tony

Francoise, please excuse the delay in answering your question. It probably confused the others as much as it confused me. I guess we must all expect everybody to know that US students dress very casually. Then I looked at your profile and saw that you live in France. (aha!) No, there is no dress code at the University of North Dakota or any other public university I know of. In general, American students are very casual in their dress - and on the Plains, people of all ages (not just students) are extremely casual in their clothing choices (meaning blue jeans and a shirt). In my experience at North Dakota State (not quite the same place as UND), people almost uniformly wore blue jeans and sweatshirts except on those days it was warm enough for shorts and/or a t-shirt (and about 90% of the guys wear baseball caps too). Women's dress tends to vary a little bit more, but basically they wear the same things as guys (just that their jeans are less baggy and they tend not to wear baseball caps). I've never noticed that UND students dressed any differently. UND's website has some photos of the campus showing students. I think you'll see that almost everybody is wearing blue jeans (or shorts) and either t-shirts or sweatshirts. Here's one example from UND's website: Student Life

RD17, what did I say that wasn't true? I am using Title IX as an example of where Federal government brought about reform even when the alumni and college presidents were intransigent. If reforming college athletics was not Title IX's primary goal, that's beside the point. I'd argue that you don't understand what I wrote about the consequences of the BCS splitting from the NCAA because of these statements: 1. DI schools like their exclusivity. 2. If the BCS split from the NCAA, they'd feel the wrath of Congress because they'd face the wrath of non-BCS DI schools as well as the wrath of the reform-minded segment of the population. Those statements DO make sense. The first is a fact. The second is a supposition. There are people who want to reform college athletics but eliminating the exclusivity of DI is not even a subpoint on their agenda. They are worried about the huge budgets, the lack of institutional control, and the outrageous abuses that already occur in the pursuit of athletic goals. Anyway, if the BCS schools split off, the reformers would have their ranks swelled by the angry alumni and administrations of every non-BCS DI school. They WILL have the moral high ground because they'd argue that the BCS schools were running amok. I think they'd be right (or maybe I should say, "We'd be right." Here's what the BCS would be saying by splitting off from the NCAA, "We want to hire strippers for our athletes! We want to pay players! We want to go have unrestricted access to high school athletes! Heck, we want to be able to start our own college-affiliated prep schools in open enrollment states in conjunction with the NFL if we want! We want to engage in any and all excessive behavior denied us and, by God, we'll be damned if the NCAA is going to stand in our way anymore! Oh yeah, we want 100% of all the TV money, not 90%!" That's why I said the alliance of reformers and non-BCS DI would have the moral high ground. They'd have it by default if nothing else.

Why should Marcil have talked for why DIs would go for his proposal? Any proposal for changes that affect, and would require the vote of a majority of, non-BCS schools should take their point of view into account IF YOU WANT THE PROPOSAL TO BE ENACTED. If all you want to do is sigh about the state of college athletics, the affect of money on BB (DI-AA was formed BEFORE big money basketball, btw), and the lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of NCAA members, then, by all means, make proposal after proposal. BTW, I fail to see how your cafeteria proposal does anything at all to further your core values. In fact, I have a hard time seeing any relationship between the values and the plan. To see what I mean complete these sentences... 1. A cafeteria plan would do a better job than a three-division NCAA at stopping schools from spending more than they make by... 2. A cafereria plan would provide more or better educational opportunities than the status quo because... 3. A cafeteria plan would provide more competitive athletic opportunities AND minimize the number of sports added just to satisfy the rules than the status quo because... (aren't these goals mutually exclusive?) It's probably pointless to continue the discussion. I'm sure everything you write makes perfect sense to you. Not to me though.

Hahahaha! Don't you know my style yet, The Sicatoka. I try very hard not to mince around. I wasn't implying anything about what DI schools want, just noting that you (and Mike Marcil) never made a convincing argument that DI schools would support any of your proposals. These proposals seem to developed merely to complete this question: "Wouldn't it be great for athletics at UND (or in the NCC) if the NCAA..." At least this is an improvement from the past, when the question most often being completed was: "Wouldn't it screw over NDSU if the NCAA..." Anyway, your question was what do non-BCS DI schools want. I'm no expert, but I'll try to answer it. First, and above all, DI schools want to play DI basketball. NDSU is kind of exception in this matter because for the supporters of the move, football was the driving force. Second, in my opinion, DI schools want to play DI (or DIII) football, not DII. It's hard to back this up though. Sure, 90 of the original 130 DII football playing schools left the division, but was it basketball that drove them out? I do know that several DI-AA schools were pushing to eliminate DI-AA/DI-A distinction altogether. I'm not sure what the ramifications for a playoff would be (presumably the BCS schools would opt out), but DI-AA schools already feel stigmatized as not really being DI. Playing DII football would be much worse in that regard. Third, DI schools want the exclusivity of being DI. That's part of the value of being DI. For example, NDSU can go to a recruit and say, "If you come here, you'll be playing DI ball." Only two other schools in MN, ND, and SD can say this. If the "cafeteria plan" went into effect, this value would not only be significantly diluted - for example, we'd probably end up with 30+ schools in the tri-state able to say the same thing - but the non-DI would also be able to bump up their scholarships to make recruiting more difficult.

