Hammersmith

Also, it wouldn't change the overall look all that much. NDSU would get another green column. UND would get a nice swath of green in hockey, but that would be counterbalanced with two new red stripes in tennis and S&D. Without looking at the data to confirm, I'm pretty sure I remember UND finishing at or near the bottom in those two sports; both men's and women's.

You know, I'm not completely sure about that. I also thought the Big Sky was significantly stronger than the Summit in T&F, but I looked at some numbers last night and now have my doubts. I'm no expert at T&F, but I do know that comparing times between two meets alone(say two conference championships) is not a great indicator. There are just too many variables to normalize out. But I think it might be fair to compare the number of NCAA prelim qualifiers from each school/conference, and those just came out for 2015. On the surface, the Big Sky still looks stronger, at least in men's. MOT&F: BSC 34 qualifiers, SL 20; WOT&F: BSC 35, SL 30. But the Big Sky has far more schools competing in T&F than the Summit. What if you look at the average? MOT&F: BSC 2.83/school, SL 3.33/school; WOT&F: BSC 2.92/school, SL 3.75/school. What about the actual numbers of qualifiers per school? Three Big Sky schools placed 10 or more M+W. NAU and Sac St at 12, and EWU at 10. The top two Summit schools are even higher. USD has 14 qualifiers and NDSU has a whopping 23. Granted this is a snapshot, but it roughly appears that the Big Sky and Summit in T&F is not totally unlike the MVFC and Big Sky in football, only reversed. The Summit has a couple dominant programs and a bunch of weak ones, while the Big Sky is much more balanced with many strong teams. Again, this is just a quick and dirty look at a snapshot of data, but it was enough to make me start questioning my previous assumptions.

That's not what homer asked for. He asked for sports in common, so that's what I did. And least that's what I thought he was asking for. I could do the others if you want, but probably not 'till sometime tomorrow.

I hope you were serious cause I whipped something up. Most of it should be pretty self-explanatory. NDSU and UND have 15 sports in common. I've also only listed the fully DI years. You can choose to compare the first three years of each, the last three years, or all of them together. Example: 5/10 - fifth place out of ten teams 1T/8 - tied for first place out of eight teams Colors: dark green - first place finish(includes ties) light green - finished in top third of conference white - middle third light red/orange - bottom third dark red/orange - last place conference finish(includes ties for last place) Symbols: * - team competed in NCAA nationals ** - team competed in NCAA and won at least a game $ - won a national championship % - participated in a non-NCAA national postseason event # - individual member of the team participated in NCAA nationals AAxx - All American status; the first number indicates # of 1st team selections, second # 2nd team, HM ignored, didn't do FB Sorry if I missed some honors from your guys. Hope the image works out:

Quick question. Has anyone on here ever gone to www.flickertails.com? I did a forum search but didn't find any references. Give it a try. Any other web addresses link to the same site?

Two main reasons. First, there was something of a misstatement in a letter that accompanied a 1996 OCR Clarification. It used the term "safe harbor" in regards to proportionality. On the surface, it made it sound like proportionality was "safe" and, by extension, the other two prongs were less so. That was an error on the part of OCR, but it caused a generation of athletic directors to head for proportionality because of the perceived safety. A 2003 Further Clarification tried to reverse the damage by making it clear that all three prongs were equally "safe harbors", but the damage was done. In the six years between clarifications, many schools had added women's sports or cut men's sports to comply with proportionality. They didn't want to reverse all that work, so they stayed with what they had. I think this mistaken belief is at the heart of the views of a couple outspoken posters on here. The other reason is that it's harder. I believe that, when properly applied, the third prong leads to a result that is more within the spirit of Title IX than trying to use strict proportionality(especially when FB is involved). But you can't cut corners. That's what got NDSU in trouble back in the 90s. If you use the third prong, you'd better go above and beyond with the women's sports you do have. You better have a full slate of coaches and pay them well. You better give them good facilities and budgets. You definitely can't just pay lip service to Title IX. Some schools just aren't willing to make that commitment. (btw OCR = US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights) The 2003 Further Clarification: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/title9guidanceFinal.html

