star2city

Fightingsioux.com says the women played in front of 4189 fans. If a change needs to be made, it should be made now. Next year may be uglier. DI talent can come from the RRV area, it just doesn't happen with much regularity. Maybe we could go back in a time warp to the late 1960's, when GF was awash in DI talent.

Please, understand there are two entirely different situations here: the sioux name, which will almost certainly be changed, regardless of what the Summit league does the Summit's treatment of UND, considering there was a November 2010 deadline. If the Summit was really concerned about the name as it stands, why would it have allowed IPFW and UMKC to play UND? I guess you believe Chapman was a saint, too.

1+1=2 There is almost no doubt that Chapman contaminated the relationship between UND and the Summit. The SBoHE seems to have given Hanson the job of sanitizing all of Chapman's messes. NDSU fans will fervently deny that Chapman, being of such stellar character, would ever do such a thing. But simultaneously, those same hypocritcal fans are likely ready to lynch Hanson for his "ambassador" words. Chapman was worshiped by bison fans precisely because he acted with the passive aggressive nature of much their fanbase.

If NDSU didn't have deficits which were in part caused by tuition waivers, there wouldn't be an issue. Legislators don't seem to have a problem with Dickinson State, which gives a partial tuition waivers to a huge fraction of foreign and out-of-state undergraduates. But the key is, Dickinson State is staying within budget. Running deficits are an invitation to more oversight and micromanagement. NDSU leadership has clearly failed in this area and needs to relearn how to manage budgets. With balanced budgets and no cost overruns, the so-called anti-NDSU propaganda claimed by persecution-complex bison fans will dissipate.

Great article on Dale Brown in the Devil's Lake Journal For the Hyslop history archives

Concordia Diving Practices at UND

Southern Utah and the Summit mutually want to terminate their relationship. SUU will have a spot in the Big Sky as soon as one or both of the Montanas are gone (to the WAC or elsewhere). The Montana's are blackballing SUU. UVU will not be asked into the Summit, if Oakland, IUPUI, IPFW, WIll have any votes in the matter.

If the continuity requirement goes away too, it might even be possible for new conferences to form out of thin air. The rumor has been that Montana and Montana State are very displeased with the academic and financial issues within the Big Sky. With the new rules, could they pull out, and a new conference of Montana / Montana St Denver / N Colo USD / SDSU UND / NDSU Cal Poly/ UC Davis (football only) form? The Big Sky would have be (with non-football schools) NAU / Grand Canyon (plans for DI) SUU / UVU Weber / Idaho St Sac St / Bakersfield St E Wash / Portland St Seattle / WWU is rumored to want DI - they dropped football to afford it The Summit could then be Oakland / IPFW IUPUI / NKU WIU / UMKC ORU / Houston Baptist UTPA

You're just fear mongering. Name any school that the Summit would chose before UND. Who would the Summit pick before UND? UTPA, Houston Baptist, Longwood, Savannah St, Chicago St, CSU-Bakersfield, Seattle, Utah Valley. Guess again. With core membership no longer an issue, arguments for Chicago St and UTPA have evaporated. Denver U would insist that UND be in the Summit prior to considering membership. DU has absolutely no relationship/rivalry/fan interest with any other Summit school.

Absurd. The Summit and Douple threw themselves in the middle. Wrong again. How can you consider yourself to have any ounce of logic? The truth is the opposite: It's flat out a case of "we are going to dick around with you until you get the crap done" on our terms.

Nice ad hominem attack. So evidently the Forum, the Grand Forks Herald, the Bismarck Tribune, and the NDUS are all very bitter insititutions too: as they have a concern with the situation. Seems that you and your cohorts remain in denial that Chapman was a bully and created major issues within NDSU and within the NDUS. Because it gets brought up on a UND message board, any poster here must be attacked and discredited. And repeat the mistakes of the past? Either learn from mistakes or correct them. That's the difference. You seem to have no interest in correcting errors so that don't get repeated, nor do you appear to care about justice.

So let's just pretend there aren't any issues. At times, confrontation is not only healthy but necessary. The NDUS system allowed itself to be bullied for too long: they are as responsible as Chapman is.

Tuey's Blog on Cleaning up after the olde Chapman administration NDSU seems to have more than a normal share of forensic accountants.