I've never heard of NDSU announcing a walk-on before. That is really odd. Then again, I didn't know about the institutional letter of intent until this year either. Remember USD announcing a signing class of about 1000? Obviously, not all of them had signed National Letters of Intent (NLI). It turns out that they signed "institutional letters of intent." Anyway, I checked the NCAA regulations and apparently the NCAA lets you announce a signing upon receiving an NLI or "subsequent to the prospect's signed acceptance of the institution's written offer of admission and/or financial aid." (NCAA Reg 13.11.8 Announcement of Signing). I wonder why NDSU chose to announce this particular walk-on. I'm assuming Ms Hooten was consulted beforehand (or, even better, requested the release herself).

I agree with RD17 that college athletics will not reform themselves. I do not agree that university administrations are to blame (if that is what he meant). If an administration does anything to mess with the athletic programs, the alumni go crazy. Heck, UND fans should know what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on a university president who decides to mess with something like a hockey jersey or decides that "co-curricular" means that athletes and students, being one in the same thing, should be held to the same entrance requirements. Of course, that's the other problem; most people think their university is a shining example of how things should be done, and it's only other schools that have the problem. Like it or not, the only thing that will reform athletics is action by the U.S. Federal Government. For as much as people whine about Title IX, if it weren't for that legislation, college athletics for women would not exist in any meaningful way. BTW, don't even bother telling me how much you hate Title IX because my point is that action by the US Federal Government is effective. Universities would not have developed college athletics for women on their own because as soon as a university president decided it would be the right thing to do, he'd find himself in a shitstorm without an umbrella. If the people of the United States have the will, we could reform college athletics by denying federal money to universities who do not reform. Congressional action, of the threat of it, is the only way college athletics will reform in the current climate. In the short tem, the one thing most likely to trigger action by Congress is having the BCS split off from the NCAA. Bereft of any meaningful controls, the BCS schools would probably spin out of control. However, Congress would slap them down before they get a chance to go crazy because the non-BCS schools have a lot more influence on national politics than the BCS. Not to mention that the folks calling for reform would have the moral high ground and splitting off from the NCAA would be seen as a coup by college athletics over college academics. IMO, the BCS would be in for a Bibilical-style spanking. ------------------- PS The Sicatoka, are you sure you want all-sports division just under the BCS and just above DII? Better tack on the "except hockey" clause right from the beginning. The fatal flaw common most, if not all, your proposals is that they don't take into consideration what non-BCS DI schools want.

Star2City, Mr. Marcil's proposal won't harm DI-AA or NDSU in any way because it's not going to happen. If you can't address my arguments, I'm fine with that. I wasn't expecting much more than what you countered with. The main problem I have with Marcil's proposal is that it doesn't make sense. Would I be for letting DII teams play football in DI-AA if they want? Sure I would. Would I be in favor of letting DI teams play DII football? I have no problem with that either. However, a DII team playing in DI-AA division would have to be subject to DI-AA's rules - including those in regards to transfers and initial eligibility. A DII school playing up would simply be a non-voting member of DI-AA. A DI team playing down would be a non-voting member of DII but should still be held to DI's higher academic standards. OTOH, I'm not in favor of forcing DI-AA schools to play DII football nor am I in favor of subjecting DI-AA to DII's governance. DII hasn't impressed me with their competence. Each year they try to out-stupid what they did the year before and they generally succeed If you are really worried about DII's numbers not growing as fast as DI's or DIII's, I have some proposals that will work MUCH better than what Mike Marcil suggested. Heck, the status quo works better than Marcil's proposal. Here they are: 1. DII should court NAIA teams and make DII more attractive to them. There must be 70 football-playing schools in the NAIA. Get them into DII and split the division into DII-A and DII-B and hold two playoffs. This way you could have a 36-scholarship division and an 18-max scholarship division. We already have a playoff for non-scholarship football teams (it's called DIII). 2. Try to convince DI to raise their admission standards so that the only DII programs allowed to move up are legitimate DI material (maybe they have to offer 120 total scholarships or something). 3. This is off the subject but if I were king of DII, I'd scrap regionalization and the SSI and any other dumb ass ideas they've come up with since 1988. 4. Let DI teams / conferences play down in one of the DII levels and let DII teams play up a level if they want, subject to the conditions I outlined earlier. This works better on all levels because: - DII gets up to 70 new football-playing members. - DII would actually be shouldering some of the burden of improving their division instead of begging for handouts. Nothing like doing some work yourself to instill pride in a product. - All the non-scholarship/low scholarship schools get their own playoff system. - DI-AA football schools might actually go for this (unlike Marcil's proposal which almost no DI schools are going to appreciate). - The NCAA ends up with a more reasonable gradation in scholarship levels (DIII=0, DII-AA=18, DII-A=36, DI-AA=63, and DI-A=85). Of course, #2 would be tricky, but at least I tried to address the basketball issue instead of trying to pretend it's not there. Both DI and DII have common ground on this. DII doesn't want to lose more members and DI doesn't want every dinky DII school with a BB team to move into DI. Heck, if DII and DI-AA had done some or all of these things a couple years ago, NDSU might not have gone DI. BTW, I think it would be great if NDSU added equestrian - sounds kind of expensive though. Gymnastics would be cheaper and add just as many women athletes but equestrian fits better with NDSU's mission; which as some of you love to point out, involves crops and livestock to some degree.

