tony

Tying back to the first post in the thread, if NDSU and SDSU join the new football-only conference to be named later (Great Western?), then both UND and NDSU will have four to five non-conference games to fill. Knowing how hard it is to get teams to visit our fair state (at least decent teams), ithe NDSU and UND football game will probably continue for at least two more years. Or am I completely mistaken on this?

DamStrait, nothing wrong with ignoring my posts - in fact, in your case, I'd encourage it. I'm curious though about how you read "knee-jerk, anti-UND spin" into those posts. I don't think that Roger Thomas communicates very well. That's not anti-UND, that's not knee-jerk, and that's not paranoid. Heck, it's not even anti-Thomas. A guy might think that you're having a paranoid, knee-jerk response The Sicatoka, point taken. Danenhauer didn't specify which options they'd exercise if UND and USD leave the NCC. The only option he had mentioned before was the MIAA, but DI is a possibility for them too. My mistake. Kupchella, though, did not commit to looking at DI even if all his objections to DI are removed. That is probably just his style of writing. You like it, I don't. Fair enough. This is much ado about nothing. I'll drop it.

I genuinely thought that you'd be interested in what UND's AD is telling other ADs but now you've got me going... The Sicatoka, Danenhauer qualified his statements in a specific, logical way. Kupchella did not. Take a look at Kupchella's last sentence. He writes so that if any of the listed conditions are met, then something will happen. Based on the tone of the letter and UND's communication with the rest of the NCC, he meant that all the conditions would have to be met (he should have used an "and" rather than an "or") before anything would happen. Also, can you really tell what UND would do if those conditions are met? "If this happens, then we could well give a move to D-I some extra consideration" doesn't communicate anything and makes it sound like even he doesn't know what he'd do. He needs an editor. Compare the sentence, "If UND has been selling us a line of bull, we'll look at the MIAA," to "If all these things happen, we might think about thinking about moving to DI." Therein lies the difference between Danenhauer and Kupchella. You can't even compare Danenhauer to Thomas because nobody, not even his own coaches, know what Thomas is saying. Kupchella needs an editor, but Thomas needs an interpreter. PS The Sicatoka, DamStrait's posting is an ad hominem response because he ignored the message and focused on the messenger. That's proper usage.

Huh? Why would I think that UN-O's AD is a weasel? He communicates his ideas directly and succinctly. Thomas doesn't - not that I've ever called Thomas a weasel that I can remember. He's only a weasel if he can communicate but chooses not to. Of course, assuring UN-O that UND is staying in DII and then leaving would make him a weasel. This is a good example of the communication problems at UND. Thomas told UN-O's AD that they were definitely staying in DII. I believe Thomas. Danenhauer, on the other hand, qualified his commitment to the NCC by saying, "If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options, but those schools have assured us that they are staying put." Obviously he has some reservations about UND's intentions. Not surprising since Coach Lennon was telling recruits that "a move up to Division I could happen within the next three years." What makes this interesting to me is that UND can't even look at going DI without losing credibility.

I thought that this quote from UNO's AD had the most bearing on UND, "If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options, but those schools have assured us that they are staying put."

It's pretty simple. UND would have four non-conference games and the same ratio of home to away games in 2004 regardless of whether NDSU left the conference or not. The Herald's article and Sicatoka tried to make it sound like this wouldn't have been the case. Roger Thomas has known what his conference schedule was going to be for a long time so if he signed a contract with New Haven already, that's his fault, not NDSU's. If he hasn't signed a contract with New Haven, why can't he replace that game with a home game rather than the NDSU game? That seems simple enough to understand. I do agree that NDSU would not normally go for a five home, six away split. Most people would also agree with me that the difference between NDSU and UND is that NDSU is willing to work toward six home games by coughing up money, while UND isn't. Does Thomas want NDSU to give up a home game because UND's too cheap to bring anybody in? If so, what does NDSU get out of the deal? And if UND doesn't play NDSU, who do they expect to bring in? It's either going to cost real money or they'll have to agree to a home and home. If they do a home and home, UND would be looking at six away games in 2005.

Sicatoka, if NDSU were not leaving the the NCC, UND would still be scheduled to travel to NDSU, UMD would not be joining the conference, and UND would still have 3 home and 4 road games in the conference. NDSU leaving the conference changed nothing. UND still has the same number of home and away conference games and the same number of non-conference dates to fill.

