mksioux

The BIG difference in that comparison is that Ohio State did not have the benefit of a Big Ten hockey conference. Penn State would. The tradition of smaller schools would be no match for the lure of the big names and television exposure of a Big Ten hockey conference team. I agree with Gopherz that it would not take long at all and Penn State would be recruiting better than most schools in the WCHA. The reality is that the Big Ten conference would immediately become THE conference in the west.

I agree that smaller conferences is important to future expansion, but putting all the big name schools in the west into one conference is not the way to do it. I can't imagine Big Ten Hockey being anything other than disastrous for college hockey.

The article says "Crawford Architects announced today that the firm was selected for the study to design the Ice Hockey Arena for Pennsylvania State University." I don't think that means Penn State is for sure building a new ice hockey arena. I think it just means they are going to study the possibility of building a new ice hockey arena. If it was a for sure thing, I'd think there would be a lot more stories about it. As for the Big Ten Network, does a school get its share of the network revenues depending on how many times its teams are televised on the network, or is it shared equally? Would Penn State get a larger piece of the pie by adding ice hockey? If not, I don't see how Penn State and a 6,000 seat arena can add mens and womens varsity hockey without losing money. But if Penn State adds hockey, all of the rumors and speculation flying around about Big Ten hockey for years are going to played out. It will be a very nervous time for the rest of college hockey. I too have serious doubts about Minnesota agreeing to be in the same conference as Bemidji State for the long haul. I just can't envision it.

Finally some good news. I really wish Hawaii would become official.

"to start this thing off" being the operative phrase. I agree that UND would play in Fargo a couple years to start off if there was some assurance that the regular alternating rivalry would ensue thereafter. But NDSU has no interest in a regular game or coming to Grand Forks, so it's not going to happen.

And that's precisely how Taylor gets himself out the so-called 2012 box you claim he put himself in. He offers UND a one-game contract in Fargo knowing UND will not accept it, and then he can say he tried. Sorry Mpls, the reality is that absent UND getting into the MVFC or legislative action, both of which are very unlikely, this football rivalry is not resuming anytime in the foreseeable future.

A referendum is meaningless. Even if both tribes allowed it (which they won't) and it came out in favor of allowing the name to continue, it will not be recognized by the NCAA under the terms of the settlement agreement. And even if it were recognized, it would not be viable consent for UND to operate under. A new referendum could come up a year later. The only way that tribal approval would work is if UND and the tribes reached a long-term written agreement with "incentives" to the tribes. Reaching such an agreement would require serious people putting together a serious proposal. Sadly, that is not happening.

I think you should go have a good cry. You'll feel better afterward.

To the point of the thread, I don't think it was a surprise that this bill got killed a quick death. Football is not a priority worthy of legislative intervention in North Dakota (unlike some other places, particularly in the south). But I do think part of the reason for the margin of defeat was the common consensus among legislators of the inevitability that the rivalry will be resumed in due time and there was no need for legislative intervention. I believe that assumption of inevitabilty will go away in the coming years as it becomes apparent to all that NDSU has no intention of resuming the rivalary, at least not in a meaningful way. It'll be interesting to see if this comes up again in two years when there has been no progress on scheduling. I still don't think it will pass, but without a consensus of inevitability, it will get more serious consideration than it did this time.

Why would the MVFC want to expand beyond 9 teams? That's the perfect number for a football conference. You have an odd number, so there are an equal number of home and road conference games and you get to play every team in your conference every year while leaving room for at least three non-conference games. If they expanded to 11 teams, they would have to start an unbalanced schedule or have only one non-conference game most years (and likely no FCS non-conference games). There's no way they go for that option. The only other scenario is a Big 12 type two divisional set-up where you play half the teams every year and the other half every other year. What would be the advantage for existing members of going to that type of conference? Don't get me wrong, I think UND and USD would make great conference members. Both are name brand schools, have great history, a good fan following, and good facilities. But it's not like UND and USD are such a great catch that the conference would be willing to re-invent itself just for their inclusion. The reality is, the most likely way UND and USD will get into the MVFC is if existing teams leave the conference, but I've heard nothing to indicate that's going to happen anytime soon.

NDSU tried a push at college hockey several years ago and it didnt' work out. So they decided to go DI in all sports instead. I'm sure the vast majority of their fan base is happy with how it turned out and wouldn't trade it for college hockey. Maybe they can someday have both, but that day is not in the foreseeable future as far as I can tell. I look at it more like this is college hockey's fault for creating five bloated conferences rather than six smaller conferences that would have room to promote expansion in the future when/if institutions are ready. But no school wanted to join the CHA to save the conference, so it folded. Contraction is the immediate concern and filling up the five remaining conferences is the logical consequence of failing to save the CHA. College hockey will feel the consequences as it basically assures no expansion for many years, absent some big-bomb.

