Hammersmith

psstt... http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9570 To partially answer your last question, endowments are generally used for two purposes: funding student scholarships and funding professorships and the like. UND, like most universities, has a general scholarship endowment that is used to fund non-specific scholarships like the Presidentials. There are also smaller endowments created by donors for specific types of students. A donor might specify that only a third-year business student from Logan county with a 2.0-3.0 GPA is eligible for a scholarship funded by his or her endowment. Of course, most requirements aren't as silly as that example, but some can be(look into the scholie David Letterman funded at his alma mater). For a list of UND endowments, check out this link.(Sorry, that's supposed to lead you to the UND Foundation Annual Report, but the link's broken. If it wasn't, you'd find a list of all the endowments (there are a lot) but not any specific dollar values. I don't know if those are publicly available.)

UND should be able to move up one men's and one women's sport in addition to hockey after two years if they so choose. Now I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so don't take my word as gospel. As for the USCHO poster star talked to, I think he's wrong. Here's why:

Off the top of my head, NDSU's current budget(FY 2007) is somewhere around $8.5-9.0M. The final goal(FY 2009) is between $9.5-$10.0M, up from $5.1M in FY 2002. edit: Just to be a jerk... The NDSU athletic department currently receives $910,000 from student fees. Carr is suggesting you double what NDSU students are paying on top of what your students are already paying to athletics. Ouch. Sorry ... the $900K to $1.8M comparison was just to tempting to pass up. 2x edit: On the original topic, it looks like everyone has to wait a bit longer(and then some):

NDSU/SBoHE response: NDSU: Plan adhered to law

1. I've said for quite a while(though probably in real life and not on the messageboards) that UND/USD is the worst combination of any two of the Dakota schools. NDSU/UND and SDSU/USD have strong historic rivalries and are geographically close to one another. NDSU/SDSU doesn't have the same degree of history, but it does have the geography. UND/USD doesn't even have that. The two schools are almost as far apart as they can be on a North/South line and still be in their respective states. Still, you play the hand you're dealt. Until and unless two different conferences come a calln', the UxDs need to stick together. NDSU and SDSU thought much the same thing a few years back(NDSU to BSC/SDSU to somewhere else). It turned out that a home together was a far better solution than first thought. History might repeat itself. 2. NDSU to MVC in 2-5 years? No chance. In 7-15 years? A small chance. I agree with most of what you said just after that, except I flip it around. I would say that if all those things happen(tourney appearances, new arena, etc.) then a MVC invite could happen. And yes, I do think it would be part of a MVC move to FBS. It's a small chance, 5-10% at best, but the possibility is there. I don't agree with what you said about SDSU, though. I think that the two schools as a pair would be more attractive as travel partners than just one of the schools alone. Of course, it would be contingent on SDSU's MBB program returning to its former glory. You suggest that the MVC would be willing to accept sub-par BB schools that are already FBS in the hopes that they would improve in BB. I believe that current BB success would be more important to them and that they would insist on schools with already high RPIs. If the xDSUs can achieve that, I think they would have almost as good a chance as any MAC school. 3. Regarding bincity's comments to me in the following post: You know, I actually think he would've said no. I don't say that with certainty, but I think the odds would've been better than 50/50 that Chapman would've turned her offer down. In the scenario you describe, the GFC would've increased to 8 members with NDSU. The GWFC would've been at 7 if NDSU stayed put; possibly as many as 9 if the hushed rumblings over on AGS are correct. I understand your skepticism, and I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Doesn't that just make your skin crawl to say that? I normally feel like a shower after being forced to agree with him. Thankfully, it's a rare occurrence. On point: 1. I do believe the xDSU's were a package deal for the GFC. I guess I'm a fool then. 2. UND and USD should start working together, and soon. Having someone you can trust and compare notes with(pres to pres, AD to AD) can be invaluable. 3. At the moment, I think the BSC looks better for UND and the Mid-Con looks better for USD. That could all change in an instant if another conference shift begins. 4. While the 4-Dakota schools package in the Mid-Con sounds good, there is a slight possibility that the xDSU's won't be in the Mid-Con by the time the Mid-Con is ready for you guys.(~5-10%)