Sicatoka, are you disagreeing with something I wrote? It's 100% UND's own decision whether to end the rivalry. Thomas has a contract on his desk, all he has to do to preserve the rivalry for four years is to sign it. Denying that denies both fact and logic. BTW, saying that UND isn't refusing to sign a contract because they aren't compelled to doesn't make any sense at all. It's fine to say that by leaving the NCC, NDSU put the rivalry in jeopardy but that argument has nothing to do with who makes the decision. I could just as well say that UND staying in DII put the rivalry in jeopardy. Or DII going into the crapper put the rivalry in jeopardy. Or the maybe the NCC schools other than UNC, USD, SDSU, and NDSU are to blame because they voted to stick with DII as it turns into the NAIA. Or how about the people who think that NDSU is going DI because Ralph built UND a hockey arena? I guess those people blame UND rather than NDSU. Now I'm just picking on UND but reading the Herald's article, I wonder if there is any communication from Thomas and his coaches at all. Heck, Lennon was all but promising recent recruits that UND would be going DI and seems to expect that NDSU will be showing up on the schedule. Roebuck has no idea whether UND will be playing NDSU in 2004 in BB. Glas hasn't talked to Thomas about the NDSU-UND game at all. These were your question, Sicatoka: 1. How do we know why it [the NDSU-UND game contract] remains unsigned? 2. Do we know if either party has signed it? Here are the answers: 1. Thomas makes it clear as he is capable of that the reason the contract is unsigned is that UND doesn't have enough home games. I read that as he screwed up (why agree to away games when you know that the NDSU game would be on the road. Maybe he's hoping that by playing the victim, he can get NDSU to agree to come up to UND in 2004. NDSU might bail him out but would probably ask for two or three straight games at home to make up for it. 2. NDSU sent the contract to Thomas and announced publicly that they'd sign it. What more do you want? I'm tending to agree with BisonMav on this except that if the rivalry is going to end, let it be now and let it be on Thomas's head.

Original Forum Article DII's Motto: "To be the best you have to play the best (teams in the weakest conferences in your region, state, neighboring state or from a region designated by NCAA DII to be in your region for purposes of our deeply-flawed calculation.)" That's all you have to know about the future of DII right there. It's up to UND, and always has been, whether to continue the rivalry or not. I'm not sure that refusing to sign the contract with NDSU is a wise decision, but there is no disputing that it is UND's decision to make. I've decoded the Grand Forks Herald's story. UND-speak: "Both UND and North Dakota State say they'd like to continue their rivalry in football past 2003, even after Bison move up a level to NCAA Division I-AA." Translation: UND would like to continue the rivalry but not at the expense of a home game with Crookston or an away game at New Haven. UND-speak: "With NDSU leaving, UND inherits NDSU's football schedule for the NCC in 2004, meaning the Sioux will be faced with just three league games at home and five on the road." Translation: Not sure I can translate this. "UND inherits NDSU's schedule?" What the heck does that mean? Why would UND inherit NDSU's schedule as opposed to UMD (which would make sense)? Why doesn't the NCC make a 2004 schedule with four home and four away games for each team? Oh wait, there are EIGHT teams in the NCC after NDSU leaves and UMD replaces them (let me see, 8-1+1=8) so it's impossible that UND has three home and five away NCC games in 2004 unless they're playing somebody more than once.

Sorry Huskie679, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth; I was only trying to give you ideas for a motivational speech. Since this year's game is in St. Cloud on Nov. 8, you wouldn't have to come to Fargo to give the boys a scolding. I take it that you do not like Fargo either. Take heart, your nightmarish association with NDSU is about to come to end. I imagine it will be a relief akin to having an abscessed tooth removed for not only you but also the many NCC and SCSU folks you are speaking on behalf of. Uh, that last bit was me being ironic - never ever take me seriously, H679.

I'd go with St. Cloud to win and UND to take 2nd. There are just too many questions about NDSU right now to pick them higher than third and that's a stretch. I think that the only thing that could give NDSU a win over SCSU is a pre-game lecture on class by Huskie769 entitled "You Are Bunch of Drunken Thugs (and I Hate and Disrespect You Because of Rocky)." Anybody know what he charges for public appearances?

