MplsBison

Like I said, 'tough guy", seemingly uncompromising talk. No different than any good US senator stumping in his home state about how he's going to charge into Washington, uncompromising, and doing the good work for the people back home. He's saying what he thinks the fan base wants to hear. But like any proper business man, he will compromise and he will at least consider a profitable business proposal. Negotiations always start out on the fringes and work inward. NDSU wants just a single game here and there, UND wants the game every year. Something in the middle would be worked out, possible like the recently USD contract. Even still, NDSU offering UND an initial 1-game contract for a $50k payout is a win-win-win. NDSU wins because they'd make a killing on the game in the Fargodome (even paying UND $50k), UND wins because they get $50k for the shortest DI game they'll ever play (no expenses other than bus rental) and a chance to "knock off NDSU" and the, most importantly, the state of ND wins because the people get what they want: the NDSU-UND football game back.

In case you haven't noticed, I have rejected your false mantra. The time for patience has long since passed. Standing Rock chose to do nothing so they deserve no more patience. You can choose to hope that the nickname can be saved, that's your prerogative. The only thing worth hoping, IMO, is that UND can still make it into the Summit League. Closure is attained once the nickname is retired and UND is invited to join the Summit.

Standing. Rock. Does. NOT. Deserve. Any. More. Time. Than. They. Have. Already. Wasted. They had all the time they needed and they chose to piss it down their leg. The SL group lawsuit is the last obstacle in the SBoHE's way of putting the SR out of their misery. The ruling can't come fast enough.

You're entitled to your opinion, like everyone else. UND would absolutely entertain a 1-game contract for this year, under the right terms.

Sounds like good 'tough guy' talk, but if NDSU offered UND a 1-game contract for $50k to play Sept 18th if they could move the NE St game to another date, there's no way they wouldn't at least consider the offer.

NDSU bball can improve greatly in the next couple weeks, plus there's always the Summit tournament. All they have to do is get hot and win the tournament and they're back in March Madness (though probably as a play-in game or 16 seed). Other than that, here in Mpls we have Gopher bball and hockey, the Wild and the T-wolves. Probably not much of an improvement.

That is very obvious. I bet at least 95% of the UND fans on this board want it to go all the way to Nov 2010, even if April comes and the ND supreme court rules agains the SL group and the SR has still not had a vote. You'd still say "to hell with bball, we want the nickname!"

Just for fun: NDSU open dates: Sept 18 and Oct 30 => UND plays: NE St in GF and Lamar in GF UND open dates: Oct 16 and Nov 20 => NDSU plays: Ill St in Bloomington (conf game) and Missouri St in Springfield (conf game) NDSU probably can't move it's conference games around, but taking a look at NE st's schedule and Lamar's schedule: - Lamar has 11 games with an open date on Oct 23 - don't know NE st 2010 schedule yet But perhaps if NE State game could be moved to Oct 16th, that would free up Sept 18 for a game in Fargo.

You may not believe it, but it is the harsh reality. If UND decides to wait until November, there's at least a 50-50 chance that the Summit will move on without them and add Chicago State and Utah Valley. That will leave UND without any opportunity to join an auto-bid league in the next 5-10 years, which will be far more financially devistating to the athletic department than changing the nickname "early". I doubt highly that any significant fall-out will occur from retiring the nickname, even in April after the ND Supreme Court has ruled against the SL group. UND doesn't want any donations from such fair weather "fans" who would deny support over a nickname, anyway.

Some of the MAC schools would probably have to consider budget cuts, maybe moving down to 63 scholarship football. I often wonder why does any school need 85 full scholarships for football? Aren't NFL rosters like 53?

You're probably right from a perspective of negotiating more money from a TV deal for a conference. Adding Iowa State or Kansas State probably won't significantly increase the payout from the TV network. What I should've said: Kansas (and Iowa) legislators will not allow K State (or Iowa State) to be shut out any new BCS or "elite" division. They're too big of state schools with too much taxpayer money being spent on them for the state government to allow them to be left behind. Case in point: what did Virginia Tech add to the ACC in terms of market and ability to negotiate a better TV deal? I think the ACC originally wanted Syracuse, but the VA legislature forced the ACC to take VT instead.