From all accounts, NDSU lost interest in DI hockey once they made the decision to go DI in all sports. I've seen nothing from anyone to indicate there is even an inkling of interest from NDSU in adding DI hockey. Title IX would make it almost impossible anyway. Having said that, the fact that they've not had DI hockey would not exclude them from consideration. I doubt it would get instant acceptance on Year 1, but it could get some sort of delayed entrance. The league would likely look at geography, facilities, the community, the institutional support, etc. NDSU, if they truly wanted DI hockey, would be as good or better in those areas than anyone else we've talked about applying. One consideration that is not often openly discussed is the "name brand" the school brings to the table. Do you think if, for example, a Big 12 team like Iowa State decided to add DI hockey, that the WCHA wouldn't be interested just because it had never played DI hockey before? Of course not. If a school like Iowa State added Division I hockey right now and applied to the WCHA, they'd pretty much be a shoe-in for the 12th team. I'm not saying NDSU has the same "name brand" as a Big 12 school, but it's better than anyone else that we've been talking about as possible WCHA applicants. The bottom line is that if NDSU was willing to make a commitment to DI hockey and applied to the WCHA right now, they'd get serious consideration. And Mpls...why the hang-up on the Fargodome Arena being the home? The UP Center would be just fine. Off the top of my head, there are three WCHA teams that play off-campus and do just fine (UMD, Mankato, and Colorado College...I think UAA plays off campus as well). But like I said, there's no chance NDSU will apply, so it's a moot point. Still fun to talk about though....

Maybe I'm missing something, but I saw nothing in that article that suggests that NDSU will agree to an annual game. Everything Taylor has said in the past strongly suggests that he will not agree to an annual rotating game, and nothing in that article changes or contradicts that.

I stand corrected then.

I'm by no means an expert in this area, but my understanding is that you need to average 60 scholarships over the previous two seasons to be an FBS counter for bowl eligibility purposes. That means transitioning teams can't be an FBS counter until their third year (2010 for UND). I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.... Obviously Texas Tech is comfortable that they will get bowl eligibility without needing to count their win against UND. Michigan, on the other hand, will probably need every win they can get.

We're not an FBS counter in 09. That may not matter to Texas Tech, but I bet it matters to Michigan.

NAU would never drop football if it meant they get kicked out of the Big Sky unless they had some other equal or better conference lined up. They'd rather lose money on football than leave an established conference and lose boat loads of money being independent or joining a pseudo-conference like the Great West. My guess is there's nothing to this at all.

Minnesota's schedule says South Dakota. September 11, 2010. http://www.gophersports.com/SportSelect.db...p;Q_SEASON=2010

He sounds flakey. I could never take this guy seriously. Sponsors legislation without thinking it through and without doing any research, then he immediately changes his mind once Gene takes him to the woodshed. At least his political opponents will know he's ill-informed and a pushover.

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to post, admin feel free to move it. The good news keeps coming in Vermillion... Minnesota schedules University of South Dakota in football Congratulations Coyotes!

The Institutions may be 200 years old, but none of us are. My point was that a commonly stated reason against this bill is an assumption that the schools will start scheduling each other within a few years on their own, and therefore legislation is unnecessary and too drastic. I disagree with that assumption. That doesn't mean the Legislature ought to get involved. However, I will predict that if, come January 2011, there has been no progress on the scheduling, the bill will come again and there will be more support for it.

GF Herald editorial against the football bill. This is a common argument I've heard against the bill. Maybe I'm just not as optimistic as everyone, but I just don't see it.

Even before the settlement and lawsuit, the NCAA never required UND or any other school to change its nickname/logo/mascot. It admitted from the beginning that it did not have the power to do that. Rather, it maintained that it had right to control and regulate (and effectively create sanctions relating to) its championship events. Since the NCAA never claimed UND was required to drop its nickname, it makes sense that it didn't require UND to drop its nickname in the settlement.

Very good point. A school that could possibly be stricken with such obvious competitive limitations would be less attractive to a potential new conference. Everyone pretty much agrees, with the possible exception of a few die-hard hockey-only fans, that living under the sanctions is not a realistic option. Therefore, realistically, the nickname will be dropped if tribal approval cannot be obtained. I was just pointing out the the settlement doesn't legally require it, and therefore, Douple is technically correct when she says that the nickname issue has not been finally resolved. Where I have to take slight issue with Douple (other than his B.S. scheduling "caution") is that, despite his lip service that he will consider UND's application once the issue is "finally resolved...one way or the other", technically speaking, the only way this issue can be "finally resolved" is by UND dropping the nickname. The reason is because under the settlement agreement, if the tribes give permission UND will placed on the namesake exception to the Policy. But if the tribes later revoke the permission, UND is given a certain amount of time to drop its nickname or be removed from the namesake exception to the Policy. Thus, even if tribal approval were obtained and UND kept its nickname, the issue would still not technically be "finally resolved."

Not a fair analogy. Taylor has said all along that he wants to reserve one game per year for an FBS money game. If the Gophers came calling, Gene would gladly add the Gophers to his schedule as the FBS money game and that would not be inconsistent with his prior comments.