Wow, not only did you totally misstate your source, you are also (exactly) five years out of date. Was that carelessness or a deliberate act? Your source is from 2007 and is responding to a 2005 OCR Clarification from the Bush administration which significantly loosened the third prong. The 140 Democrats and the NCAA were not attacking the third prong, they were attacking this new Clarification. In fact, your source seems to favor the pre-2005 third prong. It mentions in several places that the courts do not favor institutions who rely solely on statistics to support their case. Remember that the NDSU lawsuit came in the late-90s under the Clinton administration before the third prong was gutted in 2005. Besides that, the 2005 Clarification was revoked by a 2010 OCR letter under the Obama administration which restored the third prong to its former toughness. So your source is now completely meaningless to our discussion. Here's my source. It's directly from the NCAA and incorporates the latest OCR rulings. It has no problem with the third prong. http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4268-equity-and-title-ix-in-intercollegiate-athletics-a-practical-guide-for-colleges-and-universities-2012.aspx And here's the 2010 OCR letter which completely invalidates your source: (five years ago today) http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.html

Do you have an NCAA link backing that statement up? Because I have one that is neutral at worst, and maybe even slightly in favor of prong 3. What a lot of you seem to forget is that NDSU was on the wrong side of a Title IX lawsuit not all that long ago. A mediator came in and gave the athletic department a list of things that needed to be changed. Within a year or so, all those changes were complete and the mediator signed off on it. A few years later, the department went through another close examination from an outside source when NDSU moved to DI. So a federal mediator and the NCAA inspectors have both looked at NDSU and judged that it satisfies prong 3. Yet some of you are convinced that an ax is about to come crashing down. http://www.inforum.com/content/equal-ground-years-after-sex-discrimination-lawsuit-ndsu-has-made-things-right-when-it-comes (interesting note: the four things wanted by women's coaches in this article(2009) have all been accomplished: higher assist. coaching salaries, bubble over Dacotah, soccer stadium, and renovated BSA.) Would I like to see another women's sport at NDSU? Yep. I enjoy watching NDSU succeed in women's sports and would love to see us succeed in yet another. Do I think another women's sport will be started at NDSU sooner rather than later? Probably. I keep waffling between thinking NDSU is about to go FBS or not. I'll see some signs pointing one direction, then see signs pointing the opposite. If we go DI, adding a women's sport is a near certainty. Even if we stay FCS it's more than likely. I tend to favor restarting tennis. Low operating costs to start. Have a conference home ready to go. I'd love to restart S&D, but the facility situation is a big problem. NDSU will be adding a pool to its Wellness Center shortly(students have voted for it and it's in the upcoming state budget), but I don't know if it will be suitable for DI competition. If it is, then problem mostly solved. Hockey is possible, of course, but I'd view it as a distant third. I could easily be wrong, however. Someone far more connected to the NDSU athletic department suggested it was the most likely addition. But he posted it on April 1, and he has a habit of very dry humorous comments. He never elaborated if he was joking or serious.

The NDSU/UND game will net NDSU about another $50k in ticket sales. The $25 extra charge is only on single game tickets. That's either 1500 or 2000 tickets. The 1500 number has been quoted in the media before, but I don't know if it includes the visitor allotment. So anywhere from $38k-$50k. There will probably be an increase in TM donations, but that will likely be more to do with the overall scarcity of tickets(sold out for three years running) than the impact of any single game. Also, there are still a significant number of grandfathered seats that are being increased to market value. Those will continue to bump up the total TM revenue until they all reach market value(whenever that will be).

I might have been wrong about that number. The FCOA is linked to a number reported to the feds and disclosed by the university. It's usually in the financial aid portion of the website. According to the cost estimator on UND's website, the number is $5810. But according to UND's 2015-16 academic catalog, it's $3400. I don't know which one the university considers official. Probably the $3400, but it's odd that that number isn't built into the estimator.

Your current COA is $5810.

http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209842401

You know, it's a good thing NDSU didn't try to use this program to buy art for the new STEM building. Can you imagine the outrage?

