jimdahl

I like the discussion on prideonice on how Parise really went to North Dakota because in North Dakota he stands out as a superstar, but in Minnesota he would've just been another player on a team full of stars. The thing that should really burn them up is Herb Brooks actual reasoning (he didn't just say "go to ND"):

Nothing new here, just a mention really, but another major media mention of Parise: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/hoc...11-column_x.htm

The flaw with this entire paragraph is the same mistake you make every time you visit our boards. You flip back and forth between talking about individual UND fans, UND fans as a collective, UND the institution, and the Grand Forks Herald. I never opposed an NDAC name change. I've never even heard of an NDAC. I suspect the same is true of a lot of people on this board. We don't have a collective consciousness. Debate occurs on this board whether you're here or not. "UND fans" are not a homogeneous collective. Same mistake. The fans on this board who wanted a DI NCC are not "UND". I want a DI NCC, UND didn't. I know you're confused because you and JBB come here and blindly cheerlead every decision NDSU makes, but a lot of us actually disagree with UND's decisions. Hence the debate. The fact that you wish your opponents ill is obvious. I'd actually like NDSU to succeed wildly because it would increase the chance of UND moving. Poppycock. I said repeatedly in September that I think UND should start making phone calls and rally the entire NCC to move. I said that was important because I think UND is going to want to move within a few years anyway, and that I think moving the way NDSU is (alone and without a conference) is stupid. That's why NDSU's choice to move in this manner is relevant to me as a UND fan, and is why I criticize it loudly.

This is what I was arguing above. Everything I've read indicates the conference has sole discretion to choose who gets its "autobid". Right. I think the confusion between a conference autobid and an individual school's tournament eligibility was resolved earlier. The 13 year limit for an autobid is a combination of the 8 years for its institutions to be eligible plus a requirements that 6 of a conference's members have played 5 years together while being eligible for the tournament before the conference gets an autobid. I believe it is you who are in error, Tony. This is a UND-oriented discussion forum, not an NDSU one. We're intentionally discussing a potential move to D-IAA by UND, and the impact of other schools moving only as it relates to UND. Most of us couldn't care less about NDSU's future, EXCEPT how it affects UND.

I guess my argument does hinge on one difference of interpretation regading point "a". I don't think an ineligible school winning the conference tournament would cost the conference its autobid. Conferences traditionally get to determine who they're sending as their autobid. Tradition is to send the conf. tournament winner, but if that team were ineligible, I would have thought the conference could send the runner-up. If I'm wrong on this point, my whole argument unravels

Whew, an unusually good outing for Gorder this week: Bowenkamp 36/54 515yds 3TD 4INT Gorder 27/42 416yds 4TD 2INT Gotta give the edge to Bowenkamp's record-setting performance with a slightly better accuracy and way more yards, though 1 less TD (and what's up with those INT's? I guess that's why UND loses).

And, of course, everyone's favorite UND hockey site scooped USCHO by 6 days http://siouxsports.com/hockey/showarticle.php?id=8

Thanks to Pat Miller for pointing out the following article from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/sports/h...key/06HOCK.html (NY Times requires free registration). Better yet, this link seems to bypass the need for registration (let me know if it doesn't work for you): http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/sports/h...&partner=GOOGLE

I've long thought that the North Dakota University system didn't need 11 institutions. 2 is probably too few because you do want to promote community education, give additional access to non-traditional students, and so forth. I'll tell you, though, I wouldn't want to be the guy who chose to close a couple campuses

SDSUFAN-- I agree, it's all about money. One nice thing about REA is that it's nearly guaranteed by Engelstad not to cost the school money. The last thing he wanted to do is put a burden on the school, so as long as he's able I believe he'll do whatever it takes to make sure that the facility benefits the school rather than hurts it. The Alerus probably never would have been built had flood expenses been predictable or had it been known REA would be built. However, the situation today is what it is, no changing the past. I'd be surprised if the city used financial troubles at the Alerus Center as an excuse to try to extort additional rent from UND, but you never know. I think having two such excellent facilities has definitely been a revenue boon for UND athletics so far, as measured at the gate.

We've discussed U of Minnesota's financial woes here a bit. There was an article in today's Strib about it, apparently things are looking up a bit for the Gophers. http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/3407804.html One interesting note that applies to UND is how Minnesota's successful hockey program makes them the only Big Ten school profitable in men's sports other than football/basketball. Clearly UND is generating tremendous revenue from hockey, so a profit there could give UND athletics a financial leg-up in a possible D-IAA move.

I guess you don't schedule meets like this hoping to win, but UND did lose to Air Force: http://airforcesports.ocsn.com/sports/m-sw.../110102aaa.html I looked pretty hard but couldn't find any reporting on it from UND or the Herald.

