The Sicatoka

Does UND Aviation want to be known as the ... bad landers.

Yup, that explains the vote. 59 hockey schools: 10 primary benefactors, 49 not so much.

Nicely played.

I wuz speekin da Midwestahn so use-ed wood getz it. Remumbaz, I waz da guy whoos suggests "Da Mafia" as a noo name fuh use-gize. < /New York accent >

The story is "facility availability". I believe it. Mafia told me he was going to Amalie Arena (Tampa) to catch Monday's Bette Midler concert and then the Tuesday MON@TB game.

I got your good bingo right here. < /New York accent >

You must be speaking from your collegiate experiences. There's a little more to it when it comes to UND's ABET accredited online engineering degrees (chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical, petroleum).

I defer to anyone who knows those details.

To jdub's point, two full-time students: Student A: 14 credits of online coursework 1 credit mandatory on-campus lab Student B: 14 credits on-campus 1 credit general ed req's class to fit schedule Both under the NDUS way of reporting the numbers are considered "on campus but takes at least one online class". I'd rather see the credit hours breakdowns (per category of student).

Disclosure statement: Another poster helped me sift through and interpret/understand some of the nuances in the numbers. I'll leave it to them to self-disclose if they so choose.

Troy Hanson? Why? He's not going to major juniors (considered a professional league by the NCAA). He's going to a Canadian college, right?

The rules already are in place: - FBS to FBS you are ineligible for a year - FBS to FCS you are immediately eligible - if you have your degree and eligibility left, you can start grad school wherever you choose

And I stayed away from this ... until now. The Forum editorial board really believes that the Legislature, that couldn't get it done in Indianapolis in face-to-face meetings with the NCAA, who are the ones who instigated the ridiculous "cooling off period", the same folks who adjourned before dealing with a bill on state employee health benefits so they could avoid immediate controversy and yet go to special session (another "committee formed" anyone?), would be doing any better? The track record clearly indicates otherwise.

I know this'll be crazy talk, but what if a kid wanted to transfer because he changed majors and the school he wants to go to is the best in that field? Coach: Nope, you can't go to the best < college major here > school in the country because you might chuck a pigskin for them too! < banjo music here >

I was doing some reading recently regarding online students in the North Dakota University System. Some folks like to spin online enrollments so I wanted to see for myself. Most of the numbers below are from Table 6 of this: http://www.ndus.edu/uploads/reports/131/2014-fall-enrollment-report.pdf Total enrollment numbers came from Table 1. First thing to see: Yes, UND has many "online only/not on campus" students. I suspect many of those are teachers and nurses working on masters degrees. And UND has an *accredited* distance engineering program to achieve a bachelor's degree. Those are huge items for people in a remote state looking to advance professionally. Table 13 probably speaks a little bit to this. UND has 4,506 students age 25 and older. NDSU has 2,928 students that are 25 and older. Part of this can obviously be attributed to UND's law and med schools but not all of it by any means. On top of that, when you look at FTE's UND definitely has more part-time students (4,120 vs 2,830 in headcount) which would also speak to people working (slowly) toward a degree. But now digging into Table 6: UND: 35.5% (5,289 out of 14,906) of total enrollment take at least one online class. 14.2% (2,116 out of 14,906) of the total enrollment is considered on campus but takes at least one online class. Translated, 18.0% (2,116 out of 11,733) "on-campus" students take at least some form of online classes. 64.5% (9,617 out of 14,906) are truly "campus only students" NDSU: 40.2% (5,928 out of 14,747) of total enrollment take at least one online class. 33.2% (4,889 out of 14,474) of the total enrollment is considered on campus but takes at least one online class. Translated, 35.7% (4,889 out of 13,708) "on-campus" students take at least some form of online classes. 59.8% (8,819 out of 14,747) are truly "campus only students" Contrary to the myth in some quarters, UND has a larger fraction of its students who are "campus only students" and thus a smaller fraction taking at least one online class. The question now becomes how many online hours are those "on campus" students taking? You only need to show up on campus once to be considered having an "on campus" presence (NDSU 33.2, UND 14.2). Is it one lab that they have to show up for in person and the rest is online or is it just one online class and they are attending on campus classes the rest of the time? The source really doesn't add clarity on that subject. Its a matter of how many online classes the rest of those categorized as "on-campus but takes at least one online class" are actually taking. Even with what is there, the points still stand: True "campus only students" at UND is 64.5% and is 59.8% at NDSU. A larger fraction of NDSU students (40.2 vs 35.5) take at least one online class <-- that busts the myth about UND being "online students" as a prime source of the myth has a larger fraction NDSU's 5928 taking at least one online class is larger than UND's 5289

Dear Fargo Forum editorial board, I read your pap and claptrap from yesterday, specifically: http://www.inforum.com/opinion/editorials/3741306-forum-editorial-und-logo-process-too-long OK, I agree with your intent -- this process has gone on far too long; however, I can't help but notice the Fargo Fool'em failures. No, Forum editorial board, "Nice try" to you. You (and the Herald's) historic stances have trained UND administration to "bend-over-backward attempt(ing) to satisfy everyone" and as you say (giving credit where due) it "will never happen". The attempt to satisfy everyone put us here in the first place and you folks were ones beating (yup, I'm gonna say it) the war drums. The irony of that statement is only exceeded by its hypocrisy. UND wasn't "politically correct" enough in the eyes of ForumComm in the past; now, when attempting the PC approach of trying to be "diverse" and "inclusive" UND gets ripped on by ForumComm for doing it. You are trying to play both sides. So is UND not PC enough or too PC? Or is there a "PC gauge" that only you folks can see and read? The only statement the Forum gets correct also includes some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've witnessed in quite a while. Does the new AP style guide include "helluva" as a real word for use by real journalistic professionals? No, the pandering UND did last week wasn't to the people who never wanted to be included in a logo change. Those people never wanted change much less being pandered to now. The pandering was to the PC crowd that continues to demand "the PC way" of diversity and inclusiveness even after their great victory. To know who those people are please refer to a mirror. PS - If UND hadn't released the raw, unadulterated lists, you folks would be screaming FOIA and cover-up. Again, you're playing both sides. And it's quite beneath you. PPS - Tom, Brad, and other ForumComm folks that haunt here: I know you folks read here; feel free to pass this along to Matt Von Pinnon.

Even with his volume discount?

Too soon. OK, not really.

Subban has 29 minutes in PIM is what my reference says. That'd be his initial 5 and 10. A 10 he got later on, and two minors -- 5 penalties.

I suspect he wants Everett to "pay up" the way Rimouski Oceanic did to get Crosby back in the day.

Monday, May 11 (please confirm): 71 - Ray77 57 - UND-RedSox fan 57 - The Sicatoka 52 - MafiaMan 46 - fight on sioux 45 - andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! 44 - jimdahl Mafia loses "Johnny Hockey". JimDahl loses Hudler (ouch).

PCM punched out of everywhere, USCHO included.

Stay on topic please.