Wow is there a lot of lying going on in this thread. Did any of you actually read the entire Challenge bill or did you just stop at the first page? Did any of you actually read the entire list of Challenge grants from each school? To me, it looks like the UND Foundation got greedy. They finished their own slice of pie and started eying the slice of the person sitting next to them. When the person sitting next to them finished eating their slice of pie just before the café closed, they got upset because they had planned to eat it off the plate just after the other person left. Because UND's fundraising campaign was in full swing when the Challenge Grants were created, UND used up a big chunk of their money right away. There were a bunch of applications in Dec 2013 and more throughout the first half of 2014. By the end of 2014, UND had requested about $8.8M of their $10M. During the last two months(Nov & Dec 2014), UND put in requests for the final $1.2M. In NDSU's case, they didn't have a major fundraising campaign going on, so the donations came in slower. NDSU didn't have any 2013 requests, and only a moderate amount of requests during the first half of 2014(about $2M worth). But the second half of 2014 came with a flood of requests. About another $2M in the late summer and fall. And Dec 2014 brought in about $4.5M. The last $450k was requested just after the first of the year. Personally, I think some of the reason for the lateness was due to the leadership problems in the NDSU Development Foundation. I know the $3M + $1.5M donation by Doosan/Bobcat was in the works long before the end of 2014, but the actual donation was held until the last minute and the announcement was delayed even more until Mayo's resignation was announced. Still, of the six athletic scholarship requests, none were part of the January request. So to say NDSU needed the athletic scholarships to fill out the last of the grant money is incorrect at best, lying at worst. But I think the UND Development Foundation was watching the NDSU requests and thought NDSU was going to leave about $5M on the table. According to the Challenge bill, UND could have put in requests for that money. By NDSU coming in at the 11th hour with requests covering the entire amount, I bet some hopes were dashed quite rudely. It gives the comments coming from DCZ a real sour grapes feel. In any case, grant money going to athletic scholarships at NDSU amounted to $0.15M. That means $9.85M went to non-athletic areas. (going by the names of the scholarship funds)

Nope. That's a separate number. The cost estimator asks if you are applying in one of the special-fee majors. And those fees are given on a different line anyway. The line I'm referring to is listed as "Personal Living Expenses". It does not include tuition, fees, room, board, and books.

Holy mother of god. I looked up UND's current COA adjustment. This is the amount that sets the upper limit of the scholarship. The number that's thrown around most often is $3500. It varies from college to college, and each school is required to put it somewhere on its website. UND's was hidden pretty deep. (I'm not saying UND is trying to hide it for some reason, just that it's not as easy to find as most schools). I looked up a handful of schools this weekend for a discussion on AGS. NDSU was $3400, UNI was $2300, Lehigh was $2100, Texas was $4300. UND gives a number of $5800. That's insane. It means UND would be able to spend an additional $365,400 in football scholarships. That probably works out to about 20 additional scholarships. UND is ending up gaming the system before there was a system to game. (that wasn't an attack btw, more of a sardonic quip)

I just don't think there's the will to do so. When autonomy was passed, only either 27 or 37 schools wrote back against the idea. That's of over 330 schools. I think FCS schools that don't want the stipend will use conferences to limit its use rather than FCS as a whole. The schools from the bottom or non-playoff conferences don't care; they're not going to win the NC anyway(Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, PL, PFL). The top conferences will be in favor of stipends because if they are opposed, it will only hasten their best schools leaving for FBS(MVFC, BSky, CAA, SC, SLC). And the middle conferences aren't enough to swing any vote(OVC, BSouth). But I've been wrong before and I'll likely be wrong many times in the future. I will say that if FGIA are disallowed by the FCS, you're going to see another mass movement of top FCS schools moving to the FBS. And NDSU will be at the front of the group. We've spent the last decade becoming an G5 school in all but name; being restricted to regular GIA levels would be a giant step backwards. Just my opinion. And homer was right, our AD is misunderstanding some things right now. To be a tiny bit fair, only the P5 representatives were in the room during the discussion and voting, and most of what came out of the meeting was hearsay. It took me about three days of looking before I finally stumbled across the links I posted earlier. And he wasn't the only AD to get things wrong. I read an article from Missouri's AD that was completely wrong about proportionality in regards to stipends.