Yeah, Huskies697, sorry you feel that way but having a rep for something doesn't make it fact. NDSU might never show up on SCSU's schedule again after this year so isn't time to find yourself a young priest and an old priest and exorcise those "Rocky" demons?

Sicatoka, is that by any chance Lakota for "Guy who talks like a snake crawls?" You could be much clearer. Do you agree with propositions 1-4? Proposition 5 - I know what the Carr Report contained. I want to know what, if anything, you think. Don't hide behind other people's opinions. Proposition 6 - excellent, you made direct point. I could argue it but I'm so happy to know that you have exhibited the ability to have a thought and express it that I won't. We won't know who is right until UND goes DI anyway. It might not even happen.

I'm not looking for a fight, Sicatoka, although it would be a refreshing change from just BEGGING and BROWBEATING you in the vain hope that you will tell me what you think. Let's start over. I've made some propositions and asked whether anybody agrees or disagrees with them. So? Do you agree or disagree with them? Here they are again: Proposition 1: UND is not in the process of going DI. Proposition 2: NDSU will get a conference. Proposition 3: NDSU's administration did not make it clear enough that getting a conference could be difficult. At least they didn't get their point across to some people. Proposition 4: DII is not getting any better. Proposition 5: NDSU made the right decision. Proposition 6: If UND goes DI, the way will have been cleared for them in large part by the current efforts of NDSU.

Jim, UND has no Carr Report because they have done nothing. That's my point. NDSU is looking for a DI conference. UND is not. If NDSU starts the 2004 season with no conference, then you will win this argument. Of course, Sicatoka didn't say that UND is planning on going DI, he never says anything directly. That's my problem with him. How can you have a dialogue with somebody who never says anything directly? I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by "non-connected tautologies" even with the help of a dictionary I stated some facts as well as some opinions, not arguments. If you are going to use the language of logic, view my opinions as propositions and if you believe one of them is false, disagree directly (pretty please).

Sicatoka, I'd rather talk to a person who states their own views than somebody else's. I can never tell what you're trying to say. UND is not in the process of going DI. UND is not following the Carr Report better than NDSU because UND has no Carr Report. NDSU doesn't have a conference affiliation yet, but they will get one. NDSU has not handled the public relations angle of the conference hunt well. They should have made it more clear that finding a conference could be a long process. NDSU will get a conference. DII is not getting any better. I believe that NDSU made the right decision. It is true that UND, by waiting, could have an easier time of going DI. Brag about that when the time comes but know this: NDSU's hard work will have paved the way for UND.

The Sicatoka, with any written communication the reader can have trouble discerning the writer's actual tone. True, I criticize your way of expressing yourself, but I'm not angry. In fact, I'm practically bursting with jocularity. In response to your post, I never claimed that you minced and simpered in every sentence of every post. On the other hand, from my experience with your writing, I assume that there's some sort of passive-aggressive subtext in all of your posts touching on NDSU. Obviously, you don't recognize this pattern yourself. What else could explain why you'd address me as "oh great literary sage" while trying to defend your writing style? I'm not even sure what to call that phrase because it's half-mincing and half-simpering (mimpering?). Expressing yourself directly should not be a burden for a North Dakotan like yourself. For example, if you think I write badly or that I'm showing off, what's wrong with expressing the thought directly? To tie this back to the main thread a bit, this passive-aggressive BS that goes on between NDSU and UND should stop. More honest dialog, less mimpering - that's what I want.

The Sicatoka, I can't decide which word describes your writing style better, mincing or simpering. Can you help me out on this? Phrases like, "how shall we say it" suggest simpering, as does the frequent use of quotation marks and emoticons to suggest irony. On the other hand, "Don't blame me for the title of this thread" and [NDSU's actions] "could be spun as arrogant and pretentious" indicate mincing. I have gotten after you for this before but, ever hopeful, I'll try again. If you have an opinion, why noy express it forthrightly rather than resorting to foppish sideways talking? You are intelligent, now try being forthright.

Uh, yeah, Scott. NDSU is your enemy and "stepping over their bodies" would please you? At least you're honest about it.

The hard work that NDSU is doing now should make a future move to DI by UND much easier. I guess The Sicatoka's point must be, "Thank you NDSU for doing this. Good luck. is there anything I can do to help?" One thing I've always liked about NDSU is that from top to bottom, they seem to have a "can do" attitude about things. If there's something they don't like, they try to change it, rather than carping about it. Of course, I'm talking about the administration here as NDSU fans have been complaining about DII for a long time.

