Hammersmith

First, NDSUFREAK10, SiouxMeNow is a lot like SDBison or JBB; seems to be a decent enough person, but trying to hold a rational conversation with him about NDSU(or UND in the case of SDBison and JBB) is just a recipe for a headache. Just cut your losses and move on. Second, for everyone else, I thought I'd post these attendance numbers since DI-FPS appears to be your future. As you can see, some numbers are higher while others are in the DII ballpark. Strangely, there seems to be widespread allegations of underreporting playoff figures. Anyway, these are the official numbers. 20,077-- McNeese St @ Montana 16,223-- Coastal Carolina @ App State 11,627-- James Madison @ Youngstown State 9,427--- Furman @ Montana State 5,693--- UT-Martin @ Southern Illinois 5,388--- Lafayette @ Umass 4,400--- Illinois State @ Eastern Illinois 3,401--- New Hampshire @ Hampton Interesting fact: Only four teams are seeded in the DI Football Championship Playoffs and one of the major criteria in selecting the pairings is keeping travel distances to a minimum for all teams. That consideration supercedes ranking order.

Also Fighting Sioux Club, administraton, building maintanence and support, general institutional support, etc. Basically any revenue or expense that can't be attributed to a single sport. BTW, the enrollment data is wrong for UND. Someone forgot that they wanted only undergraduate numbers, though I doubt that would throw off the gender equity numbers that much. I'm a bit suprised at the size of the baseball team. Seems a bit big for DII(DI even), but I'm no expert in that. If you want mud to sling at us, check out NDSU's gender $$ ratio. I think there's a reason for it, though, and I expect a pretty significant improvement in this year's and next year's numbers. I posted a while back that I was pleased that UND got its athletic budget back under control. I'm still interested in the $3 million in one-time expeditures. It's probably just moving numbers around regarding the financing of the Betty's debt, but it would be nice to know for sure.

You know, I promised myself I wasn't going to respond to star's comments about his unerring accuracy but... What is the title of this thread? Who posted it? Did it come true?

10 regular season games in 1999, 2003, 2004, 2006 11 regular season games in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005

You pretty much have it all figured out correctly. The Northeast Conference(NEC) has been limited scholarship for years; sort of like a DI-AA NSIC. For the past few years they have been struggling for respect and an autobid. To raise their competition level, they have upped their scholie limit to 30 this year. Still less than half of DI-AA, and even less than the NCC. Since it was becoming obvious that the NEC and the Pioneer Football League(PFL) were not going to get an at-large bid, much less a autobid, the two conferences agreed to hold a championship game, the Gridiron Classic, between the two conference champions. This will be the first year it's held and the agreement is for a two year span with a renewal option. The kink in the works is that the NEC has done very well against the A-10 this year and the University of San Diego(PFL) is ranked in the top 25. Since a team that plays in any postseason game is ineligible for the NCAA playoffs, people from both conferences are starting to wonder if the Gridiron Classic was such a good idea after all. With the increasing scholarship disparity between the NEC and the PFL and the increasing respect members of the NEC are getting, I'm beginning to doubt whether these first two years of the Gridiron Classic might not be the last. As far as the second question, your last guess was correct. A minimum of half of the playoff berths must be reserved for at-large bids. As long as the playoff field is set at 16 teams, there will never be more than 8 autobids. I think that holds true for all NCAA tournaments. For the GWFC to recieve an autobid, either the playoff field must be expanded(there is some talk of 24 teams) or an autobid must be stripped. No other options. Worst case scenario for UND is if NDSU and SDSU get invited into Gateway just as UND and USD join the GWFC. No rivalries and 5 members could look mighty ugly. I have no idea which way things will go, but it is a possibility.

Once again, UND will not help with an autobid until 2014. Even then, an autobid would have to be taken away from another conference; probably MEAC or Ohio Valley. Also, the GWFC will be in competition with the Northeast Conference when their agreement with the Pioneer League is up in 2008. If UND is able to schedule 6 DI schools for 2008, they would be a DI 'counter' and would count toward the 7 DI wins required to be considered for an at-large bid. Even so, UND might be considered a drag on NDSU's, SDSU's, UC Davis', and Cal Poly's strength of schedule by the east-coast selection committee members. I'm not saying it's fair, just that it could very well happen. I would look for a 2009 invite +/-1 year. Of course everything goes to hell if NDSU and SDSU are invited into Gateway in 2008 or 2009. In any case, I wouldn't be suprised if UND starts off as a provisional member until 2012. The other reclassifying schools didn't have to, but they were charter members. On the other hand, it also wouldn't suprise me if they were added as full members right away.