NDSU's attendance hosting future D-IAA, conference-leading UNC was 6621.

This week's Golden Arm tallies are in: Gorder 11/27 110 yds 1 TD Bowenkamp 17/31 184 yds 1 TD

Mankato moves quickly down the field with a long pass that leads to a TD, and GOES FOR TWO for the win instead of the tie! They converted it to lead 36-35. UND fails to answer with only about 20 secs and loses a heartbreaker. Isn't that the way this season is going.

After being down 0-28 in the 3rd, UND now leads 35-28 with 1 minute left in the 4th. What a comeback -- sounds like Bowenkamp and Mahmoud were really moving the ball well. Sioux D was solid throughout that streak -- there were a couple interceptions (by UND) and a missed FG attempt in that 35-point streak. It's not over yet, though.

That's one of the biggest the problem I see for UND. Moving would involve replacing traditional rivals with relatively equally skilled but unknown-to-fans rivals in I-AA. Yet somehow the move is supposed to bring about an increase in revenue, also? Right now if you look across the country, the only real difference between the bottom of D-IAA and the top of D-II is geography. High-end D-II schools tend to be in pockets of D-II (like the Dakotas) where there aren't enough D-IAA opponents to make it economical. The big question is if D2 will really deteriorate to the extent many are predicting. I guarantee that if D2 actually does lower football scholarship limits, then all of the fence-sitters like UND will have to become serious fast. Fortunately, as more schools in the area go D-IAA, it becomes easier and cheaper for all. There's definitely a network effect.

One slight correction, if I read you right. I don't think the guy in the article was actually interested in hockey. Rather, he's just some random guy from Croatia who had never heard of UND until he happened to see a hockey game on TV that involved UND. After he discovered the existence of UND, he checked out the school, liked what he saw, and went. Just one example of a guy who never would have heard of UND if not for its nationally televised athletics. I think that broader name recognition is a big part of what NDSU is reaching for with it's move to D-IAA. There are thousands of schools out there; if prospective students don't even know you exist, you're not going to be in their consideration set.

One of our common debates seems to be the issue of whether improving our athletic programs' exposure and quality can actually help the University's primary mission of academic growth. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that it does. There are always going to be people who want to go to a school with good athletics, or who check out the school simply becase of it's athletic successes. The GF Herald article quoted below presents an interesting story: http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforkshe...ald/4379069.htm A foreign exchange student from Croatia was living in Alabama and trying to choose a school in America. He saw UND vs BC hockey on TV and checked out UND. He was impressed by the quality/cost (let's face it -- one thing UND has going for it is North Dakota is a cheap place) and is now a student there. Just one example, but I really think the connection is true. Don't get me wrong, more directly investing money into improving research/faculty salaries/facilities probably has a more direct effect on academic success than investing those $$ into athletics. But investing into athletics DOES benefit the academic mission.

Meet the Sioux basketball teams "Fan Jam", Tuesday, Nov. 5, at Hyslop. 5:30 Doors open 6:00 Introduction of teams, short scrimmage 6:30 Autograph/photo session First 250 kids receive free headband First 250 students receive a Red Pepper grinder http://www.fightingsioux.com/sports/mbball...RELEASE_ID=1513

I don't believe we've yet debated to death the 10/24 article from the Brookings Register covering last weeks meetings: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=112...4&PAG=461&rfi=9 JBB probably has something to say about: But I believe Sicatoka and I have already beat to death: and Really does seem like if SDSU can make it work, UND could. BTW -- Northern Iowa, regarding your posted image, please try to keep it family friendly.

Since the status quo is keeping the name, you don't see as much demonstration to that end. In fact, it could be argued that continually debating with the name-change activists only additionally publicizes and legitimizes their arguments. When the rare flare-ups occur such that the University decides it's time to "study the name", then those in favor of keeping the name should organize and speak loud and clear. In the interim, though, I wonder if it doesn't do more harm than good? (Note that I'm not talking about the continual education process about the honor behind the name that UND currently has, I'm talking about active debate with BRIDGES). It seems each time there's a new University president the activists step up the volume and bring about another official study. One step that proponents of the name should probably take is to make sure to engage in an active campaign to educate any future administrations about the history/honor of the name.

I (selfishly) would love to see a new conference because that makes a distinct upgrade path obvious for UND. Such a conference would likely need to be entirely composed of new D-IAA members, though, because the conference wouldn't get autobids until there were 6 tournament eligible teams. It could be tough to convince any existing D-IAA members to repay the reclassification penalty by joining a conference of newbies. On a different note, I'd be highly surprised if NDSU actually stayed D-II no matter what difficulties it encountered in the provisional year; I think there's entirely too much pride involved. Everyone expects some difficulties, so I can't imagine what difficulties would change people's minds about the move.