jimdahl

Hockey ticket plans nears(sic) finalization

A fine question, and one a few of us have been asking. The Spirit Lake resolution of support did specifically stipulate an ongoing dialog with the tribes, and the withdrawal of support cites the lack of such as a primary reason. I haven't heard any details about what contacts the University had with the tribes after the resolution of support but before this NCAA rule created a new incentive. As I mentioned previously, if UND does keep the name, I hope they take this as a "teachable moment" and work to establish that sort of relationship and dialog after the dust settles.

I agree. Unfortunately, such a dialog could never honestly take place while the nickname controversy is being actively considered because then UND's motives are viewed with suspicion. It's not surprising that UND has received a tepid response when it approaches the tribes in that situation. However, after the decision had been made in 2000, imagine if UND had gone to the tribes to try to establish a more collegial dialog and relationship. Sit down and explain, "The name controversy is over now, it's staying Fighting Sioux, we're not here to discuss that. However, we do want to work with you to use the name and imagery respectfully, better the institution's relationship with the tribes, etc...". While UND has undoubtedly done great things for Indians in the region, it hasn't fostered that "special relationship" at local tribal leadership level that won FSU's approval and appeal and will win CMU's appeal for them. Spirit Lake specifically cited UND's lack of doing that as a reason for their flipflop. If UND keeps the Sioux name, either through appeal or legal action, I hope they don't just consider the issue settled and go on with life as usual, rather (after the dust settles) take that opportunity to begin the dialog and establish that relationship with the local tribes. If UND loses its appeal, the obvious differentiator with those who won theirs will be that UND failed to establish that relationship in the past.

That's what I meant by "doesn't win a reversal" -- all administrative and legal remedies are exhausted and failed to overturn the NCAA's rule. Yes, the NCAA wanted to punish UND into changing the name; if that punishment sticks (again, after all remedies are exhausted), many would question if weathering the punishment to keep the name was worth it. Regardless, this discussion is a little premature. I just wanted to clarify that I was commenting on the potential situation "if UND doesn't win a reversal", as opposed to suggesting they just give up now. I really do like the breadth of the appeal and the strong suggestion that a lawsuit would be forthcoming if the appeal weren't ruled upon favorably.

4 fumbles, getting scary -- didn't lose any so hasn't affected the game outcome much, but it's becoming a little reminiscent of watching Culpepper in some of his fumble-fests. Anyone with video have anything to say about why the exchanges are so bad?

It's also always smart to have the opponent's feed link on hand. Not getting anything from it right now, but it may pick up later.

And NDSU isn't nearly as good a school as Virginia Tech (an institution I think you're dramatically underestimating). Obviously neither UND or NDSU are as good as either UVA or VATech, rather the point was to highlight the relationship between the two schools: The University of ... is moderately higher ranked with a more elite/professional focus, houses the law and medical schools, and has a league-leading hockey team . The land grant institution has a traditional focus on agrictulture, and veterinary medicine, but has recently risen in stature in engineering, increased their focus on research grants, and risen in enrollment to the size of/surpass the University. The above paragraph works pretty well on UVA/VATech or UND/NDSU. No analogy is perfect, but you make it sound like UVA is Harvard and Va Tech is MSU-Moorhead, which simply isn't true.

Oops -- since my point was the effect on enrollment rather than the details of the actual standard, the Forum's misleading description of the admissions standard snuck by me. My apologies, any misrepresentation was the result of quoting a bad source rather than intent. UND makes it clear and it is understood on this forum that those are the standards for automatic admission, which meeting will grant admission with absolutely no further review required. Obviously plenty of people subject to subsequent review do get in.

[url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=101173

BRAC amendment vote could keep tankers at GFAFB until at least 2010 Conrad's contacts were good last time, so if proposed, we'll see how the commission votes on these amendments today.

Tentative agreement reached in coaches' contract dispute

I agree -- as a Gopher alum/season ticket-holder within the past 5 years (admittedly closer to 5 than 0), I definitely agree that the NDSU/UMN talent gap is not what the Gophers would like it to be. Frankly, neither UND or NDSU would have much trouble consistently being I-AA top 25, which is why I'd so like to see UND at least consider such a move. Minnesota is not Montana, a UND/NDSU vs. UMN game shouldn't feature a surprise come-from-behind win, but it also wouldn't necessarily be a blowout (though, admittedly, the score would be kept close by Minnesota playing scrubs).

