tony

Ah, I knew I should have followed this thread more closely. If you remember back when NDSU was deciding whether to go DI, UND did not conduct business privately and quietly. Heck, Kupchella was writing anti-DI opinion pieces and sending them off to the NCAA and sharing them with every paper in North Dakota. Back then, UND was hard at work making sure that anti-DI bills had a provision to exclude hockey. Back then, pretty much every coach and administrator at UND had something to say about DI. The Herald hasn't even covered the story yet. You may remember them from such editorials as "[DI:] A sucker's game", "Bisons' D-I move doesn't make sense", and "Division I? Say no!" If UND and the Grand Forks media had no problem discussing DI when NDSU was considering it, they should have even more to say about it now. Anyway, I came not to mock you guys (that was just a bonus), but to inform. Steve Hallstrom at WDAY reported that, according to Roger Thomas, UND will strongly consider DI if DII cuts FB schollies by 12.

Sorry, it wasn't very helpful to put the SDSU comment in there. UND definitely has other advantages over them - the Big Sky is the only party that can really answer the question.

Come on, McFeely isn't a Bison-loving homer. Some of you guys keep saying that but can't seem to find a link to a column that backs it up. Not surprising, since McFeely might have written one column about NDSU's move to DI that wasn't derisive (and, if so, it was the week after the Grizzly game). Can't recall ever reading anything by Ziegler... is he anything like Ryan Bakken? Anyway, so what conference do UND fans want? The Big Sky? If UND gets into the Big Sky, does that mean the Big Sky ends up turning down SDSU (even though SDSU is already two years ahead in the process) or is it possible that the Big Sky would take three Dakota programs even though one wouldn't have a travel partner? From a Bison fan's perspective, I'm worried that if the BSC is really interested in UND, they may decide to delay expansion because it doesn't seem likely that UND could make a commitment to DI in time. Could UND announce in January that they are looking at DI and have a decision ready soon enough to make them a likely candidate when the BSC meets in the early summer? If UND decides that DI is the right place and a BSC invitation isn't forthcoming, should UND wait until they get an invitation from another DI conference before leaving DII? If so, which conferences would be acceptable?

I kind of wish DII would publish the SSI ratings along with their poll. What would that hurt?

Sorry, The Sicatoka, I owe you an apology. I thought for sure that you meant NDSU rather than UM Crookston and MN State Moorhead (re: schools who have raised their athletic level while ignoring their academics). Why not just say so in the first place? In UM-C's defense, I'd say they have raised their academic level a heck of a lot higher than their athletic level (JUCO to four year). Moorhead - well, their conference moved up as a whole so their situation is different than UND's or NDSU's. I suppose it is too early to really talk about this since it sound like UND is still in the phase of doing their internal study. If NDSU is a guide, the next step towards DI would get the public involved.

OK, The Sicatoka, I'll bite. Which schools were you talking about when you said that other schools in the area are trying to elevate their university through athletics alone? That's a pretty damning statement to make. Enlighten me, Talks Like A Snake Crawls. When do you think UND will go public with its plans or do you think the first time we'll hear about it is after the deed is done? And, again, if UND does go DI, I'd sure like to see the DI-AA board - it would provide hyster... I mean historical perspective on the issue

Hey Sicatoka, I'm not going to come here and list all the reasons going DI won't work for UND. I hope other NDSU folks extend the same courtesy. You could return the favor by not smirking about NDSU who, unlike other universities in the region, has had a minimum ACT score of 21 for years (see how annoying that is?) Enough of that. If UND is studying DI, when are they going to going to go public? And Jim, when is the DI-AA forum coming back ?

UND's football show is being hosted on the Forum site. If you want to watch it, go to Sports. On the right you should see "Special Projects". You should see "Sioux Football 2004" towards the bottom. If I were a UND fan, I'd think this was VERY COOL. If you are wondering, I'm jealous but not upset about it - heck, WDAY covers Grand Forks too and UND is a state institution. NDSU owns there show now so if they want it on the web, they'll have to put it on gobison.com (if DI regulations allow it, that is).

Probably not. I usually edit after I post... too bad I can't do that when I'm speaking (i.e blurt out something and then go back and edit it).

Heck, I was going to guess the name of the document was "DI Teams That UND is Willing To Play Other Than NDSU (Who We Can't Play Because They Are DI and We Are Not)."