In games of seven points or less: Last 2 years: 03-02 Last 4 years: 12-05 Last 5 years: 13-09 Last 7 years: 17-12

Pardon me for butting my nose in, but I think RandallW is saying that someone is spamming the chatroom he frequents for this website. Since I doubt that you(Jim) and UND(for fightingsioux.com) are responsible, I think he wants to know if it's someone else from this site. Since you are quite respected, perhaps a general comment from you might get this unknown poster to stop hurting siouxsports.com's reputation and quit spamming chatrooms. If he's spamming one, he's probably spamming others, and that's not the kind of advertising this fine website needs.

There is one scenario for UND getting into BSC that is more likely than all others(IMHO). When NDSU and SDSU were rejected, Fullerton was requiring a unanimous vote. I believe that was because he was afraid of Sac State and Port State bolting to west coast conferences if their wishes were overruled. With UNC now in the mix, he might feel like he's got enough leverage to go with a standard vote if UND comes up. There is also a chance that former UND employee Terry Wanless might push his president(Sac) to vote for UND. That would give UND a likely 7-2 vote; enough to get in under a standard vote. The thing to note about this scenario is that it has nothing to do with UND. It is all about the inner machinations of the BCS commissioner/presidents. What UND has, or doesn't have, doesn't really make a difference. That was one of the most frustrating things we Bison fans had to learn: It doesn't matter one whit how good you or your facilities are; you are completely at the mercy of factors beyond your institution's control. UND is good enough to be in Big Sky; so were NDSU and SDSU. The reason some of us jump on your scenarios and predictions is because we've learned from hard experience that there is a fallacy at the heart of them: Your talents/strengths make a difference. They don't. Be the best choice you can be, and then wait. Don't seriously get your hopes up, and be exstatic when you get in. I'm not pulling, or not pulling, for UND to get into Big Sky. I know it's not a matter of UND's abilities. I'm just observing(and occasionally commenting on) the process. I do this because processes and systems like these are like crack to me; I can't get enough. Good luck to you, and whatever happens, happens.

I might be wrong, but I think the Argus Leader is doing a series on racism/racial issues in Sioux Falls/South Dakota.

Truth: UND has been the largest university in North Dakota for decades(I think it's always been larger, but I don't have numbers to prove it). Truth: NDSU's growth rate during the past 13 years is more than twice that of UND's. Truth: NDSU is aggressively pursuing graduate students. (90% increase since 1999) Truth: NDSU is not aggressively pursuing undergraduate students. Truth: NDSU currently has more undergraduate students than UND. Truth: NDSU has 11% more freshmen than UND. Extrapolation: NDSU's total enrollment will pass UND's within two years. Opinion: NDSU:UND will equal Fargo:GF by 2015-2020. I don't have a problem with the truth. I believe NDSU could be over 14k now, but there are not enough classrooms or dorms to handle that kind of increase. With the purchase of the two new downtown buildings, that will change. NDSU had a lot of ground to make up, and it's almost done. Smart growth takes time. If you want to get a little more use out of the old "UND is bigger than NDSU", I guess that's up to you, but it won't be good for much longer.

star, you're making some very good points. I would just say the following: 1. Even if NDSU had a network like ESPN at their beck and call, I don't think it would have made a difference to Big Sky. I believe that decision was based solely on geography, not on market. I think the member schools were told that Big Sky was going to expand by at least one school, and UNC was accepted as a compromise. Close enough for the western schools and enough competitive potential for the Montana's. 2. NDSU has not created a full sports network because its product is not yet marketable enough. I fully acknowledge that there are not enough football games and NDSU basketball is not yet big enough to support a fledgeling network. However, has UND hockey been popular since the dawn of time? I submit that the present is not always indicative of the future. Things change. 3. REA vs BSA television atmosphere. Again, I don't dispute that. But again, I seem to recall something about a groundbreaking for a major renovation in about six months. Might improved television presence be part of the architect's instructions? 4. Reluctance to sacrifice football attendance. I don't know if I agree with that, but even if it's true, I expect that that would not be a problem in 3 or 4 years when the Fargodome approaches a capacity average. Since our horrible 2-8 season, our average has been increasing by almost 1k a year. With 2006's average standing a good chance of reaching 16k, we could hit capacity as early as 09 or 10. Especially if we make a postseason run in 08 or later. 5. Finally, I repeat a point from my earlier post: MidCon Comm. does not necessarily have to choose between our schools; they can opt to carry both if they feel it would be profitable for them.

