govikes27

When in doubt, tax smokers. Or raise their "fees" as Pawlenty calls them. Again, taxes won't be raised on his watch, and it's too big a chuck of change to cut from other budgets. If he was really concerned about education costs, he'd try to do something about the double-digit tuition hikes.

If some of the dominos fall as have been speculated (UNO to MIAA, NSIC unwilling to lift scholarship limits in event of some kind of merger), I think some NCC schools will look very closely at teaming up with UND and moving as a group. If USD comes under pressure, and the MN schools follow UND, perhaps there will be more area schools starting transition in 07-08?

Share the sentiments of this board. Want the move, not crazy about extending an already long transition period. However, most everyone would agree it would be good to have more concreate financing ready. Also is probably at least part PR to be extra deliberate, in contrast to how NDSU's move was seen by critics.

I'll be curious about where USD goes. On paper they would appear to have too many obstacles to consider the move right now. But on the other hand, if they can't get into the MIAA there will be lots of alums pissed that USD is playing former NAIA schools while the other three major dakota schools are playing DI competition. SCSU moving? Who'd a thunk? SCSU moving has implications about what MSU does. Fans seem to be convinced they won't be seperated. It would be amazing if we suddenly had 3 or 4 more DI schools in the area.

Yeah, that actually isn't too bad. Especially if you look at how most of the questions are phrases having 2 options: 1. move RIGHT NOW or 2. don't move. Seems that there is actually a sizeable chuck of the pie that would take the third option if it was offered: make the move when conditions are right (not blindly like NDSU has been percieved as doing).

Just fired a letter to Kupchella. Probably won't matter, but ya gotta try.

Whopee. We're the warmup before they take on their cupcakes. Not that we should be any higher on the food chain.

Here's my take: -faculty: 95% responding stay DII wouldn't have surprised me. Many don't pay any attention to the local sports, and even those who do can't easily support increasing athletic budget when salaries are so low, some departments having next to no budget, and state support being as poor as in is in ND. I can't really blame them. NDSU's faculty was strongly against a move too. -students: about what I expected, though still disappointing. A segment that cares about athletics, but a larger segment only concerned how much it costs them. Some students do choose UND for reasons other than sports I guess. -season ticket holder(i.e. sportsfans): Mixed reactions. Want to see bigger competition and avoid playing the smaller schools, but want to stay DII. Huh? Image is better than NDSU's? Perhaps (among ourselves), but eventually casual obersevers are going to assume NDSU is the "greater" school due to it getting more media attention. Often questions aren't specific enough in these polls, like asking if UND supporters are comfortable being second-fiddle to NDSU in athletics. Obviously, that is slanted toward a pro-DI move, but that will be the inevitable conclusion if the two play in seperate division for a sustained period of time. I believe Kupchella will say "no move." Which is a mistake, IMO. This is supposed to be the "definitive" decision, but come on, whenever NDSU has sucess making the football playoff or even a Big Dance appearence (not all that improbable if they get into the Mid-Con) there will be a growing feeling of "heck, NDSU has had sucess, and we can do anything they can--why not us?" Envy? Well, competitiveness is probably a more accurate term. As more time passes and the realities of the current situation become more appearent, support for DI will only continue to grow. Finals week sucks.

Quite possibly. I was afraid of this. In my experience most native americans don't really care one way or the other regarding nicknames. l wouldn't be surprised if, being lobbied hard by both sides, a resolution isn't coming anytime soon.

I think the majority here would agree court action is not a slam dunk, we just think it's not impossible. I myself think it's the dollars and cents that has kept anyone from taking court action than whether they think they'll win. For small schools it's just cheaper to change the name, and most of the bigger ones have been exempted. I believe Illinois is still considering court action. And, a part of the reason to fight is admittingly emotionally based. LOTS of alumni are saying that they will stop sending money if the nickname has changed. If UND had just rolled over, many probably would have carried through. If UND fights tooth and nail, and still loses, then people can say, "At least UND did what it could." Not a logical reason, but has real implications ($$), which has guided UND's actions so far and could continue to. I don't believe for a second national media will be all against UND. Thrown into us vs. them politics, yeah, there will be some strongly biased stories against UND, but conservatives will champion the case as PC gone amuck. Heck, when the policy first came out and Kupchella was quick to respond, Lou Dobbs (of CNN) was praising the president by name, saying "there's a man with integrity" and so on. My reaction was like, "Man, Kupchella's getting more praise on CNN then he does around here." I just think we need to see this thing through. If we lose, then we lose. We all have got to choose our battles, but some things are worth fighting for. That's my two cents anyway.

I think Sicatoka could be a lawyer! Here's my attempt at playing lawyers: Points 1 and 4 look to be the meat-and-potatoes of UND's argument. I think UND has a very strong case here, enough to win on these alone. On further reflection point 3 could be rather persuasive also. The NCAA's inconsistantcy in enforcing a policy (which they lacked authority to create in the first place) can be demonstrated by it's FSU rulings. Mr. Brand fullyknew that FSU had support of the tribe but placed them on the list anyway. So it means it only matters that someone objects. Taking them off means that it only matters if there is tribal support. Either they should never have been on the list, or they should never have come off . Doing both proves the policy has been a capricious one. I'm disappointed by today's ruling. I should've know better, but I started to believe that the NCAA would back off with signs of greater tribal support. Now it appears they're willing to take this all the way. Needing the approval from the board of higher education makes me wonder if they'll even let UND take this to court. I for one want to see this through. And I'm not even in the "keep the name at all cost!" crowd. To me it's become a bigger issue about the NCAA's power to tell people what is offensive and the terrible precedent this sets up if the policy goes unchallenged. Someday names like "Knights" and "Crusaders" could be deemed "hostile and abusive" to Muslims... Debate on the local level is good, but unseen bureaucratic rulings on either side of the issue does nothing but make people mad. Alright, that's my soapbox for today. Just got to get it out of one's system, you know?

No, I think it really is tribal support (real or perceived). Signals from the local tribes are more ambivalent than with the Seminols or the Utes, so the NCAA can conveniently go with what they want to hear. Anti-logo activists are protesting the "Sioux" part of the nickname much more than the "Fighting" part. Plus there plenty of Fighting Scotts, Irish, etc., that I don't think even the NCAA could not see the holes in that policy. I know the NCAA's idea of logic is a lot different than most of our's, but still...

Yeah, this is why the policy has no legitimacy. Not anti-trust issues, but that this is a policy well beyond "basic athletic issues" as stated in their own bylaws. Brand has even said that this is about "social" issues, not athletic ones. Anything of this nature would have to be put to a vote and approved by the members, which, funny, never took place.

Good news. UND must not let up their efforts in extending and improving relationships with the tribes, even after the NCAA drops their case. If they do, the Fighting Sioux will be around for a long time.

Seems to me that the most logical place for a new athletics facility would be over by the REA and new wellness center. I have no idea what kind of access or control UND has to the land over there, or maybe they have set it aside for something already, but it seems convient to have all our sports facillities to one cluster. Is this even possible?