MplsBison

Just like the Ralph, right?

That stadium, if it does seat 20-25k would probably be at least 150 million to build. The retractable roof would make it 200 million. If by some miracle a person steps and donates 200 million, at the very least UND will not own the facility.

Because UND wouldn't own the stadium like SU owns the Carrier Dome. The football team would have to rent time in it just like NDSU rents time in the Fargodome.

Do you honestly think that alumni are going to build UND a new 20-25k stadium with a retractable roof AND a new 6-8k bball arena AND a new indoor facility? Come on. That'd probably be 300 million altogether.

Seems Minnesota and Michigan have 3 separate arenas, 1 for hockey, 1 for bball, and 1 for vball/wrestling/gymnastics. IE, Minnesota has Marriuci/Williams/Pavilion, Michigan has Yost/Crisler/Cliff Keen But then Wisconsin and Ohio State play both basketball and hockey in their larger arena. So it looks like your options are to either build a new bball only arena or play in the Ralph. Either way, Betty is going to be mostly vball with maybe some women's bball.

The beans were spilled a few posts ago.

Admittedly, I don't have all the information regarding the case. But I believe the lawsuit was originally started in the context that the rules the NCAA was violating were going to stay static. Even if the NCAA would have gone on to lose the lawsuit, they were already (or perhaps are still going to) changing their rules such that they wouldn't be violating them after the change. So in that context, obviously the lawsuit does no good and the cheapest thing to do was just cut your losses. But you certainly can't turn to the lawyers and say "gee, sorry guys, I didn't realize they were going to change their own rules....can we have our money back?". It doesn't work like that.

Wouldn't you be marketing the teams as "UND" and "North Dakota"? What would be wrong with that? I see tons of people wearing stuff that says "Michigan" or has just the "M" logo.

No wonder I couldn't figure it out, the guy's not a billionaire.

Well I looked at every Canadian billionaire on the Forbes list and none of them studied at UND. So apparently this guy didn't want to be listed.

Well I'll be danged if I can find a single person on that billionaire list who even attended UND. I thought of Bobcat, but I don't see anyone on there.

Is he on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billi...2007%29_102-946 , then?

The only one I see on there is the CEO of Cargill, but being a CEO doesn't get you billions.

Is it someone listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unive...h_Dakota_people ?

I don't know if you've read any of what Ron HHIT has been saying this week, but right now I put the odds of UND convincing him to let the school continue using Fighting Sioux at around a billion to one.

Considering this: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...%A7ion=homepage it appears the issue will be pushed into the forefront sooner than was expected. So, do you actually want a new nickname or would you rather go without?

I bet Poly thought they wouldn't have to travel to the Dakotas for a year. Too bad.

You're ignoring the probability that the tribes would go back on any deal they make.

You can't ignore probabilities.

Because your entire argument is hoping that the tribes won't go back on any agreements they make with UND concerning the name.

Like I just said, it's totally absurd to pretend that the probability that one or both tribes will go back on any agreement in the future to the probability of an astroid impacting the earth.

But I think it's pretty absurd to compare the probability of one or both tribes going back on any agreement in the future to the probability of an astroid impacting the Earth.

Sure, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and neither of the tribes would ever decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen. Or, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and then one or both tribes would decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen.

That's exactly my point. If just the prospect of losing it now causes so much grief, what is it going to be like in x years when the new tribe leader decides that he doesn't like UND being the Sioux and withdraws support? Would you spend a million dollars to build a house for you and your family to live in under the stipulation that, at any time and for any reason, the builder of the house can kick you and your family out of the house?