jimdahl

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?

Google doesn't list anything under the siouxsports domain as suspicious: Google safe browsing diagnostic page for forum.siouxsports.com So, my best guess is that it's some content not from this site that your browser is loading after it loads the page from SiouxSports. I doubt it's an ad because those come from Google. So, I'm thinking it's some sort of user-supplied content (e.g. a signature or embedded image) that's coming from a suspicious URL. Next time it happens, send me the URL of the SiouxSports page that you're on.

We don't let people do it themselves because of the potential for abuse, but I'm happy to do it for you. Just send me a PM with what you would like it to be changed to.

I guess her 15 minutes aren't quite over... Please, Mom and Dad: Just Have a Taste She now seems to be in the files as an expert source on small town restaurants.

Yep. Of the 12 Deadliest U.S. shootings, 6 have been since 2007.

I find that the age of the victims, K-4, makes it hit me especially hard, too.

Would this increase job security for coaches of those perpetually mid-tier teams, or would making the playoffs no longer be enough to save your job as a mediocre coach? NFL considering expanding playoffs to 14 or 16 teams

It just feels like such a missed opportunity. We're wasting his prime years, where if we had any pass threat this team could be an offensive juggernaut. I'm not a huge Webb fan, but don't see much downside to giving him a shot. Even in a win, Ponder went 11/17 for 91 yards. In the last three games his QB rating was 58.2, 41.9, and 53.8. Here's a good article from before the Chicago game about Ponder's last six games: A Look At Ponder's Most Recent Six Games Both the Bears and Packers losses were winnable. I just don't see what we hope to learn from 3 more weeks of Ponder before inevitably cutting him loose in the off-season. He might luck out and squeak into the playoffs, but then are we just cursed with another year?

There's no ad at the bottom. There's a single ad on each page below the banner. If you're seeing additional ads, that either means a problem with the page (e.g. sometimes a partially downloaded page messes up and renders wrong) or that you have some sort of spyware or something else inserting ads into the pages you're browsing.

They compare both per capita and per dollar of state budget.

Good point, there are no local property tax abatements or such in that data. This data only shows that ND as a state seems to spend a lot less on subsidies than other states, but it's certainly possible that far more subsidies occur at the local level in ND for some reason (though I'd be a little surprised).

Can you leave the party politics out of this (as per forum rules) please? As to free markets... what could be more free than a company which provides economic value to its home region asking regions to bid to become home to its latest factory? Though I don't think "free markets" is quite the right attack, your aversion isn't surprising. The thing I thought was interesting about this chart is that in previous discussions on this forum we have speculated that N.D. is particularly averse to providing such incentives. The chart seems to bear that out.

Apparently old threads go into some sort of archive mode now (who knew?) so reviving an old topic... This graphic has an interesting comparison (and database backing it) of how states differ in terms of what economic invenctives they provide: United State of Subsidies (NYTimes.com)

The reason you normally trademark something is to maintain control of your brand's image and ensure that you benefit from its use. For example, UND wants trademarks on its active logos so it can guarantee it gets a share of the profits from any merchandise sold with the logo. If UND didn't consistently defend its intellectual property, including stopping high schools from using it, some worry that it would then be more difficult for UND to stop a rogue jersey manufacturer from selling Sioux jerseys without paying a licensing fee to UND. In UND's case with the retired logo it's a little different. UND isn't actively merchandising the Sioux logo anymore, but promised the NCAA that they would continue to actively defend the Fighting Sioux intellectual property as part of the settlement agreement. My guess, as mentioned above, is that the NCAA didn't want UND to continue to informally or unofficially use the logo by letting non-UND entities perpetuate it.

I've been a little surprised to read this speculation about UND to MVFC/Summit, but then noticed that almost everyone expresses a preference for Big Sky and no one has stated any significant advantages to Summit. Do any UND fans really prefer Summit (and if so, why)? Or are we just repeating speculation from Summit affiliates who think they would benefit from UND's membership? The only benefit I could see would be the historical/geographical rivalries, but no one seems to care about those anymore.

It's not clear to me why this has been such a big deal lately... while it seems like we all grew up around plenty of lower tier schools blatantly using pro and college team logos, there've been a ton of stories of crackdowns over the last decade. I get that the trademark violation is real and that not protecting your trademark opens you up to losing it, but it's not clear why this became such an issue in the last 10 years. Was there some landmark case where a team lost the ability to enforce its trademark because they'd been ignoring the local high school's use of it? Promotion or piracy: Logo issues on the rise gave the issue a nice treatment a couple years ago. I'm not sure I buy the brand dilution argument, either; no one is confusing the Minnesota Vikings with a middle school. The original settlement agreement made it clear that UND could not assign or release any rights to the "Fighting Sioux mark", except to a Sioux nation or tribe. I'm guessing their goal was to stop UND from using licensing to continue using the logo informally for itself, not to stop UND from letting some distant high school use it for $1. Of course, that section was (probably unintentionally) conditional on UND choosing a new nickname, and the agreement has since been modified (e.g. to allow REA to keep some extra logos). But, it's still a good bet that the NCAA wouldn't like it.

University of Maryland in talks to join Big Ten Seems win-win (except for the ACC). Increased national (instead of regional) exposure of UMD, a D.C. presence for the Big Ten.

Well, here we go. Down by 1. The opponent has the ball on a 4th and goal at the 1. Last quarter of the season. A win puts us over .500 and in the middle of the conference, a loss on the other side. EDIT -- I don't type fast enough, the dramatic stop came mid-typing

Ugh, and then UND fumbles on the first play, UNC ball on the NDAK 33. I know people aren't fond of UND's D, but the 2-0 TO count is the stat of this game right now.