DamStrait, you tell me what the problem is with the NCAA. Then we'll see if we can come up with a solution together.

Of course he didn't - he didn't construct anything resembling an argument. 1. Tell me what the problem is. Don't babble about "mission ranges" and bell curves and the beauty of "geographic regionalization." How fast is DII's membership decreasing? What are the ramifications? Should we even care? Is DII's membership really decreasing? 2. If there are 20 schools leaving DII this year, why are they leaving? Will his solution address the problem? Probably not, since he himself says DI BB is the culprit. What time frame is he talking about, did DII lose twenty members in one year or five years? Who are these twenty members anyway? How many members has DII added in the meantime? 3. His solution is to creating three new football classifications; a smaller version of DI-AA, a smaller version of DII, and a totally new classification composed of roughly 1/3 of the current DII and DI-AA football teams. This doesn't even address his stated problem! These DI-AA schools are still going to be DI schools in all other sports, so DII's membership shrinks further. It also hurts regionalization for DII football because presumably you'd end up with three playoff structures and regionalization would end up sucking worse than it does now. I'd love to see the Strength of Schedule Index that the wizards running DII would come up with to encompass three subdivisions. 4. Of course the solution isn't going to work because it doesn't address the stated problem. It also ignores the wishes of the DI-AA schools. It's not my framework, btw. I think some Greeks came up with it because they got tired of debating issues with sloppy thinkers (how old is UND anyway? )

The Sicatoka, are you trying to convey an idea of some sort? Here's all I can gather... You posted two quotes. Mine on top. His on bottom. I'll assume you posted his quotes as a rebuttal? Here's my counter What does this have to do with his argument? He is saying colleges are organized in a bell curve with the center formed by predominantly large national universities. Not only is this irrelevant, it isn't even true. Cripes, The Sicatoka. I asked how a solution that ignores the central problem can be viable and you respond by quoting the same passage? That's not a rebuttal; that's a surrender. If you want to argue for change, here's what you do: 1. State the problem. 2. Show that without action the problem will remain or get worse. 3. Propose a solution. 4. Show how the solution is viable and how it will address the problem You haven't done anything but #3. Marcil tried to do 1 & 2 but he failed. So yeah, his proposal does deserve to be cast aside.

