82SiouxGuy

I will second that recommendation. I only saw the original on video and thought it was great. I was at the Fritz on Thursday to see this one live. This one was better. This version brought back a lot of memories, some good and some not so good. The kids did a great job. If you have any interest in the Flood of 1997 and are around Grand Forks on Friday, I would recommend attending the show.

And the Bison Spring game must be the Thursday before.

Maybe he just dropped the class.

I wouldn't assume that all of them have seen or heard numbers. Because of the CBA most of them have a rough idea of what kind of offer they would receive. They may have gotten exact numbers, they may have talked in general terms or they may have just said that they weren't interested without waiting to hear numbers. My guess is that many of the discussions have been about whether the interest is there for both sides and whether both sides believe the player is ready.

If I Recall Correctly

There is no guarantee that the bolded statement is true. No one knows how they would react when being shot at, even if they have gone through gun safety training. You would need much greater training, similar to law enforcement or the armed forces, to really know how to handle the situation. It is possible that a person making a move for a weapon would have been one of the first people shot. Or someone that has a weapon but is not well versed in handling it could do more damage of their own. Someone with a concealed weapon could have changed the situation but we will never know how. So far I have not heard a good solution to this situation.

According to the information I could find on the OPE Institution Security Statistics web site, which is not easy to decipher, UND Athletics had approximately $7.7 million in revenues in the school year 2000-2001. I believe that is the year before the Ralph and the Alerus Center opened. Last year they had revenues of approximately $10.4 million. One of the years in between, I believe it was 2003-2004, revenues peaked over $12 million. Revenues exceeded expenses for every year I looked at. I did not have time to try to weed through all of the reports, but it looks like the budgets since the new facilities were introduced are about 25-30% higher than before they opened. Other than the 1 peak year, they have been fairly consistent with a little growth. So the new buildings did help the Athletic Department grow. My guess is that any budget problems the last couple of years were because expenses, like travel expenses, have grown faster than planned and faster than revenues. The problems were in place when Buning came into the job. They seem to have that under control this year. And they probably have a decent handle on that problem if they are planning 5% inflation increases in the coming years. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more money that the Department can get out of both buildings. I am sure that they are looking at that for the move up. Here is the web site if you would like to search the numbers.

The place on the highway was the River Bend. It just closed a few years ago. I'm not sure about the other place downtown, unless you're talking about the Gopher.

Didn't Ohio State play in NC$$ basketball championship game? And what other sport shares a building with the Ohio State basketball team? Doesn't UND need more facilities than Ohio State.

I doubt that it can be rolled up because of the way it is installed. This is the web site for field turf.

Tom Buning was on the radio a little while ago talking about the report. He said that the budget numbers discussed would put UND in the top 2 or 3 for any conference that they may get involved with, including Mid-Con, Big Sky or several others. It also includes inflation increases for the current budget. The $1 or $2 million discussed before was new spending, it did not include inflation. So, my guess is that the actual budget in 5 years will be somewhere in the middle. That would make it more than the initial estimates but less than this report.

I know very little about this specific search, mainly what I have read here and the Herald. From past experience in a non-athletic situation, the search committee usually sets up a list of criteria before the search is even publicly announced. This criteria depends on the rules and regulations that the University sets up for employees and what the committee believes is most important for the position. The candidates selected for interviews are the ones that best fit this criteria. It would not be a good practice to set up criteria and then not follow it, even though some good candidates can be eliminated. I don't know why the 3 candidates were selected for interviews and others like Johnson, Koberinski and Stafford were not. My guess is that they did not match the criteria as well as the 3 that were brought in. The process can work very well if done properly. And mistakes can be made anytime someone is hired. We won't know if this was a good hire or a mistake until they get a chance to do their job for a while. Then we will know if this hire is closer to Bud Grant or Les Steckel.

Do you think that UCLA should have hired John Wooden? Or Indiana should have hired Bobby Knight? Or Kentucky should have hired Adolph Rupp? How about Texas and Darrell Royal, Notre Dame and Ara Parseghian, Oklahoma and Bud Wilkinson? All of those are legendary coaches in their sports and I could find plenty more if I tried. Of that list, the only one that had any connection with the school they served so well was Bud Wilkinson. He had 1 year as an assistant coach before being named Head Coach and Athletic Director (at age 30). Some of these coaches even came from huge rivals. Darrell Royal played at Oklahoma and Bobby Knight played for Ohio State. My point is the same as I stated in another thread. Hire the best possible candidate. If 2 candidates are close or tied, hire the one with local connections. Don't make that local connection the primary hiring reason.

