mksioux

No problem.

On the other hand, I've always found that if Judges are inclined to rule in favor of one party on the merits, they tend to bend over backwards to the other party on procedural matters and discovery disputes. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it could be. My take is that this was the easy the decision for the Judge. The Judge really can't issue a blanket ruling on the documents without looking at them. Some are probably entitled to being kept confidential, while some probably aren't. This way, the Judge doesn't have to examine all of them now. UND will get the requested documents in a timely manner, UND can still use whatever documents it wants, and the Judge can revisit the confidentiality status of individual documents when they are being submitted into evidence (he will have to decide whether to lift the confidential status or admit it into evidence under seal). The Judge only has to review and make a decision on the documents that UND intends to use and doesn't need to sift through, think about, or issue a rulling on all the rest.

It certainly FELT like an upset, even if it technically wasn't. And being at both games, I can say that most Gopher fans handled their defeat better than I did after the Ferris State game.

Not that I care, but I'll go on record that wearing the Holy Cross jerseys is unbecoming of Sioux fans. It just cements the perception that we are infatuated with everything Gophers. But to each their own I guess...

In a nutshell, this kind of thinking is what is wrong with contemporary society. I don't even know where to begin with such an ignorant statement. If everyone was obligated to be offended by the same things, there could be no meaningful democracy.

Careful now. I don't think any of us were calling him an idiot when he granted UND's temporary injunction. By all accounts, Judge Jahnke is a very good judge. This ruling is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of the case.

This should not be a referendum of Bemidji State and how well they would fit into the league. This is about expansion in general. I'm dead set against expansion unless the NCAA allows more games to be played, which would in turn allow more league games. I'd hate it if the WCHA turned into a league where you only get home games against a team 3 of every 5 years. It's bad enough as it is. We don't need to make it worse through expansion. The demise of the CHA is a national problem. All of the leagues should get together and do everything possible to ensure that six DI leagues survive. I don't see why having fewer, oversized leagues is good for college hockey at all.

Here's the important part that some on this board were wondering about: Basically, the AG can use these documents in the litigation. It just can't make them public. While it would have been nice to see them for ourselves, this shouldn't affect the litigation too much. The NCAA was not going to back down even if their request had been denied.

It could be that these documents make the Executive Committee and its decision making process look pretty bad. Or it could be that discovery disputes such as these are the things lawyers typically fight about when there is an abundance of litigation money. I wouldn't get too excited about this development quite yet. The big question for me is why the motion papers aren't available on the AG's website.

My understanding is that the CHA has done all it could to try to convince DIII and Club schools to move up to DI and join the CHA, but has not had any success. Title IX is the real culprit here. If a school could add DI mens hockey without having to add a womens program as well, the CHA would have easily been able to find a replacement to keep its auto-bid alive.

I'm not sure when tickets would go on sale, but you should have no trouble getting them. As far as late-night bars, I think the recent hot spot for twenty-somethings has been Gilly's (fka Babylon) in downtown Grand Forks. I'm not sure how many students will be there because I believe that spring break starts that weekend. But it still should be pretty crowded.

I want to see the rivalry renewed and I don't have any problem waiting until 2009 for it to happen. If Taylor would come out and specifically say "2009", I think the discussion on this topic would die (at least from UND's perspective). But he hasn't and so people continue to speculate and debate it.

I mean no disrespect for Chief Illiniwek as I know it has a storied tradition and it is sad for many people to see it go. However, if all UND had to do was drop a mascot to get off the NCAA's sh!tlist, I'm relatively sure UND would have also caved in without litigation. As important as Chief Illiniwek is to UofI, there is an enourmous difference between dropping a mascot and dropping a nickname.

I seriously doubt Minnesota would be in any legal jeopardy for refusing to schedule UND, except possibly for contractual obligations if they back out on the games already scheduled with UND baseball. I can't think of any viable theories, and I've yet to hear any UND official even hint that they are considering legal action against Minnesota. It's possible financial considerations are coming into play here, but the financial benefit for the UofM in scheduling UND is not significant enough to go against the PC wrath that would ensue if this policy were reversed. I predict the policy will remain intact. They just might formalize it more, make findings, etc. so that it appears more defensible from a PR standpoint.

I know this has been discussed, but will UND become playoff eligible in 2011 or 2012?

That's pure speculation on your part. I can only speak for myself, but the money I gave to the NCAA Litigation Fund would not have been given to UND in some other form if the lawsuit hadn't happened.

Got ya. I misunderstood.

Are you calling the NCAA Litigation Fund a waste of money?

Anyone who has ever been to Madison would realize this is not a surprise. I would have been shocked had they allowed scheduling in sports other than hockey. The reality is that the two DI schools Sioux fans would want to see the most, and would be the most willing and able to travel to, will not schedule us. It's not fatal to a DI move, but IMO, it will certainly inhibit fan involvement and excitement.

Nice...make some veiled comment that nobody can even respond to. If you're going to make me go over to GPL to get the details, then why don't you keep your comments there as well? As far as the sieve chant, I'm not thrilled he did it and I personally would not have done it if I were UND's A.D. But on the other hand, I'd rather have an A.D. that has pair than a spineless gutless P.C. coward like Maturi.

Most of the reason for the buzz in the Twin Cities for the Gopher-Bison football game was attributable to excited Bison fans who had never experienced their favorite team playing the Gophers. Sioux-Gopher hockey goes back decades and happens every year so it logically did not create the same kind of buzz. I don't know about ratings, but I highly doubt the Gopher-Bison football game pulled in great numbers. I believe it was only available on local cable. On the other hand, Gopher hockey is FSSN's crown jewel. I've heard that Gopher hockey ratings are consistently much better than Wild or Wolves ratings. True. But it's always misleading to compare football attendance versus hockey/basketball. Football has larger venues and much fewer games. Having said that, there is absoultely no denying that the Gopher-Bison football game was huge for NDSU. Anyone who attended could not in good faith deny the great showing and enthusiasm of the NDSU fans. It was very impressive.

Because Taylor would piss off the vast majority of boosters who want to see UND punished. NDSU will not schedule UND until the Bison faithful return to their homeostasis.

I hate concocted rivalry trophies. My vote is Sitting Bull or nothing. The fact that the article didn't even mention Sitting Bull means it can't be taken seriously.

Bemidji State's one and only victory against UND was in 1970.

PCM, I have no doubt the Executive Committee Subcommittee on Gender and Diversity Issues is seriously considering such a policy, and will convince the Executive Committee to enact something along those lines in the future. The NCAA has big plans to use its Executive Committee as a catalyst for social change. After all, the wheels move too slow if you have to convince a large body to act on every perceived injustice. That is why I believe the NCAA wants to establish precedence to act on social policies without a membership vote. And it's also why the Executive Committee did not seek a membership vote on the nickname policy, not (necessarily) because they didn't have the votes.