No. You can do as many or as few as you want. (within certain limits) You can even treat student-athletes on the same team differently. You declare a student as full grant-in-aid, not a sport or a school. It's very individual. Yes/no. You don't treat the stipend as a separate thing. What you're actually doing is modifying what the value of a full scholarship is. Say a regular full scholarship is worth $5k at your school and the value of a scholarship plus stipend is $10k. Now say you give a student-athlete $5k.If you list the student as a regular GIA, then you calculate the percent of scholarship as $5k/$5k, or 1.0 scholarship counted against your limit. But if you list the student as a FGIA, then you calculate it as $5k/$10k, or 0.5 scholarships against your limit. There's other great info in the Q&A I linked to above.

Why? That would be like the golf team suing because they aren't funded to the scholarship maximum while FB and MBB are. If there were a case to be made, it would have happened long ago.

The autonomy group was formed from the vote that happened back in July or August and was ratified in October(I think). The group is made up of one representative from each of the 65 P5 schools, plus three student-athletes from each of the five conferences, for a total of 80 members. All legislation the autonomy group votes on is 'permissive'. This means that schools outside the P5 cannot be forced to adhere to it. However, they may choose to follow these new rules if they want. The only stopping point is the school's conference. Conferences may vote to forbid their members from adopting elements of autonomy legislation. I guess there's nothing stopping the FCS schools from doing the same thing across the entire subdivision. (doubtful) Here's the text of the legislation: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Official%20Notice%20of%20Autonomy%20Proposals%201-12-15.pdf (it's 2014-13; the amendment 2014-13-1 passed, but none of the others) Here's a Q&A on the topic: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2014-15%20Autonomy%20Legislation%20Q%20and%20A.pdf

Not sure if serious, but it's because McFeely is in Ogden, Utah for the Weber State game and Ogden is the home of the Big Sky Conference. Here's the interview if you want to draw your own opinions on what he said(17 min): http://kfgo.com/podcasts/mike-mcfeely-show/983/ron-loghry/

A workaround is to click the toggle switch in the upper left corner of the reply area. It's listed as BBCode Mode if you hover over the button. This only works if you have it in BBCode mode when you start the post. Strangely, if you start the post in BBCode mode, you can toggle back to regular mode and the quote box does what it's supposed to.

You are correct that there is a sportswriter that typically gives the FCS champ a vote in the final poll. However, you are wrong that this is the only time NDSU has received votes in the AP. We started receiving a vote last year in week 14(Nov 24) and continued receiving votes through the final poll(Jan 7). That was four polls with a high of 17 points(29th place) in the final poll. Those 17 points put us ahead of Texas Tech, Iowa, Georgia, Ole Miss, Kansas St, Arizona, Navy, Utah St, East Carolina & Miss St. Furthermore, NDSU also received votes(2pts) in this week's AP poll. Don't know if that will last, but the only other time I'm sure an FCS team received AP votes in the middle of a season was App St after the Mich. win. I will be the first to say that 17 points was far from "cracking" the top-25. The 25th team in the final 2013 poll received 109 points(Wash).

Not much different than West Fargo. We've been adding 500 kids a year for the last couple years. Probably another 450-550 this year. I think the district will continue to open a new school two out of every three years for the near future. It's nuts. 2004 - Cheney Middle 2007 - Aurora Elementary, Sheyenne 9th Grade Center 2009 - Osgood Kindergarten Center 2012 - Freedom Elementary 2013 - Liberty Middle, Sheyenne HS expansion I 2014 - Independence Elementary, Sheyenne HS expansion II 2015 - Legacy Elementary

I didn't include the full quote because I was trying to keep things to one line when possible to keep it readable. Here was the quote from the July 28 GT email that Schlossman used in his article: