MplsBison

I was wrong, there is one I know of: http://www.thealaskadome.com/index_sports_trackfield.php Anchorage has what essentially amounts to exactly what Cratter was suggesting: an air supported dome over a standard outdoor 400m track with an artificial turf infield. But back to my main point: the NCAA sanctioned, official "indoor track" sport does not use a 400m track, like outdoor does. I don't know why it works that way...that's just how it's been AFAIK. They use a 200m track and have different events.

The Supreme Court will (rightfully) rule that the SBoHE has the authority to govern the state's institutions of higher education. Obviously. That includes being able to tell them to retire the nickname prior to Nov 2010. There was nothing in the agreement between the state and the NCAA that obligates the school to keep the nickname until the deadline. There is no other logic to this. There is only emotion. As it's always been.

Certainly, as far as money goes. UND would've had to may a million+ dollars instead of whatever the application fee was. But I do think that once the nickname is settled for good, the Summit would've given UND membership either way.

I'm glad the UND administration has the balls to stand up for the non-hockey UND teams that will gain a huge advantage by being in an auto-bid conference with three other Dakota universities.

The SL obstructionism is almost comically moot, IMO. The SR have sat on their hands all this time...what makes anyone think that they're going to all of a sudden wake up and advance the issue?

Additionally, there is no such thing as an indoor 400m track. The sport of indoor track uses a 200m track, although some schools have built 300m tracks (including the proposal for UND's facility).

Track team needs a decent indoor track.

A big advantage....in radio. Does that really mean anything these days? I don't know about you, but where I'm from families haven't gathered around the living room radio for like...many years?

OK I see it now. I was correct in regards to using paid attendance to meet the 15k requirement (although it appears you can in fact count tickets sold for less than 1/3rd of the highest price if they are actually used to get into the stadium). I just didn't know you could also choose to use actual attendance instead. Obviously no one does that.

I know you're wrong. I'll let Hammer fill in the details.

Montana Montana St NDSU UND SDSU USD Omaha Kansas City Western Ill IUPUI IPFW Oakland I don't see why Montanas would ever leave the Big Sky, though. Unless they were just disgusted with the conf or thought it was going belly up and did not want to try to move to the WAC.

That's not correct either. If they just used actual attendance, then they could give tickets away to meet the minimum. They have to sell 15k tickets on average, every game over a rolling 2 year period. And only tickets that are sold for "enough" money count. So if the stadium's most expensive ticket (a suite ticket for example) is $50, then they can't go off and sell 10k tickets for $0.50 each. It has to be some significant fraction of the most expensive ticket (say 10%, for example...not sure).

There would be hell to pay if A&M wasn't included in this package. Big 10 South: Illinois - Missouri Kansas - Oklahoma Texas - Texas A&M Ind - Purdue Big 10 North: Minn - Iowa Wisc - NW Mich - Mich St Ohio St - Penn St However, Oklahoma is not a member of the AAU. Not sure if it would matter, or perhaps the CIC could fast track that?

Because they're guaranteed even more money. The NCAA doesn't generated diddly poo. No one pays to watch the NCAA do anything. It's the teams themselves that generate the money and the teams are what people want to see.

Couldn't disagree more with everything you said. Big schools stand to gain millions of additional dollars of revenue if they left the NCAA.

I understand what you mean fully. But what would really be different? Yes NDSU and UND can claim to be in the same division as schools like Penn State and Texas in sports like baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, etc. Does that really do us any good? We'll never be on their level in football and for the rest of the sports it isn't really a level playing field either. Just because we're both technically "DI" doesn't make it even. NDSU and UND don't have a chance to be national champions in any sport with the exception of ice hockey. That's why I'd rather eject the "big-time" big budget schools and turn DI into a true DI for all sports, like DII and DIII are. You'd have the top FCS schools plus the lower FBS schools in football with the tournament at the end of the season. So we'd be competing with the Utah State's, MAC conference schools, Sun Belt, etc. The BCS schools wouldn't bring those guys along. Then we really would be at the top of the highest division in the NCAA. Yes there would be a different association of the big budget schools, but so what?

I actually wish the large budget schools would go away. Then DI in the NCAA could become homogenized and NDSU (and UND) really would have a chance to be one of the best schools in DI. The BCS and larger FBS schools don't need the NCAA anymore. They probably haven't for a while. Then for teams like UND hockey, I would think they would not be in the NCAA and would join the big school's hockey conference as an affiliate.

I would think the BCS schools would just walk away from the NCAA if they felt that too much of "their" revenue was going to the smaller schools. Much cleaner break than trying to stay in the NCAA and set up a bunch of rules/divisions for keeping the money up top.

Do you guys really have nothing better to do than make mountains out of mole hills? Gee whiz!! Nothing to see here folks. This has nothing to do with the Summit League.

I guess I don't really get where this talk of the Big Ten taking some of the Big 8 schools comes from. Yeah, Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa State are pretty good academic schools and have pretty good athletic departments, but it seems like the Big Ten is looking at either Syracuse, Rutgers or Pitt for eastern expansion (IMO).

Plus they're leaving the Summit and being replaced with South Dakota. I think the next conference re-alignment is coming in a couple years and it could be a major shake-up. In all scenarios I can't see the WAC keeping all of it's current 9 teams. At a minimum I see Boise, Fresno and maybe Nevada leaving. That opens the door for Big Sky schools to move up. I could see Portland, Sacramento, both Montana schools and maybe even Weber exploring possibilities.

Doubtful. Most people who have that kind of money have learned how to live their lives without that level of bitterness and hatefulness.

So....no endzone lines on the track then?

You're not a Joe Chapman fan..are you? Just tell me this: is it a deep seeded angst/jealousy towards NDSU's success or do you really have some beef with the man?

Please tell me they would not actually paint the endzone lines on the track....and please please please tell me they would not have receivers running routes onto the track...