FYI, 21 hockey(+playoffs), 2 football, 2 basketball; for a total of 25(+hockey playoffs). You are correct about 5 or 6 home football games(5 this year), but more and more I-AA schools are adding some form of coverage. I would expect for 2 or 3 of our away games to be covered in some way, shape or form. And then there is basketball. I completely agree that it is currently a low draw. However, after the first NCAA Tourney appearance/win... I don't know if it's going to happen in 2009 or 2029, but I'm betting it will be big(except in DaveK's house). It might even, dare I say, overshadow Sioux hockey for a time(measured in months, not years). If I were in charge, I would get the equipment in place, use webcasts to train operators for a few years, and then make the transition to a full network shortly after the first Big Dance appearance for maximum effect. Who knows what plan the real people in charge have.

Oh Bob, I really wouldn't use that argument if I were you. It's only got one or two years of life left in it. In the Chapman/Kupchella-era(99-06), NDSU has grown by 2548(26.2%) while UND has grown by 2244(21.2%). The current difference(567) is, I believe, the smallest in post-WW2 ND history. If you go back to pre-flood numbers, the difference in growth rates grows worse. During 94-06(the furthest back I have numbers), the growths were 25.9%/11.4%, respectively. Chapman hit his 2005 goal of 12k students one year early, while Kupchella shows no signs of meeting his 2005 goal of 14k. BTW, please don't anyone use the stricter admission standards rationale; NDSU has used those same higher standards for years. On the USD subject: I have to say that, if true, I think USD has the right idea. One of the major reasons the DI transition has worked at NDSU is because it was part of a larger, comprehensive plan. If the athletic department moves alone, it creates resentment in the academic departments. A comprehensive plan eases those concerns and raises faculty/student support since they see tangible growth in their own departments. If Abbott can pull it off, a DI transition there might work. UND seems to have several of the pieces in place, but I haven't sensed an overarching structure or plan. Perhaps that will change after Kupchella's State of the University address next month.

I'm going to indulge in a bit of star2city-style speculation here, and wonder aloud if NDSU isn't already building its own sports network. When the Fargodome's production facilities were upgraded a few years back, I wonder if they were upgraded to the point of sending an acceptable quality signal to a cable/dish provider. Maybe GoBison.com is only the second step in a larger plan. NDSU is at a disadvantage since the local cable company(CableOne) has no other ND/MN locations, but maybe NDSU has something super-secret in the works with Dish Network or something to get distribution. Hey, this unfounded speculation is fun. Just teasing, star. Seriously, if MidCon Cable, or another provider, was given a pre-produced feed and they thought they could make money on a Bison Sports Channel, they would jump on board. This is not like the Clear Channel/ForumComm situation where those companies must choose between the schools; MidCon could easily carry both sports networks on different channels for almost no extra cost if NDSU was doing all the production work. It really is possible that that's NDSU's mid-term plan.

If UND can do this, and I hope you can, I will be extremely impressed. $500M is a massive amount of money to raise. I think NDSU increased its endowments by about $50M over the last three years and that was a major achievement. 10X that in only 4 years(2008-2012) is almost inconcievable. Of course with a number that big, I will have to see it to believe it, but I wish you good luck. The $100-200M that would go towards athletics would be a huge chunk of the money you'll need for a successful DI move.

