The Sicatoka

Like I said, I was just trying to answer it. UND92,96 asks a good question. How does the money work out on that?

No one else has answered it. Let me try: NDSU has no one else that they can bring in without a six-figure guarantee that will fill FargoDome. But that's not UND's problem.

There are always more questions than space in the article. And there are always questions that could have been asked. Foss and Kolpack are doing what they can. I'll cut them a break. Why is DIAA NDSU so worried about scheduling a DII UND anyway? Why wouldn't NDSU schedule someone else to come in and fill that building?

First, remember, Thomas didn't say that. You inferred it. Both Glas and Lennon both gave playoff reasoning as the basis to reconsider scheduling NDSU. If you have a beef on this one, it's not with Thomas. tony, to your last three questions, if I were to guess answers I'd say "Yes, maybe, never."

Would you rather (a) risk being knocked out of playoffs, or (b) not be eligible for playoffs at all? As far as "get pulses racing" opponents, NDSU has proposed a football-only conference made up of the following teams. (I dug and found 2002 average home attendance.) NDSU 10620 SDSU 5967 UNC 5894 S. Utah 3310 Cal Poly SLO 5952 CSU Northridge (?) St. Mary's of CA 2595 Like they say on those TV medical shows, "Clear!" (click-whump) Something in this realm is going to "give" soon. My guess is that the 2004 NCAA meeting are going to change the landscape of collegiate athletics.

[speculation] With the BB teams moving year, why not go on the road now and have a more "home loaded" schedule for the next few seasons. Just the chance to go and see The Ralph may lure in more visiting fans (which is more revenue for UND Athletics). [/speculation]

Those Fighting Sioux Club members have already paid their tuition (to which you coyly reference). They, however, are not using the other resources of the campus (academics) that you are for the $4000. Don't confuse the issue. The only "membership" to the "Student Seating Club" that you could claim is the mandatory student athletics fee paid each semester. That plus the $65 for student tickets doesn't cost what a general public (no FSC membership) season ticket costs (~$345) and those seats are in the upper deck.

A few of life's little lessons are being taught right now. Examples? -- Who you vote for matters. -- Treat your neighbors as you'd like to be treated, or they'll go to "city hall" (or the athletic department in this case) and deal with you there. -- Big time programs cost big time dollars. Don't be surprised when the prices go up to support it. As much as the students may not like the new system being implemented, it could be changed again to be better suited for all in the future by real cooperative efforts between the parties in the future. If you don't like what you have now, work for the change. (Another of life's lessons.) As much as I'd like to feel sorry for the students, look here. That is the price list to join the Fighting Sioux Club and get lower bowl seats. All those base club level prices are 10% higher than last year ($1000 --> $1100) AND all of the "1/3 off" numbers read "1/2 off" last season. I don't expect those will change (go down) in the future no matter how hard one works for it.

BisonMav: To be fair, agreeably, average per game should be looked at instead. Pac-10 MBB teams home games: 7667 (150 games, 1150071 patrons) WCHA mens hockey teams home games: 6759 (203 games, 1372229 patrons) Missouri Valley MBB teams home games: 6414 (143 games, 917166 patrons) All are very comparable. The MVC is the most "high profile" potential conference put forth by either NDSU or SDSU. I don't think you or I would want to call the Missouri Valley (or the Pac-10) insignificant.

My issue is with the insinuation that college hockey is insignificant. It's far from accurate to cast 256,591 (and 1,372,229 for WCHA mens hockey) as insignificant in the scope of collegiate athletics. This is especially true when you consider that the great majority of NCAA members don't have that many home game patrons in all sports combined in a season. Then you have to add in the factor that mens ice hockey is "revenue black" for the NCAA where only mens basketball can make the same claim. It may not be as commonly popular, but college hockey is significant where it matters (paying patrons, revenues).

I can't speak for all of the world, but more than a quarter million people went to Sioux hockey home games last year (and more than 1.3 million went to WCHA home games). Compare those numbers to some other teams and leagues. For example, you'll find that more people went to Sioux mens hockey games last year than went to all SDSU home games (all sports, all home games, totaled). Somebody cares.

