Walsh Hall

That really isn't much of a thing... But no, there is just a strong dislike of the expansion of legalized gambling. Couple that with the tribes and charitable gaming (a large and well-funded group) being very against it, this was a huge uphill battle.

Had absolutely nothing to do with it. This was not a close call.

Officially dead. Voted down in the floor vote. Not close.

Do not pass recommendation to SB2376 at the committee level considering the GF casino proposal.

What specifically has happened regarding the potential classification of sovereignty of the land or local/law enforcement not being “allowed on the land.” Being a tax exempt entity is an entirely different concept.

Dakota Magic (Hankinson) and Prairie Knights (Standing Rock) would be toast if a casino like the GF proposal opened in Fargo or Bismarck. They have to have major concerns if the door is opened to a 3rd party tribe opening a casino which would essentially put them out of business.

Much much smaller ultra-right contingent for that stupid one... This issue, and its precedent, has the potential to cause significant financial issues for many entities. I'm curious to see the position of the other tribes on this one. The tribes lobby hard against charitable gaming as it negatively effects their casinos. This may be the same for fear of casinos in Fargo, Bismarck and Minot.

I'm not at all saying that it won't pass, but from being around the capital there will be opposition from formidable groups. The conservative rural legislators may be an issue on this one.

Not much opposition in the first hearing this morning. Charitable gaming will have something to say in addition to the conservative/religious groups. Part of the issue is that if this is approved by the legislature it will be hard to deny other off-reservation projects. I'd expect similar requested for the other larger communities in the State. The legislature doesn't even want the citizens to be able to vote for sports gambling. I won't be overly surprised if this gets voted down.

Here's the SB if anyone is interested. SB 2376 - Overview | North Dakota Legislative Branch

Pardon my ignorance, what is the inevitable that will happen?

Winning 1 out of 10 is a pretty good clip, and a very reasonable goal to maintain at UND. I know I've said this before, and it's not going to change anyone's mind, but we are ahead of the game when it comes to winning. The Law of Averages plays a bit of a role in this. The bad news is, from a historical perspective, we were due for another drought. On the bright side, during this drought, we've still had a lot of secondary success to fall back on. It's not like we've been in the cellar trying to crawl back into the successful ranks of college hockey. The good news with the law of averages plays off of our short-term history, and it's the fact that we should have one coming soon. So, you have the long-term history fighting against our short-term history and it's just a matter of which one plays out. If winning 1 out of every 10 titles is a good, yet reasonable clip (which I feel is very fair for a team like UND), we'd have 10% of all titles. We are still ahead of the game. Because we can't round down, we have 12 more years to win a championship to stay ahead of the curve. We've been very fortunate with our history, but times have changed and so should our expectations a little. On the short-term we are overdue for another championship, but on the long-term, we are doing just fine still. This is why everyone both wins and loses this argument every time. Berry is a fine coach who has put our team in many opportunities to win another title. He can't do it all, sometimes it's on the players, and the other team wants to win just as badly as we do, and we end up losing some games when we shouldn't.

It's going to take a few years to get this sorted out between the new "legal" way and the old "under the table" way. There was clearly a disconnect in this situation, and no written contract. I suspect that in a few years there will be a fairly standard template of contracts between the collectives/boosters and players. I'm curious to see if the $ being raised by collectives stays the same, goes up, or goes down. The ROI for donors has to be next to nothing. The pool of individuals with the ability, and desire, to be pumping in high 6 or 7 figures year after year to pay for top players has to be limited. Additionally, if all the similarly situated programs are doing the same thing it will just end up in a wash.

I remember George and Len Bias being wake up calls for young folks at the time... I believe that GP was slotted on the first line from what I was told.

Is it possible that the CHL lawsuit could also result in players initially going that route (CHL), who would have played NCAA hockey, when they would still have the option to play NCAA hockey if they so desire? I can't see a player that is currently choosing to go the CHL route go the NCAA route because of the change, but I can definitely see the reverse happening. For players that are aging out, or not working out in the CHL it's a different story.

What is the practical state of NIL at this point? Is there any reliable information on what, if anything, the top collegiate recruits are receiving?

What was the tailgating cost, and to what is it being raised?

The max he could receive for his draft year is $925,000 so I believe you are correct.

Having your goalie have a 97% or more save percentage in 3 straight games doesn’t hurt either.

Why do you say that was a lowball contract? The signing bonus can only be 10% of the total contract which indicates this is essentially the max. I believe all ELCs are two-way deals.

I wonder what implications Title IX would have on this. With generally declining enrollment, the financial black hole of most college sports, the NIL mess, and the portal, the next decade will be interesting for sure.

Agreed, and by the same token, players are voluntarily leaving programs who could carve out a pretty good college career and get an education because they believe there is a brighter shinier toy elsewhere.

The deal will be the same either way, the max, just the option of choosing the team. The leverage of getting a max deal now, and probably burning a year, is pretty compelling.

The same folks complaining now did the same for Hak. He apparently couldn’t win the big game and needed to go.

The first 3 were definitely greasy goals, but that’s the way it goes in the one and done NCAA tournament. Denver was out chanced, out shot, and arguable out played in both games and won (2) one goal games due to no bad breaks and a goalie with a 97.2 save percentage. But we clearly are outclassed and miles behind DU…