82SiouxGuy

Just write something random on a piece of cardboard and attach a stick to it.

And the WBI website says that the higher seed gets to host if they want this year. If they don't want to host, the lower seed can host. UND is a number 8 seed playing a number 1. This year all hosts are the higher seed except one. Don't know anything about hosting the Great West. UND bids on hosting a lot of tournaments, but not all. I don't know why they may not have bid on this one.

From the web site. UND is an 8 seed so they never got a chance to host.

They were in Chicago. Why bother flying back to Grand Forks and then bus down to Des Moines? They usually like to travel the day before the game, and it's Spring Break Week anyway.

Originally the name was because it was the final five teams, although it was also the final five games. The name was very popular and good branding, so when they changed the format they wanted to keep the name. They now call it the Final Five because of the final five games in WCHA play for the year.

I didn't know it was even possible, but you are making less sense than usual lately.

It still is a rush job for the print industry. That's why things can slip through. Especially when there is a special situation like this year when UND is on sanctions.

The NCAA may not create the program themselves. That could very well be subbed out. And the program is put together in a hurry. The teams were announced on Sunday evening. I'm sure that they were working on the program and pulling things together for several teams. It isn't surprising that something could slip through the cracks.

They probably called up Cuma because he was a high draft choice that has had injury problems in past years so they want to see what he can do in the bigs. They have a lot more time and money tied up in him than in Chay so they need to see if he has a chance.

It was from a high school newspaper. I didn't bother to go and read the story or comment on it until you jumped in to stick up for NDSU. Then you had to show your bias about full time students and your disregard for online students. God forbid anyone even make a joke about NDSU without you or one of your buddies jumping in "to protect NDSU". And of course UND doesn't have anyone involved in agriculture. They only have alumni like this: Cargill doesn't have anything to do with agriculture, does it?

Actually, most people I know from UND joke about it and use it to get under the skin of NDSU backers. They don't take it seriously.

By the way, how much did the Founding Fathers trust the will of the people? They set up the Electoral College to elect the President. And they had US Senators elected by the state legislatures rather than by the people (this lasted more than 100 years). The House of Representatives was the only body set up to even be elected by the people.

Representatives in a representative democracy are supposed to make decisions based on the best interests of the people they represent, not on the will of the people. As Edmund Burke once said, " Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." We should be paying our representatives for their judgement and expertise, not just to do what people want. If we wanted to make decisions based on the will of the people we could just have everyone vote on everything. Or we could run constant polls and tell our representative to vote on the basis of polls. Neither would be a good way to run a government. As has been pointed out before, the majority doesn't always know what is best. I'm pretty sure that segregation would have been in place a lot longer, at least in Southern states, if the majority made the decision. Civil Rights wouldn't have been passed in 1964. Just a couple of good examples. Amendments are ways to supplement the every day work of the regular government. They should only be used for very important topics, the Constitution should be the framework of the government and should not be used for minor details. There is a very good reason why most amendments take a super majority for approval. If a super majority is willing to vote for a law, it has a better chance of being a good idea. But even amendments can be mistakes. Have you heard of Prohibition? Turned out to be a bad idea. It's too bad that you're so cynical about our government. We have a system in place for people to replace elected officials that don't meet their expectations. The system isn't perfect, it's far from it. We also have a problem attracting top quality candidates right now, for a lot of reasons. That doesn't mean the system is bad. It just needs to be improved. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

The states, cities, townships, and pretty much every governmental unit has the same type of representative style of government. Some places, like North Dakota, have added the initiative and referendum. It can be a good tool, but it gets overused because some special interest group gets some wild idea. And less than half of the states use the initiative and referendum.

The sanctions are that big a deal. You just can't comprehend how they will effect UND, and you have already said that you don't care if they hurt UND. The majority shouldn't have a say in this, just like the majority doesn't get involved in every little decision made by the government. There is a reason that the country was set up as a representative democracy instead of a basic democracy. We pay people pretty well to make tough decisions. They are the ones that should be making this decision because they have much better information than the average person who will often make a decision based on emotion rather than taking the time to get all the information.

