mksioux

Right, but there's nothing stopping NDSU and SDSU from leaving the Summit if they could get into the MVC. And they would do it in a hearbeat. UND being admitted into the Summit would not diminish NDSU's aspirations to get into the MVC (in fact, it would probably bolster them). I'm not up to speed on the MVC landscape, but this could be a situation where UND is admitted to the Summit but NDSU and SDSU aren't there when UND actually joins. How attractive would the Summit look in that event?

The obvious answer: football. The Summit Conference does nothing for the football program. The GWFC simply cannot attract more teams. The writing is on the wall that the GWFC is not a viable conference in the long term. UND needs to get its football conference affiliation resolved soon. Personally, I like the idea of being in the same conference as the other three Dakota schools. But all things being equal, the Big Sky would much better than the Summit solely due to the fact that it sponsors football. But the Big Sky is apparently not interested in UND, so it's a moot point. The Summit appears to be the only viable conference that is actually interested in UND.

Please. The NCAA sanctions were not sustainable even if UND had stayed in DII. Do you honestly believe UND football not being able to host DII playoff games would be acceptable to anyone? Not being able to host playoff games is a deal breaker at any division.

There are not enough true conservatives left in this country to stop this madness, and certainly not in higher education.

Of course it will be an "inclusive" pannel. That's just a cute way of saying they will include everyone and everything...except common sense. Even the liberal administrators on campus must understand that they need to let this thing settle for a couple years before they even think about coming up with a new nickname. Emotions are way too high to jam some new-age generic nickname down our throats.

Don't let a few random comments get to you. All Sioux fans are a little touchy today. Best to just give us some slack.

I didn't suggest it did. I'll put it differently. It would be easier to swallow dropping the nickname to get into a conference if that conference would solve all of the sports' conference problems. The Summit does nothing for football. For example, if UND were gaining admission into the Big Sky Conference by dropping the nickname, it would still suck, but it would be an easier pill to swallow.

I believe you are way out of your element. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to appear like you're a smart person.

I hear what you're saying, but it would be easier to swallow if this conference solved UND football's problems as well. But it doesn't. UND's two biggest sports, the only sports that the vast majority of fans follow or attend, do not benefit from the Summit conference (except indirectly to the extent it helps stabalize the ahtletic department budget). The ultimate irony in this whole thing will be if the Summit still rejects UND despite dropping its nickname.

I always said that external forces would eventually do in the Sioux nickname. UND was never going to be able to stay insulated from the radical leftist ideology permeating seemingly every part of American life. It was just a matter of time. And now it's happened. Sad day indeed.

Of all the teams that have been mentioned as possibilities, UNO far-and-away makes the most sense for all parties involved. UBC seems like a stretch based on the Bemidji State timetable of 2011-12 being the target year for the additions. Doesn't the WCHA require at least two years of playing an NCAA DI schedule before a school can be admitted? Would they waive that requirement for UBC? The WCHA has not been keen on waiving that requirement in the past. UNO could easily make the switch on the Bemidji State timetable. Not to mention adding a Canadian school right in the middle of fertile recruiting area is bound to be a controversial issue (not saying it would necessarily be a bad thing overall, but it would raise a few eyebrows). Seems like it would be difficult for UBC to get the necessary 8 votes. On the other hand, UNO would easily get 8 votes and would probably get all 10 votes. Personally, of all the options mentioned, I prefer UNO. It's a former NCC rival, a nice city, a close city for road trips, nice facility, and they seem to have a good hockey fan-base. They have all the tools to be a very good hockey program. I will definitely add Omaha to my road-trip calendar if they move to the WCHA.

Minnesota and Wisconsin already play Michigan and Michigan State every year. I imagine a regular Ohio State game could be worked out if the schools thought it was important enough to do so. The Big Ten hockey conference isn't going to materialize unless and until another Big Ten school adds varsity hockey. That could happen or it may never happen. And whether it happens may not depend on whether Minnesota and Wisconsin are happy in the WCHA. But then again, maybe it would.

Right. I think there are probably people within the NMU hockey community that would love to return to the WCHA, but I highly doubt that NMU as an institution would "love" to get back into the WCHA. All signs are pointing to Omaha being the target, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

Interesting tidbit from Kevin Fee's blog: I'm not sure who he's talking to, but I've not heard anywhere that Nothern Michigan would love to get back in the league. I don't doubt that a few influential alumni or boosters would like to see NMU return to the WCHA, but it would seem to me that from a financial standpoint, Northern Michigan is very happy in the CCHA. Right now, I'd think financial considerations would trump any nostalgia from alumni, boosters, etc. And obviously NMU did not apply to the WCHA the first go-around, so they couldn't want back into the WCHA that bad. I like the history that NMU would bring to the league, but I think Omaha is a much better fit for the WCHA. I personally would rather see Omaha as the 12th member than NMU.

Neither of those schools did apply and are not going to apply (left to their own devices). It's going to take the WCHA headhunting to get it done, which is basically what the WCHA just authorized yesterday. I think everyone agrees the likely target is Omaha. Omaha makes a lot more sense than Northern Michigan. It's smart for Omaha to publicly state that they want to stay in the CCHA. The WCHA will have to put together a nice little incentive package to convince them to make the switch.

Brad's blog addressed this. It would be the Final Six. Top two teams get byes, then 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5. Then re-sead for the semi-finals. And the 3rd place game would be eliminated.

I don't know the procedure for kicking a school out of the WCHA, but I would imagine it would be very difficult. It's a pipe-dream to think any school is going to be involuntarily removed from the WCHA.

