gjw007

I can't get in as well. I keep getting back to the registration and then when I go the mobile URL, it tells me no games scheduled

I am hoping that NDSU wins. It has nothing to do with NDSU but more that it sets a bar, a level, for UND to achieve. UND has won more games against NDSU than NDSU has against UND but it has performed better on the national stage. NDSU and UND are nature rivals and what one does, the other hopes to outdo. This can be seen in women's basketball and to a lessor extent, in football (NDSU won championships, UND won championships). So if NDSU does win, that is a goal for UND as well (it should be a goal even if NDSU doesn't win but it adds extra incentive)

Didn't Minnesota play Winona a few years back in men's basketball.; Is NDSU too good now for these type of games?

There is no way that the NCHC can compete with the Big Ten brand but neither can the CCHA, WCHA, Hockey East, or any other hockey league. Since SCSU doesn't expand the base of the NCHC, what benefit does it bring to the NCHC?

LakesBison University or the University of Minnesota. I'll root for the University of Minnesota (but I wouldn't feel bad if LakesBison University won either as I like cheering for the little guy and no matter what the fans of LakesBison University say, they are little guys).

Agreed.

I think I would reverse this as Notre Dame will probably be in the Big Ten someday with all the moves in conferences that are going on it might be sooner rather than later. It can only play the Independent so long, Having WMU and BGSU brings the D1 schools together (it also keeps the DII schools together with all that implies).. I think Notre Dame in the long term is more of a gamble than is BGSU or WMU as these schools would probably remain in the conference but if Notre Dame leaves, well, who knows what scenarios.

Wasn't SCSU part of that block not wanting leadership change?

This reminds me too much of the Pat Behrns era. Given that this is a young team and the goal had always been to be prepared for when the team becomes playoff eligible, the judgement will come in the next couple years.

Agreed. SCSU made its bed, it needs to learn to live with it. If it becomes a 6 former WCHA teams plus Miami, then why even split from the WCHA?

I watched the first part of the Idaho game as well. Their first drive was great but they fell apart after BG scored especially after BG's second touchdown. Still, from the description of the UND-Drake game, I would go with Idaho over UND especially if UND continues to be penalty happy and it continues with the plain Jane offense (do they know how to throw the ball down field?). Idaho may not be the same team they were last year but is UND still the same team (different players, same play calling, same results)? I think we are all looking for improvement from UND and this will be answered by the end of the season.

The alarmist crowd will take the current conditions and fit it to their agenda. They have been discredited before but that hasn't stopped them. Remember, 30 years ago it was global cooling by these people. Having said that, we should be careful about spewing garbage into the air and into the water.

Not quite. Lakes presents a negative image for NDSU, UND, the state of North Dakota, and the state of Minnesota in that order. JBB is not far behind.

There was a hearty discussion by those who favor the Sioux name but opposed the bill but many on this board did support it. I agree, its time to move on.

Actually, I think they have or else they wouldn't want the law retracted. It might have been different if the law was passed 5 years ago but as a last gasp measure, well, it was bound to cause problems with the result of the lawsuit. Maybe this will be a blessing in disguise when all is said and done in that it finally starts the endgame. Ultimately, everybody lost in the nickname issue in my opinion. I have to wonder if this was a result of the NCAA putting pressure on the Big Sky.

I don't read the herald much and almost never the Forum let alone the comments. Living near DC, I do read the Washington Post. The Herald or the Forum have nothing on the comments generated by people here. Many of them are just pathetic. While I agree that regulations can be sometimes crazy. Here is the fundamental question; Is there a the right for people to post unsubstantiated pieces on somebody or company that can harm them with the expectation that you will not be liable for the harm that you cause? That is just wrong As far as what you wear or eat, they already regulate it. Try to get the old coconut oil in theaters. Clothing are regulated in the sense that companies are forced to watch the welfare of workers in foreign countries don't abuse such activities as child labor. It also applies to electronics such as the number of deaths at the plant where Apple has the Ipad made. The list is extensive all in the guise of protection.

What freedoms are those? The right to make up charges without being able to provide proof? Many times officials acting in their official positions are protected from those decisions even when others don't like them such as the current lawsuit against former AG Ashcroft. A poster whose doesn't like things can make up comments without proof. Should these people be protected? It has been established for a long time that certain speech is not protected. For example, screaming fire in a theater when there is no fire just to create a panic is not protected speech although I had read recently that some liberal groups are challenging this that it should be protected speech. Unless there is more information, it would appear the NJ court made the right decision. Consider this, what if somebody charged another person as a rapist or any other crime on a message board. If there is no proof, then this attack on the individual should not be allowed to continue. You should have the freedom from false attacks.

I think the Minnesota team that you lost to 10-9 (and should have won) was a better team than the Central Michigan that you beat. NDSU had a strong team that year. It would have been interesting if they had been able to make the playoffs to see how far they could have went.

The question is the legality of the law? Actually, the NCAA is only re-imposing the initial sanctions which were that they can't host a post season event or have the logos on their jersey's when in the post season. The question of legality is whether the state can create a law to overcome the ruling of a lawsuit where the state made an agreement with the NCAA. I don't think it will but the NCAA would have a terrible public image issue as well. UND may be forced by the law to keep the name but the lawsuit agreement with the NCAA will probably also hold where the post season restrictions will apply. The law was 5 years late.