I have no problem with Cincy to the ACC over South Florida. That probably does make more sense given Cincy is better academically and better bball. But I disagree with Pac10 adding Utah. That means K State is left out of the new BCS, which would never happen. Kansas legislators would see to it that K State goes with Kansas. Plus, then you're also bringing up Utah into the elite division when they were not there before. Utah is not a bad football or bball team, pretty good facilities, pretty good academics (although not AAU). They would for sure make it into a 6/12 "elite" division. But in a 4/16, you've got to go with the BCS teams that are already established. I think Colorado and Nebraska are pretty natural rivals and would be fine as travel partners.

I'm not sure if a 6 conference/12 teams per conference or a 4 conference/16 teams per conference is more plausible for an "elite" division. There are currently 66 BCS football teams. 6 into 12 is 72, giving 6 more teams a shot at BCS dreams: 4 into the new Big East split away football conference and 2 more to the Pac 10 (assuming Notre Dame joins the Big Ten). On the other hand, 4 into 16 is 64, meaning two current BCS teams will be left out. It is more fun, though. Pac 10 adds: Colorado Nebraska Texas Texas A&M Kansas Kansas St Big Ten adds: Notre Dame Rutgers Mizzou Iowa State Pitt SEC adds: Okla Okla St Texas Tech Louisville ACC adds: Syracuse Uconn South Florida West Virginia (Cincinnati and Baylor get screwed)

Don't bother. They'll just come back from every reason under the...well, moon... for why UND is the nations most popular ND collegiate sports team, from having their games on a cable network to national titles to meeting people from around the country who know about UND hockey but have never heard of NDSU's bball team. They don't agree that UND's bball team making it into March Madness could possibly bring the state or school any more recognition around the country than UND hockey already does. They won't allow that possibility and are offended by the thought.

The negative is that the Summit moves on without UND and thus UND does not get into an auto-bid conference for several years. Way too big of a negative to risk, even for a nickname.

One tribe has held a vote, the other has not. The only concrete fact: Nov 2010 is not guaranteed to the tribes. The SBoHE is free to tell UND to retire the nickname prior to that time.

There is no reason for them to guarantee UND anything. I'm saying, if UND can get such a guarantee then waiting until Nov 2010 is acceptable, while still irrelevant. No great "justice" will be upheld but such a ridiculous thing, but if it helps the pro-nickname group sleep better at night for another 9 months, fine.

The point is that UND bball has huge potential to bring national exposure to North Dakota and UND. Denying them that opportunity for a nickname? Childish and selfish.

Yeah? And? Life's tough. That was the settlement that was agreed upon.

I could live with waiting until Nov 2010 if UND has it on firm grounds that the Summit will hold a place for them until that time. If they can't get the Summit's guarantee, then they know what needs to be done: drop the nickname before Nov 2010.

I would love to know myself, but I have neither the time nor the internet searching prowess to even begin to know where to look for that. It's probably out there somewhere.

How many times do I have to tell you that it wasn't necessarily the game that got NDSU the national attention? It was the pre-game show hype that everyone saw and more importantly the promo done on the team helping out with the Fargo floods, again everyone who was tuned into the March Madness pre-game show saw that. You can not buy that type of ratings exposure with a cable network! But once again, it's pointless to get in a pissing match. The point is that UND bball has huge potential to bring national exposure to North Dakota and UND. Denying them that opportunity for a nickname? Childish and selfish.

Ok. Trying to convince UND hockey fans that college hockey has a small, regional following compared to college basketball is like trying to herd cats. Pointless. Forget I ever said it. The point was simple enough: UND basketball has a huge potential to bring the state and the school a ton of national attention. That's a simple fact that can not be denied. However, this is never going to happen unless UND gets into an auto-bid conference! P.S. - Just because a college hockey game is televised on a national cable network does not mean anyone tuned in to watch! They have these things called "ratings"...

You have not even once laid it out.

None of those schools have an issue with their respective tribes. UND does. Life's tough.