These Buning quotes were from an AP story that's in the Herald: I agree with Diggler, the Bison fans who were ripping on UND's coaches for being immature about NDSU's transition must be a little embarrassed at seeing the NDSU coaches' and AD's reciprocal juvenile tirades. I'm glad to see Buning trying to rise above the fray and reaching out, I think we have ourselves a good guy there. Now that it's no longer punitive to UND's playoff chances to play NDSU, I'd love to see the game picked back up, no doubt it was and would again be UND's most important non-playoff game each year. If, as star2city speculated, it's part of a long-term plan to look at I-AA, all the better.

I think the page has a limit to allowed data transfer per day, so people trying in the morning are able to get it until the data transfer allowance is consumed, then people can't until the next day.

Isn't that what I just said? Your participation in the discussion could be a little more constructive if you did less reactionary recitation of talking points and actually read and considered what other people are saying.

Oh, and I love the line about does the NCAA think it can unilaterally modify contracts that have already been made? The formerly giddy UND-haters might want to rethink investing in G.F. duct tape suppliers... (assuming, of course, there actually is a binding contract that doesn't let the NCAA arbitrarily dictate changes to the venue).

Though I first saw reference to it in a post here by LetsGoSioux!, I thought this deserved its own thread so reactions to it wouldn't be hidden away amidst the ongoing discussion. An Open Letter to the NCAA - Charles E. Kupchella It sounding like Dr. K has been logging some hours on the message board aside, I was impressed by his willingness to point at the elephants in the room and say, "sure we can follow your (rigged) appeal procedure, but first, why the hell are there elephants in this room?" While most of the talk in the media and on message boards has been about whether Native American nicknames are appropriate, we've all realized the real weakness of the ruling is its disconnect from other uses of American Indian names throughout American society and from the standards by which non-Indian team nicknames are judged. Lines about how we couldn't call ourselves the Dakotans, and how the Office for Civil Rights declared there's no hostility stand a chance of prodding the NCAA to come up with a more clear position.

I don't know anything you don't, but had seen the same public statement you quoted, so my guess is that REA would work with UND to do whatever necessary. We're getting way ahead of ourselves here, but if the rule stands and if UND decided they had to change (big, far off "ifs"), REA wouldn't have much to gain by refusing to accomodate UND hockey. UND hockey is their primary tenant and raison d'

Yeah, I'm still kind of playing around with that (which is why it's only one page). A couple design notes: 1) Though the web is full of dubious-quality countdown tickers, I believe I'm correctly accounting for time zones (number of hours until the game is based on YOUR local time zone and DST) and not using any browser-specific gimmicks to make the dynamic content happen (for you Firefox geeks) 2) The dream is to have it function as a no-reload-required score ticker so if you left the page loaded pre-game and came back post-game, the score would be there The big problem with #2 is data quality -- still don't have a great data source for mid-game score updates, so rather than real-time like TV tickers, it might just update with the final score postgame.

Though I support the nickname and think UND should do whatever it can to fight this dictated political correctness, my support has kind of the taken the opposite path of PCM -- in 2000 I was in the fight to death for principle camp, whereas if it remains punitive, my principle may not extend to actually giving up home football playoff games. That said: It's not really clear why schools' sports teams need a nickname / mascot. Agreeing with engelbunny/Taz (though, as I explained, from a slightly different viewpoint), I wouldn't have a problem with the sports teams just being called the University of North Dakota. "Here comes North Dakota". "Goal, North Dakota". I prefer that to "Goal, Fighting Green". A nicer logo than the circa 2000 "North Dakota" jerseys would be required, but that's certainly doable. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Dakota itself is ironically "abusive" under the new standard, but such monikers are embedded in the team names of at least half the state schools in the West.

Recent media flurry as a deal is reached and people complain about the deal. A sampling... Devil's Lake water to flow this week 8/8 CBC News Critics call Devil's Lake deal "a joke" 8/8 The Globe and Mail North Dakota urged to again delay Devils Lake floodwater diversion project 8/8 CBC News