gjw007

Let me see if I understand this correctly. At this point in NDSU's transition, NDSU had no arrangements to assure scheduling whereas UND has an arrangement to help in its scheduling therefore NDSU's unknown situation and uncertainty in scheduling is light years ahead of UND's know ability to handle its scheduling for its team at this particular point in its transition compared to where NDSU was at exactly the same particular point in its transition. I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

I can't help but chuckle when I see these comments about scheduling alliances. In reality, that is what a conference is. I'm curious to read what you think is the difference.

I would be careful playing the data game as there has also been an increase in Fargo's population and data can always be manipulated to represent your position. While I think it is a bad idea, I think all ideas should at least be thoroughly considered before dismissing them. The game needs to be played in North Dakota and in Fargo for the next game since the last game was played in Grand Forks unless there is some overriding reason (which I haven't read yet). Having a game out-of-state simply for the out-of-state alumni doesn't make sense when there are very few home games for a team to begin with.

While overall I think it is a bad idea, there are some merits to the thought process in attracting alumni from the Twin Cities. If it happened, I wonder if it would be more successful as part of a full day of football where you have a heated DIII Minnesota rivalry, a heated DII Minnesota rivalry, and the UND-NDSU game. Of course, if it was tied into a UND-Minnesota hockey game it might add more value. This might be more attractive from a promoter's perspective than the teams but it could certainly provide a more festive atmosphere for the fans. Maybe as a one-time shot it has merits as a fund raiser but as an annual event, I wonder what it ultimately brings to either UND or NDSU once the novelty wears off. Fans might drive from Grand Forks or Fargo for the first game or two but after that, who knows?

You echo my point. Chapman will do what is best for Chapman. This is not a negative, just an observation of reality. Likewise, I would expect the President of UND to do what is best for him. I would expect if he is to do his job properly, Chapman should be outspoken for NDSU but he also appears to be a loose cannon in the ND university system. Why he should support UND as MplsBison suggests doesn't make sense unless there is something in it for him. Your response suggests that you agree with MplsBison's position. I'm actually an alumni of the University of Maryland for my undergrad and graduate degrees.

I think your wrong on this. Saying yes to everything Chapman wants is not being cooperative, only being a stooge. The moment a UND President does something in the interest of UND that Chapman doesn't feel benefits him, then the charges of being uncooperative to the demands of Chapman will be given again. Chapman is only interested in Chapman. I find it hard to believe that he would go to bat for anybody. The ill feelings probably won't go away until Chapman is gone at which times the relationship between the two schools will normalize. The only way I see Chapman going to bat for UND is if the state somehow threatens Chapman (lower funding, removal, etc.) with political pressure. Living near DC, the saga of Virginia Tech and the ACC were daily news reports at the time. The U of Virginia had no desire to bring in Virginia Tech until forced to by political pressure. Hasn't Chapman already been in defiance of the state Board of Education? Of course, the optimistic view would be that the two universities find a common ground and work together for it. In effect, each is working with the other not for the benefit of the other school but for the benefit of its own school. In this situation, both schools benefit from the closer working relationship.

Okay, that is one way of doing it but don't schools that participate in the bowl system also get rings; I seem to recall Minnesota getting rings after a bowl game and none of Minnesota's bowl games were for the national championships. If so, it would indicate that rings are given out for activities other than championships. I don't know, you might be younger than me . The old days for me was in the 70s when I attended UND.

I agree with you on the first part; it gets old and has been for awhile. As far as rings, I've never envisioned a ring symbolizing a national champions; I've always envisioned a championship trophy. It would be interesting to hear what players on teams do get, if anything.