Another subtle, but very easy improvement would be to make the school color consistent throughout the University. I hate seeing forest green associated with UND (my biggest complaint about this website -- sorry Jim), which happens far too often. Use the same kelly green color throughout all departments and athletic teams on all letterheads, merchandise, marketing materials, etc.

With regard to Illinois, the NCAA did not have an issue with their nickname, just their mascot, which Illinois recently dropped. With regard to Florida State, there are very few Florida Seminoles around (around 500-600 total I heard). Obviously that it is a completely different dynamic. With Utah and Central Michigan, for reasons that are not clear to me, there isn't even close to the level of hostility in those tribes that there is in the leadership in North Dakota's Sioux tribes. In sum, the situations are different. I don't think Florida State, Utah, and Central Michigan have much to worry about in rescinding their approval. If UND does somehow get tribal approval, I think rescission will be a constant threat. There are just too many people that are too invested in seeing the nickname gone that they will stop at nothing to make sure that happens.

The referendum news is a positive development, but I still don't think this arrangement is workable without an agreement between UND and the respective Tribal Councils. First, it is questionable whether the NCAA will even accept a referendum as namesake approval under the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement defines namesake approval a little differently for each tribe. With respect to Spirit Lake, approval must come "by an individual duly authorized to bind or speak on behalf of the Tribe" (emphasis added) which either confirms the December 13, 2000 resolution or is an approval unrelated to the 2000 resolution. It is not clear whether the NCAA would accept a writing from, for example, the chairman of the judicial council certifying the results of a referendum. With respect to Standing Rock, approval shall be adopted by "any means allowed in the Tribe's constitution and shall be in writing." I don't know whether a referendum is allowed in Standing Rock's constitution for situations like this. I presume it does, but I haven't seen that issue addressed anywhere. Second, a referendum could be overturned at any time. It is not a multiple-year guarantee of use. I'm sure the University would strongly prefer long-term assurances to keep using the Sioux nickname. I know that a tribal resolution could be overtturned at any time as well, but the chances of that are much less if the parties were to reach a long-term agreement that would bring in the Tribes financially in some sort of partnership that provides for ongoing financial incentives. Such an arrangement would obviously be a political lightning rod as it could be construed as "us" buying off the tribes. Nevertheless, I believe it's the only way to ensure a viable and substainable long term solution to keep the nickname under the namesake approval exception as set forth by the NCAA. The positive thing about the referendum is that if it passes with a healthy majority, it may bring the tribal council to the table to reach a long-term agreement. That is a pretty big question mark because it appears that there are more ideologues than pragmatists controlling these councils, particularly Standing Rock. Nevertheless, I think that is UND's best hope to keep the nickname.

The settlement agreement provides that if UND is able to obtain namesake approval, and that approval is subsequently withdrawn after November 30, 2010, then UND will have one year to transition to a new nickname and logo, unless the parties mutually agree to a period of time longer than one year. So under your hypothetical, UND would have at least one year to transition to a new name. What Minnesota does with its ban is independent from the settlement with the NCAA. However, I strongly suspect that if UND is able to obtain namesake approval, Minnesota will drop its scheduling ban.

I agree realignment would be good for college hockey in that it would be much better to have three smaller conferences in the west rather than two huge and bloated conferences. But the solution is not to take all the most visible programs and place them in one conference, creating one super-conference and two lesser conferences. The better idea would be to balance the teams out amongst three conferences. But that will not happen because there is no governing body to make it happen. So you're right in that the only realistic way I see a realignment of the conferences is for the Big Ten to separate themselves and form their own conference. But I don't think that type of realignment would be good for college hockey.

I can't even imagine the internal dispute to get into the same sub-conference as Minnesota. Love them or hate them, everyone will want to be in their sub-conference.

UAA and MTU are not going anywhere.

And why is that bad? The NCAA should take a more active role in helping college hockey. Whether it's the NCAA or some other body, there needs to be an overarching college hockey authority. If there had been this kind of leadership, it may not have gotten to the point where the CHA disbanded, forcing the choice of adding to already-bloated conferences or having programs fold. You can't leave the well being of "college hockey" up the individual leagues. Like him or not, Bruce McLeod's primary fiduciary duty is to do what's in the best interests of the WCHA, not college hockey in general. I hate the idea of these five bloated conferences, but it's gotten to the point where there is no other alternative. Therefore, it would be really nice if the NCAA allowed more games, which would make BSU's admittance into the WCHA a shoe-in. But it won't, so there's no sense thinking about the possibility of more games. Likewise, the WCHA adding more league games (without more overall games allowed by the NCAA) is not likely. There are too many schools the value non-conference games too much. Just listen to Dave Hakstol talk about the importance of scheduling quality non-conference games. It's true they didn't work out well for UND this year, but more often than not, the non-conference games help UND in the PWR. Plus, the average fan likes a little variety in scheduling and likes CCHA and eastern teams coming to the Ralph once in a while. And the average fan also likes seeing home games against Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Denver. There is no easy solution to this problem. You add BSU, you take away games against rivals. You don't add BSU, BSU's program dies. Given that choice, you have to add BSU, but it's a lesser-of-two-evils decision IMO. I think it will get worked out one way or another and BSU will be admitted into the WCHA, but the reluctance out there is understandable because this is a decision that is being forced on the WCHA. And on the off-topic thread split, perhaps Minnesota does not travel for non-conference games as often as UND, but I'm sure Don Lucia would rather schedule more home-and-home arrangements with quality non-conference opponents than scheduling a softer home-heavy non-conference schedule. I think that would help Minnesota in the PWR. I've heard that the administration calls the shots on that and requires a certain number of homes games. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. From a Sioux fan's perspective, if Minnesota wants to limit it's competitive advantage, I don't have a problem with that.