Are we sure that this football alliance meets the "conference" criteria as envisioned by the SD Board of Regents? I don't know. I'm asking.

"If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options .... " -- Danenhauer "If NCAA rules were to become less mercenary and more educationally rational; if the rapid escalation of the cost of Division I sports were to be reversed somehow; if the restrictions on schools making the move were made less severe; or if very many NCC schools make the move to D-I; then we could well give it some extra consideration." -- Kupchella Don't both say, "If (events), then (we reconsider other options)," or, as you put it, "If (conditions), then (something will happen)"? After making nearly the same statement, Danenhauer is being forthright but Kupchella isn't? Please explain.

Mr. Danenhauer qualified his statements and that's OK. But is it OK, dare I say credible, for others?

I was the first one, on USCHO, to question the now recanted claims. Now this quote of the same ilk. What is it that they say about "old dogs" and "new tricks"? Minors in a bar in a college town? And student athletes no less? Sounds like the younger (Badger tennis playing) sister of Brad Winchester to me (as reported in the Wisconsin papers last winter). :)

So Danenhauer must have talked to Roger Thomas. But tony has told us (OK, maybe only implied) that you can't believe what Roger Thomas says. Now I'm really confused. :) Be nice, I'm just jokin' around on a hot afternoon.

And that's only after waiting the special mens BB probation time (8 or 13 years, I forget). The other sports become "tourney eligible" in five seasons.

Come on, we're all "good eggs." It's just that we (Sioux and Gopher fans) "agree to disagree" on a certain subject. :)

Bobber's move was good, but the Mal Parks goal was clutch.

As with any bloated bureaucracy, you've got nothin' unless you've got the org chart!

The MnSCU schools are hurtin' bad financially right now and as stated "Goldie" will always be king east of the Red. Don't look to Duluth, St. Cloud, or Mankato. And mentioning "Red," yes, King Husker in Lincoln rules that state. Would Omaha want to be a DI with Lincoln and Creighton right there? However, Omaha's financials should look better when they move into the new Omaha Civic for hockey. (Their 8314 per game average for hockey should go up and help their revenues.) A DIAA conference from the NCC would need immediate outside help because to be a recognized conference takes six. The contenders would be: UNC, NDSU, SDSU, USD, and UND. That's only five. For the record (before someone jumps me) I said from the start DI would have a much better chance to work if the whole conference would go. It solves the schedule and travel issues (and thus a lot of the money issues).

I'm not sure who you think you're quoting but I've always said UND is a DII playing up in DI hockey because that is how they are classified by the NCAA. However, by today's standards of DI (Morris Brown University? Robert Morris University?) UND is far more "DI" than a great number of "DIs." (I've been told that UND mens basketball outdrew more than half of the DI mens basketball teams last season.) Big 10 hockey? Maybe if it formed and a non-hockey school (Northwestern, Indiana, etc.) would be allowed to have UND play as their "proxy" I could see it as a possibility (but I wouldn't hold my breath). What's all this telling me? The NCAA is a mess.

Another thought just struck me: What if this passes? How long until someone comes up with the idea that DIIs playing up should be limited to the DII number of scholarships? Yes, even though they've eliminated the DII championship (and effectively DII hockey), the NCAA still has a DII mens hockey scholarship limit, 13.5, versus the DI mens limit of 18. (It's 18 and 18 for womens.) We know that the NCAA made a move to only give autobids to DI tourney to conferences where all the members are full DIs. The WCHA had to be "grandfathered" around that one. If they are trying to do this to CC (and a few eastern DIII schools) how long until they go after the DIIs playing up?

I've said it before, I'll repeat: It looks to me like the NCAA is trying to go to a pre-1973 model with only two levels. Why do I say this? This move seems to force CC (et al) to move to DII. Why would the NCAA want only two levels? Because they lose money sponsoring championships (except for DI mens basketball and DI mens hockey). Another fine move by The Best Little Monopoly in America.

Bison Kent: On this point, jimdahl and I completely concur.