the Dakota Student: "The NCAA train wreck." It almost has a ring to it. Two divisions? Sounds like the model before 1973. Why not invest in something that you can be successful in and have it be fiscally self-sufficient (ala UND mens hockey)? Hold it. Two divisions, scholarship and no-scholarship? Is he saying there really isn't that much difference between the scholarship-offering divisions today? Isn't that sort of like ... what DI Board of Directors chair Hemenway said over here? Sounds like Dr. Kupchella's answer to my question (in the link) would be "old system" (two divisions).

Reality: The offensive team is not fast. Putting Dressler in on offense forces the defense to at least respect the speed and deep threat it poses. He's in there to stretch both down the field and sideline to sideline (the reverse). You have to get "the fear" into the safeties and corners, get them to stop creeping in, so the other things (Roland, 3 yards, and a cloud of du..., oh, yeah, turf) work. All that said, 3rd and 4 and needing a first down there's at least three other names I want the ball thrown to first. Of course, that assumes an accurate throw.

Because within the NCAA the left hand seldom knows what the right hand is doing? Because "makes sense" and "NCAA action" seldom go together? The MAC is less likely than going to 24 scholarships in January, agreed, but isn't much more "out there" than an invitation from any other conference. I like the philosophy of GeauxSioux's idea (hockey schools with common interests banding together); however, the Minnesota schools are horribly cash-strapped right now and DI most likely isn't within their means. Plus, would UNO want to travel to Houghton and Marquette in January when they could join the MIAA instead?

Hey, aren't those eerily similar to these? The '***' is #2, the '*' is #3, and the '**' is #4. Honestly, the January NCAA meetings could well start all of us down the path to #1 which I believe is the most likely scenario. (Sorry jimdahl.)

It's only one weekend, one series, but maybe this guy isn't so crazy or dumb regarding the Mavericks.

It counts as a separate sport under the sports sponsored minimums; however, the scholarship limit is based on "Cross Country/Track and Field" combined. (There's a separate number for schools only with CC and no track teams.)

Careful. That knife cuts a lot of directions.

I agree with all of your other numbers. I got those and "14" from "Section 15.5.3.1.2 Women's Sports" of the DI manual.

UND92,96: Womens hockey isn't fully funded yet. DII to DI womens swimming and diving is 8.1 to 14. And your initial assumption is that UND is "DII max" in all those womens sports today which leaves a lot of margin also. BF1234: There's more than one way to comply with Title IX. There's a section of Title IX that talks about "proportionality" meaning the opportunities have to be proportional to the make-up of the student body. If your student body is made up of 70% men you can get away with offering 70% of the athletic scholarships to men. Plus that means you can probably get away with the total student-athlete participants pool being 70% men (FB and MBB vs WBB and WVB).

Dr. Kupchella's statement:

How was the flight back from Anchorage?

You could make the argument that Gopher Dan Irmen is from Fargo (although his last ND HS was GF Red River).

That's what you have to do when you try to explain things to BF1234.

Title IX is Federal law on equal opportunities for men and women. Football, by its big roster, means having to have multiple womens sports to get the numbers (participants, scholarships) equal. I'm surprised no one has ripped apart any of the scenarios I supposed.

I expect one of the following scenarios between now and the end of the decade: 1. There is some sort of NCAA shake-up (driven by money) and some sort of restructuring falls out of that. UND would be swept along with that change (and sits pat until then). 2. The O'Keefe speculation: A conference would help with some of the financial concerns. 3. The DII football scholarship maximum is slashed from 36 to 24 in January along with a 10% reduction in maximum scholarships in all other sports. UND views that as more perilous than moving up so it moves. 4. jimdahl wins the next huge PowerBall and gives it all to UND Athletics, thus forming the endowment that Dr. Kupchella envisions.

Finally we'll agree (almost) somewhere. Yes, Kupchella and O'Keefe are both publicly talking big dollars (as is Harmeson). I've said all along that cost is the main concern and I have no reason to not believe what they are saying. The BCS wanting a league of their own (which I also believe is the case), if they get it, or just leave and form it outside the NCAA, is by default a restructuring of the NCAA, right? I won't be surprised if UND allows all that to sort out first. As mentioned, some big contracts (basketball-television and BSC) come up for renewal soon. That should drive the BCS schools to make this an issue because to them it's about money, not the so-called "prestige of DI".

The AD. The FAR. Two different guys. Two different takes. Not unexpected. But please go back and see what the DI committee people are saying in the article that started this thread. (The UND AD is on DII committees.)

When's the last time you chatted directly with UND's NCAA faculty athletic representative or head of the UND Alumni Association? I will give you this: Most likely, something will change at the NCAA level before it does at the UND level.

O'Keefe with the NCAA? No. But UND's NCAA guy and O'Keefe have told me similar things on this subject. And one would expect UND to keep the head of their fundraising arm, funds being key in this discussion, "in the loop" of what they expect, yes? As far as the NCAA not seeing this as a problem, how do you explain the quotes, from NCAA committee chairs, already pointed out?