I was wondering about that too, Star2City. Here's the situation: I know that Eastern Washington is spending a million or two improving their stadium, but they are only expanding it up to 11,000. However, they also play some games at nearby Albi Stadium which holds 28000+ for big games. Portland State, Sacramento State, and Montana can hold 20,000+. Northern Arizona and Montana State can hold 15000+. Idaho State can hold 12,000. They've got the capacity but there would have to be dramatic increases in crowds to get the average to 15000. Getting NDSU would help raise the average, but even NDSU would have to increase attendance substantially to make even a minor difference. Anyway, I believe one of the ways you can satisfy the 15000 rule is to be part of a conference that averages 15000 per home game overall. Getting to that average would make for a much more stable DI-A conference if they ever decide to go that route.

Hahahahaha! Classic thread! Sounds like a some of the UND fans/NDSU haters are sweating bullets...

Dunno what he said, Mad Baser. There were a number of Southern U. fans posting there (Earle, Blue Dog, Jagster, Jax1906, LilJag). I'm not sure which one didn't meet doclenz's standards. Earle admitted to not knowing anything about the Dakotas. Liljag wrote like he or she was posting a text message. They all seemed like extremely friendly people who probably would not go around mocking people behind their backs. (Considering I had about twenty grammatical errors in this post before trying to fix it just now, maybe I missed the funny post because I didn't recognize the flaws)

Um, in a business rivalry, driving your competitors out of business is considered a victory. Businesses don't have serving the public as part of their mission statement either. Surely, even you (The Sicatoka) can admit that UND and NDSU are more like divisions of the same company than separate, competing companies, can't you? And, yeah, you may be talking just about athletics, but I am not. I'm talking about the relationship between the two universities, including athletics. Just saw Wyobisonman's post. This is a perfect example. If he goes to Mary v UND game, it doesn't really hurt NDSU. UND has "grown their business" without any meaningful effect on NDSU because he isn't choosing Mary over NDSU, he's going to a game when otherwise he would not.

Well, I am very critical of UND and Grand Forks from time to time but that doesn't mean I wish them ill. Heck, I wish they'd just with they'd stop doing the things I dislike Your analogy that NDSU and UND are business competitors is flawed. NDSU and UND are more like divisions of the same company, the state of ND. As such, there are limits on the nature of their competitiveness. For example, there must be a willingness to let the other institution pursue their own goals even if the other institution finds them unworthy. Of course, two fair-minded people might not always agree on what type of competition is acceptable, but I think they could formulate some general rules of thumb. On the most basic level, UND and NDSU are not athletic competitors. NCAA Division II is a different market than NCAA Division I so no win by UND can ever take anything away from NDSU and vice versa. NDSU and UND are competing for student-athletes and little else. Even this competition should have its limits. PS If you are suspicious, maybe you are projecting... then again, I only went to my introductory pysch class twice

I think Mary would be a pretty nice addition to the NCC. Like Star2City wrote, it'll increase the presence of the NCC and UND in the western part of the state. I think it'd give the NCC a larger profile than any school in the Twin Cities because the NCC will be a big media story in Bismarck whereas it doesn't matter which DII or DIII school you pick in MSP, none of them are ever going to get any meaningful coverage from the media in the Twin Cities. Beyond that, if the NCC can pick off a strong member of the DAC 10, they will go along way to reducing the likelihood of the a big chunk of the DAC 10 forming a new DII conference in the area (and I think that'd be bad for the NCC). If the NSIC picks off Jamestown and/or Minot later, so much the better. OTOH, star2city, I didn't appreciate that part of your position made it into a UND versus NDSU thing. Everything good for UND isn't necessarily bad for NDSU and vice versa. For example, increasing UND's exposure in western ND doesn't necessarily mean the NDSU's exposure will lessen - and even if it did lessen NDSU's exposure, I fail to see why that is a goal UND should be striving for. Please tell me that you aren't one of those people who think that any success by NDSU is a blow to UND and that failure by NDSU is as good as success for UND. That's a horrible way to approach things. As NDSU and UND are in different divisions now, no amount of success by NDSU or UND should be coming at the other's expense. At least that's what I was hoping.