They are supposed to announce the plans for financing the move to DI later today. From everything I have heard, the money being donated to finance the lawsuit is separate from any money being donated for the regular athletic program or its move to DI. Besides, it would be hard to turn back on the move up since the NCC will no longer exist. We will find out today, but I would be very surprised if the move were delayed or if they slowed funding for football.

The General Manager was on KNOX radio in Grand Forks on Monday morning and said that they would open on May 1. He also said that they would probably open in stages over the first part of May, for instance one of the restaurants probably wouldn't open until closer to the middle of the month.

How about this for a coincidence, James Patrick 17-60-77. Of course, scoring has gone down since either Patrick or Roche were at UND. And these were probably the 2 best offensive defensemen I remember at UND, at least in the past 30 years.

Here is a great article about the game and the rivalry that has developed between UND and BC. It compared the game to Duke-Carolina and possibly even Yankees-Red Sox. That's high praise in the sports world. Edit: The Sioux fans get a good mention. Says that even before the 1st game they made their presence felt with "the home of the Sioux" at the end of the National Anthem.

Mrs. Partridge

I'm pretty sure that is Mrs. Brady.

I wonder if he was drinking Keystone.

According to this source. The article is talking about the actual mechanics of throwing a baseball that fast. Earlier pitchers were timed using a variety of methods including early radar equipment and the motorcycle test, where a motorcycle would drive by at a certain speed and the pitcher would throw the ball. They would estimate the velocity by whether it was in front of or behind the motorcycle. But even now we don't have a definitive answer because we have companies that measure the speed in 2 different ways as explained here.

Don't forget Women's basketball plays at Elite Eight, while wearing Sioux jerseys.

It has only been in recent years that NHL executives have even given college players strong considerations in the draft. Before that they automatically thought that college players were inferior to players coming out of Canada, and then Europe. So a lot of college players were probably drafted lower than they should have been. Also, how many teams were added to the NHL in the past 15 years. That has added a lot of jobs that were not available to players coming out of college in the 60's, 70's or 80's. There are probably more top end players in college now because it is more acceptable for top players to go from college to the NHL. But the top end players of all eras would still be able to play at a high level. Your example of the goalie fits with my point about training. They train differently and teach differently, goalies, forwards and defensemen. It doesn't mean that current players automatically have any more talent. Hrkac would not have 116 points in current college hockey. Scoring is down all over college hockey because of the styles that are being played. But I bet that he would be one of the leading scorers if we could bring that 86-87 player to play in the 06-07 WCHA. Especially if he had a year or 2 working with the current training staff. And you are wrong about Babe not facing anyone throwing 100 miles an hour. There have been guys that can throw that fast in all eras. Plus, they could legally throw the spit ball when Babe played, current players don't have to face spit ballers on a regular basis. But it is very difficult to compare the eras of baseball because of 2 major factors, segregation and expansion. Babe only played against white players. But then again, there are approximately twice as many major league baseball teams now as in Babe's era. So there are a lot of players in the majors now that would have been lucky to even see AAA baseball if we had fewer teams. Does that balance out some of the differences? We will never know because it is impossible to accurately compare players or teams from different eras. But superstars, like Babe Ruth, would be successful in any era.

I think it's great when we can hire people from UND or North Dakota. But that can't be the only criteria. To compete nationally and globally we need to hire the best people possible. If that person has North Dakota connections that is even better. If 2 candidates are close, then picking the one with North Dakota connections is great because it probably is an advantage for them. If the outside candidate is better, then hire them because it improves the product and the University. And some outside blood on occasion is good for the organization, it prevents the problems that inbreeding can bring. I don't know anything about most of the candidates for the coaching position. I do know about Steve Johnson's qualifications, and he should be a strong candidate. His weakness is not having experience with the women's game. Everything I know about the candidates that have been brought in is what I have read from links here and in the Herald. They seem to have some great qualifications also and are from the women's game. I think we need to trust the people in place to do the job they are given. Remember, we have had some great people come in from the outside to do a good job for UND also.

I agree with you about comparing athletes of different eras. Another thing to think about is how much better past athletes would have been if they had todays high tech training and tools. Would Hrkac and the other guys been even faster and stronger if they had todays training programs? How many points would Hrkac have scored with those advantages? How many home runs would Babe Ruth have hit if he kept in good physical shape through strength and flexibility training? He may have hit over 900 home runs in his career. The only fair way to compare athletes of different eras is to look at how they compared to others from their own era.