Hammersmith

Wow, you can't win for trying around here. If Tatanka hadn't pulled the video, star and others would be bashing him for not being sensitive to the Jewish student who was harrased. Because he pulled the video out of respect for the bad timing, SiouxMeNow is all over him for being a coward(keep remembering that the video came out first). I guess some days you should just stay in bed. I did a rundown of the Fargo Forum's talk page on this topic. Of the 97 comments as of this morning, one said it wasn't funny(a UND fan), three had mixed reactions, and 57 found it humorous; the rest were duplicates or were commenting on other things. Of the 57, seven identified themselves as UND fans or alumni; only one identified himself as an NDSU fan, though I'm sure there were many more. Considering how anti-NDSU those talk pages normally are, those are some amazing numbers. Quite frankly, if I'm outnumbered 57 to 1 on a topic, I tend to question if I may not be the one mistaken(and I have questioned myself many, many times - I was against NDSU's DI move initially; boy was I wrong). Even among self-reported UND fans, the number was 7 to 1. While the majority is not always right, that kind of lopsidedness is stark. I'm not saying, just saying ...

I beg to differ. ("I was just a paper-hanger, no one more obscurer. Got a phone call from the Reichstag, told me <gasp> I was F

I almost never post on the hockey forum, so first let me say that I am a Bison alumnus and fan to those that don't know me. Regarding this video, the timing was unfortunate, but competely coincidental. The video was posted on Bisonville almost three days before the anti-semetic dorm story broke. The first happened with no knowledge of the second. To use star's 9/11 analogy, it would be like critizing a movie that was already in the theaters on Sep 8th. Now you might expect such a movie to be pulled and perhaps re-released later, and that's what the video's creator has done. Within 24 hours of the dorm story hitting the Herald, the video was pulled from the original location, and a third party's copy was pulled from YouTube a few hours after that. Maybe when things have cooled down, the video can return with less fanfare; not my video, not my call. As for the humor, I happen to think Charles Kupchella is one of the worst things to happen to UND in recent years, so of course I found it funny. I also strongly disagree with CMSioux in principle: Hitler can, and should, be used for humor. I'm from the Mel Brooks school of thought on this issue: A subject loses its power over you if you can mock and parody it. It's why his versions of "The Producers" are so funny. In the 1968 version, Hitler is portrayed by a drugged-out hippie named, appropriately enough, L.S.D. In the newer Broadway version, he's played by a flamingly gay theatre director. Both versions have you rolling on the floor laughing, and Hitler loses a bit more power each time. I can't think of a better fate for the SOB than to become an object of ridicule. (BTW, I'm a shade over 30 and an armchair historian, with WWII as a favorite era; I don't need to read a history book to know what Hitler did.) One of the reasons all these videos are funny, regardless of the topic being lampooned, is that putting words in Hitler's mouth creates an absurd image that mocks both the subject matter and the speaker. Whether it's the Dallas Cowboys, storm chasers, Windows Vista, or UND, all are funny if they come out of a ranting, insane Hitler's mouth. Again, it's the absurdity of the situation that creates the humor. Since a few of the jokes in Tatanka's video are based on running gags at Bisonville, I can see why some lines might fall flat or sound stupid to non-members. Still, taking offense at the video probably means you're way too close to the subject and need to lighten up a bit. Once the furor* over the dorm incident cools down some, I'd love to see a Sioux fan with a good sense of humor create a version spoofing the Bison. I'll take any chance to laugh at Hitler. *"The F

I love the video, but the fact that Chapman is in Korea had me laughing too.

And I disagree. Funding equity was supposed to be a priority(1 of 4) since the Educational Roundtable was created at the beginning of the decade. Unfortunately, the only change in the matter was backwards. The initial plan was for 20% of any new monies to be allocated to equity and the remaining 80% to parity. The problem was there were no new monies. In fact, budgets decreased, which made the situation worse. The few attempts that were made to fix the problem were all opposed by Kupchella. At first, all attempts were made within the system. After 5+ years of no progress, some campus leaders(including Chapman) went outside the system for help. Agree or disagree with the methods, the problem did, and does, exist. Due to the large state surplus, there is finally enough money available to go a long way toward solving the equity problem. If Kelley were to oppose such an initiative, it would show that the cold war between the two campuses will continue. Supporting such an initiative can't be considered extortion if it's actually the right thing to do. Heck, UND would benefit from improved equity funding(percentage-wise, NDSU would benefit more, but UND might get more actual money). I know a few posters here think Chapman=evil, but the decline of relations began in 2003 and 2004 with the actions of Kupchella(two years before the Potts/Chapman firestorm). As for the doctorates, that's really a guess on my part. I think NDSU has a goal of 20% graduate students. At the moment, the number is 14.2%. Clearly there's work to be done, and new graduate degrees will probably be a big part of it.

