82SiouxGuy

The question is, when does the Summit need or want to make a decision on adding schools? That decision isn't up to UND or the SBoHE, it is up to the current members and staff of the Summit League. If they want the schools to start at the same time as USD, which is July of 2011, they are going to add those schools some time before July 1, 2010. They need at least a year for planning, scheduling, advertising, etc. And they need time before that to make a decision on which school or schools to add. UND won't be the only choice (although it is probably the best choice). That is why the timetable has been moved up. If the Summit would accept an assurance that the matter will be decided by Nov 30, 2010 (which they have not accepted so far) that date could be used. Or if the Summit decided to push back an expansion date by 1 year, since USD is basically replacing Centenary to keep the league at 10 members, then the Nov 2010 date is fine. But if they continue to push a deadline to apply some time in the next several months (the date has never been made public if there is an official date), that is going to be a major issue to deal with.

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking today. I obviously said that schools are free to leave the NCAA. You may see a group of schools leave the NCAA in the future if the BCS schools get tired of dealing with smaller schools. A single school, especially a single mid-level type school in this part of the country would not be able to have a viable athletic department as an independent. There aren't other schools to compete against, fans would not be interested in attending meaningless games and students-athletes would not be interested in participating. The proof that it is a fact would probably be that there are no schools currently in that position.

I'm sorry I didn't use logic in this argument, I used facts. You don't seem to be able to recognize facts. The court system is not proactive, it is reactive. We don't have judges watching as laws are made, waiting to look at them and decide whether the law is constitutional or not. People, businesses, organizations and governmental units bring a case to the court system. Evidence and arguments are presented on both sides of the case. Then the judge or jury, depending on the type of case or what is agreed to in the case, will make a ruling. Sometimes that ruling involves interpreting laws that are applicable to that case (this part is done only by judges). Those laws may be brand new or may be centuries old. And they have to interpret the laws as an entire group or body of work. So they can rule a single law is or is not legal based on how it fits with the rest of the laws and the legal system. If you don't want to take a class on American Government, I have another suggestion. Here is a book that might help give you a basic understanding of the topic. We know you can read, although your comprehension level is very questionable at times. I know the book is available at Amazon.com and is probably available in many other places. Come back and talk to us when you have read the entire book.

The courts can only review a law when a case is brought in front of it. There is no mechanism for the courts to review laws as they are passed. Are you sure you even live in the United States?

Irrelevant only to you. You really seem to be pushing the limits of even your limited reality lately. The hard cold fact is that if a school wants to have an athletic department they have 2 choices, become a member of the NAIA or a member of the NCAA. An independent athletic department would not survive. The NAIA is a much less relevant choice and is mainly for smaller schools. That means that the only real choice for large schools is have an athletic department and join the NCAA or not have an athletic department. Just about everything in life is voluntary if you want to push the definition that far. Breathing is voluntary. There are ways to stop breathing if you decide you want to do that. Would you like some links to show how that could work for you?

No, it doesn't.

Less than 24 hours till game time. Don't miss a chance to see some top-flight hockey at the Ralph on Friday night.

And which schools would they compete against as an independent? The NCAA schools wouldn't schedule games against them, at any level. I'm not sure about NAIA schools, they seem to schedule just about anyone so they might. Maybe they could schedule some exhibitions against Canadian colleges. Or local high schools. The UND teams would have absolutely no one to compete against, nothing to win since they wouldn't be part of any conference or organization and very little reason to play. Which means UND would have very little reason to have athletics. That may have been the most foolish post you have made on this forum.

Logos change from time to time. I don't remember anyone having an issue with the facial expression on the logo from the early 80's.

Weather usually isn't a friend to the softball program in this area either. It is often tough scheduling home games until mid-April or later.

Saturday tickets are sold. Friday tickets are still available. Would like $50 each but I am willing to listen to offers. Send me a PM and we can work on a deal.

The 2 variables are if they would keep the payout structure the same, and how much the TV contract increases. The increase would have to be at least 50% if the structure stayed the same, and I don't think that is guaranteed. Advertising dollars are still tight, and things like automobiles are big advertisers on the NCAA tournament, as they are for most sports. At some point the large increases in TV contracts will have to slow down or stop. It will depend on the economy when they negotiate the contract, and how many networks are interested in the tournament. My entire point is that you can't assume that increasing the size of the tournament will automatically increase the payouts for a lower tier conference.

No, I'm pointing out that you often have a very simplistic view of issues and should be more realistic. There is a law of diminishing returns. You can't just keep adding teams and expect that the networks will keep paying more and more. They have a business to run also. It is very possible that if you add 31 teams, team number 96 in that scenario will make less than team number 65 does now. It is possible that team number 64 in a 96 team tournament will earn less than team number 64 does now.

The networks aren't going to pay a certain amount just to make sure that each share goes up, no matter what the NCAA wants. They will decide what they can afford to pay. If any network decides that they can afford enough to pay so that the shares do increase, good for the schools. If the networks don't value those additional games enough then the new contract wouldn't increase enough to allow that.

No ruling expected today in the lawsuit. The judge expects to have a ruling before Christmas.

These tickets are still available. Make me an offer if you are interested.

First, how do you think the network decides what they can afford to pay? They try to predict ratings so they can figure out what to charge for advertising. They don't pay a flat fee per game they are going to broadcast. So the networks will pay a lower fee per game to broadcast the new games added in a 96 team tournament. And the NCAA doesn't just split the fee by the number of schools. The explanation below is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it is a fairly accurate explanation of how the money is disbursed. The tournament 1/2 of the money will be more in a 96 team tournament but there will be a lot more shares taken out of the pot with extra teams and extra wins being rewarded. If you add it up, unless the Summit representatives start winning games in the tournament, which is still doubtful most years, the money for 1 and done will probably be less in a 96 team tournament.

The ratings for more early round games are not going to be as good as for the games from the Sweet Sixteen on. Rights fees for those earlier round games will probably not be as much as they are right now per game. Early round games will be worth less to the networks, and therefore the schools playing in those games will get less.

They may get another slice of the pie, but each slice is going to be smaller. It's possible that the total pie going to a conference like the Summit could be smaller than it is now depending on how the distribution is set up and if a new TV contract would pay that much more or not.

They are available if you are interested. Send me a message by PM and we can work out the details.

Gregoire on Friday and Kristo on Saturday

They just pick up the FSSN feed. The NHL Network is not going to send out crews to college hockey sites because it isn't worth the costs they would incur. And as has been discussed before, HD cameras are very expensive so FSSN will not be going to HD for a while.

It could depend on the criteria. If they look at other factors, like academics or involvement in the community or something else, those things could push someone above the No. 1 college prospect.

I have a pair of tickets available for each night of the Wisconsin series, December 11 & 12. The seats are at the top of Section 306. The tickets are in Grand Forks and I will be at the games so we can make whatever arrangements needed to get the tickets to you. Asking $50 per ticket. PM me if you are interested.

Keep practicing and you'll get there. I drink my Diet Coke straight too, I don't like to mess with a good thing.