This is not meant to be political, but what a national embarassment Ed Schultz is: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/waterco...-brown-winning/

Glad you got a coach like Tuberville: he can take you to the next level. Leach, with his character and personality, was bound to self-destruct sooner or later. Have you read much on USF's Leavitt? Leavitt was formerly a DC at Morningside, which was a basket-case program - except in Leavitt's years - formerly in the same D2 conference as UND. Getting Morningside competitive would be comparable to Rice winning the old SWC. Leavitt

Maybe a 3-15 record and years of frustration have something to do with it. If you have so much interest, stop the hypocritical comments and post during the game yourself.

Idaho State Journal: New Faces in Town for Bengal Track Meet With a charter trip to Pocatello, seems the track and field program is no longer operating on a shoestring (forgive me) budget.

The attendance rule isn't 15,000 for 3 seasons, but 15,000 once every 3 years. It's rarely enforced. The main issues are having a stadium capacity of 15,000, the financial support, and an FBS conference membership. But with the WAC likely losing 2-3 teams and if UCDavis and/or Cal Poly get the call to move up, UND could be painted into a corner.

It's more complicated than that. Technically, it depends how they write the final rules. DII men's hockey still technically exists: its championship has been suspended due to insufficient teams. DI and DII women's hockey are under a collegiate championship banner: neither DI or DII exists in that sport. The "DI" women's championship isn't a DI championship, but a collegiate championship. Skiing, rifle, men's volleyball, and women's hockey all play for collegiate championships, not DI (even though men's volleyball and women's hockey have DIII championships too). Any DII school can compete in those sports without using a one-sport exemption. As currently written, Moorhead St would need a one-sport exemption to compete in men's DI hockey, but technically doesn't need one for women's hockey. If the one-sport exemption is discontinued, Moorhead St wouldn't be able to play up in men's hockey unless the "DI" label is removed and replaced with "collegiate".

Appears Moorhead State's dreams of playing DI hockey are gone.

Texas couldn't withstand the in-state political firestorm that would occur if they left for the Big Ten without regional rivals. The Big Ten could, for all practical purposes, destroy the Big 12 if it took its crown jewels: Texas, Oklahoma (football), Kansas (basketball), Missouri (Gateway between Big 10 and 12)

Didn't NDSU beat Wisconsin mostly freshman? Granted, nobody is expecting that, but beating Mayville State should be a given. Mayville State is better than us and has more talent, and they are NAIA DII. Last year, UND was competitive with Texas A&M with DII talent. Now they get blown out. Next year will likely actually be worse: Bledsoe and Mertens will be gone next year and there really doesn't appear to be anyone on the horizon that will replace their scoring or leadership. Maybe one or two of the freshman will actually develop, but there is little indication yet that they will. Jones selected them and Jones coached them. This team is truly Jones', and that's where the buck stops.

Bin, The info in your game-day threads are greatly appreciated. Thanks for all the work!

The Big Picture is that the Big Ten Network could be a major player in sports television, even competing with ESPN in collegiate events. Remember FOX has 50% interest in the Big Ten Network, and could use it as way of competing with ESPN. This would be a play to make the Big Ten THE conference that calls all shots at the college level. The NCAA would be powerless against it. Right now, other conferences, especially the SEC wield a lot of power: this would make the Big Ten the economic powerhouse. This wouldn't be just about football: if basketball schools like Kansas and Syracuse are added, the basketball stature of the Big 10 would jump a level. Consider the following: adding NY, MO, KS, OK, TX to the Big Ten Network would add a potential of 22 million homes to the Big Ten Network. If the Big Ten Network even gets half the homes to be viewers, based on a $12 annual cost any cable/satellite network must pay, that's $60 million more flowing into the Big Ten coffers just in subscription fees (50% goes to FOX). (Remember that outside of states with Big Ten membership, cable/satellite are only assessed $1 /yr - adding Texas and Syracuse means immense new revenue from those states). Texas is a huge centerpiece to the puzzle, based on the population and growth of Texas, and could even add more viewers than Notre Dame. Supposedly, the Big Ten wants it members to be in states that are continguous. By adding Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, it would meet that criteria and give Texas existing conference rivals.