Teeder11

Defensive? I merely agreed with your general assessment of the veracity or, lack there of, of Herald reporting, and suggested your inaccurate (hardly sarcastic) description of a public event would make you an awesome fit for that bastion journalistic integrity. (:

It's in their heads again. How elusive confidence can be.

It wasn't a rally with faculty. It was a public Q&A style "Great Conversation" at the Chester Fritz Auditorium, sponsored by the UND Black Student Association and the UND Multicultural Center in celebration of Black History Month. About 800 people of all walks of life were there to see the event. Not just faculty. Talk about sensationalizing. You'd fit in well at the Herald.

'Course there's no scoreboard to speak of on tge webcast so I was doing it all in my head.

Thanks bin. I'm on video blackout again.

Well I hope they use my money to purchase a better network. Consider it a donation.

They took my $8 bucks and gave a frozen screen in return. );

Would Nash have played in the scrimmage too? That's another warm body that might be contributed back then that we won't have this afternoon.

I see our teams are breaking "UND" or "personal" records left and right, based on the headlines on UNDsports.com. This is all fine and good, I guess, when you consider our caliber of athlete must be improving. But, when you consider that when one of ours breaks a "UND" record, they're still finishing in 7th or 8th place sometimes against the other Big Sky competition, it shows we have a ways to go. It will be nice when we start seeing some headlines about breaking conference records. Go UND!

Measure his (Hooker's) talent and composure when he gets here and then sit him, start him or sub him accordingly.

Agreed. I think I've heard similar discussions about the word "suck" over the years. There is a talk radio guy in Grand Forks who used to say the word "suck" a lot on his show, as in, "that sucks," that is until someone called in and railed on him for using such an "obscene" word on the air. The caller went on to say that the word is a reference to a pornographic act. The host was incredulous at first, but eventually swore off using the word on the air. Now, while the word "suck" has found its way into our common vernacular, it would seem there are still some out there that think, either rightly or wrongly, that it is inappropriate speech in polite society. There must be a few out there that also think "choke job" is obscene. Goes to show you where their mind is!

Good point. However, my guess is that the administration treated the exchange between Paul and Jones as an employee matter in which one employee used objectionable and/or off-color language with another employee. I think this discussion and the whole debate that has gone national got derailed from the get go when the assumption was that Paul was suspended for being overly critical. One explanation that I got is that that the term "choke job" is perceived by some (including some in the administration, obviously), and erroneously so, in my opinion, as a description of a pornographic act. If that was the consensus by the administration and it was decided that Paul's language toward a fellow employee was at the very least off-color or at worst obscene, then, it would make sense that, by university policy, Paul would get some sort of disciplinary action. In this case, as Tom put it, the penalty is akin to a couple days vacation with pay. I also don't think Jones would have had to complain about the exchange in this instance due tot the public nature of it all. Now, I must also say that I have done a little research on the words "choke" and "choke job" as it pertains to sport and no where could I find any reference that they stemmed from pornographic origins. So, it's still all very baffling even to me. Whatever happened here, I also truly believe that there is some extreme over-sensitivity going on within the administration or possibly just an overzealous interpretation of university human resources codes and policies.

No offense taken. I like the discussion. I just thought that Tom's piece laid out some concrete facts that were missing from the debate. It set a nice foundation, albeit, a couple days late. I think the reason it was made public the way it was is because UND is a public institution that, for good and for bad must do things in the open, and can't get away, all the time, with what the private sector can, and because the public would presumably miss Paul and wonder about his absence, and in this town, when it comes to our local media "celebs," that gets tongues wagging. So the statement was brief, factual and to the point, but unfortunately, because of those things, it didn't allow for it to be the end of it. So here we are.

I think Tom Miller nailed it here. A good summation of a not-so complicated but very misunderstood situation. Discuss. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/257042

There must be a clause in Paul's contract with UND that perceived derogatory comments against his employer or representatives of his employer (UND players, coaches, teams) are grounds for disciplinary action. I think this is one of the reasons why Swyg resisted so much when Sean Johnson was going around and "recruiting" the old radio play-by-play guys to come on board and work for UND. It's a common practice across the college sports landscape but it makes for uncomfortable situations like this. Swyg said his meeting with Johnson to come on board was a bit terse and to the point, as in "join the club or take a hike." Swyg stuck to his principles and took the latter. Good for him.

Same score. 2:11 to goo

57-58 NAU. 3:51 to go

UND was down 10 at one point in first half.

NAU coach chewed out the ref for two full minutes. Thought he could havebeen teed up but stripes let him vent. He must have got in stripes ear as a couple of iffy calls went NAU's way late in first half.

Keep paying East Coast cream puffs 200k to fly 'em in, lodge 'em and stomp 'em .... it may never get built. Just say'n. What evs.

Archer could see some minutes on Saturday, per Hammer.

Yeah, he's right. It IS Fargo. The criminal element is thick there.

I know no one cared about Mines, but Portland only got 9,200 early in the year when hopes were still high. That PSU-UND game would have been good for only the third most attended in our last year of transition. Montana drew about the same number this past year (9,296). I mean it's Montana for crying out loud, c'mon. Yes, winning will be the key. I'm just looking at the numbers and they surprised me.

True. I don't disagree, but the modest gains in attendance were evident throughout the year --from beginning to end -- even when we were 3-1 going into our home game with NAU and playoffs were still a distinct possibility. We drew less for that NAU game than we did the year before against Poly when we were in transition in the Great West. Just saying. I hope we can turn it around quickly.

I hear you, and tend to agree, somewhat, but we got more than 10,600 for our first game of the year in 2011,in our last year of transition, against Drake. Our first real home game of 2012 (against Portland, following a 66-0 drubbing of Mines) drew 9,200. WTF?