For future reference, what did I write that was factually incorrect? The only thing that I can think of is when I wrote that the State Board of Higher Education's meeting was "special", implying that it was unscheduled. "Highly unusual" would have been better phrasing. While the meeting was scheduled, the Board changed their agenda for a public meeting without prior notice (questionable legality at best), they discussed Engelstad's letter as individuals the night before the meeting (illegal), and they didn't disclose that they had gotten the letter during the meeting (violating the public trust). The meeting certainly wasn't ordinary. Or at least I hope it wasn't. However, you wrote that I made more than one factual error. Cough 'em up, PCM. While we're at it, you seem to have trouble understanding my admittedly poor writing so let me clarify some things: - I wrote that if Strinden had his way, he wouldn't hire a guy who was in favor of revisiting the mascot issue. You took this to mean that I don't think Strinden should have anything to do with picking UND's president. Wrong. - I wrote that UND's president no longer has the power to do anything about the mascot. You interpreted that statement this as me saying that the Board was wrong to do so. Wrong again. As you are not my wife, you cannot possibly be reading my mind on this or any other issue The Board IS Kupchella's boss and there was nothing stopping them from telling UND to keep that mascot. No disagreement there. What we might disagree are the following points. First, if the Board had really wanted to "take the lightning rod" out of Kupchella's hand, they probably should have acted before the commission he appointed to study the nickname issue wasted the better part of a year. Second, the board should definitely brush up on open meeting laws. Finally, the Board DID NOT act just to spare Kupchella. That is pure spin. The Board acted because they had heard that the commission was going to recommend that UND get a new mascot and they decided that it was in UND's best interest to intervene before the nickname commission announced their findings. Ralph's letter was at least the catalyst causing their reaction, if not the sole reason.

Hey, slow down, PCM. 1. Nothing I've written in this thread should be considered as a criticism of UND. If you re-read my posts, you'll see what I mean. 2. Nowhere did I imply that Strinden should not be involved in selecting UND's next president, only that if he had his way, UND would not hire a person in favor of revisiting the mascot issue. 3. I thought we agreed for a moment that no matter who UND hires if Kupchella leaves, the new president will not have a say in the mascot issue. You disagree because you've never had a boss that approved every decision you made or each change you desired? Not following you on this. 4. I'm not aware of any ongoing showy protests either, but we'd have heard if the tribal councils had withdrawn their objections so presumably they are still in a state of opposition. More importantly, the people who have been staging protests can knock themselves out - it is not going to be anything more than an annoyance to the pro-nickname majority. I misunderstood things too. Jim was worried that hiring a new President would result in more protests, not that the mascot could change. My apologies.

I didn't realize the Mr. Strinden was backing anybody last time. Who was it? Regardless, even if he didn't get his choice lsat time, it doesn't mean that he can't influence the decision this time. Regardless, we agree on one thing. Neither the nickname nor the logo is in danger because whatever authority UND's President had in the matter has been taken away. You are right about the board meeting too, it was scheduled. Bad phrasing on my part - I should have used the word "illegal" instead of "special" As for the logo foes protesting because there's a new president, I hadn't realized they had ever stopped. For the forseeable future, they are powerless to do anything about the logo except state their case. However annoying this is, if you don't want to look bad, you should ignore them as best you can. Just my opinion.

Wouldn't a new president have more bearing on UND's future in DII than on the nickname? If Strinden et al have anything to do with it, there is no way that UND is going to hire a guy who would even consider a nickname change. I think that UND's nickname, and all the goodness that flows forth from it, is safe at least until the 2030's In fact, if Kupchella's departure has any effect on a nickname, it would be at IUP rather than UND. Not to needle you too much, Jim, but when you said "the current administration has already studied the issue and made its conclusions", what exactly were the conclusions? I never heard that they were even allowed to release them to the public. A week or so before they were going to present their findings, Ralph wrote THE LETTER to the State Board of Higher Education and *presto* the board has a special meeting to say that the nickname had to stay. At that point, the administration's conclusions, whatever they were, became moot. I heard that that they were sealed and placed into a cornerstone of the REA in a small, tasteful ceremony.

Very cool. Thanks for adding it. If it was there all the time and I just was too dim to find it, thanks for pointing it out.