82SiouxGuy

You are reading things into what I said. Neither had a good year passing. Goska was better, but not up to the level of a good quality DI QB. Goska got better performance out of the team because of his leadership, his running ability and somewhat better passing stats. They had almost exactly the same number of pass attempts, so they split the season fairly equally even though Bradley had more starts. QB and receiver both need to improve this year if the team is going to compete in the Big Sky because both were below average for FCS.

Neither the law nor the NCAA care what is "right". Doing what you think is "right" is going to hurt UND and won't have any affect on the NCAA. What good does that do anyone, other than the selfish people that really only care about their ability to keep using the nickname? It does no good, only damage.

I don't know what you're reading. I said that Bradley didn't show a lot of accuracy or touch on long passes and that they didn't complete nearly enough passes. Receivers did drop a few of his passes early in the season. I said that he had a rough season. And I said he was a work in progress. That means he should show some improvement this year. Most players should show improvement from year to year. I said that Goska did a better job because he was a better leader and could run, which Bradley couldn't do. And that Goska threw better the last few games. But Goska is not a great passer either. He completed 7% more of his passes and 25 yards per game more than Bradley. He also through 2 more interceptions than Bradley on a total of 3 more attempts. And the yards per completion difference was less than 1 (Goska was at 10.9 and Bradley 10.1). Neither had great passing stats. I haven't seen Hanson at all. And I didn't compare Bradley to him. Hanson could be a huge improvement. I expect Bradley to be a better QB this coming year than he was last year. A lot of young players can make a lot of improvement over time. I don't get where you thought I was a huge fan of Bradley's. Just relax and enjoy watching some UND football.

I so glad that 2 Bison fans can agree on what UND should do for offense in a totally different conference from the one in which NDSU and the other Dakota schools compete.

I wonder if Bradley didn't lose some confidence after all of those drops. He might have been putting pressure on himself to make perfect throws, which made it even harder to make good throws. He definitely had a rough season.

The decision was made well before the delegation went to the NCAA. That was more for show than anything else, the NCAA wasn't going to change and the North Dakota delegation had nothing to deal. The NCAA did this to a bunch of schools around the country. UND has pushed things further than anyone else. But it is the NCAA's game and they are making the rules. Even Tom Clifford couldn't have done anything more with the NCAA. It's hard to know whether he would have had any more success with Standing Rock.

He was replaced because they weren't completing enough passes and because the team wasn't moving the ball well. Goska was a better leader, and he added the running dimension. His passing wasn't a whole lot better, although he had a couple of decent games at the end of the season.

Their is a legal settlement between UND and the state of North Dakota, and the NCAA that spells out exactly what counts and what doesn't in how the NCAA will handle the situation. There never was a vote of anyone that counted in deciding the issue. It doesn't matter how the reservations vote, and it doesn't matter how the rest of the state votes. The NCAA has a policy in place and UND is on the wrong side of that policy. UND will be under sanctions until they quit using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. The only thing that might change that would be if Spirit Lake would win their lawsuit. That is a long shot right now, and it would take several years at a minimum before they might have a chance to win. All of that time UND would be suffering under the sanctions. That is not good for UND athletics. That is why it is important that UND retires the nickname and logo as soon as possible.

Two points. First, the settlement spells out exactly how the approval can be obtained. It says nothing about getting a vote or about public approval. For Standing Rock it says that the tribe can decide on approval in any way that is acceptable in the Tribal constitution. Then that approval had to be communicated to the NCAA in writing and signed by someone in Tribal government with the authority to do that. The Standing Rock Tribal Constitution does not have a method to allow the tribe to vote on individual items or laws. They don't have the initiated measure or referendums that North Dakota has. Less than half of the cities and states in the United States have initiated measures and referendums. So at Standing Rock the approval had to come from the Tribal Council, much like approval for something by the United States government would have to come from the US Congress rather than a vote of the people. The second thing is that the deadline for approval passed. They had to give approval by November 30, 2010. That is spelled out in the agreement. The delegation that went to talk to the NCAA last summer specifically asked the question of whether approval would count if Standing Rock changed their position. The NCAA said that they would not recognize that approval since it happened after the deadline. So the answer is that nothing that happens on Standing Rock from this point forward is going to change the NCAAs position, and a vote of the people on Standing Rock never would have made a difference unless the Tribal Council then changed their minds.

Kind of hard to make a decision on how good an arm a QB has from one play like that. He could have short-armed it, lost his grip, been distracted or even hit be a defensive player, etc. I've seen plenty of good QBs bounce short passes. He threw a few long balls that had good distance, but not great touch or accuracy. I think he was a work in progress and may be better than what he showed the first half of last season.

Some places count tickets redeemed as they come in the door and report that number. Some places report the number of tickets sold. It doesn't matter if they are season ticket holders or single game ticket holders, they all count the same.

I am pretty sure UND counts tickets sold. I remember that game, although I would say that the upper deck was more than half full. There were definitely plenty of open seats.

Yes, to many of them. But not to all.

Most venues count tickets sold.

To see UND athletics thrive it will cost the nickname and logo. Haven't you been paying attention?

You don't care about seeing UND athletics in 5 years, you just want to see the Fighting Sioux nickname in 5 years. If the name is kept, the athletic department won't look anything like it does now in 5 years.

Earlier reports said that they had about the same number of signatures on the amendment petition as they did the referral petition when they turned the 1st one in. So they were probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the way there. I haven't heard much since.

Some people put too much stock in the labels of Division I or Division III. RIT is actually a little bigger than UND. They have more than 14,000 undergrads and almost 3,000 graduate students. Union has more than 2,000 students. That's bigger than some of the smaller Division I schools. The division a school plays in is more about how much they want to spend on the athletic program than how big the school is. Some of the Division III schools that move up to DI in hockey or other sports just choose to limit overall spending and spend a bigger percentage on the single sport. It's interesting that some of the Division III schools playing up also have some sizable endowments, most of them bigger than a lot of Division I schools.

And don't forget that UND has multiple options if they want to keep the nickname. They could just accept the sanctions and become a cold Alcorn State. They could leave the NCAA and move to the NAIA. UND would probably be one of the big dogs nationally in the NAIA. Or UND could just refuse to partake in NCAA post-season play. There are entire conferences that choose to not participate in the NCAA football playoffs. Of course no one at UND wants to take one of these options, so retiring the nickname is a better option.

He doesn't care about UND. He only cares about being able to keep the nickname.

Yes, it is. But they have to try to minimize it as much as possible.

DaveK keeps calling the NCAA Nazis, so we are probably there already.

No, I don't capice. You are equating the loss of a nickname with the loss of life or physical trauma. UND and the state of North Dakota agreed to a settlement with the NCAA. UND and the state have choices and at least some control. Victims of abuse and rape often have no control. Your comparison is horrible. Don't worry Teeder, I would never bother to ask that question.

I've seen people start crying when talking about things that have happened to victims of abuse. Or start crying just listening to the stories. People that have been abused have died. Victims lives can be totally destroyed, families torn apart. Fighting Sioux is a nickname. If they are crying over the possibility of losing a sports nickname they are overreacting. Losing a nickname isn't life and death, abuse can sometimes be life and death. I don't know anyone on either side of the Fighting Sioux nickname that are feeling individual humility or shame. And the athletic department itself isn't feeling humility or shame. Victims of abuse often feel both humility and shame. I haven't bothered to ask the people at CVIC about the nickname issue, but I have a pretty good idea about how they would feel on the comparison. People need to get some perspective on this issue.

I'm pretty sure that the people I know working with victims of violence and abuse would disagree with your analogy and would probably be horrified by the comparison.