Historically, X and Y had very specific meanings in the military, especially in the Air Force. When used alone, the X referred to cutting-edge experimental aircraft like the Bell X-1 that Yeager took past the sound barrier and the North American X-15, which achieved a speed of over 7,000 mph and altitudes over 100,000 feet. When applied to fighting aircraft, the X has been used to denote experimental designs that would probably not be developed into production aircraft; i.e. the XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter and the XP-79 Flying Ram. Occasionally, an experimental design works well enough to develop it into a production weapon; i.e. the XB-47 Stratojet and the XB-58 Hustler. The X was also sometimes used to denote experimental varients of existing aircraft; i.e. the XB-25G. The Y was used to denote pre-production aircraft. When a contract was announced, and aerospace companies submitted designs, the flying prototypes were given Y designations; i.e. the YB-49 Flying Wing, the YB-52 Stratofortress, the YF-22 Raptor, and the YF-23 Black Widow II. When the final contract was awarded, the Y was dropped and the aircraft either went into production(B-52/F-22) or fell onto the cutting-room floor of history(YB-49/YF-23). Recent compititions have been for the Advanced Tactical Fighter(ATF)(won by the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor) and the Joint Strike Fighter(JSF)(won by the Lockheed Martin F-35A/B/C Lightning II). In recent years, this X/Y naming system has been breaking down. The JSF submissions were given X designations even though they should've gotten YF one's(they were the X-32 and X-35 instead of the YF-32/35). My previous post about slapping around the DoD was meant mainly as a little joke, but there was a grain of truth in it. In a world as complicated as the DoD's, well-established systems of nomenclature should not be thrown out merely because some mid-level official or bureaucrat thinks an X will play well to the media or congressmen. Thus endeth the reading. We apologize for any mind-numbing boredom you may have endured, and we will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Mild tangent: The KC-X project(KC-135 replacement) currently has two contenders. Boeing has submitted a version of the 767(KC-767) and Northrop Grumman is submitting the KC-30, which uses the Airbus A330 as its base. Apparently, the decision will be made late this year or early next. Also, anyone else want to smack the DoD around for excessive use of the letters X and Y? KC-X, X-Carrier, DD-X(next-gen destroyer concept), X-Craft(test platform for the Littoral Surface Craft) and Stryker(medium fighting vehicle). I'm sure there are several more. What ever happened to the days of naming fighting vehicles after generals, ships after cities and states, helicopters after NA tribes(don't say it) and aircraft after whatever the heck they felt like that day? I'm expecting to see generals and admirals start pimpin' their rides any day now.

Since I resemble that remark... What do you expect us to say? They were idiots. Well meaning idiots, but idiots nonetheless. IMO, and you're welcome to disagree of course, they broke the letter but not the spirit of the open meeting laws. I would suggest that those laws are to prevent decisions from being made out of public view. In this case, it appears that no decisions were made, nor were any even considered. Beyond that, there wasn't even any discussion between the commissioners. NDSU officials said their peace, a few questions were asked, and everyone went their seperate ways. Still, everyone agrees that one of the commissioners should have walked away prior to the meeting. The unfortunate timing and circumstances involved provide a reason, but not an excuse. It really was bad luck that Coates arrived only moments before Chapman ushered them in. I do believe one of them would have left if they would have had a couple of minutes to discuss it. Again, it's a reason, not an excuse. They also should have come clean immediately after the meeting rather than waiting until Williams decided to score a few points against the FD arena proposal. By laying low, they damaged their credibility. OTOH, I've lost far more respect for Williams than for Coates, Wimmer or Walaker. Williams was told of the meeting within days, but he sat on it until the 90-day reporting window had passed. Then he leaked it to the High Plains Reader. It appears that he wanted to embarass the others and the arena proposal without being involved in an AG investigation. Too self serving for my tastes. Whether you believe the version of events as layed out by Coates and co. probably depends on your views towards Fargo, NDSU, and "Imperial" Cass. If you dislike them, you'll probably see some form of conspiracy or other lying involved. If you support one or more of those three, like myself, you'll regard it as an unintended, if foolish, mistake. You make the call. Some light reading: The HPR article that started it all(8 March): Behind Closed Doors The Forum's initial article(10 March): Fargo commissioners met illegally Linda Coates' version of events(10 March): The Meeting Forum Editorial(14 March): Violation damaged credibility

This move has pushed the GWFC's chance for an autobid to 2014 at the absolute earliest. Even that assumes the GWFC will get another member besides UND and USD. If it's a DII move-up, they must begin their move this year and join the GWFC by 2012. If it's an existing DI school, only the joining by 2012 is required. The requirement is six schools that have played together as active DI members for the preceding two years.

fixed [/pedantic mode] sorry SloStang

There's a very good reason he was voted the Most Annoying Poster of 2006 over on AnyGivenSaturday with 18.87% of the vote. Heck, DaveK only got 5.66%.

