The Sicatoka

I normally reserve this for Division I hockey talk, but it fits: The only poll that matters is the pole you raise a championship banner on.

Last week is over. You play them one by one. Mankato is 0 and 7 so you might want to over look them. Don't. They beat us last year. It's time to return the favor.

"textbook defense"? With less than 80 rushing yards allowed, sure; but NDSU passed for more yards than UND. That doesn't qualify. "give up no plays over 30 yards"? How about four! 31 to Steffes, 31 to Burrell, 39 to Burrell, 36 to Johnson. That doesn't qualify. "at least +2 in turnovers"? Only +1. "no more than four "three and out" drives for the game"? Well, I got one right. UND went three and punt three times on the day. My next prognostication is that from now on I'll let UND92,96 or jimdahl prognosticate.

Trying to answer the question objectively, I'd have to say that either (a) your posit that Krause is better than Lueck is wrong, or (b) that UNO utilizes Krause differently than UND utilizes Lueck and that difference was the difference. Either way, Lueck played at DIAA Murray State before returning home to East Grand Forks and playing at UND. The better question for the situation is this: Is that the best Babich can play against a DIAA caliber receiver?

Starting production (including not having the funds to cover start-up costs) on a new product line, that not all your consumers are sure they want, and some think they don't need, is a better business model?

I believe NDSU should have raised ticket prices before starting the transition. That way the "raised prices" issues would have subsided before any issues associated with the move and transition came up. It would have avoided "compounding" of the two issues. It also would have helped them to build a balance for possible coming lean years as some programs may struggle. Now, as jimdahl points to, NDSU will have to raise prices during the transition which may make the fraction of fans that disagree with the move even more unhappy (compounding). But hey, I don't run NDSU. Let them do what they will. Meanwhile, UND is testing the waters, dare I say doing a market assessment, of what fans will pay to see various UND events. Plus they are setting precidents for prices. It allows UND, over the coming five to ten years, to say "but we haven't raised our prices" during that timeframe.

tony: What do you interpret "But it also might tip the balance ..." to mean in the context that Roger Thomas stated it?

Isn't discussing private medical information a violation of Federal law, namely HIPAA?

To me, and it appears to be the concensus, safe bets seem to be mens hockey, football, mens basketball, and womens basketball. I've heard Shantell Gammie say that womens hockey isn't it. A recent GF Herald article said that it is not womens soccer. (They are close.) NCC rules preclude it from being baseball, mens swimming and diving, mens cross country, or mens track and field. The mens golf DII limit is 3.6 so that is very and easily possible; however, .... Title IX must be brought into the equations. My safe bets tally to 64 mens and 10 womens scholarships out of 118 total. That tells me to pick a womens sport to help balance the books mens/womens-wise. Since UND is moving volleyball into that spiffy new REA-SportsCenter I'd guess they've moved to fully fund the program. My fifth will be what jimdahl couldn't bring himself to do: womens volleyball. But it sure is tempting to say mens golf or (based on dominance) womens swimming and diving.

Contrary to the beliefs in some quarters, Roger Thomas appears to have his eyes wide open to these matters. <--- Roger Thomas? NOT.

The guy that started it isn't the guy who's keeping it (39 of 40) alive today. The QB hasn't mattered to those ten other offensive guys the other 39 times.

Fargo media picking the Bison? And this surprises you because .....

No, no, no. 'tony' and I are sitting back and singing in two-part harmony. So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye. There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree. Sincere apologies to Dave Mason.

Personally, I rather enjoy being the "one" in DII #1 Grand Valley State's "won 39 of their last 40 games" press release this week.

Nope, that's not a plan. Carr Sports Associates gave, OK, sold, NDSU a road map, a plan: - consensus - market assessment - strategic plan for finances, facilities, and personel - "Secure an acceptable conference membership before making the decision to reclassify to I-AA." Is an ignored plan better than "not a plan"?

Try this instead. As far as requirements to jump to DI, see the DIAA threads.

A University of North Dakota education!

Sure I'd love to see DII saved. I've also said UND should evaluate DIAA. "What the market can bear" and "direct competition" are hallmarks of the economic system called capitalism. I firmly believe that collegiate athletics, from the fiscal aspect, must be run as a business. If the athletic department is not "in the black," they are a financial burden upon the institution and its primary mission, namely education. You want big-time athletics? Be prepared to pay the big-time freight.

I can see where both sides are coming from in this. I'm wondering if it doesn't pass will there be a push for neighborhood pools instead of just splash parks? Put in three or four neighborhood pools to replace those lost to dike construction and you're still looking at a significant fraction of the water park cost. The catch is, neighborhood pools won't draw in folks off the highway or the Canad Inn. It really is Scylla and Charybdis.

This guy lobbied hard for passage of that law. Wasn't the whooping crane the new mascot in the movie "PCU"?

The ND State Bird is the Western Meadowlark. Leave Sebastian the Ibis in Miami.

Then you'll love this: I bought tickets for the 2001 NDSU at UND game through the UND Alumni Association. For two tickets and a pre-game party it was $55 to $60. This year it is $27.50 for a ticket and $5 for the pre-game party. For two that's $65. That really isn't that great of a rate of inflation. I guess that it's just that everyone is paying it this year. Forgive me if I view it as excessive grousing and bemoaning coming from some corners.

They aren't maxed out on all of their scholarships for all their sports. Consider the $11 a contribution to the future of UND womens hockey. Let me repeat: Anyone who doesn't think college athletics is a business hasn't been paying attention for the last 20 years.

Yes, UND is a state entity. They should charge what they can for the game. They have to run the Athletic Department. If the Athletic Department is in the red the State gets the bill. So rather than $27.50 for a seat should UND not raise prices to the games and pass any red ink along to state taxpayers in the form of higher income taxes? Should grandmas on fixed incomes subsidize football fans? No. You want something you pay for it. Prices must cover the costs of the programs. Anyone who doesn't think college athletics is a business hasn't been paying attention for the last 20 years.