If NDSU or its fans gave its players rings (as long as it meets NCAA's laws and restrictions - you never know, the NCAA might find them hostile and abrusive or unfair to others who didn't get the rings), then I say bravo to the administration and fans for showing its appreciation to the players. Every conference and team should do this in my opinion. NDSU has had some good teams the last few years but so has UND. I would expect UND fans to comment on UND on a UND fan board but I'm amazed, given Taylor's comments about not enough interest from NDSU fans to renew the rivalry, that so many NDSU fans comment about NDSU on the UND fan board. While I think both teams and universities can do nicely without each other, they do better together and the rivalry will return but probably only after the current NDSU administration leaves. I never did understand NDSU's rationale that it was in UND's interest to make life easier for NDSU. I also think that UND made a mistake, along with NDSU, in not going D1 in the 70s. UND is in the same situation that NDSU was a few years ago and I don't think it necessarily in NDSU's best interest to make life easier for UND either. When the dust settles, the rivalry will return but probably more fierce than ever given the venom that is read on the fan boards (I read it mostly from NDSU fans but there are some UND fans that spew crap as well).

You actually make my point; students don't go to Stanford, Duke, or Northwestern because of the athletics but because of the academics. Athletics doesn't gain them students but their academic recognition does. This again, can be seen by the tougher standards to get into these schools. Other than Duke's success in basketball, none of these schools is a sports power. When Northwest began to have success in football, I think most people, especially the alumni, were surprised. Is a degree from NDSU more valuable than Concordia because they have a successful football team or is the academics considered, by some measure, to be better (more complete). Likewise, many people would argue that a degree from the University of Minnesota is more valuable than a degree from NDSU or UND (for the same reason as your comparison between NDSU and Concordia) and Minnesota is not exactly a sports power except in hockey. The Ivy League schools have the recognition because of the high standards to get in and the prestige. There are numerous examples as well such as John Hopkins. UND has this to a degree in aviation. I do think that success in sports and the exposure helps but when looking for a school, I believe there are other primary factors. The exposure of the sports team might bring it to the attention of potential students but it wouldn't be the first factor in deciding on a school. At the end of the day, the success of schools like the Ivy League, Duke, Northwestern, John Hopkins, etc. have been because of the success of the graduates from these schools and this success has been recognized by students who wish to also become successful in a specific field and thus choose a school with high standards and a record of successful graduates.

I'm not convinced about that. I'm on record as believing that both UND and NDSU should have made the move in the 1970s so I'm not opposed to the move. The key to article is that the school has to be successful and if so, it benefits from the exposure. How many schools are successful? Does going to the 'Big Dance' once every 25 years count as success? Chapman may have been right but I don't believe it is because of the jist of the article. He may have correctly evaluated NDSU's ability to make the move and clearly was less reluctant that UND's President to make the move. I also think that the full evaluation of the move cannot be made during the honeymoon period but only after a significant period of time such as 20 years to allow for both positive and negative results. An interesting comparison would be to list some of the universities that are highly desired. Most people would argue that the Ivy League would fit in this category but would any argue that any of them are sports powers? Clearly there is something else that drives the desire to be at these schools. At the end of the day, it is the academics of the school that drive enrollment. Would you rather go to Harvard or Michigan/Ohio State/etc? The later may be sports power but a degree from Harvard will give you a head start in your career. I would rather go to Harvard. Whether to upgrade the sports department shouldn't be a quick, off-the-cuff reaction simply for the so-called prestige of being a D1A school or having the school score scroll on ESPN. If done poorly, the extra funds to the sports department will be a drain from the academics leaving the school with a poor athletic department and a deteriorating academic standard. There shouldn't be any denying that a successful sports program will help a university and that the publicity from that success can help draw students.

Wow, what a discussion. I think you need to really look at some of the things that you say and then say you support. For example, the Fair Tax has a grand sounding name but in essence, it is nothing more than a sales tax. Sales tax are inherently disadvantageous to the poor as a high percentage of their income (all) will be spent on items which will then be taxed. The wealthy will also be taxed on the items that they purchase but they have the ability to put some of their spendings in investment and savings thus spending a lower percentage of their income on taxes. So much for fair. Just as an aside, can anybody really tell me what the Republicans or Democrats stand for who doesn't research the issues beyond the media sound bites? I certainly can't tell with 5 second sound bites. I live just outside DC and politics is the industry here and very, very few really explain their position. Being specific results in negative sound bites directed at them and vague comments are easily misunderstood so that when a vote or an action goes in a way that a voter doesn't expect, they few cheated and lied to. This has gotten away from the thread topic. The only reason that I responded is that this dialog shows the (1) difficulty in explaining issues via non-verbal communications and (2) that there are many factors that can complicate an issue. The negotiated settlement highlights both these issues.