Just to back up what mnbison said, the rings were awarded in 2006 when the Bison went 4-0 in-conference and 10-1 overall with no losses to I-AA opponents(just the 10-9 loss to Minnesota). The rings were a way to thank the Bison players who stuck it out through the dark transition years, as well as a way to commemorate a fantastic season that far exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. I believe the decision was made to only consider the conference rings during the transition, since no national championship rings were possible. Since the Bunnies won the GWFC championship this year, the 2006 rings will be the only conference rings given out by NDSU in football. I suppose it's possible that conference rings might be given out in basketball(since winning a NC will be almost impossible) or in football if NDSU were to ever go FBS(for the same reason), but I'm almost positive that you won't see rings given out for a Gateway(or Missouri Valley Football Conference) championship.

Heh heh. I know what he's referring to. About a year or two back, just after Bunning and Kupchella changed UND's stance on the rivalry and UND made the decision to go DI, Gene Taylor was being hounded by the Fargo media on why NDSU was not willing to schedule UND in 2007 or 2008. One of the reasons Taylor gave was that UND had an advantage because DII has lower academic requirements than DI. He said that time was needed to make sure any of these potential ineligible-for-DI student-athletes were aged out of the system. Or something to that effect. While it is true that DI academic standards are higher than DII, I doubt that any UND student-athletes would fail to qualify under DI rules. Except the hockey players, of course. (that was a joke) I also doubt that Taylor feels any differently. I think he made that statement for three reasons. First, it happens to be the rationale for the four-year transition period. It was the reason given for why NDSU was not allowed into the playoffs even with a 10-1 season and no losses to I-AA opponents(remember, this was back in late '06/early '07). I suppose it was on his mind and he figured since that reason was used against NDSU, he might as well get some positive mileage out of it. Secondly, it was a bit of a tit-for-tat going back to comments made by Kupchella a couple years earlier regarding the low academic morals of DI. One of Kuppy's rationales for staying DII was the scandals that seem to plague major schools from time to time. It also referenced comments made by Roger Thomas when the rivalry was suspended about it not being a level playing field due to the scholarship differential. Finally, and I think this was the big one, Taylor knew it wasn't his decision to make, but he couldn't come right out and say it. It has been clear for quite some time that the decision to resume the rivalry rests solely in the hands of the presidents. Since Kuppy changed his mind, and Kelley seems to be for it, that leaves it all to Joe Chapman. Today that's fairly common knowledge, but back when Taylor made those comments it was still a poorly kept secret. I suppose Talyor had to give some kind of answer without just saying, "It's not my call. Go talk to my boss." As far as the comments being slanderous to "thousands of UND student-athletes"; please. If you're stretching that far to find something to take offense at, just grab your blankie and go take a nap in the corner, 'cause you're getting cranky. Besides, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a press conference, just some comments made to Kolpack or Hallstrom during an interview(probably a phone interview). On BisonSports.net's version of this thread, I posted a moderately-long timeline of how we got to this point from NDSU's perspective. I won't repost it here because it's too far off topic, but I will summarize my conclusions. Whether or not the rivalry will resume depends on Kelley's actions during the upcoming legislative session. A group of NDUS schools(led by NDSU) will be pushing to use most of the increase in higher-ed appropriations for funding equity, rather than parity. If Kelley and UND strongly opposes this move, the rivalry will continue to be on hold. If they work with the low-equity schools for a fair solution, expect to see the games start around 2010(+/- 1 year). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if NDSU proposes new doctoral degrees in biology and/or English to gauge reactions from the new Kelley administration(NDSU agreed not to pursue those for awhile back in 2003, when NDSU's doctorates in education were approved). Of course, almost all of these are my suppositions based on available facts. I could easily be wrong on most, if not all of them. I don't think I am, but MplsBison is just as sure of his opinions and we can't both be right. Take all this with as big a grain of salt as you feel necessary.