PCM, I have stated my case for the hypothesis that GF leadership was behind the confusion in Washington. If you lose higher brain function every time I write something that upsets you... well, that's your problem, not mine. No diplomats in my family (as you may have deduced ) You continue to claim this hypothesis can't possibly be true (or if it is true, it doesn't matter because if you had your way, the Golden Rule would read, "Do unto others as you think they'd do unto you." At least give me another hypothesis that makes sense instead of asking me to prove something when I don't have any investigatory apparatus of my own. Basically, I'd have to go to DC and ask the people there who told them that North Dakota wanted the 119th blended into GFAFB. Seems to me that the media should be doing that. Anway, suppose my speculation is accurate and GF did try to sell the blending idea to DC wouldn't you and The Sicatoka simply tell me to grow up and accept the idea that this is the way the world should work?

The GF Herald editorial kind of caught me by surprise (a pleasant one, for once) after the posts on this forum and the column by Ryan Bakken. In fact, with two exceptions they said everything I said. First, the Herald stated that the only real danger to the continued existence of the 119th in Fargo is that it will get blended into a GFAFB - something that I didn't feel comfortable stating. Second, I speculated that there were elements in Grand Forks trying to convince Washington that the state supports blending the 119th into the GFAFB. I can see why the Herald didn't publish that type of speculation. Here's why I made the leap that Grand Forks was behind this: There was this quote from the Spectrum Group's report: There doesn't ever appear to have been any support for blending at the state level. Somehow, the folks in DC got a different impression. I made the leap that the people putting forth this idea would be the only people who have a strong motive to do so (Grand Forks leadership). I supported this hypothesis by pointing out other examples where leadership at GF and UND have exhibited similar behavior (that was probably a mistake on my part - too inflammatory, soon after I posted that, you guys seemed to lose sight of everything else). Anyway, if I'm right this is really bad. Not only would this mean there are folks working against North Dakota's interests, but they are also misrepresenting the state's position to Washington. It didn't stop there, I soon found out that none of you guys would admit to having a problem with this kind of behavior. At most, you asked me to prove the Grand Forks was behind this "misunderstanding." However, even if I had absolute proof, it wouldn't matter. You'd just say something inane like, "Well, Fargo would have done the same thing," just like you excused Bakken's idiocy by saying the Forum has done similar stories on Grand Forks (funny that you didn't have any examples). I was really disappointed by the posts on this forum. For once I came into a discussion thinking that maybe their would be some agreement about the right course of action. However, most of you sounded like an unattractive blend of Thomas Hobbes and Ryan Bakken.

I think ND's governor and congressional delegation see this as a problem that affects the state as a whole. As such, they have tried to come up with a strategy to deal with the challenge on those terms. From the stuff I've been seeing out of Grand Forks, the leadership up there has been doing things counterproductive to that strategy. Maybe I am wrong about this, but pulling crap like that does fit in with GF's history of behavior. Maybe GF's leaders are rationalizing their actions with the same unfounded speculation as some of you. Do you have any proof that combining a fueling wing with a fighter wing would make keeping either GFAFB or the 119th any more more likely? Sure, you can offer a reason or two it might makes sense, but you simply do not know if you're right. OTOH, the adjutant general of the North Dakota National Guard is on record saying it would be a bad idea.

Airmail, I expect better of the guy who came up with the "Can you hear me now" smack (classic, btw). 42 Million = direct economic impact 120 Million = direct *and* indirect impact. This is not the same as saying the if the Happy Hooligans leave Fargo, that Fargo will lose 120 or even 42 million. Anyway, you seem to be confused. The Spectrum Group did not say that the Happy Hooligans should be relocated to Grand Forks. They said they "could" be moved and, judging from their public comments, they seemed to think that this was a pretty crappy idea. Nobody from the Hooligans seems Happy about this blending idea either. In fact, the only one applauding that idea (until some guys on this board started hailing it as genius) was a member of the GF negotiating team - the same team that was apparently shopping the blending idea around DC unbeknownst to the Spectrum Group. Let me try to straighten things out. The Spectrum Group, according to the news reports I've come across, is working on behalf of the entire state to keep Minot, GFAFB, and the 119th around. I've assumed that based on comments from their members one of their goals is to keep the 119th in Fargo. Then again, maybe there is some disagreement on that point. They have the backing of ND's congressional delegation and ND's governor but not, apparently, Grand Forks. ------------------- PCM and The Sicatoka... hmmm. Argue with you or not? Tough call. The purpose of arguing (for me at least) is to get an accurate feel for the other person's point of view as well as to see if my viewpoint can stand up to the critiques of others. Winning the argument is NOT important as long as we all arrive at a clearer picture of the truth. I choose not to argue with you. I can't argue with anybody who thinks that the best defense of alleged wrongdoing is to theorize that others would do the same thing given the opportunity. If you truly believe that, you do not possess a frame of reference with which to judge whether a course of action is bad or good. Heck, I don't think we could agree even agree on whether the concept of "good" or "bad" has any meaning. You'll just continue to think that whatever Grand Forks or UND does is good and justifiable while assuming I think the same way about Fargo and NDSU. With that as your only point of reference, there is no point in discussing anything.

The difference between me and you, PCM, is that if Fargo's or NDSU's leadership took an obstructionist stance with Grand Forks or UND, I'd be ticked off at them. I just expect more out of leadership than that. You don't. Heck, if anything you seem to be applauding that kind of "leadership." --------- Airmail, it was just upsetting to me that GF leadership calls something a win-win when that's not how the rest of the state views it. If it's true that blending is the only way to keep the Hooligans in ND, then I'd expect all ND's negotiators to agree to the blending - as long as their overall mission doesn't suffer for it. Let's just strip it of all the folderol because bleating about "Vast FS Conspiracy" is a signal for you guys to turn your brains off (or in some cases put them in reverse) Here it is stripped of any back story and any griping about Kupchella: apparently some negotiators from a town in North Dakota have been telling folks in Washington that North Dakota wants the Happy Hooligans to be blended with GFAFB. This is happening at the same time as other negotiators working on behalf of the entire state are saying something different as they try to save Minot AFB, GFAFB, and the 119th. Do you read it differently? Suppose that is what happened, is there any way to defend that kind of action?

I'm sure if you asked them, they'd give you their methodology. The main difference I can think of between the folks in the Happy Hooligans and the personell at GFAFB is that the Hooligans generally live, shop, and work in the F-M area while folks in the base live in a relatively self-contained environment. A 160 mile commute is doable when the weather is good, but it's a heck of a lot different when it's a part-time job. I just brought it up because it's galling that Grand Forks continues to foster such crap-dilly-icious, short-sighted leadership. It's kind of like the whole stink of NDSU offering more doctoral programs. It caused an uproar in both Grand Forks and in South Dakota. The difference was that in Grand Forks it was viewed as a disaster but in South Dakota it was viewed as an unqualified success. But, hey, maybe the state seeing an extra 100 million a year is a disaster for Grand Forks because the only metric for success that Grand Forks cares about is this: how much government money does Grand Forks/UND get out of it? Another example: does leasing fuel tankers waste nine billion or so? Doesn't matter, Grand Forks might get a million a year from it. Hooray! What's weird is that I've never talked to anybody from Grand Forks who seems to have this attitude (except maybe when it came to the doctorate programs), so why is the leadership in Grand Forks so self-servingly crapulent? Seriously, it's getting to the point where somebody in a leadership position in GF or at UND says, "It's a win-win situation," I translate it into, "Getting something for UND or GF while screwing NDSU or Fargo." Tirade over Back to the original tangent, I suppose Fargo has a private economy that could withstand the loss of the Hooligans and perhaps, as ScottM suggests, the economy may actually thrive in its absence. The 120 million probably is just stating the economic impact of having the Hooligans in Fargo. If they were moved to GF, it's doubtful that Fargo would lose out on that much money (not everybody involved is going to move to GF especially when they likely have full-time jobs in the F-M area). The danger of moving the Hooligans to GF is that they won't be able to retain/recruit enough staff to keep the wing operational. How many of you would commute 160 miles for a part-time job?

Yesterday's Herald: Friday's Forum full article here Interesting difference in perspective. Sounds like the leadership in Grand Forks has their own game plan, different from the state's. (i.e. screwing your neighbors versus cooperating with them).

I can only imagine how exciting and ickily pleasurable such thoughts must be for you, The Sicatoka

Pretty much everything is speculation at this point. Taylor said that Ellis wasn't doing the job he wanted. Ellis's lawyer implied that it was age discrimination. We'll see how it plays out. Best to wait for each side to make their case. There is only one thing I'm sure of: it was not done to intimidate other employees. That's ludicrous.