jimdahl

Hmmm.... seems to be a known problem with IE10 and the (very popular) web text editor TinyMCE CKEditor. http://answers.micro...c1-b6832aaf52ad I'll keep looking into it, but for now the workaround is to use a browser other than IE.

Browser/version? (Given that there are at least two of you, and nothing has changed on our side in months, I'm guessing a recent automatic browser upgrade breaks the text editor).

UND still with much more downside potential than upside going into this weekend. Weekly rankings analysis Upside potential Cornell and/or Colgate wins over Yale could help UND take the comparison with Yale as TUC comes into play when Yale reaches 10 games vs. TUCs. Downside potential A Bentley win over Holy Cross could knock Holy Cross out of consideration. This would considerably harm UND’s winning percentage vs. TUCs. A Clarkson win over Dartmouth would be enough to give Dartmouth the edge over UND’s current RPI. A St. Lawrence win over Dartmouth would have a slightly smaller effect. A pair of Wisconsin wins over Alaska Anchorage could be enough to take RPI and COP, and thus the comparison with UND. A Mass.-Lowell win over Northeastern would give Mass.-Lowell the edge over UND’s current RPI and the comparison with UND.

After my first post on PWR predictions this year, in which I predicted doom if UND got swept, UND managed to inch slightly up despite only taking 1 point from the weekend. Look back at the chart, UND did land well within it's "win 1" possibilities curve. It landed near the top thanks to a convincing St. Cloud sweep of Denver, which KRACH gave only about a 12% chance of occurring. That gave North Dakota the comparison with Denver on the basis of RPI. In future weeks I'll again start to include the key games to watch.

A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark

To help pass another day until the weekend... Google -- I wanna drive the zamboni After a few easy rounds of figure skaters it turns to hockey.

A first look at the NCAA hockey PairWise Rankings (PWR) contains a little analysis on the short-term PWR impact of this series. Bottom line -- we need it more than Minnesota does.

This is a little over the top... What’s in a name? The Redskins’ bad karma And here I thought it was just bad coaching by Shanahan.

Yeah, I considered that. That's close to what I think we want, is people to be able to talk about things like guns, economics, business development, education, etc...; but short of the "You're just being a typical R/D so now I hate you" stuff. Would changing the rule to "no partisan politics" work (or is that too specific and we'd struggle to find the line?)

We didn't particularly mean for "no politics" to prevent discussions like this that aren't particularly partisan; but it clearly isn't permitted under the rules as written. Perhaps we'll try to clarify the politics rule a bit. Discussion of moderation / rules always welcome in the siouxsports admin forum.

It's a tough line, and I'm just noting that I'm worrying people are starting to get a little personal. It just all goes better if people go out of their way to be nice while disagreeing

Time issue fixed. I had it set to only sync the time on reboots, but it's been so reliable lately that it has been rebooted in a year or so, and manged to drift by a few minutes.

Let's keep our criticisms targeted at the things people have written and not personal, please. Thanks!

No doubt the Packers are the huge favorite, but Minnesota looked pretty competitive in Lambeau last time. In fact, Minnesota has done a pretty good job of stepping up against big opponents all year. Finally, the decreased temperature should favor the running team over the passing team, if it has any effect. That said, I don't think AP is the wildcard, it's been pretty well demonstrated that GB is going to have trouble containing him. So, I think it comes down to Ponder. He's the one whose performance has been wildly unpredictable game to game. If Ponder can't establish enough of a threat that GB can just ignore Ponder and swarm AP, then it's over. If Ponder throws multiple picks like last visit to Lambeau, it would be pretty tough to win. But, if he can complete 7-yd passes and not turn the ball over, it's a winnable game. In the other direction, the tale of two halves last week seemed to come down to whether Winfield was in play. I agree that Cobb could be a big factor in that regard, particularly if Vikes are fielding a weakened secondary; if Rodgers can reliably hook up with Cobb, the Vikes are in huge (i.e. blowout) trouble. I agree though that the only winning game plan for Minnesota is score early then settle in and let the defense frustrate Rodgers. It's hard to imagine a big Minnesota comeback.

Yeah, the attempt at a table had a bunch of spaces between each of the "columns". In the regular post it was ok, the board properly compressed those down to a single space. But in the quote, it tried to preserve the formatting, resulting in a superwide post. I removed the table from the quote.

My take -- obviously the FCS championship game is 2nd tier college football, but I can't think of any reason to be vehemently reminding everyone of that today other than envy for that game. I wish UND were in it.

Alas, this seems smart: Alcohol sales to stop early at Packers-Vikings game

My biggest surprise was how bad both D's were 2nd half. I didn't see that coming at all.

I agree, I don't see an increase in the number of divisions as likely. That's what I meant when I guessed that IF the BCS schools chose to separate themselves from the D-I proletariat we would see a collapsing of FBS/non-BCS and FCS into a single I-AA. However, I don't see that as even probable, either. The BCS schools have enough influence over D-I athletics that they would probably happily continue with the status quo until the end of time, BUT conference realignment plus the NCAA wanting control over a D-I football tournament are the wildcards.

Unfortunately, the game being this close is probably going to mean a more balanced approach for the next 15 minutes or so, but one big breakout is all it takes.... one big breakout.

If the hypothetical is that the BCS schools eventually form their own division and essentially leave behind the other FBS schools, it's a reasonable guess that FCS and the lower tier of FBS combine into non-Bowl D-I. In that case it wouldn't really matter whether UND is FCS or non-BCS FBS. So, if there's nothing to position ourselves for in any potential reorganization, the leading question would be where UND belongs in the interim. I think there are good arguments both ways, but of course that's wildly hypothetical because UND doesn't have a choice unless it manages to get attendance up 50% or so (not a ridiculous goal when you look at the 'SUs, though of course our situation is a bit different). So, given that FCS is the ceiling for UND for now, the more pressing impact on UND is if the top tier of I-AA peels off to I-A do we find ourselves back in a division that resembles 1980-90s D-II? I think it's quite possible, which is why it was so imperative to at least move up to I-AA when we did. I think UND is right were it belongs for now, but the landscape certainly is continuing to change.

Game day -- Unless the Eagles come up with something they haven't had in them all year (they're currently down by 28), it looks like the Vikings will need the win to make the playoffs. What's the gameplan? It clearly depends what GB does, but choosing between giving AP a shot or Ponder a shot, they're clearly going to stack against AP and hope Ponder has a mediocre day. That puts the whole thing on Ponder's shoulders -- can he establish enough of a threat that they have to cover him a bit, thus freeing up AP a bit? Ideally, the Packers go in assuming not, Ponder establishes an early lead, then the Vikings get to lean on AP a bit more; but, it's hard to imagine any way this goes down that it doesn't come down to how good Ponder is today. Vikes D also has create more opportunities than the O gives up (we're looking at you, again, Ponder).

Nice win!

Big Dream, Rude Awakening The anecdotal focus is on UMass moving to I-A, but it contains some interesting thoughts about FCS vs. FBS in general. Then it starts to sound like a lot of us 10 years ago...

Isn't that the BigSky banner in your signature that's loading from that site?