I see. I wasn't aware of exactly how that rule changed and that it only applied to the autobid. I remebered that the wait for the MBB tourney was 13 years back when NDSU began its move, but I thought that applied to any bid. Apparently, NDSU would've been eligible for an at-large bid, but not the auto-. Weird. Anyway, the rule was changed and today you're eligible for either type of bid as soon as you become an active member(2012-13 in your case). (I don't mean to get real nitpicky here, but in dealing with NCAA rules, word choices become important. Part of my confusion came from you using the term 'petition' in your earlier post. In NCAA-speak, a proposal refers to a rule change, while a petition refers to a one-time exemption to a rule. The Big West/UC Davis case was not a petition, but a proposal; as you correctly stated in your followup post.) Getting back to UND's schedule next year, looking at NDSU's and SDSU's 2004-05 schedules might give some hints. Both schedules featured no DI home games and many DII/NAIA games. NDSU (DI: 0 Home/8 Away; DII: 7/5; NAIA: 4/0; DIII: 1/0) @Kansas State(DI) @Denver(DI) @Northern State(DII) @Southwest Minnesota State(DII) @Northern State(DII) Jamestown(NAIA) Minnesota State Mankato(DII) Minnesota-Duluth(DII) @Eastern Michigan(DI) @Oakland (Mich.)(DI) @Wisconsin-Green Bay(DI) @Rider(DI) @Manhattan(DI) Concordia-Moorhead(DIII) @UMKC(DI) @South Dakota State(DII) Dakota Wesleyan(NAIA) Southwest Minnesota State(DII) @Minnesota-Crookston(DII) Northern State(DII) Minnesota-Crookston(DII) Si Tanka-Huron(NAIA) Mayville State(NAIA) Upper Iowa(DII) South Dakota State(DII) SDSU (DI:0/13; DII: 7/1; NAIA: 3/0; DIII: 1/0) @ Butler(DI) @ Manhattan(DI) Mayville State(NAIA) @ Illinois-Chicago(DI) @ Wisconsin-Milwaukee(DI) @ Southeast Missouri(DI) @ Marquette(DI) @ Denver(DI) Michigan Tech(DII) @ Tennessee State(DI) Wayne State, NE(DII) Wayne State, MI(DII) @ San Diego State(DI) Buena Vista(DIII) North Dakota State(DII) @ Missouri-Kansas City(DI) Morningside(NAIA) Bellevue(NAIA) @ Arkansas State(DI) Winona State(DII) Upper Iowa(DII) Southwest Minnesota(DII) @ Colorado(DI) @ Central Florida(DI) @North Dakota State(DII)

Once a school is an active member, they're eligible for all the tourneys through either auto- or at-large bids. Whether a school is a core institution or not has no bearing on eligibility. I don't know the petition of which you speak, but I bet it was one of two things. Either the Big West was low on numbers and wanted UC Davis counted as a core institution to protect the BWC's autobid(doubtful, since I think they've had plently of members for many years), or the Big West wanted UC Davis to play in the conference tourney, which would've been bad if they'd won and were not eligible to receive the BWC autobid. I think the latter scenario is far more likely. It's the same reason that NDSU and SDSU were not allowed to play in the Summit BB tourneys this year, even though the Bison men were ranked 4th and the Jack and Bison women were ranked 1-2. Next year, however, the Bison and the Jacks will compete in the tourney and vie for the autobid. While conferences can choose to hand out their autobid however they like, all use the conference tourney so it will be broadcast on TV and generate revenue. Having a non-eligible team win the tourney would screw everything up. The only place that the term 'core institution' shows up anywhere in the NCAA DI manual, is in the section describing how a conference qualifies for autobids. The term, or status, has no bearing on the individual school, only the conference. FYI, a MBB autobid requires 7 core inst., 6 of which must've played together for the previous 5 years(this is the one we all know). A multisport conference must have 6 core inst., all of which must've played together for the previous 2 years. A single-sport conference(of a sport played by less than 50% of DI schools), needs 6 active members(not core) who have played together for the previous 2 years. Since football is divided up into FBS and FCS, the GWFC falls under the single-sport rule. On the other hand, the United Soccer Conference would fall under the multisport rule, since most schools sponsor women's soccer.

I can't be absolutely certain, but if UND was able to put together a full DI schedule, I think you would be eligible in 2008-09. According to the WNIT website, the 17 at-large teams are chosen by using the Dolphin, Greenfield, Massey, Moore, RPI ratings, Sagarin, and Wobus rating systems. Most of those will only include a team if they have enough DI opponents. I'm just guessing, though.