Two points: 1. If you use the current manual and read a little further, you will find that a I-A can count a single I-AA opponent as a I-A. 2. I think the five home game rule is partially responsible for some of the interconference agreements that currently exist. i.e. Big Ten/MAC agreement Actually, the way the rules been changed in the last couple of years have increased the opportunities for I-A money games rather than decreased them. Four home conference games + four away conference games + one home I-A home/home or conference exchange game + one away of the same + one home I-AA = 11 games with all requirements filled; 6 home/5 away. Depending on your budget, add a final home or away game to fill out the schedule. BTW, with the exception of the I-AA exception, those rules have been in place for over 2 years and the number of I-A/I-AA games is still rising dramatically. Regarding Ransdell's comments about I-AA being a finacial disaster: Remember that he is pushing I-A at WKU in a big way. He may not be supporting it offically, but everyone there knows where he stands. There is talk of a I-AA to I-A moratorium, just as there was, and may be again, a moratorium on DII to DI. If WKU were to move, the divisions would be almost perfectly split. Something like 120 to 119.

I'll try to make this my last post on the subject, and then I'll go away. The similarity between the two groups is in the fact that they are both ideologies. Ideologues are incapable of accepting facts that contradict their ideologies. Reasoning doesn't work with them. I didn't think about it before you mentioned it, but I wasn't thinking in moral terms as much as functional terms. Scenario: you have a group of Christian fundamentalists trained from grade school in a way similar to what was described at Devil's Lake. The leader is a moral individual with good intentions, but he teaches blind obedience. Later, a new, less-moral, leader takes over and uses the followers to commit violent acts. Morally, this group and a Islamic terror-cell are different, but functually they are the same. In both cases, free will was given up for a "higher cause." That relinquishing of free will is what scares me. The other half is that I'm somewhat afraid that a future government that was elected by a greater proportion of evangelical Christians than elected Bush, will relax their monitoring of radical Christian groups because they think, "Well, there're Christians too, so there's no way they'd do anything that bad." I realize the odds of that aren't huge, but just one Oklahoma City or Tokyo subway... I hope it was understood, but just in case; never have I been making the connection: Christians = Bad. It's always been: Ideologues = Bad. Or more precisely: Radical, Fundamentalist Ideologues = Bad.

Yes, and as I stated in the sentence that immediately preceded the one you quoted, if those are her motivations, I don't agree with them. However, taken in isolation of her motives, the general concept of the negativity of inflexible thinking is valid. The best schools teach flexible thinking. It allows a person to approach a problem from multiple angles and it allows people with differing views to have civil discourse about delicate subjects. A broken clock is still right twice a day? Well, even a left-wing freak can have a valid point every now and then.

Sorry, this one got away from me. I tried to respond to too many posters at once. I'm not automatically against a DI move for UND, I just don't want to see it tried and failed. The reason I made the sweeping under the rug comment was that the only place I've seen the deficits discussed have been on these message boards. Where is the public questioning of the UND administration by the media or the state government? I haven't seen it yet. I think the financial numbers are too large to be discussed behind closed doors, and I don't mean the IAC. Would I like NDSU's books to be open? Hell yes! However, there was legislative scrutiny back when NDSU announced its move. That hasn't happened yet in UND's case. Perhaps it will come in time, and that will be fine. It's just that there doesn't seem to be indications that it's going to happen yet. Regarding Cratter's post: UND isn't going to get major guarantee money for at least three years. Even then, you are looking at approx. $400k per year total(FB+BB). It's a bite, but not a big one. Regarding the Branson Property/Danley Gift, are you suggesting that those major sources of income/scholarships be diverted solely to the athletic department? Is that healthy for the university? As far as student fees go, how much are the students willing to spend? To generate $1M, the fee would have to be raised about $85/year. I don't know how far the university can push the fee on top of rising tuition. Maybe enough? I just don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong(I know you will ), but isn't Frozen Four money less than $250k? I do worry. I don't want UND to fail and be badly hurt. star: It is my understanding that NDSU does not use tuition waivers for athletics. It goes back to a bill that was proposed back when NDSU announced its move. (No state funding to be used for DI athletics - except hockey - that, apparently, was okay) The bill failed, but Taylor said during the discussion that general fund monies would not be used. I believe that tuition waivers fall into that category, but I could be wrong. Chapman also said in 2004 that he did not want to use waivers for athletics. In any case, tuition waivers are used for far more than just athletics. The lion's share of tuition waivers used at both NDSU and UND are for graduate students. We aren't against waviers, we just don't think they should be used to prop up an athletic department. The BSA renovation will break ground this spring. The money is in hand and the architect is on campus. The most important fact about the BSA?(IMO) Capacity: 7000-8000. Room to grow. Respectfully, I'm not whining. I'm genuinely concerned. Yes, I was also concerned back in 2003. About the facilities arguement, I don't see where you're coming from. The following isn't meant to be smack, but it is critical. UND: hockey - fantastic; football - adequate/undersized; basketball - undersized; volleyball - v good; baseball - bad; outdoor track - poor(I think); softball, indoor track, soccer, tennis, golf, swim/dive - ?; NDSU: football - v good, basketball(post-reno) - good, indoor track(post-reno) - v good; wrestling(post reno) - v good; baseball - v good; softball - adequate; soccer - good; outdoor track - good; volleyball - poor; golf - ? I don't think UND has an advantage, and if it does, it isn't much. Media: FSSN is a great resource; I'm not disputing that. Question though: Other than hockey and football, what else is televised? I honestly don't know. I do know that since the Fargodome's production capabilites were upgraded, NDSU now webcasts and archives almost all of its home contests in most sports. There's still work to do, but with the archiving, I'd take GoBison.com over FSSN. Your mileage may vary, though. Just two more thoughts and my treatise will be over. I honestly don't believe that Kupchella is the man to get you though the reclassification. I think he is gun-shy from his last job and I don't think he sees how athletics fit into a healthy 4+year public uni like UND. I think he views athletics in a vacuum rather than as part of a greater plan like Chapman did when he used athletics as a marketing tool to raise money and support for the other parts of NDSU. Lastly, if we are going to get info in December, then I'm willing to wait for it. But if, in December, all we get are vague promises and platitudes, I hope you'll be with me then, asking the tough questions. Oh, and I fully expect an audit of the NDSU athletic department as the transition wraps up. We do need to know that everything was handled properly.

