gjw007

I wouldn't take anything away from the NDSU team. It has had some great victories including Minnesota. UND's teams have not been up to its normal standard the last few years. That doesn't mean the game shouldn't be played again NDSU and yes, i would expect NDSU to win based on last year's play.

It truly is amazing the spin given by some NDSU supporters when it was NDSU that left the NCC and division 2, not UND although UND did follow 5 years later. No matter how it is spun, it was NDSU that left the rivalry. UND was unwilling, given the rules for making the playoffs at the time, to hurt its chance of making the playoffs (NDSU fans like to point out to rules that were changed later to back their claim that the rules didn't hurt UND making the playoffs but again, it wasn't the rules at the time when NDSU left the NCC and changed divisions). This whole argument is old. There is no reason that UND and NDSU shouldn't play an annual game. I hear comments about playing more home games (I'll accept that), want a money game against a FBS team (greed), not wanting to hurt their playoff chances by only playing patsies (opposite of UND's position above where they didn't wish to play a team in an upper division where the rules, not the opponent, would hurt its playoff chances - I'll give this a pass although my first inclination is to say it is wrong as the goal of the teams are to make the playoffs and a win against a team in the division helps them make the necessary wins to make the playoffs, the only thing I can think is NDSU fans are chalking up games against UND as a loss), and then there is the fallback to that UND left the rivalry (UND contributed by not wanting to play them when it hurt their chances to make the playoffs but it was NDSU that walked away - making the argument that UND left the rivalry is a bad argument and basically represents conceding that it is NDSU's fault that the games are no longer being scheduled based on the previous points).

The Oklahoma tribe also gave its approval. The problem with that is the NCAA initially took the word of a few individuals in Oklahoma who were against but ignored everybody else. Long story short but the Oklahoma tribe also gave permission

The question of whether it is a monopoly is the question of harm and some entities, such as the telephone companies were allowed to be monopolies. In the telephone case, it actually benefited the rural consumers as the cost of bringing telephones to low density areas was not something that is in best interest of the company due to the costs involved. All things being equal, they would have preferred to have build up the urban areas and not deal with the rural areas. So, yes, monopolies are sometimes allowed (even in commercial areas not just non-profits) but the overriding is concern for the public and the harm caused by the monopoly. For UND, it probably could be quantified by the cost of losing the ability to host a game and a harder to quantify impact on the denial of using their logo (name recognition) in tournament play but overall, is the NCAA monopoly in the best interest of the public or not?

Simply because there is (token) competition, it doesn't mean there isn't a monopoly. The NCAA controls the landscape because of its size and power. One example where monopolies exist can be shown by the barriers to creating competition. In some respects, this can be monetary such as the space industry trying to build a satellite. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to build the satellite and launch it let alone the infrastructure to support it. There are only a few big companies and most of them started by the support of the government. Another example, how many major ocean cargo companies are there and how easy would it be to get started. Microsoft is also a very good example as there are many different OSs than Windows but since Microsoft controls roughly 90% of the market, the other competitors are not significant to affect any changes or choices that Microsoft makes. Microsoft has a history of buying up a product or producing a competitive product that resulted in other products no longer being marketed. This can be seen when Microsoft attempted to freeze out the various browsers several years ago by bundling and making restrictions for computer manufactures for the software packaged with their computer. It was only after the Federal government's anti-trust action that the market for browsers opened up on the Windows machine. And note, there are far more competitors to Microsoft than there is to the NCAA yet Microsoft has to be careful and is watched carefully due to its monopoly on the OS market

This has been old for such a long time and is such a non-topic yet the desperate keep bringing it up. If you use the logic presented,, anybody who shows up in a costume is guilty including the English Prince Harry that dressed up in a Nazi costume, actors in motion pictures, etc. True, it was bad judgment but you conveniently forget all the other aspects and focus only on a narrow view. Be careful you don't run off the road when the road curves. An interest aspect of this conversation is the rise of extreme right (or left, take your pick as they both use the same violent methods) in Europe and Africa where groups are blamed for their problems and are trying to exclude them. Wait a minutes, doesn't that sound like the NCAA policy so that the Indian population is marginalized by taking them out of the public discussion and ultimately lost and forgotten. Frankly the results of the NCAA's policy if the Sioux are marginalized and forgotten is worse than the charges made against the use of the name. Another interesting aspect that I wasn't aware until recently is that there are remnants of the original Indian tribes in Virginia when Jamestown was settled but they have been lost and forgotten into history. They are fighting to be recognized. Is this what the opponents want for the Sioux? Hopefully not but given the venom spewed, it is hard to really know.