Two small corrections to Star's post. From year 3 onward, 4 non-DI basketball games are allowed, not 3. Also, any team that's an active member of DI is also completely eligible for the NCAA MBB tournement, regardless if they are in a conference or their core institution status. Of course, an independant could never put together a schedule tough enough for an at-large bid, much less win it, so the point is moot. Here's UND's timeline: 2007-08 Exploratory Year 2008-09 1/2 DI, 1/2 DII 2009-10 DI Counter to DI teams 2012-13 DI active member(eligible for NCAA postseason) 2015-16 5 years to core institution 2020-21 DI core institution

Re: GeauxSioux's last comment Okay, miscommunication there. When you said state approval, I assumed you meant the legislature, not the SBoHE. I can see why the Betty needed SBoHE approval, but I don't think it required legislative approval; just like the NDSU and UND Tech Parks don't need that kind of approval. In the case of the Fargodome arena, I suspect a SBoHE vote will be taken because of the $10-15 million NDSU will be contributing, but I don't think it will go to the legislature. By law/policy, I don't think the Betty or the FD arena technically needed SBoHE approval, but it would be political suicide to go forward on a project of that magnitude without it. Heck, some people in Bismarck were unhappy that NDSU didn't get formal approval for the purchase/renovation of the new downtown buildings prior to closing the deal, even though all the money was coming from private sources, the land was purchased by the NDSU Foundation and is to be leased to NDSU, and NDSU had talked to members of the SBoHE and the relevant legislators and gotten informal approval before the next scheduled meeting(where the offical approval was given). Our system sucks when it comes to cases that are time-sensitive. Sorry about the tangent. To restate, I don't believe the City of Fargo requires any approval from the state government to add on or modify the Fargodome. However, since this project will require an eight-figure contribution from NDSU or its agencies, a SBoHE vote will most likely take place, though not a vote of the state legislature(unless a congressman decides s/he needs some press).

I'm 99% sure the answer is no. I believe the city can do almost anything on the land during the 99 year lease without dealing with the state. The Betty didn't need state approval, did it?

In a month or two. The marketing study that was conducted did not have all the details some of the commission wanted, and the Dome's management company has volunteered to do a parallel study gratis. Those reports should come back in a month, and then the final decision can be made. But the initial report must've looked pretty good, since the "done deal" comment reportedly came from a member on the city commission.

PRAIRIE VOICES: UND's next president In it, he answers questions about enrollment, recruiting(athletic & academic), UND's role in the state, the role of athletics at a research university, the DI move, and the nickname issue. Of course, there's no way he could go really in-depth on all those issues in a newspaper article, not to mention that he's still learning about the university and the state, but he seems to be saying the right things(at least IMO - I'm not touching the nickname issue).

I don't believe so. Tim Miles joked that he had named himself commissioner of the league. As far as I know, there is/was no website, office, or paperwork regarding the UBC. It was just a pretty name for a scheduling alliance. The United Soccer Conference, on the other hand, is a real conference. After a quick internet search, there are a couple websites, but they're unofficial. BTW, Star is correct about the men's NIT. Since it was bought by the NCAA, transitional teams no longer qualify.

#1. I can't believe I'm still reading this trainwreck of a thread. #2. Every time I think Mpls can't come up with an idea dumber than he has in the past, he goes and proves me wrong again. <sigh> You'd think I'd learn. The reason research parks associated with universities work as well as they do is because of the cheap source of labor called graduate students. You close down UND's engineering departments and the EERC and R&T Park will disappear soon after. Since both schools have invested heavily in their research parks, neither will be backing off their engineering programs one little bit. The whole idea of eliminating "duplicate" programs is one that sounds good after a few drinks and it works when sketched out on a cocktail napkin. The problem is it falls apart in the cold light of day when everyone's sobered up. In current times, engineering and business are programs that almost all general purpose universities our size have. Sure, there are hyper-specialized colleges above 10,000 students that don't have one or both of those programs, but neither NDSU nor UND falls into that category. Here are a couple more thoughts. While UND's business program is justifiably good, NDSU would not be having such success if UND was fulfilling the area's demand. In fact, in almost every case of "duplication", both schools' programs are healthy. In these cases, the primary school is either unwilling or unable to meet student demand. It may be that one college feels their program is too expensive to expand, or that adding more students would degrade the quality of the degree. Whatever the case, if there are qualified students that want to study a particular field but can't due to size constraints, then a state university has no cause to complain when another university begins to offer the same major. I know that supporters of both universities believe their side can do no wrong, but I hope UND supporters can please see some of the things Kupchella did early on that soured the relationship. The DI move had little to do with it; that came later. Around 2000, NDSU was already approaching UND's total enrollment, yet was getting much less money from the state(even considering the money given to UND's med school). Every time Chapman tried for a more equal share, there was Kupchella blocking the path. If that wasn't enough, almost every time NDSU wanted to add a program, guess who fought it? Athletics are luxury item for a university; money and academic programs are the lifeblood. Or to use a more visual metaphor, the money issue was a noose around NDSU's neck, the academic programs a knife in our crotch. By comparison, opposition to our DI move was a hangnail; though it was far more important to our fanbase. It's no wonder that things turned into a cold war between the universities. Will things improve with Kelley as president? I'm hopeful. I'm on record(other site) saying that, if Kelley helps hammer out a plan that addresses funding equity in a fair manner during the next budgeting session, things will improve markedly. If he fights it every step of the way, we're looking at another six weeks of winter, so to speak. I would love for things to improve, but it's my feeling the ball's in Kelley's hands. Well, enough rambling. It's taken forever to write this since I've been watching multiple basketball games while writing it. Bison/Bunny women's game in two hours and #1 vs #2 in three. Any chance this thread can get back to radio and take the dunce cap off?

