jimdahl

It's not quite N.D., but we can be happy for our friends to the South. This sounds like a really cool project and a great win: South Dakota wins federal lab project

Bollinger set for QB battle - GF Herald

Similar to my disclaimer for the women's schedule in the previous post, add: 11-27-07 vs. Dickinson St. 12-08-07 vs. Valley City St. 12-18-07 vs. Mayville St. 01-15-08 vs. Mary 01-19-08 vs. South Dakota 01-31-08 vs. Mankato 02-23-08 vs. Nebraska-Omaha

A credible home schedule I was given overlaps with what you have above, and adds the following (no shockers, sorry): 10-25-07 vs. Winnipeg 12-07-07 vs. Glenville St. 12-08-07 vs. Dakota St. 12-11-07 vs. Mayville St. 12-20-07 vs. Bemidji St. 01-05-08 vs. Jamestown Coll. 01-19-08 vs. South Dakota 01-31-08 vs. Mankato 02-23-08 vs. Nebraska-Omaha

Area players on UIF rosters - GF Herald Former UND standouts find future in minor league football - Fargo Forum

No thanks -- I don't particularly care how many moniker police there are on some other site, my point was that it's only Bison fans who come here to police acronym and moniker spellings. There's no question that FCS is the current term and I-AA is now obsolete. However, I-AA is still in wide use and more widely understood than FCS; I'm sure we'll all fall into full compliance as these guys do. Of course, I still think (hope?) others might come to their senses and get rid of the "FCS" name before UND is playoff eligible.

Huh, this guy would disagree with that assessment

She was part of the nickname committee in 2000 when she was director of the Indian Affairs Commission. I don't recall, nor can I locate, any strong stance or activism from her. Her one press clipping from the Board's decision to keep the name expresses disappointment at the process (the Board overriding the executive):

I shouldn't have missed that one. Gipp was actually my secret most likely pick (faux odds aside) because of his ND education ties (see Paulsen's not-so-subtle hint) -- I should have kept digging, but it was a hurry-up job to get in my G.K. prediction on time.

I'll give: 3-1 Leigh Jeanotte 10-1 Skip Longie / David Gipp 50-1 G.K.

Does the Today's active topics link at the bottom meet your needs? That shows all topics that have received posts in the last 24 hours.

While it looks really cool, this is the part that would scare me. To move over 1000 would take some serious time, IMHO, so you'd need to carry substantial inventory. The most obvious way to mitigate that would be to get some distribution agreements (e.g. into the REA Gift Shop and siouxshop.com). Then, I'm reminded of the time that UND itself couldn't get 400 people to commit to a license plate on a short schedule. Of course, I'm rather risk averse...

Minor, occasional for-sale posts are allowed as long as they're related to the topic (e.g. Sioux Football in this forum). Good luck.

I was leaving my hotel room earlier this week and saw plastered on the front page of a national newspaper a story about how I-AA App. State was getting a taste of "big time" football this Fall. It must have mentioned I-AA a dozen times. I actually chuckled to myself, feeling sorry for the poor newspaper that was about to be deluged by letters from indignant Bison fans who: 1) Staunchly chide anyone who dares still use the terminology I-AA (despite not a single FCS game having yet being played) 2) Blanch at any suggestions that I-AA ball is not "big time" It's not clear to me why Bison fans have taken on the role of online champions of the ridiculous FCS moniker, but it sure is amusing. I guess it's not that different from two years ago when we were attacked by the punctuation police who jumped all over any use of "IAA" or "1AA" instead of whatever it was they preferred.

NCAA clarifies position on blogging at NCAA championships

I find the accusation that the SiouxSports.com community is apologist for Kupchella so laughable that I'm a little surprised how many bites D-I's bait has managed to garner. I guess we're all desperate for anything to chat about in the slow off-season.

At one point, UND thought that since hockey was already playing at D-I that we wouldn't get to move another sport: 11-28-06 IAC Meeting The argument against those counting is obvious (we play D-I because there is no D-II available), but I can't seem to find a more recent reference that refutes that assumption.