This is not exactly correct as you are saying that a Supreme Court ruling in final but that is not always the case and previous Supreme Rulings have been overridden over time. A classic example is the ruling in the 1890 that black and whites are equal even when treated separately. In the 1950 with the Brown V. Topeka ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal ruling was unconstitutional. The implication that Supreme Court ruling are static is incorrect (think about this, why are so many people wanting judges on the court to overrule Roe V. Wade). The Supreme Court ruling is only final until the next Supreme Court overrules it, which thank God, doesn't happen often. The SBHE is subject to the whim of the budgets presented by the elected officials. If the elected officials want something, they can certainly pressure the SBHE with funding. I still haven't figured out how this helps UND and the nickname as it appears to be a day late and a dollar short. UND and the state have already agreed to retire the nickname and has done so in a lawsuit. I don't remember the lawsuit being about monopolistic practices (anti-trust) of the NCAA as much as it was the body of the NCAA that made this ruling didn't have the authority (which they precede then to get from the general membership). I would retire the name as per the lawsuit agreement and not take on another nickname. It emphasizes that a forced retirement of the nickname by the PC police can't be replaced and it still gives UND a unique position as the emphasis is the University of North Dakota. It also allows it to remember it past and the pride in the Sioux whereas the NCAA is wishing to have the memories of the Sioux left in the dust heap of history. In addition, it is a subtle reminder that there may be nicknames that the PC police haven't attacked yet but could in the future. If the bill passes and is signed by the Governor, all it does is antagonize more people who will continue their activities against UND. In the end, all I see it doing is delaying but not eliminating the final outcome. It appears to be a game of blink and I don't think the NCAA is going to blink.

Now if it were blueberry pie, we're talking. At this stage, does anybody really expect the name not to change? The Sioux name was unique to North Dakota; if it has to go, I would keep it as the University of North Dakota without a nickname. It also would be unique in college sports and emphasizes the University of North Dakota brand. I know others differ mostly because of the habit of having nicknames for teams but nothing says there has to be a nickname. Well, that's my two cents on the issue. Now back to that blueberry pie, I think I'll have to go find some

I have been reading these comments to fire Hak with amusement. It seems that many fans wish to go back to the days of Rube Bjorkman where the goal was to reach .500 let alone worry about being competitive.

I think the jury may be still out on this as the priorities during the transition were also different for each school. The goal had been for UND to be competitive after the transition and use the transition to let UND build itself up. That remains to be seen as football team the last season shows what appears to be a lack of progress although to be fair, the team was very young. The men's basketball team hasn't really been competitive for the last several years. The major team that seems to be affected the most was probably women's basketball as it no longer is as dominant as it had been in the past. If you use the criteria that UND had to show immediate success, then UND's transition has not been successful. If you use the criteria that UND was using the transition to build its base with a losses here and there but is building a better foundation for the future then it remains an open question whether it has been successful and this can only be determined several years after the fact. UND fans probably expected better results during the transition but it could have been worse and if UND fails to build the base correctly, it could be considered less than satisfactory but for now, the jury is still out.

As I noted, as posted by others. I had never looked it up. I think they may have meant multi wins (but nothing really over the last 10 years - the most multi wins in the tournament came in the 70s) rather than multi bids as there have been several years where the team from the Big Sky didn't go one and out. I had also said though that the Big Sky and the Summit are 1-bid conferences.

Let's be honest, the current Summit is an upgrade over the Summit from the past and UND is not exactly a powerful basketball team. In both cases, the goal is the NCAA tournament and while, as posted by others, the BSC has had two teams in it in the past, both conferences are basically a one team league to the tournament. You can flip the RPI or Saragin ratings around and it wouldn't make any difference. I would feel stronger toward a conference that has more teams brought into the tournament and also with a conference whose teams went deep into the tournament. I do like that being the conference champion during the regular season has meaning by giving you home playoff games.

