mksioux

I'm not a Title IX expert, but I've heard others opine that there are much cheaper ways to comply with Title IX than womens hockey. Having said that, womens hockey isn't going anywhere at UND. I'd support UND dropping baseball if it added lacrosse in its place. I'd enthusiastically support that move. I would not support UND dropping baseball just to save a few dollars.

All this talk about NDSU adding hockey is silly. Ever since NDSU went Division I, their athletic department has tried to separate itself from UND. There is absolutely no chance NDSU will add hockey - a sport where it would always be second fiddle to UND. If they ever have the resources to make that kind of splash, they would use those resources to move their football team to FBS long before they would add varsity hockey.

Good point. I guess it depends on your perspective. I think it's probable that both sides were being stubborn. My perspective always was to let Notre Dame in and let them keep their TV deal. That would have been better for the conference and certainly better for UND (who also would have gotten to keep their own TV deal). And, you're right, the TV deal changed a year later anyway rendering the whole thing moot. From this outsider's perspective, it seems like the NCHC bungled the whole issue.

Notre Dame has unbelievable facilities, tons of money, great name recognition and visibility. Although their hockey history is nothing special, it's as good as Miami and St. Cloud and better than Omaha and Western Michigan. If they wouldn't have been stubborn about their TV deal, they'd probably be in the NCHC right now. They are far from "nobodys" in the college hockey world.

I had a feeling this might be the case. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Big Ten made ASU an affiliate for hockey and ASU chose the Big Ten over the NCHC. I think a lot of hockey people underestimate how much big high-profile schools want to affiliate with other big high-profile schools these days. Sport specific considerations that seem logical to fans don't always translate to conference realignment decisions. I doubt that hockey tradition, travel budget, or even their chance to consistently make the playoffs, will mean a great deal to to ASU when they are choosing a conference. ASU will care more about affiliating with schools that have a better academic pedigree, schools that will be "big names" to their potential customers, schools the PAC-12 Network will be most interested in, and (above all else) schools that will make them the most money. If the Big Ten wants ASU, I think they will get ASU. The only sticking point might be whether the Big Ten and Pac-12 Networks can work together on hockey coverage. I don't know enough about their specific TV deals to comment on that. I don't think the fact that the Big Ten didn't pursue Notre Dame as an affiliate means much in this situation. The Big Ten-Notre Dame relationship has some history with the Big Ten wanting Notre Dame in all sports, and Notre Dame being not interested in the Big Ten for football. I can see why the Big Ten wouldn't want to reward Notre Dame for turning them down and giving them exactly what they want (non-football affiliate membership). But ASU and the Big Ten have no such history and I think the Big Ten might very well be interested.

I agree. The NCHC shouldn't expand to 10 just for the sake of having an even number. It should be either a Notre Dame-type situation, or maybe a Bowling Green if they invest in hockey. If there isn't a really good option for a 10th, keep it at 9 and wait.

I'd much rather have Bowling Green than Mankato or Tech in the NCHC. For me, it's not about how good the current hockey teams are as much as institutional profile and what a school can bring to the conference in terms of exposure. Bowling Green has 17,000+ students, is a decent research university, and is a full-fledged DI school in the MAC and are peers to Miami and Western Michigan. The only thing holding them back is that they have't made a decision to properly invest in their hockey program. If Bowling Green decides to actually invest in hockey, they would make a good addition to the NCHC. With 3 of the 8 schools in the NCHC already non-DI,I don't think the NCHC should be looking at non-DI schools right now.

I have no idea if ASU will go DI, but if they do, I don't buy that it will start a domino effect on other P5 schools. As I've said after Penn State went DI, P5 or not, any school will need a major benefactor to add DI hockey. And if ASU goes DI, I'm not at all convinced they'll join the NCHC. They'd probably view being independent to be more appealing.

This is the problem I've been saying for years. The committee, and President Kelley, will be so averse to any form of controversy that might come from the new nickname, that it will be impossible for any decent nickname to come out of this process. If you look hard enough (which this committee certainly will), the vast majority of the nickname ideas on this thread could result in some form of controversy. For example, I think Norse, or some variation thereof, is one of the more popular options on this thread and among people I talk with that don't post here. But it will NEVER be chosen because any nickname of a group of people could be considered discriminatory or insensitive (even if that group isn't strongly opposed). As such, we're simply not going to end up with any group of people as a nickname, or anything that anyone on the fringe might find even remotely objectionable.

Regardless of injuries, regardless of the circumstances, having the worst loss since 1926 to a team in your own division and conference is an embarrassment to this once-proud program. As to the redshirt issue, everyone says that Hanson is just not capable. Well, clearly, neither is Studsrud. I don't think Hanson could possibly have done any worse. And even if Hanson would have been worse, SO WHAT? UND loses by 54-0 instead of 54-3? And at least with Hanson, you're not ruining a kid that has a legitimate chance to be a starter someday. I'm baffled why they pulled this kid's shirt and threw him into this mess.

What about the opening it would create in the MAC? I'm sure NDSU would love to get a MAC invitation.

You mean, Pretty sad we're all borrowing money from China to pay for that.

UND had a different athletic director with a different philosophy. With all of Buning's faults, he clearly was on a mission to move UND to Division I as soon as he got here, which included scheduling I-AA teams. Whether Buning and Taylor ever talked about scheduling, I don't know. I doubt Taylor would have been receptive by the time Buning got to UND. His feelings were already hurt.