I don't think anyone on this thread has said, or even implied, that these groups represented mainstream Christianity. However, I would argue that these Christian extremist groups are exactly as dangerous as any other; including Islamic, Jewish, Irish Catholic, Basque, Marxist, etc. Once the line into fanaticism is crossed, the resulting personality is a loaded gun, just waiting to be pointed at whatever target the faction's leader decides is worth destroying. The Muslim groups may have had a few years head start, but the Christian groups are doing their best to catch up. Hey, if it works for them... Regarding the worshipping comments: I was responding more to PCM's reaction to the quote than to the actual quote itself. It seemed like he was saying it was no big deal if it was true. That set off my warning bells. As for Ms. Sandler, two points. If she is inflexibly ideological, as I suspect she is(BTW, being secular, liberal and feminist does not automatically mean someone is), then, yes, I feel about her the same as I would any other ideologue, right or left. However, her point about inflexible thinking is valid. The hallmark of a rational mind is the ability to consider points of view that differ from your own and judge them on their merits, then modify your own views when they come up wanting. This runs counter to all fundamentalist-type educations. No matter what the Christian-right would have you believe, this country was founded on the principles of reason and rational thought. It wasn't called "The Age of Reason" for nothing. I am also an agnostic and the closest I have to holy scripture is the US Constitution. I don't know if a better document could be written(that's a real agnostic joke). With that in mind, the Christian-right scares the hell out of me(another pun-sorry). The republicans and democrats are ideologues, but they hold each other in check for the most part. There is no check against the C-R. They have the power and the will to exercise it. That terrifies me. Libertarians don't do much for me. They seem to be just as inflexibly ideological as any other party. I'm pretty much stuck trying to vote for the candidate with the best character, and hoping that his/her party leadership doesn't corrupt them too much. I guess I'm stuck being a party of one <snort>.