You failed to propose an alternative for how we're supposed to judge the motivations of a relatively new poster. As I pointed out, we all have one useful criterion available to us -- reputation attached to the handle. You've criticized that criterion as discriminatory against people who don't post frequently. Undoubtedly, that's true. However, anyone can post any insight, true or false, under any name. If the handle Bob6923 doesn't have reputation attached to it through a memorable history of posting, by what criteria are you suggesting we judge his post? For a variety of reasons, people do make false posts; it's probably not a good solution to begin assuming anything posted anonymously on a message board is true and insightful. fs1 made some claims, and other posters asked for more details because they didn't know whether to trust him or not. I really don't see the problem with that. Simply complaining that PCM wouldn't have been similarly challenged doesn't address the problem I posed in the previous two paragraphs.

Of course we pay attention to people's reputations. That's not only legitimate, but desirable, in a forum in which people can anonymously say anything under an arbitrary handle. It takes something (time, quality, linkage to other trust) to impart reader trust in a new handle. When Bob6923, who signed up yesterday, posts that he just heard that Hakstol eats baby kittens, no one is going to believe him. Behind that handle is an unknown, anonymous person, who's just as likely to be playing out a personal grudge against Hakstol as trying to deliver true knowledge of his dietary preferences. In contrast, when someone creates a history of posts, they attach reputation to their otherwise anonymous handle. "The Sicatoka" has made thousands of posts without making false accusations. So, when he says he saw Hakstol eat a baby kitten, we're less inclined to assume that he's willing to discard that earned reputation with a false accusation and more likely to believe that Hakstol's diet has taken a turn for the macabre. I have no anti-new guy sentiment (in fact my incentives are in quite the opposite direction). However, it's completely natural that I assign posts from "The Sicatoka" a predictable level of trustworthiness, whereas those from Bob6923 are of an unknown level (as opposed to deemed untrustworthy). It's just simple prudence that if Bob6923 makes a wild or controversial statement, people aren't necessarily going to take it as gospel.

For those who love this sort of thing (surely I'm not the only one), here is what the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had to say about The National Basketball Association v. Motorola The excerpts below are the portions that cover a lot of talking points from this thread so far.

You're right, but the big guys (MLB and NBA) have actually tried to do precisely that. Back in the early 90s, the NBA sued Motorola for sending live basketball scores to pagers, claiming the NBA owned the scores (the NBA lost). About a year ago, a case opened between MLB and some fantasy sports site over the site's unlicensed use of MLB stats (I'm not sure if that's concluded yet). I'll let our IP attorneys chime in if they care to, but it's my understanding that the underlying issue in these cases is that you can't copyright a fact. That the UND game is currently 3-2 with a minute to go in the 3rd is a fact. Once you can't copyright it, do you have any legal grounds for controlling distribution of it? Maybe not, but the NCAA certainly isn't a unique villain for trying. Regardless, they can certainly set whatever rules they want for issuing press passes; the irony may be that the outcome is simply that people with press passes can't live blog, while other people watching the game can.

It's actually an interesting question. All large sports entities (MLB, NFL, etc...) have necessarily worked very hard to control the distribution of their games. The majority of revenue comes from broadcast rights, not butts in seats. In the worst case scenario, a newspaper reporter sitting in the press box with a camera broadcasting the game live over the Internet would be very destructive to that business model. I don't think anyone would dispute that those entities are right in trying to prevent that. It quickly becomes more subtle and less obvious. Those entities certainly license the ability to describe the game in real time over the radio; is licensing the right to sit in the press box and describe the game via Internet posts really that different? The ability to find out what's happening in a game by reading a play-by-play posted to a blog does diminish the value of the other licensed game broadcasts/representations. Therefore, for the same reason as above, shouldn't the owner of the game try to license and derive revenue from such descriptions? If so, can a bunch of fans listening to a licensed Internet audio feed discuss the game via a publicly readable Internet message board? Someone who isn't monitoring the game via a licensed distribution mechanism might read those posts during the game, similarly having a negative effect on the value of the licensed distribution mechanism (albeit on a much smaller scale).

Datacom announces expansion into Grand Forks, Cooperstown

See additional discussion on this topic over here.

The most interesting part of that article, to me, was: I've repeatedly said that the only way I see UND still with this nickname in the long-run is with NCAA-approved tribal approval. Nice to see some confirmation that they weren't ignoring that avenue.