I should have stated that when some NDSU posters as all (most) Bison fans are not guilty of this (I also think there are some Sioux fans who act this same way toward other schools and conferences as well). All you have to do is go over to Bisonville to read some of these comments. The endless bickering back and forth where each side slams the other gets old. What proof do you have that the MVC (and the MVFC) are more well known than the Big Sky? I am open to the evidence but really, until a few years ago, I never knew anything about the MVC but I was aware of Indiana States game with Michigan State but nothing else. MVC never came into the discussion whereas the Big Sky has been mentioned numerous times. It would be interesting to see a survey, if it exists - and it probably does for advertising purposes, about how well known each conference is.

Keep telling yourself that. People are going to remember the MVC brand because of a one-year wonder with Indiana State and the Final Four with Magic Johnson's Michigan State team in, what, '79 versus the numerous reminders of the Big Sky with the Dakota teams playing the Montana schools? This is even re-enforced when NDSU played the Montana schools. I suspect until the last few years, people in the Dakota's were not even aware of the MVC and certainly not when the schools were part of the NCC yet they have been aware of the Big Sky. If you are proud that NDSU is part of the MVC, that is great but I don't see the need to denigrate other schools and conference. In the end, it makes a negative impression about your school and its fans. I am not going to argue which is better or worse as they both appear to be great conferences.

I have to wonder, have you ever seen a deer crossing a road. When I lived in Grand Forks, I occasionally saw a deer cross I-29. Living near DC and Baltimore, I see it as well and this is a much more populated area and even gets under the fences. How long does it take for a deer to cross the road? How long did you say you distracted yourself from your primary mission, driving? I hope you don't end up with a serious accident as you certainly appear to be taking a very risky proposition. There are other examples as well but I used this as I saw a car after it had plowed into a deer crossing I-95 and there were fatalities reported in the accident. Texting while driving is just not smart. Laws that are unenforceable are not smart either but it does make law makers feel that they did something even when current laws are not being enforced.

This is a tough problem for a transitioning team. It could change the three D2's with FCS opponents but they would all be away games (and ones, given how UND played this past year, a loss) and there would be complaints about having only 3 home games on the schedule. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose proposition for the AD as the choices are limited.

Agreed. I saw the schedule several days ago and thought it wasn't very good. On the other hand, it gives a young team a chance to jell and it should produce a winning mindset for the following year.

It seems to me that happened a few years ago when Kansas played UND at UND

Isn't it though. It certainly stirs up the conversation

I would agree with this. UND and NDSU will always be each others biggest rivals just as SDSU and USD will be each others biggest rivals (especially now that they are back in the same conference and will play yearly). Montana and Montana State are each others biggest rivals but like NDSU has a rivalry with SDSU, UND can have a rivalry with Montana and Montana State. These rivalries are just not as intense as the ones between NDSU and UND or USD and SDSU. UND and NDSU can still play yearly if they choose to but they must balance what they gain with what they lose. Personally, I think they both lose more than they gain by not playing each other as there is more than just monetary factors to consider.

Had to make it clear with an obvious example as apparently there will be those who can't (won't) see the point.

This NDSU hate toward UND from certain NDSU fans has gotten really old and in my view, is making NDSU look really bad. It is amazing that they would go on UND opponents web sites to trash UND, go on every major fan board (such as anygivensaturday), and to go on a UND fan website to trash UND. I can only guess they do this to attract attention to themselves and to reflect the values of NDSU. As I stated earlier, it is making NDSU look bad. I would expect NDSU fans to support their team as I would UND fans to support its team, I also expect a little good-nature ribbing of its main rival. I don't expect the venom that comes from some fans. Individuals may have different views but facts ultimately are facts even if some individuals don't wish to believe (for example, the world is round not flat even though you can only see the flatness of the earth at any given spot and you believe the world is flat because of the limits of what you can see). Enough is enough please.

Ah yes, the silly season. Emotions are running hot, screams are heard as people shout at the top of their lungs (we must capitalize everything to make a point, but the question is what point are we making?). Congrats to the Bison for making the playoffs. One game didn't do it but the total results of the season (beating KU helped but, going with the obvious, if they beat KU and lost to everybody else, they wouldn't be in the postseason). I hope they do well as UND and NDSU are natural rivals where one does well, the other raises it game and works to achieves the same level of play (success).

Congrats to the Bison. I hope they do well. Now all they have to do is start playing UND in football yearly

Actually you can as you could then get PETA involved. Not only could they still go after the university name (Dakota is in it which is apparently offensive to some, not likely they'd go this route) but it could be considered to be unethical treatment of animals. As far as mother (why use female gender) nature, well, that could be considered sexist to some. Once down this road, there is no end.