If we could put the kindergarden-style fighting aside for a moment, they are a couple of parts of kchats letter that should be seriously addressed. Personally, I don't think the conference issue is one of them. NDSU fans don't have a leg to stand on, since Gene Taylor said almost the same thing before NDSU's move. Taylor had to backpedal then, just as Kupchella is doing now. What is troubling is the financial situation. Using the IAC records: FY03: even (no firm number was given) FY04: -48k FY05: RT avoided giving numbers at several meetings. Eventually given as -250k FY06: -680k-700k (projected; final number never given) FY07: -850k (projected; unconfirmed sources; we'll know more after the IAC minutes are posted) We can't be concerned about this? At what magic number do these deficits become a problem? $1M? $1.5M? $2M? Let's face it: the UND athletic department is in a financial tailspin. DI is going to take $2M-$3M above and beyond the current budget. Where is it going to come from? How much is the student activity fee going to be raised? How much more can the FSC come up with? Is tuition going to increase to help pay for the move? Are academic funds going to be diverted? Of the four revenue sports, three are at, or near, capacity for their venues and both the Betty's and Alerus' capacities have recently been revised downward. When are we allowed to have this debate? After UND is committed and it's too late to turn back? Some are saying that NDSU was in the same situation. I beg to differ. NDSU was not approaching $1M in the red. NDSU did not raise student fees. Teammakers was able to double their revenues to $1.5M. (To the best of our knowledge)Money was not diverted from academic programs. Arena capacities allowed large revenue growth without raising ticket prices. Attendace improved for all revenue sports(Yes, that includes basketball-no doubleheaders). Guarantee games filled in funding gaps in the later years of the reclassification. UND is 3+ years away from that revenue source. This is not something that should be swept under the rug. Until we get some real answers, we need to keep asking the questions. Was it star2city or Sicatoka who kept saying "cost and conference"? Why the silence now? This is not an anti-UND rant. If these questions aren't answered, the move will fail and UND's athletic department will be thrown back 20 years. Look to Kupchella's previous job. NDSU won't have to beat UND on the field, UND will defeat itself in its own financial ledgers. Maybe a DI move is in UND's best interests and maybe it's not. One thing is for sure: If the financial situation isn't stabilized prior to the move, the reclassification will be an unmitigated disaster that will cost a whole lot of people their jobs and damage UND for decades to come. Don't let that happen. Demand answers.

Actually, I think that is pretty scary. Not because I dislike Bush(which I do), but because I don't think any human should be worshipped. Worshipping >> blind obedience >> fanaticism >> "violence is okay because it's in <insert deity>'s name." Once that first step of worshipping a living person is made, it's not hard to transfer the devotion to the current "correct thinking" leader. Somehow, I doubt that Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson had bowing and praying to a presidential portrait in mind when they decided that the head of the Church of England was not their cup of tea. Quite frankly, I despise any person, organization or religion that espouses a "us vs. them" philosophy. The moment you do that, you dehumanize your "enemy", which is the first, dangerous, step towards jihad or genocide. As you might expect, I'm not too fond of our current political system(both halves). And yes, this does apply to my Bison/Sioux feelings. As I said in another post, any negative feelings I have toward UND are aimed at individuals, not the institution. For example, I do not dislike Roger Thomas because he was from UND, I dislike him because of his comments and actions. Those negative feelings do not transfer to Tom Buning. I will judge him completely independently of his predecessors. Sorry for ranting; this topic kind of pushes my buttons. Have a good afternoon.

This is the way it is supposed to work: There is 'actual' and 'paid' attendance. For satisfying the 15k average attendance requirement, either will work. Tickets must be sold at 1/3 or more of their pre-season value to be counted. (I take this to mean 2-for-1's count, since each ticket was sold for 1/2 value.) Tickets sold at less than that(give-aways) can be counted only if the tickets are actually used. The students count because of the activity fee, but they must either be given tickets which are later counted or they must enter through a seperate gate and be counted there. The band counts if it's counted by an athletic department official, but the players, cheerleaders and students performing stadium services do not count. The loophole in this requirement is that the school's athletic department or development foundation can use one or more financial contributers to buy tickets at 1/3 price to inflate the paid attendance if needed. I highly doubt any I-A school is going to miss the attendance requirement from this point on. BTW, the 16,134 NDSU vs. Northeastern attendence figure is actual, not paid. We all know the old Dakotah Field numbers were inflated beyond any reality, but since moving to DI, the numbers are honest. Everything you want to know, and more: http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...Information/FBD

You are correct with two tiny quibbles: 1. It should be exploratory, not experimental and (to be really picky) reclassification, not transition 2. The "certain number of DI games" is a minimum of 9 games with >50% of the total being DI(i.e. 10 total needs 6 DI) Other terminology changes: "non core member" should be "active member" and "core member" should be "core institution". Sorry for being so anal, but I've been in the NCAA manual so much it's seeped into my brain. So, corrected version: