MplsBison

Doesn't surprise me at all. Sanford is trying to win over the state with marquee donations to both NDSU (BSA Arena project) and UND (Indoor facility). I have to admit that I like the idea of a 300m indoor track with a football field inside much better than a 200m indoor track with strictly use for track. I wish they would expand the indoor track portion of the BSA Arena project, but it is what it is.

Pleading guilty to a felony is enough to screw the rest of your life over.

My point was only that this isn't anything new. Not in the slightest. So I don't get the (faux?) shock and outrage in this thread, like this is some shocking new development. Were you just as shocked and outraged back in 2006, when Obama wasn't the president? Didn't think so. Just another excuse for lay people to bash the president.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25...-rule-9867.html

And I don't see how hard it is to understand that the NCAA governs its affiliated teams only. The Blackhawks are not affiliated with the NCAA and therefore their imagery, and thus any like imagery in the venue they play in, are irrelevant to the NCAA's criteria for selecting the venue for post season tournaments. It comes down to this: my argument is simpler than yours. Occam's razor.

Then we'll agree to disagree. It would be nearly impossible for me to see how you place sanctions on an inanimate object, like a building, but I guess some are so desperate to draw connections that aren't there if it means any chance to save even a piece of the nickname.

Tenant is the only thing relevant. The building is either an extension of a NCAA-affiliated team that plays there or it's not. There is no other logically consistent way to look at it, IMO.

ONLY if said place of competition normally hosts a NCAA-affiliated school's team that was on the H&A list. Otherwise, the criteria is invalid.

Speaking purely in the language of TV contract dollars per school, adding Texas A&M to the SEC might cause the $/school to go up, given the large TV viewership in Texas for A&M...but what school, other than Texas, could the SEC add to equally match them? I would have to think UNC or VT might be close...OU and WV seem to not bring enough TV sets with them?

Guys, look: 1) It's just a message board! So what if someone who doesn't fit into your perfect "agrees with everyone on everything" virtual society is on your message board? What's wrong with having different viewpoints? Trust me, this is hardly the first message board that has acted this way towards me. For some reason, the folks who are regulars at their boards defend them like children and I've never understood why (and I don't want to). 2) Is everything Kelley Green in the real world? No, right? Then why does it have to be on this board? What's wrong with having your arguments challenged? 3) If it's so bad - ignore my posts! Why are the things I say so irresistible? You guys can't help yourselves, at least from what I've seen. You all talk a big game about ignoring this and that, but here you still are. I ignore posts all the time. As soon as I see some mouth-breather start throwing out personal attacks with a redneck vocabulary, I just ignore it. But it never happens. This leads me to only one possible theory: deep down you actually enjoy posting with your fellow fans, bashing my posts and arguments into smithereens. It's entertaining! And what's wrong with that? Nothing, I say. It's those few folks out there who try to take it too far - like what's said at a message board is carved in stone and deadly serious. Come on!

Did the NCAA put the Chicago Blackhawks on the "Hostile and Abusive" list? No? Then your argument fails to equate the United Center's situation with the REA's situation. They are in fact, unequal.

Except that the only reason a building would likely have 'hostile and abusive' imagery in the first place is because of the team that plays there. Thus, no, you have failed again to separate the "home team" from the building. Unless you can do that, you can't win the argument. United Center only has the imagery because of the pro team that plays there, which the NCAA has no authority over. Therefore, it would be invalid to deny post-season hosting to the United Center solely on the basis of the pro-team's "hostile and abusive" imagery. The "home team" of the REA, on the other hand, is UND - which the NCAA has full authority over. Thus, it makes logical sense to deny post-season hosting to the REA for having "hostile and abusive" imagery that is only in the venue in the first place because of UND (even while at the same time granting it to the United Center)! Find me an arena that has hostile & abusive imagery ingrained into the venue itself and does not or did not have a "home team" with such nickname/imagery, then you might have a chance.

You're trying to completely separate the building and the team - that's not logical or even reasonable. The NCAA has no ability to govern the Blackhawks. The United Center is tied to the Blackhawks. The NCAA has absolute ability to govern UND. The REA is tied to UND. It's apples to oranges. You can't take the team (and thus the governing body) out of the equation. I'll make that argument and win every time in court.

Nope. To even attempt to ask that question, you'll get denied because of an apples-oranges comparison: the NCAA governs UND, it does not govern pro sports teams. You're trying to completely separate the building and the team - that's not logical or even reasonable.

I was replying to the part where Sicatoka said that the NCAA could be sued if they allowed post-season games at the United Center. Since NCAA can't govern the United Center's teams but can govern the REA's team, it's apples to oranges. Plus, how is it possible to sue someone because they allowed a third party to do something that they didn't allow you to do? What is that called in law? It seems made up or nonsensical, ie if a judge ruled that they are allowed to disallow you, then that's that. That's the rule. What they and a third party do is irrelevant.

Not really - anyone can see the plainly obvious difference is that the NCAA has zero control over the United Center or it's affiliated teams. On the other hand, NCAA has absolute power to govern the REA's affiliated team, UND.

I won't disagree that Carlson is known to have a lot of DB there.

Really? UND finance was hands down better than Carlson? Ok...to each his own.

Why is it so impossible for you to to ignore me?

All it would take would be for GF to have a more attractive bid than the cities. Not impossible. Take a hike.

Hammer...I'm stunned that the likes of you, research god with infinite credibility, would not know that Boise, Idaho's Taco Bell Arena (capacity 12.8k) has been a 1st/2nd round host EIGHT times since 1983! Or how about Spokane, Washington's Arena (capacity 12.2k)? Three 1st/2nd round hosts since 2003. You're telling me that Boise and Spokane are major metro centers with huge facilities? Plainly you're wrong. If they can get it, Grand Forks and the REA can get it. I won't budge.

Thanks for confirming that the REA will not be allowed to host NCAA championship if they continue to display Sioux imagery not consistant with the settlement - which is sure sound that's their plan. In other words, REA is saying "to hell with UND! This is Ralph's arena it will display Sioux imagery forever!!!11 ARRRRGH!!!". That's too bad - such a beautiful arena would be an amazing thing to put on display for the nation and showcase UND and the state of ND as a MBB regional host.

Yes, if the REA starts changing logos outs as they're supposed to, then there would be no reason for the NCAA to do anything further. The nickname will be changed and eventually the REA will either have to change out everything or the building just won't be used any more. But what the REA management is saying sure sounds like they aren't going to change a thing - not even the Sioux logo at center ice.

I and most non-UND hockey fans read it as the REA management drawing a line in the sand to say that they don't really care what the NCAA thinks they won't be complying to the settlement. It sure sounded that way. You can pretend that it really meant this or that, but I can sure see how it looks to the NCAA and the rest of the country: anti-authority. It's well within the realm of possibility for the NCAA to ban one of its member schools from the post season for non-compliance. It's already happened in other sports. Don't be a fool.