What do you base this on? Minnesota and Wisconsin (as well as Michigan and Michigan State) have highly successful hockey teams and are a major draw which many teams will fall backwards over to play, especially if they can get them to play at their opponents rink. UND is a highly respected team in hockey and they do generate a following but given the choice between playing UND or Minnesota/Wisconsin, I think most teams would choose the Big Ten schools. Consider this, although it is not the same, NDSU will play Minnesota but not UND because they perceive it as a better game for them for a couple reasons starting with money and the hype that it provides to its program. I think it hurts UND more than Minnesota/Wisconsin to not play each other. Maybe not immediately but over time. It could be argued that Michigan (and to a lessor extent, Michigan State) had strong rivalries with UND when they were in the WCHA and look at the lack of a rivalry with those teams now.

They will play. If I remember correctly, Wisconsin has already played teams with Indian names in the playoffs.

(1) By your logic, only one tribe then made the right decision which was to go with the leadership position; the other, having a vote, is wrong. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has reversed itself several times. One that comes to mind is a late 1800's ruling that justified separate but equal treatment with regards to minorities only to state 50 years or so later that this is inherently unequal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court doesn't give the instructions for remedies, it instructs lower courts to review the case and come up with remedies that are constitutional. From my understanding, the Supreme Court doesn't overthrow lower court rulings often but when they do, it makes news. (2)/(3) The law pertains to UND but since the NCAA has business in the state, it is affected by the law. That is reality, anything else is ignoring the law. The question still remains whether the law is enforceable and whether it preempts the previous agreement between the board of higher education and the NCAA. My guess would be that the previous agreement between the Board of education and the NCAA will be upheld putting UND is a tough spot as it has to obey the state law but also has to honor the agreement between the board of education and the NCAA. As there is no negotiation without the law (the NCAA simply applies its rules and the agreement applies), the law opens up the possibility of re-opening negotiations. Personally, I think UND should go without a kickname. While the nickname is important and is used to reflect certain values and traits, it is only a representative and is not what UND is. Who knows what the next zealot at the NCAA will choose. They extend their rampage against Indian names to include names such as the Bison which has significant imagery to the Indians and the US government in the late 1800 after the Civil War tried to exterminate the Bison to starve the Indians. Or they could take a stand against the unethical treatment of animals or who knows what. There is always something about any knickname that somebody will consider harmful or degrading and demand the removal of its use. It doesn't make it right but there will always be something. Quite frankly, the NCAA position of trying to have the Native Americans ignored and forgotten is worse than any reported treatment given by the worse user of the name as the NCAA would have these tribes lost to history and forgotten as a living people. Very sad.

(1) That wasn't your initial statement about leadership position but tribal support. Tribal support is an actual unknown until a vote is taken. IF the leadership felt that a referendum supported its view, then a vote would have been taken. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes. I had stated that from the NCAA's view, they would take the tribal leadership position. (2) Private entities are subject to the laws and are not above them. The question is whether the law applies given the previous agreement. The fact that the NCAA is private is irrelevant; the real issue is whether an entity is subject to the laws of North Dakota as it doesn't not reside in North Dakota. This is actually trickier than it initial looks as the state has been collecting taxes from companies that don't reside in North Dakota but do business inside the state. Since the NCAA does business in the state (through the member schools), it may very well be subject to the law. (3) The law will also impact how the NCAA reacts. Your position is that the NCAA will ignore it. That is not the same as saying that it doesn't affect them.. The simple question is whether this law is enforceable and preempts the previous legal agreement. The NCAA has choices as well. The NCAA would also have an ugly public relations problem if it comes off so arrogantly that it can simply choose to ignore state laws whenever it chooses it to. Personally I question the law but think that only a legal challenge will determine whether it is enforceable or not.

(1) This is not quite correct. You are correct that a certain tribal leadership group will not give support but that is not the same as saying the tribe has not lent its support. What the tribe supports or doesn't support is unknown as they have been denied an opportunity by said leadership group from the tribe from expressing its opinion. Until that is done, it can only be said that the tribal leadership will not give its support and that for the NCAA represents a failure to get tribal approval. (2) Probably but whether the NCAA will be able to legally uphold those sanctions is unknown until a court decision is made is on the legality of the new law. (3) A law that stipulates that the University of North Dakota is to be known as the Fighting Sioux doesn't present a problem. The question is whether it is enforceable and whether it overrules the previous agreement with the NCAA. That is something again that will be determined in court. Your comments in question make it suggest that it is the state of North Dakota that refuses to negotiate yet wasn't it the NCAA that refused to discuss its opinion when it became known that it was subject to North Dakota open meeting law? This question is premised on the name needs to be changed and is flawed. It is a biased question and presumes to provide the correct answer from your perspective (provide negotiation, name change, and no sanctions).

Now you've gone and made the NDSU posters mad, you must know (according to NDSU fans) that you can only post praise for the Bison