Final USD 72 UND 69

USD up by 4 1 minute 48 seconds to go

USD 56 UND 55 5+ minutes to go

USD 46 UND 43 12+ minutes to go

Yes, please.

I think you have this wrong; the only people who felt that this was a big game were Bison fans who made outlandish claims like its the game of the century for UND. It sort of like saying that when NDSU faced St Paul Concordia at the start of last year that it was NDSU's game of the century. People need to get real here. Most UND fans, see poll on this website, didn't even consider it the hardest game that UND would face. Sure, UND wanted to win against SUU as it was a division higher and a future conference foe but UND didn't make it more than it was. And the notion that SUU didn't take UND serious is about the same as NDSU not taking St Paul Concordia serious last year. Right! You just have to love revisionists. Comparing UND's and NDSU's score are fun to do but that is all. Both UND and NDSU have good teams this year. Fans of the opposing schools should just recognize and realize this fact.

I'm actually in favor of this as well. Of course Dakota is a name of a tribe so it'll be back to step one.

I disagree. One thing the University needs to do is differentiate itself from other Universities such as is done through the Aerospace program. The Native American programs does that for UND. NDSU has been trying to do that with various levels of success over the past few years. Rather than remain in a box, it is time to be forward looking.

True, there has been some give by the NCAA and UND has, to a point, proven its point that the NCAA didn't follow its own rules but in the end, the result will be a delay of 3 or 4 years with UND probably changing its nickname to match what the NCAA executive committee desired at which point the NCAA will have won (if they didn't, UND would keep its current nickname). The only real thing it does is not force UND to abandon its past by the NCAA requirement to remove all the logo. I agree, it is time to move on.

Don't you think that if the nickname was changed to Cavalry, Roughriders, or Cowboys people would see this as an attack against the Sioux as the numerous incidents that occurred in the past and as a backlash against the opponents of the Sioux name although I think Roughriders in more associated against the Spanish (Hispanics) than the Sioux? Ultimately these will be judged just as offensive if the same standard is used.

I would say drop it as soon as possible, at least start the stage for dropping it. Others are correct, it is a ticking time bomb. Also don't do anything against any minorities as this is not what the use of the Sioux name and logo were about but pride in their resolve and strength. Unfortunately, I also think dropping it will ultimately result in the loss of identity within the larger American community as I think most Americans only think of the tribes when there is a sports team named after one. When was the last time you heard of the Arpahoe as an example?

You need to go back in history a bit further as NDSU also was declared national champs in the 60s and UND had also been successful. True, since the division came into play in the 1970s, NDSU and UNC won playoffs that declared the champs but the earlier years were also successful. I tend to think of the prime for the NCC in the 60s and 70s not the 80s or 90s even though by championships the 80s and 90s produced more trophies (think of the success in those eras and who they played). Gothmog The truth is that UND pulled the plug on the NCC. It was a perfectly viable DII conference until the day UND announced its move. Only pride and it's rivalry with NDSU forced UND to move. The Sioux could have stayed in the NCC indefinitely. Almost everybody expected UND and NDSU to move up together; the surprise was that they didn't. UND had some items going on for the moment and didn't want to make the rush. NDSU felt the need to move, so why wait. In true, both should have moved up with Montana, Montana State, and UNI in the 70s. UNC or even NDSU didn't start the dominoes for the demise of the NCC. In fact, you almost say that Morningside pulling out was the trigger as the expectations had been there for UND/NDSU to move up and USD/SDSU were expected to follow suit. If Morningside hadn't left, there would still have been enough members left in the NCC to survive, unfortunately as a shell of itself (no offense to the remaining teams but most were seldom at the top of the final standings). You could put the blame on the 4 Dakota schools but it was a known factor that it was only a matter of time before each would move up.