The Sicatoka

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? ;)

See? You made my point. "Imperials" would become "Imps" in local media and "Chimps" to opposing fans.

If you had the power to control Tom Buning

Imperials? Like Napoleon High School? I understand the sentiment toward Mr. Engelstad and all, but would you want to be the "Imps"? If we're forced to a moniker for North Dakota that is also used by a HS in the state I have a better one in mind. Don't ask, won't tell (until the day and time forces me to).

It's tough to write an up-beat story when one of the key parts of the story is saying things like that. Team motivation and development is a coaching and administrative (exciting schedule you want to play as a player) issue. "What is being done on those fronts?" is probably the better question here.

There's nothing magical about February 1. If the NCAA hasn't "pooped or gotten off the potty" around the time that the WBB team should be in the playoffs (not trying to curse anyone here) who cares: UND can file for an injunction with the courts at any time. There's no "before we could take them to court" about it. UND could take them to court now, but the court wouldn't be as favorable to UND because the court wants to see the plaintiff has tried all other remedies (appeals) first. However, if February 1 rolls around and the NCAA hasn't moved yet, then UND is well within their rights to go to a court for an injunction: "Your honor, we've appealed but the NCAA has sat on the appeal until now, thus effectively denying our appeal, and thus imposing sanction before the appeal is ever dealt with." That would hold more water with a court. (I'm no attorney, but I bet the resident attorneys here would concur.) February 1 is a made up date just like this policy is a made up policy. (I dare say that because this policy is not "real" per the NCAA's own constitution*.) * NCAA Constitution 1.2.(h) -- "To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics." This legislation or bylaw never went as a resolution to a vote of a whole convention. Tag on that NCAA Constitution 1.3.2 says, "Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting." I'm not exactly sure how "Seminole" or "Sioux" (or "Irish" for that matter) is a "basic athletics issue". Thus, should that be a matter for NCAA legislation? I guess we'll find out.

Back to the scheduled topic in this thread: KFGO-AM News is reporting this morning that Dr. Kupchella and UND will be filing their second appeal to the NCAA today. This one (the way it was reported) will be more like Illinois' in that it will focus more on how the NCAA went about doing this. (Remember: A large portion of Illinois' appeal can be summed up by saying "you didn't and don't have the power to do this".) KFGO phrased the appeal as more "legalistic".