While they're not listed in the blog you referenced, the corresponding article states that Cal Poly has contracts signed for 6 homes games and 5 away.

But I don't think anybody(except those involved in the deal) knows what format WZFN 1100AM will be. With Scott Hennen as the owner, you'd think right-leaning talk radio would be the most likely. It's possible that WZFN could go with sports programming, but the FM market already has ESPN(KQWB 1660AM) and Fox Sports(KVOX 740AM). Is there room(and programming) for a third AM sports radio station in the Fargo market? I guess there's no hard reason that WZFN couldn't do both talk radio and UND athletics, but I doubt it would happen unless UND did all the production and just rented the airtime; probably too expensive to have the people and equipment just for a limited number of college sporting events. Could be wrong, though. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if WDAY(ForumComm) becomes the new radio home of UND athletics within a couple years. It looks like either UND or Clear Channel is not interested in renewing the existing contract, and, since NDSU has taken all radio production in-house, there don't seem to be many ties remaining between those two. It really seems to come down to what KVOX does. If they go with NDSU, then WDAY becomes redundant and available. If they go with UND, then they become a core piece to UND's coverage in southeast and central North Dakota. The next couple years might be very fun if you're into this sort of thing(like me, obviously).

Because this station has been airing UND football games for the last several years and covers most of central ND. I believe UND's media contract with Clear Channel expires this summer. With the new hi-power KVOX now in the market, it makes you wonder if there's going to be a shake-up this summer when UND starts to negotiate a new contract. Could this be the opening play? I was thinking about posting this myself, but I couldn't think of a tactful way of broaching the subject.

With my Carnac the Magnificent hat on, I see this discussion going nowhere, so how about a hijack? Recently(today in the Herald/a few days ago in the Forum), there was an article about the recent success of the NDSU Team Makers. In the last four years, TM has doubled fundaising from $810,000 to $1.65 million and has a stated goal of $1.9 million for next year and $3+ million in the long term. I've been wondering for a while now how the Fighting Sioux Club has been doing. I know that the FSC went through its own rebirth quite a few years ago(thanks to Rob Bollinger?) and has been doing very well since, but I don't recall hearing any hard numbers for the last year or two. For some reason, I was thinking they were pulling in around $2.1 million a year, but that was like three or four years ago. Does anyone know what the current figures are or where to find them? What does this have to do with I-A football? Uhhh... It takes money? Or maybe it's because I see only headaches involved for anyone not named MplsBison if this stupid DU discussion continues. So, anyone want to jump ship with me?

You're quite correct. The problem is that any conference Denver wants into doesn't want them, and the one conference that is willing to take them is one Denver feels would be a step down(Big Sky). They're caught between a rock and a hard place and are just hoping that one of their desired conferences will change their minds.

Well, looking through the DIII manual, I haven't found anything to support my idea; I'm beginning to think I'm confusing this with the I-AA split back in the 80's(?). I did find out that skiing is one of the National Collegiate Championship sports. That means there is only a single division for it. Every school with a men's or women's skiing team competes against one another.

Wasn't that loophole closed many years back? I thought the only DIII schools allowed to play up in a sport and award scholarships in it were those that were grandfathered in from before the rule change. I believe the current rule is that a DIII may play up, but they can't award any scholarships. Am I wrong? (A DII playing up is a different story.)

You just keep telling yourself that.