mksioux

If only hard core fans went to games, there would be a lot less people at every game. A lot of UND and St Cloud fans will choose to go to the bar, out to dinner, or go home, than stay and watch a game in which they have no rooting interest. That's just a reality, regardless of how good of a fan you consider them to be.

Makes sense from a competitive standpoint (giving the highest seed the biggest advantage), but still a highly surprising decision. The late game will have a lot of empty seats, which is not a good way to showcase your prime time, nationally televised match up. This will also hurt ticket sales, as fewer UND and St. Cloud fans that live in or near the Twin Cities will take time off work to go to an afternoon game than those that would have gone to a night game.

It's true that UND never had the opportunity to compare the Summit to a non-football Big Sky because, well, Big Sky actually has football. If the MVFC had invited UND at the same time as the Summit (like what happened with USD), or if the Big Sky had invited UND for everything except football, then there would have been the comparison you're talking about. But neither happened. And the Big Sky with football is vastly superior for UND than the Summit. There's just no other sane way to look at it. And the same is true now, unless and until the MVFC is willing to accept UND, there is no decision to make. It doesn't matter how good the Summit gets or how big their conference tournaments gets. The Summit is worthless for UND unless it comes with a home for football. Maybe if an eastern team or two leaves the MVFC, then this discussion might become interesting.

I agree. No shame in saying it. The Big Sky is nice, but MVFC/Summit would be better. But without the MVFC, the Summit is a non-starter.

He won it all with Hermantown in 2007. 4 of those 6 straight losses in the championship were to private schools. Tough to knock a small-town coach for losing to private schools from the Cities that recruit. The other two were against really good EGF teams.

If the NCAA had a definite motive to put that clause in the settlement agreement so that UND could not go without a nickname, I believe they'd say that to the committee. What good would it do the NCAA to keep silent if their motive was clear in including that clause in the settlement agreement? It certainly wouldn't help their legal case later on (if it ever came to that). On the other hand, if they had never thought about the issue and didn't have a position on it, then you could be right. But that would mean they weren't thinking about the issue when they drafted the settlement agreement. As to the lawyers, you give them way too much credit. If the NCAA wanted to make sure that no-nickname was not an option, then their lawyers did a terrible job drafting the settlement agreement. A proper drafting of that intent would be to call it out and specifically say that proceeding with no nickname would be a violation of the agreement and would place UND back on the list. Again, this leads me to suspect that neither party contemplated that UND might proceed without a nickname. Lawyers drafting settlement agreements do the best they can to think of every contingency, but they almost never do. Sometimes, they don't think about things that, in hindsight, seem obvious. I see it often. I see it with both big and small firm lawyers. With all that said, the fact that the NCAA might not give the committee an answer is no reason not to ask the question. If the NCAA refuses to answer, then the committee can weigh that and perhaps reasonably conclude that proceeding without a nickname is not worth the legal risk. It would still be better than assuming and speculating without asking.

Yes, I'm speculating. I have no inside information. Also, I'm not the one making grand proclamations about the NCAA's motives behind that specific clause in the settlement agreement. I think there are two reasonable interpretations of that clause - one, it was a drafting oversight, and two, it was intentional and the NCAA will not allow UND to go forward without a nickname. The fact that there is no evidence in the public record that the NCAA has said or done anything over the past three years indicates that maybe it was a drafting oversight and the NCAA is fine with UND proceeding without a nickname. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. Maybe the NCAA is waiting patiently for this to play out, but will not approve of this arrangement indefinitely. All I'm saying is there is no need for the committee to speculate, like numerous posters are doing on this site. They should seek clarification. If the NCAA says "no-nickname" is not acceptable, at least they would have 100% clarity and can blame the NCAA for it not being an option. That will cushion the blow for those that really want no-nickname. If the NCAA says that "no-nickname" is okay, then the committee shouldn't rightfully be allowed to hide behind the settlement agreement when they take "no-nickname" off the table. Make no mistake, I fully believe there will be a new nickname in place at UND at the end of the process. I just think the way they go about getting there is important. I don't think the committee should eliminate "no-nickname" as an option and use the settlement agreement as the scapegoat without fully looking into the matter. I think that will cause unnecessary resentment and may impede closure.

Were you involved in the litigation? I'm not being cute, serious question. If you have some inside knowledge into the NCAA's motive behind that clause, then you're right. If you don't, I think you're just speculating. The way I read it, it could be very intentional by the NCAA, or it could be a drafting oversight. Your reasoning makes sense. But I question it because the NCAA hasn't made a peep about UND not having a nickname the past three years.

I suspect the "new" nickname language was just a drafting oversight. The drafters of the settlement agreement probably didn't think about the possibility of having no nickname. In any event, if the committee were serious about pursuing a no-nickname future, they could reach out to the NCAA for clarification. The NCAA has had no problem with UND using no nickname the past three years, so there's a chance they'd be fine with it. They could simply amend the agreement for clarification. If the NCAA takes the position that new nickname means UND must adopt an entirely new nickname, then I agree the committee wouldn't pursue the no-nickname option. But your position is too dramatic. No-nickname could be a possibility if the committee wants to look into it. I personally don't think the committee will even look into it because they will want to move on to a new nickname.

This is kind of where I'm at. I'd be willing to move on if I thought the end result wouldn't be bad. But picking a college nickname in 2015 is not the same as picking a nickname in the 1800s or early 1900s. Sure, there are some good people on the committee, but the nickname finalists will be dependent upon, and reflective of, the weakest links on the committee. The committee will not present a nickname as a finalist that could possibly be considered controversial to even the smallest faction of stakeholders or even a tiny percentage of the general population. So you'll get something generic (like an unoriginal re-tread animal) or you'll get some new-age conceptual fluff (like Spirit or a weather phenomenon). Nobody will be able to find the new nickname offensive, but few people will really like it either. Given that dynamic, I'd prefer no nickname. But since no nickname apparently isn't an option, I guess I'll just hope I'm wrong.

I'd move Weber State and Portland State into the swing games category. UND had their hands full with Portland State and lost to Weber State both at home last year. UND plays both on the road next year. I know we all think UND will be improved, but until I actually see the improvement on the field, I'll consider those two games swing games. I basically see the season as two games where wins are likely, two games where losses are likely, and a whole bunch where anything could happen.

You may be right from fans' perception, but the fans' perception matters little in the conference affiliation game, which is what this thread is about. To the things that matter to the people who make the decisions on conference affiliation, UND clearly is a "high-end" program in the Big Sky.

You might be right about the politics of it. But I also think that North Dakotans are generally more passive (or practical, if you prefer) than, say, Floridians, and are less likely to want to pick a fight. The Florida governor, AG, and delegation came out guns blazing when the policy was announced. They were practically salivating for a fight. From what I can recall, really, the only person that got really worked up at the time for UND was Kupchella. If Kupchella is leading your fight, you're probably in trouble. It's hard to say what might have happened if North Dakota's politicians reacted with the same ferocity as Florida's politicians. North Dakota's politicians don't carry the same weight as Florida's politicians. But North Dakota's Senators were pretty high ranking at the time and, it seems to me, that they had the power to keep the story in the news if they chose to use their positions to do so. The NCAA wanted to avoid media publicity at the time and exempting Florida State allowed the story to die. Once the NCAA caved to Florida State, the issue was largely dropped from the news cycle and the NCAA was able to have its way with the remaining schools without much media scrutiny.

You are right that if conferences restrict the stipend, some of them are likely to lose some members to FBS. I agree that NDSU would be at the front of that group. But if they allow stipends, they are likely to lose members as well. FCS is not financially healthy right now. If you're a school that is struggling, and now you have to add stipends for your football program (plus the Title IX offsets) just to stay competitive, football might go on the chopping block. I'm certainly not an MVFC expert, but what happens at Indiana State if the conference allows stipends for football? Even a perennial good program like UNI has twice played two FBS games per year to make ends meet. Does UNI really want to add to their scholarship costs right now? In the Big Sky, I've heard Portland State is having serious problems and has considered dropping football. I don't know the politics of the MVFC, or the Big Sky, but I have to believe that there are more FCS schools that have serious reservations about stipends for football than those that want to pursue them. Having said that, the media reports thus far make it sound like it's inevitable at the FCS level, so you'll probably end up being right. All I know is that UND needs to prepare to fully fund stipends for football, whatever that ends up looking like. It will be painful to do so, but it has to be done. If that means cutting sports, then that is what has to be done. Football has to be healthy.

Thanks for the information. My thought on this is that on legislation that is permissive in nature, like this legislation, saying it is permissive on the rest of Division I is not much different than saying it's binding on the rest. The bottom line is that P5 just significantly increased the cap on scholarship costs and the rest of Division I had no say in it. If you're a school of an FCS school that will likely do this (NDSU), I can see why you wouldn't want FCS, or your conference, to forbid you from doing it. You may be right that any FCS or conference restriction is doubtful. But I'm curious why you think that. It seems to me there are far more FCS schools that don't want to increase their scholarship costs than those that do. Why is a vote forbidding it so unlikely? I'm not disputing your opinion really, just curious on why you think it.

That's my point. If stipends were put to a vote to the entire FCS, it would fail for sure. Even if it were put to a vote on a conference-by-conference basis, it would probably fail in every conference. But if each school is left to decide for itself, there will be a select few who will do it. Then the rest of the schools will be forced to do it even if they can't afford it, or face a significant competitive disadvantage.

Someone who pays closer attention to this can maybe explain this to me. Media stories say that the P5 conferences voted for stipends. None of the stories mention any non-P5 school getting a vote. Do the P5 schools get the exclusive vote on this issue? Does the P5 vote bind non-P5 schools and conferences? What's stopping FCS schools as a whole from voting to ban it (for FCS football)? Why is left up to each individual FCS school to decide for itself whether to do this? I think most people will agree that FCS, generally, cannot afford stipends. However, all it takes is one school to start the dominoes falling and the arms race will be on. It's a virtual certainty that at least one FCS school will start this, forcing the hand of all the rest.

I am NOT one of those posters who complains about UND hockey overshadowing other sports, and I generally believe there is no reason UND can't be good at both football and hockey. I am a fan of both UND football and hockey. But I fear this stipend thing is a situation where UND's focus on hockey will hurt the football program. The stipends to the mens programs is not the problem -the huge problem is the offset for Title IX. UND will have to offset the mens stipends for hockey with a proportional number of stipends for women. That will be hard enough in and of itself. It will be really difficult for UND to pay for additional womens stipends to offset stipends for the football program. The schools UND competes against in football don't have that problem. Some of those schools can probably afford to start out with 10-20 football stipends to get a competitive advantage, and then the arms race begins. Can UND afford to keep up when it's starting from behind?

I suspect the State will have no problem approving UND for FBS if UND has the cash in hand to do it. I have serious doubts that they'd allow a transfer of Memorial Stadium, or even signing a long-term lease to REA, so that REA can bond the project. Allowing indirect bonding of public buildings on campus through the use of a non-profit would open up a can of worms that would essentially render the policy to pay cash for building projects meaningless. Other than the Ralph/Betty, has UND, or any other campus, used that structure to build or improve a campus facility? The Bronson property was a very unique situation where a benefactor was coming forward with $100 million. I continue to believe that if there is no major benefactor coming forward to pay for Memorial, I don't see a renovation happening any time soon. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. It's fun to think about because I'd like to see football go back to (a renovated) Memorial someday.

It's one thing for the State to approve the transfer of the Bronson property to REA when a benefactor is willing to donate $100 million to build a new hockey arena. It's quite another for the State to approve of the transfer of Memorial Stadium to a non-profit entity so that the University can indirectly take on debt to renovate it. Also, the politics are different for hockey than football. NDSU doesn't have hockey, so approving the transfer of the Bronson property to REA to build a hockey arena was less threatening than it will be to approve the transfer of Memorial to renovate UND's football stadium. I have to believe the NDSU-leaning constituency at the State would not be in favor of such a thing.

Is there any appetite on the REA board to do such a thing? Would UND want to enter into a long-term lease with REA on Memorial, effectively losing control of it? What sort of approvals from the State would be required to accomplish it?

In a follow-up relating to the Caleb Warner story, the North Dakota legislature is debating a bill that would allow targets of disciplinary proceedings (except those involving academic dishonesty) on North Dakota's campuses the right to a lawyer and the lawyer would have the right to "fully participate" in the process. And for serious punishment, the student would have the right to have a district court review the university's decision. This seems like a very good idea to me. The procedure used in Caleb Warner's case at UND was a joke. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/3651448-legislators-introduce-bill-would-give-students-right-attorney-during NDSU's general counsel provided comments against the legislation and I don't think he comes across looking good. Let me get this straight, NDSU's general counsel wants to deny students accused of very serious crimes like sexual assault the right to a lawyer because it might be "educational" for them to go through a kangaroo court without a lawyer? And because some students might not be able to afford a lawyer, he wants to make sure nobody can have one. While this kind of thinking seems absurd to most reasonable people, unfortunately, it's in-line with the general thinking in higher education these days.

It may have been talked about several times, but I don't remember the specifics of how it would work. How does REA issue bonds to pay for the renovation and expansion of a building it doesn't own on property it doesn't own? I'm certainly not a bonding expert, so the explanation is not clear to me.

Other than getting the NCAA's consent, the biggest obstacle to your plan is how UND is going to come up with the money to remodel Memorial. After years of trying, UND hasn't even been able to raise the funds to start Phase II of the IPF. Unless there is an Engelstad-like benefactor out there, I don't see it happening any time in the foreseeable future.

The story stated that even the President of the University of Minnesota doesn't have a driver or personal a personal security guard. I don't claim to be an expert on the day-to-day activities of University presidents, but if the UofM President doesn't need a driver/personal security guard, I can't think of a reason NDSU's president needs one. If there are certain events where it makes sense for the President to have a driver, it would be much cheaper to deal with those situations on a case-by-case basis rather than employing a full-time person.