The Sicatoka

You only have to meet one of the tests ("prongs", there are three) to meet Title IX. As far as having "matching" sports, where's the women's football or wrestling teams at NDSU or SDSU? That alone proves you don't have to have the same sports for men and women. Where UND runs the risk is the opportunities and interests aspect of Title IX. Has WH created enough interest that it'll be tough to drop. Then again, same could be asked of any sport.

Well, this thread has been quiet for a while. I guess I'll pull the pin and roll my own flash-bang in to so see what scrambles around. My scenario plays off SV's: First, have UM, UI, MSU, and UND do the friendly takeover of the WAC (SV's "BSC/WAC schools swap") to get the magic wand to make FBS schools. But to make that work you'd really have to make the next major move, namely, collapse the western part of the Summit/MVFC: WAC Mountain: UM, UI, MSU, (two more west FB schools), Denver WAC Plains: UND, NDSU, SDSU, USD, (one more east FB school), Omaha There it is: 10 FB (FBS), 12 BB. Half the schedule is by bus. Strong rivals and strong schools. This group would become the west's answer to the MAC. And yeah, I'm the guy who used the phrase "lots of moving parts" before and this is a ton of them so I plainly admit this is out there. I just had to see how much this shakes the internet. PS - I'd lobby to move the NCHC's administration into this "new WAC" administrative structure to save costs. (UND, DU, and UNO are NCHC core schools.)

Lay out the facts and the associated dollars (aka red ink) and most people will get pretty pragmatic.

I just re-read Kennedy's letter looking for something else, but this just really struck me: "... I intend to determine this fall the sports that will be sponsored, and this will be definitive for my period of service at UND." Like I said above, he's going to do this and do it once. I won't be surprised if he goes past what he needs to be make sure this is "definitive for (his) period of service at UND".

Not that long ago, I had a chance meeting with Phil Harmeson (yes, I know some of you just broke out in hives). We chatted peripherally about this. Schafer was still acting and beginning to talk about budgets at UND. He said when he was Acting AD and the DI transition moves were in motion he called a meeting of the entire Athletic Department. He claimed to me that at that time he told the 21 sports in the room that 21 sports was a DII model and not sustainable in a DI world. He claims to have told them back then to look around the room and in five years about five sports won't be in that same meeting. Well ...

I get the impression that Kennedy is going to do this and do it once. Given that, stop thinking in terms of "$1.4 million"; think in terms of long-term vision and sustainability and success.

Technically, three. Doesn't soccer have lockers in there also (besides VB and WBB). Then again, about soccer ...

Just being the devil's advocate: Green Bay loves football, but UW-Green Bay doesn't sponsor it.

A left tackle will tell you blocking a right defensive end pass rusher is a skill. That's what you meant, right?

Journey to the century mark.

This is from the GF Herald article about the new Midco deal. Are there any tells in there? Are there any options if say something were eliminated?

Instead of impressions or interpretations I like to go to the source. Here's what Kennedy has tasked the IAC with, to be complete by November 1. http://www.grandforksherald.com/sites/default/files/KennedylettertoIAC.pdf So, given that, here's what stands out to me: He specifically mentions NLI day on November 9. What sport(s) sign on that day? That may be a "tell" in itself. He wants the cost of each program and the attendance. I see a former Fortune 100 CFO doing a cost/benefit analysis right there. He has a hard end date - do this by November 1. Do it, do it, done. What a concept.

Hawk sounds.

I'm just anti-third down.

Cheapskate. You could endow a couple scholarships too.

That's an "everything is on the table, up for review" statement. Given that, folks are locking onto the wrong phrase in there.

Don't know Arizona law, but being that Denver and CC are private schools NCHC business is not subject to FOIA. (That's why most major conferences keep at least one private amongst their large publics; see, Northwestern of the B1G, or Vanderbilt of the SEC, or Stanford of the PAC12.)

I have a better idea: 1. Have Santiago gain 5.5 yards per carry so we never see 3rd down on offense. 2. Take the ball away from the other team on 1st or 2nd so they never see 3rd down. Easy-peasy.

Goon's knowledge of thermo-nuclear fission and Higgs bosons.

About SiouxVolley's theories of a rejuvenated WAC with FBS FB: I've roamed this Earth long enough to realize that "absolute words" come back to bite you; thus, with regards to what he's saying I'll say neither definitely nor never. It's plausible, possible, but has a whole lot of moving parts.

I assume you refer to NDSU's athletic budget. "What?" you ask. Why I say please refer to the Bresciani emails that Port got via FOIA. In there you'll find where Bresciani told Larson to prepare budgets with 5, 10, and 15% cuts to the athletic budget. No one seems to want to converse about that other than jdub27 mentioning it a couple times.

You get that off Mafia's iPod? Found this one on that device also.

I just listened to Faison with Heitkamp (there's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back) and what lawkota transcribes above is the quote. And the context. There is a world of difference between "right now" and "for now". One states the current position going forward (funding football); the other is a hedge if you think a change might happen in the near future. Faison stated the position and then stated what comes with it (need for a football conference).