Kolpack reported it in his blog(from GT).

A few points. NDSU has three school songs. "On Bison" and "Fight Song" are our fight songs and "Yellow and Green" is our alma mater. "On the Plains" is an unofficial tradition, not a school song. I believe SDSU played in Fargo twice because UNC leaving the Great West messed up the rotation. As far as the financial benefits of a Bison/Sioux game, what would you expect UND to get? Would it be a guarantee, a cut of the gate, a home/home, or nothing at all. I doubt any of you would accept nothing, and a home/home is not possible at the moment since almost all agree that a 2008 game is out of the question and no one yet knows where NDSU will be in 2009. If a guarantee is chosen, how much should NDSU pay? Should we treat you like any old DII and pay you the same as we did Concordia(SP), or should we treat you like a FCS and pay you comperably? Personally, I don't want to deal with those questions and the angry fan bases those answers would cause. A single 2007 game is just not worth it, no matter the outcome. Sure we might make an extra $25,000 or so, but that's just a drop in a $10,000,000 budget. Also, did those 2 for 1's even happen this year? I asked for them at a Stop-n-Go one game this year, and they didn't know anything about it. It was homecoming, so that might've been it, but still...

Are you sure they're fully funded? I thought that the last I heard they were at 40 or 45 but improving.

It's definitely helped us. Erv's trips to Arizona and other retirement states have brought in a lot of money for us. I agree with you about TM/FSC upgrades. Upward pressure for better seats is another way that football can help in the DI move. (A little less for UND, since hockey seats are more important there.)

I'm just curious, do you think Buning will hold the Sep 1 date open until late April and risk another 10 game season? And what are your feelings toward 10 game seasons in general? Do you think that UND's repeated ability to get tournament home games is one of the reasons he's not afraid of them? BTW, damn straight I want the nickel back. I went to NDSU during the mid to late 90's. I think I saw the nickel once during that time. However, I'm not convinced that 2007 or 2008 are the right years to resume the rivalry. I hate how venomous this thing has gotten over the last decade or so, so I don't mind the cooling off period for the general fans. Nothing can help the idiotic posters/fans on both sides of the aisle, though.

If you want attendance to go up during your first years of DI, I recommend you tell Coach Lennon to go 2-8 next year then recover after that. It seems to work. What I'm really saying is that I think the 2002-2004 attendance rise had less to do with the transition than it did the excitement of Bohl and the recovery of the NDSU tradition. I think the 2005 and beyond numbers have been helped by DI, though.

Two quick comments. First, you are correct about Team Makers being a bigger factor than the attendance numbers, but remember that the two are linked. Larger attendance usually means more season ticket sales and that generally means more money to the booster club. The increase in attendance becomes a double boon. Second, the decline in basketball attendance has not been as bad as it appears. Moving from doubleheaders to individual games has cut reported attendance but probably has increased, or held constant, the gate receipts.

Thanks. There used to be a "NA" there instead of a number. It looks like they ended up copying the men's attendance over.

Hey star, do you have the attendance for the WBB game vs. Northern State? It's not in the box score. Thanks.

Sorry for cutting up your post bin, but I just wanted to throw a few numbers out here. For the most part, the gap is simply returning to where it historically has been(maybe a bit more). The reason it seems to be otherwise is that your championship run and our 2-8 season were back-to-back. Here are the last ten years: Year NDSU UND Diff 1997 12512 8810 3702 1998 11589 7692 3897 1999 11410 7813 3597 2000 12723 8658 4065 2001 12115 10517 1598 2002 10620 9488 1132 2003 11567 9033 2534 2004 13269 9389 3880 2005 14160 9426 4734 2006 16377 8827 7550

Also from the Bison Media Blog: Monday musings

Anyone got any garlic and a wooden stake? (Geaux Sioux beat me to what I was originally going to say, with a few added expletives.)

I've heard that. I think it's true, but I don't know for sure. Of course, you aren't forced to schedule 12 games; you can choose to have two bye weeks.