The Sicatoka

A Wild wing huh? A Panther prowls my neck of the woods.

A new 6000 seat arena at Gonzaga cost them $23 MM. Comparable enough? Let me say this again: Why build The Betty larger? Look at the easy scaling available to UND: 3500-4000 seats - The Betty 5000-6000 seats - The Ralph (lower bowl and suites) 8000-9000 seats - The Alerus Center (BB config.) 10000-13000 seats - The Ralph (full house) star2city makes an excellent point in using that difference in dollars to work on other facilities needs (Olympic sports, baseball, more training space). PS - I'll say it again: Gonzaga's BB program has played in a 4000 seat arena up to this point. Sounds just like the size of The Betty to me and Gonzaga doesn't have options like The Al and The Ralph.

The difference between the situations? The season ticket holder sections of The Ralph are sold out plus it's a high-interest student event (sections normally full). There are football season tickets still available in 201-209, the season ticket holder sections, at The Al; plus, there is still space (normally) available in the student section. As mentioned, it's supply and demand: Worry about that $5 when the student and season ticket sections at The Al are jammed for a full season or two. Until then let the students go at no charge (other than the student fees) and enjoy the game and boost the attendance numbers in the process.

Permanent seats = no more indoor track facility. Gotta think these things through.

star2city said: Put head-to-head with 9000 in the seats, it gets to be a pretty tough call. EDIT: I see star2city has clarified.

No, the blue dots are just old land grants. "Flagship" can mean whatever the author wants it to mean at the time. USA Today picked theirs. PS - I'm pretty sure "land grant" doesn't mean much to a newspaper that seems to focus primarily on two kinds of schools: Ivy League and all the rest.

"If a school falls to far behind, in terms of facilities and quality of teams they risk losing far more than if they spent money up front and still incurred annual loses." Exactly. Hence the "arms race" of building facilities: You have to keep building more and better just to stay in the race. If you don't have the facilities you're not even in the race. Hence the statement: On a lighter note, Geiger making that statement echos of the Soviets (with their past massive arsenal) talking about the nuclear arms race.

"So, what you saying is that they have to spend the money just to keep from losing it???" -- bigmrg74 No, quite the opposite. They spent the money and hope to get it back (to pay off the bonds). They had to spend the money to save the stadium, to keep their 'weapon' in the "arms race" but they spent it in a way such that they'd have a chance at recouping it. Would REA have made sense for UND if they would have built it for themself? No. Does UND have a major 'weapon' in the "arms race" (for hockey, volleyball, and basketball) now that they have the REA complex (meaning The Ralph, The Betty, The Olympic Rink, and the included training facilities)? Yes.

This Geiger quote comes from the same NCAA news story: But remember the findings of that report: A dollar spent means a dollar gained: They're at a net wash. If it's a budgetary wash, why do it? Because of the need for the facility. Why do they need the facility?

Questions: - What if a $10 MM annual budget school was able, somehow, to have facilities comparable to a school with an $80 MM annual budget? Would they be in the race? As the logical follow-on: - Do people know the annual budgets of schools or do they know about the facilities they see on campus or television? If athletics is the "front porch" of the university as some have purported, that porch should have some sturdy construction, pretty rails, and new paint. And some good sturdy rockin' chairs on it wouldn't hurt either. Facilities are a major portion of the collegiate "arms race".

Are they looking at state flagship schools as being the ones that produce doctors and lawyers as well as undergraduates?

It's not the system Massey uses, but it's the one that seems to have the best track record of predicting probable outcomes. http://siouxsports.com/hockey/rankings/help/krach.htm

Whoa-whoa-whoa, hold on. Up to this point it's all guessing, rumor, and speculation. Let's let them introduce and implement the new policy (if there is one) and then rip them for it.

Yup, they are. There's a good reason why too: Geiger says the race isn't what you spend on athletics per year, but in facilities. And that's coming from the man with the highest annual department (expense) budget in the NCAA.

That seems to gel with the results of an NCAA study released on August 18, 2003. From the NCAA News report on the study: I find No. 10 rather interesting: The real race is in terms of 'capital expenditures', commonly called facilities.

Here is why I only "group" teams early on: Suter leaving Wisconsin for Nashville That will probably move Wisconsin out of my "top" group. (They really only have two experienced defensemen, Gilbert and Likens, now.) Bernd Bruckler can't be happy about this. Duluth returns more conference scoring than UND. I think the loss of Geisler and Hardwick on the blueline (defensively and leadership) is what they'll feel more than the loss of Lessard.

Just for reference, for all you tailgaters and folks who can now have a cold adult beverage inside the arena at The Alerus Center, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with Potato Bowl , KFGO Radio is reporting this morning that this weekend's North Dakota Highway Patrol sobriety check point will be somewhere in Grand Forks County.

When the arena first opened the South Club Room was supposed to be for Fighting Sioux Club members only. I'm guessing, based on the overcrowding in there at times, that they are going back to that. I'd also guess (note the word guess), based on getting my FSC club cards for 2004-2005 that don't have a "level" designation on them, that any member of the FSC will be allowed in.

If I were to pick a darkhorse (bottom half last season) to make a run at the title, ala Mankato in 2003, it would have to be CC.

I'm still only willing to put them into unordered 'groups' at this point. Top group: UND, UMD, Wisconsin. Concerns for each? - The Sioux lose offense. - The Bulldogs lose leadership (Lessard and Geisler). - The Badgers, because of the unbalanced WCHA schedule, play Minnesota, UMD, and UND four times each this year. (Last year they only had Minnesota for four and didn't go to Duluth or Grand Forks. That could be their tripping point.) The middle group: CC, DU, Minnesota, SCSU The trailing group: MSU-Mankato, MTU, UAA I could maybe see MTU and SCSU switching groups. Minnesota's inexperienced defense keeps them in the middle group but they'll probably make a late run at the top group.

The ones that are revenue-positive for the athletic department?

Having to wear a number worn last year, which standard would you have to try to live up to: the number for Spirko or Zajac? And when's the last time UND had a "34" on the roster? NDFan: As a recruiting class, this year's juniors were Parise, Prpich, Greene, and Marvin. Fylling also came back from the USHL and Genoway became eligible and started playing with this group (but both only had three years of eligibility remaining). There weren't many open slots behind that big senior class.

Congratulations to those who won National Championships this past spring while representing UND. http://www.fightingsioux.com/sports/mswimm...RELEASE_ID=3076

BF1234 was on such a good streak there for a while, then this. NDSU is doing 54.5 FB scholarships in 2004, then 63 in 2005 and 2006. Why? So their 3-year average is over 60. So? A DI-AA has to have averaged 60 FB scholarships awarded over the previous three seasons to be allowed to play a DI-A in a "bodybag" game. The earliest possible date (assuming the 63s are met)? 2007. Next, I wouldn't bet against Michigan in the Big Ten this season.