Huh. I wonder why Michael Marcil's view makes sense to anybody. I read the article and couldn't help wondering what "bell-shaped" curve he was talking about... either he wants DII to have the bulk of membership or he was just too caught up in his "NCAA as a barbell" metaphor to waste time explaining why a bell curve represents a desirable distribution of NCAA membership. The big problem he mentions is that DII's membership numbers are declining. Really? If he's going to make a statement like that, he shouldn't leave it unsupported. At the very least, we need to be able to judge just how serious a problem it really is. Personally, I doubt DII membership numbers are declining at all. For every departing school like UC Davis, DII adds two or three schools like North Greenville. Second problem. He argues that the lure of DI basketball is the primary reason for the decline in membership numbers. If so, why does his solution revolve around football? Apparently he is only concerned about the number of schools in DII's football division? Interesting. More on that later. Third problem. Whenever you say something like, "DII membership numbers are declining," you are obligated to put forth some argument showing how this is harmful. He does this by saying that "Division II's model of geographic regionalization is being threatened." Boo-frigging-hoo. Any system that places geographic location over excellence on the field is patently unfair and has no place in the NCAA. Regionalization deserves to die an unmourned death. Why should the NCAA rally to save something that is not worth saving in the first place? Fourth problem. Division II is not willing to do a darn thing to help themselves. "You force the networks to show our games. You get the networks to run our scores. You force DI-AA football schools to play DII football. We'll pitch in by coming up with dumbass names for three new football divisions." Fifth problem. This idea doesn't even save regionalization - it makes the situation worse! If you take all the teams from DI-AA and combine them with all the teams from DII and divide them into three classifications, you end up with three subdivisions smaller than what DII currently is. What's worse is that the non-scholarship teams would have a geographic center someplace in the Northeast. Maybe that wouldn't matter if all three classifications shared the same playoff and regionalization structure, but I can't believe he's proposing something that inane. Sixth problem. What's in it for DI-AA teams? They are not going to be beating down the door to DII crying, "Hey guys! DII's dumbass system of regionalization is in trouble! Let's subject ourselves to DII's enlightened governance and help! All we have to lose is our academic standards!" Ninth graders could rip this proposal to shreds.

Lord. How embarrassing. Sorry. What happened was I googled Brian Rabb and found a story listing Rabb with a 200 meter time of 22.8 - but it was a different kid, different state, different age. Seemed too unlikely to be just a coincidence. Guess not. BTW, I've never found anything on the web for NDSU's Rabb running track - no confirmation of any his times or any inidication that he's run track the last two years. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he isn't running track at all this year - and if I had to guess, I'd say he didn't run track last year. I have no idea where or when those times for his bio came from. In my view, he's the biggest mystery on NDSU's 2004 signing class.

You got the wrong Brian Rabb. The Rabb NDSU signed is a senior from Florida and the Rabb whose 200 time you found is a sophomore from Indiana.

Personally, I'd have loved to see Dressler in a Bison uniform - I think he is going to be something special for UND. As for Shamen for NDSU - well he can long jump just about 24 feet (the guy who won Class A last year in ND jump 21' 9). Anyway, if he's doing that and he's only 5'4, that's freaking amazing - he must have some serious explosiveness. I figure NDSU will use him just like UND will use Dressler. As for size being a problem for either kid, last year Cinque Chapman (for UND fans, that's one of the guys from Illinois that NDSU signed) was a 5'8, 164 lb wisp of a player. You never would have guessed it by looking at him this weekend (then again, NDSU has him listed as 5' 10 now).

This is a UND football forum, right? You'd think that you'd be more worried about who or what UND is replacing NDSU with.

Wow! That was fast. Let's start with this to see how far off we are in our views. Which teams on UND's schedule would you favor to beat Davis or UNC? How about Cal Poly? How about Weber State?

Corella, Central Washington didn't play Montana State last year. They did play UC Davis though and got pounded 41-7. They also played Carroll MT (same league as Montana Tech) and got beat. So yeah, there is some comparison between the schedules, but not much. NDSU and UND don't even have any common opponents in 2004. SiouxMeNow, if there's no difference between DII and DI-AA, prove it: insist that UND schedule Montana or NDSU. Ask Thomas to work to get the ridiculous rating system scrapped or adjusted. If he really wants to schedule NDSU again, that's what he'd be doing. Maybe you have a point. Maybe DII's lower academic standards and softer transfer rules offset DI-AA's advantage in scholarships. I'd prefer to see it settled on the field rather than debated on a messageboard. Until UND and NDSU play again, I guess you'll have to be content with Bakken and Schultz telling everybody that UND has the best football team in the state. Maybe they can award you a trophy every year. I'd suggest something tasteful, fashioned from the coproliltic leavings of an extinct species of horse because that's all it'd represent.

By using "would", I thought you'd pick up on the hypothetical nature of my comments (see the italicized comments below). I'll be more clear: there at least three teams on NDSU's schedule that, if they played all of UND's 2004 opponents instead of their currently scheduled ones, would probably go undefeated. In addition, NDSU has three other teams scheduled that might be able to go undefeated with UND's schedule. I could be wrong - maybe Delta State or Central Washington have picked up another slew of transfers who will elevate their teams to the upper echelon of DII for one shining season. On the other hand, all (or almost all) of the teams on UND's 2004 schedule would struggle to be above .500, if they were to play NDSU's schedule instead of their own. I'm not disputing that there are some (or perhaps several) teams on UND's schedule that might be able to beat Montana Tech or Valparaiso, but on some level you guys must be aware that NDSU's schedule is a heckuva lot tougher than UND's. That's all I'm saying. When NDSU and UND used to have the same conference schedule it made sense to look at the two or three non-conference games to compare schedule strength because all else was equal. There isn't any overlap anymore so you have to compare the schedules in their entirity.