2016 in Grand Forks, 2017 in Vermillion. I thought the post-game interview was bizarre. I think it's fine to compliment your opponent, but if I were a USD fan, I'd be uncomfortable with how profusely he laid it on. He spent several minutes just gushing about NDSU and how great they are. He even took a completely random shot at NDSU's rival just to, apparently, gain favor with the Fargo media and NDSU fans. Just a very strange interview. I don't follow the USD program that closely anymore, and I have no beef with them, but it was pretty apparent that he looks defeated. Not just that game, but defeated in general. It's like he has come to the realization that he is not going to be able to turn things around. At least it gives something to talk about leading up to the 2016 game, if Glenn is still the coach by then.

The webcast is unwatchable today. I'll be turning it off if it doesn't get better soon

True enough, but they gave up running it in-house and gave the control to someone else. Things were same (minus FTA) for one year and then things went south. Of course, under CBSs rules last year, I don't think it would have mattered much (FCS would not have been able to pick up the games anyway), but it's making a big deal this year. By the way, without really knowing the books and the financial situation of the athletic department, I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad decision to scrap FSSN and go with Midco. I'm speaking purely as a fan who lives outside the region who loathes webcasts. I will watch webcasts when they are free, but will not pay for them. Maybe in 5 years or so, the technology will make webcasts reliable to people like me who don't understand half the jargon you tech nerds talk about on this thread. But they're not there now and I won't pay money for a frustration.

The Fighting Sioux Sports Network was a joint venture between WDAZ, UND, and REA. It was often picked up and simulcasted on Midco Sports Network, but it was not owned by Midco Sports Network. It was also picked up by Fox College Sports, and occasionally ESPNU and the NHL Network. It was also Free To Air and available for free on big satellite dishes. The venture probably didn't make much money. It basically gave away its feed to whoever wanted it. But making money was not the primary point. Expanding exposure to UND sports and making the product available to UND fans all over the country was the point. UND fans that didn't live in ND, SD, or NW MN were incredibly spoiled with FSSN and, for them, it really sucks that UND decided to sell out to Midco Sports Net.

I don't think Idaho going back to the Big Sky was a "sure sign" of anything, except the fact that the Big Sky is obviously more appealing to Idaho than what has become of the WAC. If the Big Sky has contacted the Dakota schools about going FBS, then all three of those schools are awfully good at keeping secrets, as their has been no hint of it in media reports. I just don't buy it. NDSU to the Sun Belt is is infinitely more probable than NDSU going to an FBS Big Sky. And if NDSU goes to the Sun Belt, I think there is a reasonably good chance they will be successful. Maybe they won't be another Boise State making it to the Fiesta Bowl, but they will regularly compete for conference championships and will regularly be in bowl games. And we can poo poo that all we want, but it would be a HUGE deal, in my opinion. The separation would be complete, and possibly permanent. Which is why I think NDSU will take the opportunity, if invited.

I'm not sure I'm following you. You stated in your initial post that there is a 10% chance NDSU gets invited to the Sun Belt as early as this spring. That potential invitation would come long before the Big Sky could or would pursue FBS status. So if the invitation comes, NDSU will make its decision and that decision will have nothing to do with the Big Sky. (Unless you think an FBS decision by the Big Sky is imminent, which I don't think you're saying.)

A lot of people made the same predictions when NDSU moved from DII to DI-AA. I don't know if NDSU would be able to make the transition as well this time, but I wouldn't bet against them.

I'm sure NDSU would love to get in the MAC. But I don't think the MAC is a possibility for any of the schools you mentioned. Being on an island for football is not that big of deal. We're only talking about four conference road games a year. UND has to fly to all of its conference road games. It wouldn't be all that much different with NDSU in the Sun Belt.

Or the next Boise State. Or somewhere in between.

If NDSU goes to the Sun Belt, that would be a huge deal. If NDSU wants to go FBS, the Sun Belt would be a vastly superior option than the Big Sky hypothetical you talk about. The Sun Belt is actually FBS and will be continue to be FBS. The Big Sky is FCS with no guarantee of anything beyond that. Your Big Sky FBS theory is, at best, a long shot. Not only do we not know whether the NCAA would allow it, we don't even know if any of the Big Sky Presidents even want to try to do it. If NDSU wants to go FBS, it makes zero sense to wait around for the Big Sky. I think NDSU's casual fans would be very happy with a Sun Belt schedule and all the extra benefits in non-conference scheduling that would go along with being an FBS school. With as much as you dislike NDSU, I'm not sure why would "love it" if NDSU went to the Sun Belt. If NDSU is able to pull this off, they would leave UND in the dust for another generation.

That's fine. I did not take your post as a 7-4 prediction. I took it to mean that there are only 4 games on the schedule where UND could potentially lose. That is what I was disagreeing with. But if you were just predicting a record, then carry on....

That was me. I think UND should beat PSU next year, but I'm unwilling to chalk that game up as a definite win like you did. You stated "at most" you saw 4 losses, which I interpreted to mean that you think there are only four games on the schedule where UND has a chance of losing. Setting aside the fact that all 11 games are possible losses on any given Saturday, and playing along with your theme, there are at least 6 potential losses on that schedule, not 4. You have not explained why you left Montana State off your list. UND has yet to beat them in the DI era, so certainly next year's game is not a given. Having said all that, that doesn't mean I'm predicting UND to go 5-6 next year, but they will need to win some games against some good teams in order to do better than that. That was my point.