Online courses that lead to degrees are more than just extension work. UND offers multiple degrees that can be completed with limited time on campus. Many of the classes do require some time on campus to complete labs or work with teachers. Some do not require time on campus at all. UND has become a leader in the nation for online programming. These students are paying for a quality education and they are receiving a quality education. More and more students will look at this option for their education. Mr. Hollister seemed to make 2 related points. One is that NDSU was bigger. That can be subjective because it depends on what his definition of "bigger" is. Total students? Full time students? Campus size? Number of teachers? Normally a generic claim of being bigger in this type of discussion would mean total number of students. You take it as full time students because you feel they are more important. Either way it is a stupid argument because it isn't well defined, and neither definition is really more important on its own. More important are things like the direction that the school is headed, what their goals actually are and if the school is reaching its goals. His other argument was that more students means more opportunity. That doesn't hold any water. Opportunity at a school comes from options available. That isn't directly dependent on number of students. From the numbers you provided it looks like NDSU provides more options for bachelor degrees and research related PhDs while UND has more options for masters and professional degrees. UND wins the total degrees. But none of that matters if the school doesn't have the options that the student wants or needs. Both schools provide a great deal of opportunity for students. It just depends on which direction is best for the student.

Why is it that we are supposed to respect the wishes of the people that agree with you, but you don't have to respect the official viewpoint of a Tribal Government at Standing Rock. Their government worked the way a representative democracy is supposed to work. Residents elect officials to go and make decisions based on what they think is best for the group. The same way that the US government works. That viewpoint deserves some respect also.

It's good to see you admit that Spirit Lake is not a lock to win their lawsuit. If the case is completed in 2 or 3 years they can still bring back the name, a new name would not have been put in place. Shaft has publicly said that if Spirit Lake wins the lawsuit and the NCAA policy disappears he would like to bring back the name, but they can't publicly promise that because he can't predict what else might happen between now and then. Who could have predicted all of the strange things that have happened with this issue in just the last year, much less 3 years. Also, several members of the SBoHE will change over time, so I'm sure that no one would promise something that is impossible to predict since we don't know for sure who will even be on the board at that time.

You do realize what happened at Custer's Last Stand? No one on Custer's side survived. That's what happened in most last stands. Another example is the Alamo. No one survived. That is not a good result for a Fighting Sioux last stand, and that is what many of us want to prevent. But that is what would probably happen with a Fighting Sioux last stand, the athletic department as we know it may not survive. The time for the effort you want was several years ago. That should have happened before the settlement. Spirit Lake wasn't interested at that time. Now the NCAA isn't interested. Standing Rock never was interested. There is ZERO chance of a combined effort by all parties to reach a compromise. It's a pipe dream, which is different than a pipe ceremony.

1) More and more education is going online. That is becoming a very important source of education for many people that can't or don't want to stop their lives and go to another town for 4 or 5 years. Or for those that can't afford to do that. 2) Students are still students whether they are on campus or online. There are advantages to having those students on campus, but there are also advantages to giving people options and being able to serve their needs online. Being flexible to serve students in ways that work for the students will be more and more important in future years. 3) The trend is going toward more part-time students because of cost. This is true across the country. 4) Statistics can help you prove almost anything you want if you interpret them the way you want. There ARE different ways to measure things, what is more important is deciding what you want to measure and what is actually most relevant to the situation. 5) It doesn't make much difference if NDSU is bigger by a few hundred students or if UND is bigger by a few hundred students. They are the 2 major schools in the state. 6) Number of students is not directly related to the potential opportunities available to those students. Fixating on the number of full time students or full time students on campus may prevent your favorite school from providing the best educational opportunities for the students.

Good luck getting a quality answer.

No Big Sky probably means no football within 3-5 years. Basketball could probably hang on, but would be marginalized completely. So would all of the minor sports, at least the ones that survive. UND would probably cut down to the minimum number of teams needed to remain in Division I. You keep talking about hope, but never provide any options that could actually happen. And you want to risk everything on this empty hope. That is truly a waste.

None of the North Dakota delegation is going to get involved. Dalrymple has shown how much interest he has in the matter. Carlson and his cronies don't care about what happens to UND, they are just using the issue to further their own cause.

I think he'll lobby the NDSC to tell the NCAA how they should run their organization.

I just find it fascinating that a grown man could be so fixated on a sports nickname and logo, and be so blinded to how things really happen.