First, if you are worried about NDSU's schedule being too weak, get off your duff and start trying to get Thomas to start working to change DII's stupid strength of schedule index so he no longer has an excuse for not scheduling NDSU. An NDSU-UND game strengthens both our schedules. Second, far as I know Drake played Morningside four times and never lost. If all you're doing is laying on some smack, that's fine. NDSU's 2004 schedule is weak? Compared to who's schedule? Certainly not UND's. There are at least three teams on NDSU's schedule that would walk through UND's schedule undefeated: Northern Colorado, UC Davis, and Cal Poly. Northwest State, Weber State, and Nicholls State might lose one game, but would have a very good shot at running the schedule too. Anybody on UND's schedule have the remotest chance of running through NDSU's schedule undefeated? Didn't think so.

It's not just going to come from baseball. The exact quote from USD was, "USD will finance this new plan through internal reallocation, student fees and increasing fundraising efforts. As part of this action, USD will discontinue its baseball program following the 2004 season." They are also going to cap the football roster at 95 (no more 36 kid signing classes). USD's athletic department needs to get healthy and competitive again... I was half-expected them to go DI and leave football non-scholarship before this announcement.

UND-Gary. First, I'm not DI, NDSU (almost) is. Second, if you were talking about UND football, I wouldn't be posting here. For the record, I never said that Ferris, Mesa, Delta, and C. Washington are crappy teams - they have had some very good teams in the past - they're just not that interesting as matchups, especially to the casual fan. There's a difference. North Alabama, Pittsburg State, Northwest Missouri, TAMUK, Indiana PA, Carson-Newman, Valdosta State, and Grand Valley State - those are the teams I'd want to see if I were a UND fan - heck, I would love to see those teams on NDSU's schedule too. Beyond that, meeting former conference partners occasionally would be kind of cool. It made a lot more sense to compare UND's and NDSU's non-conference schedule back when they shared a conference but now the conference schedules are no longer a wash... NDSU's top five opponents: Northern Colorado, UC Davis, Cal Poly SLO, Weber State, and Northwestern State (LA). How do you think these teams compare with UND's top five opponents?

Like I said, maybe UND fans want something different than Bison fans. All I know is that if I had to look forward to a couple decades of schedules in which a lineup of Mesa, C. Washington, Delta, and Ferris are considered to be as good as it gets, I'd be kind of depressed. If I had to look forward to a couple decades in which 90% of the football talk on a Bison site was about UND, I'd be even more depressed.

Just my opinion, but I think most Bison fans would take Valpo, Nicholls State, Northwest State, and Montana Tech over Ferris, Mesa, Delta, and Central Washington. UND fans might be the exact opposite - I don't pretend to understand what UND fans want in a non-conference schedule, but I do know what I like. Personally, I think both schools have a lot to be happy about. UND has a lot of home games and NDSU plays nine DI-AA schools with five first-time meetings.

PCM, sorry, I usually try to respond to direct questions. No, I do not think that NDSU fans call Roger Thomas a liar. The Sicatoka, yeah, I said Roger Thomas needed a translator. I still don't get your point. It sounds like you are equating "Listen guys, if you want me gone, stop trashing NDSU" to "Listen guys, you should delete all the anti-NDSU posts" and, in what passes for logic in Sicatoka-land, have concluded that I am being hypocritical. Well, for starters, you'd be wrong, those statements are not equivalent. I'd only be hypocritical if I asked you to stop posting replies to anti-UND posts on Bisonville. I'd never expect anybody to do that. Look at my post history, when NDSU is attacked, I haven't been replying in kind (unless you count my Grand Cities replacement idea). Finally, it doesn't offer any excuse for all the NDSU bashing. For example, if I say you are a bit slow and you respond by saying I'm a bit slow too, at best you've tried to deflect criticism; at worst, you've admitted you are indeed a bit slow. Oh well, I shouldn't have replied to this thread at all. None of you were attacking NDSU in this thread, just complaining about NDSU fans. It would have been better had I never responded. If you are truly interested in what Roger Thomas had to say, I think you really should start the thread over. I'm not interested so you can be assured that I won't intrude - as long as you leave NDSU out of it.

ScottM, I'll leave this board for good when you and others like you stop trashing NDSU. The Sicatoka, do you have a point that you want me to address? If so, what is it?