Gothmog

The ultimate reason was/is a decision made in GF in 1930.

That was sarcasm on my part. But you're right, it's a lame argument. The NCAA wouldn't care that the trophy is a replica of US coinage that was discontinued 87 years ago.

Relevance?

Hey, I understand the issues, and I don't expect that the trophy really will be played for this year. But then, I didn't bring the trophy up in the first place. You can't criticize NDSU for not having the trophy if the trophy can't be contested for reasons that have nothing to do with NDSU.

OK, take that up with the NCAA, if it's that cut and dried, I'm sure they'll have no problem with it. In any case, it has nothing to do with NDSU.

You may, or may not, be right about NDSU's attitude after the game is played is played. Either way, your original post is typical of the over-the-top, vitriolic rhetoric that, IMO, caused the rivalry to end in the first place.

Huh? There's no revisionist history here. The trophy won't be there because of what's on one side of it. NDSU has/had nothing to do with that. If the Nickel Trophy had Thomas Jefferson on one side and Monticello on the other, it would be in the FargoDome on Sept 19th. It would be a lame trophy, but it would be there.

Oh, I certainly do understand. However, none of that !@#$ storm has anything to do with NDSU. The Nickel won't show up at the FargoDome this year entirely due to decisions that were made 70 miles north of Fargo.

C'mon, you know who originally took their ball and went home. And, you also know who decided that the (Nickel) trophy won't be played for this fall. If you want to criticize others, you need to have clean hands yourself. UND doesn't.

If you do want this game to continue on a regular basis, calling NDSU people morons, fools, and idiots isn't helpful.

Crockett was a very good running back, but he wasn't ten feet tall. People forget that Sam Ojuri outgained Crockett every year of Crockett's career other than 2014. They didn't miss Ojuri much in 2014, and they won't miss Crockett all that much this year. Truthfully, with Frazier, Morlock, and Lance Dunn, they might even be a little better overall at the RB position. They're certainly deeper .

OK, I'm not disagreeing. Neither UND, nor NDSU, have a proven head coach.

Oh, come on. You love having Bison fans post here and you know it. Honestly, hasn't this off-season been a lot more entertaining than last year's?

Oh you are right, NDSU doesn't really know what it has in Chris Klieman yet, and won't find out until he's had a chance to recruit his own team... On the other hand, he did win a championship last year. That is a little bit different than a two game improvement in record.

No, "regression to mean" refers to the tendency for any extreme measure to followed (and preceded) by a more mediocre measure (i.e. - closer to the mean). It is true that we might not be able to estimate results without a larger sample, however the tendency to regress toward mediocrity exists independent of sample size. You need to be careful that you don't interpret last year's somewhat better record as being caused by the coaching change. It may in fact be due to purely random factors, which are not likely to repeat themselves in the future. Coaches tend to get fired after a run of bad "luck."

I take that as: No, we have not considered the possibility that this is a regression toward the mean. You should, it's a real possibility.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed that first year coaches often do show immediate improvement, but seem to be unable to continue that improvement in subsequent years? And, in many cases, end up not really being any better than their predecessors?

Ever consider the possibility that the improvement you're seeing is really just a simple regression toward the mean? As bad as things were in 2013, it's not unlikely that UND would have shown improvement in 2014 if they had hired any reasonable coach other than Bubba, and possibly even if they had done nothing.

At this point, there is no basis to compare any two teams other than previous year's stats and outcomes.

I remember reading a column recently that basically debunked the idea that so-called "rivalry" games are more likely to result in upsets than games between randomly chosen opponents. I thought the methodology was poor, but the conclusion really does make some sense when you think about it. Other than entirely random bounce-of-the-ball factors, the most common reason for an upset would seem to be that one team (the favored team) is less prepared or motivated than the other team. It seems to me that, since both teams are likely to send more time and effort preparing for a game with their "rival," both of those reasons are less, not more, likely to happen in a hyped rivalry game. Needless to say, I don't expect a tremendously close game.

I don't recall any Bison fan saying that there was no chance that UND would win the game. But, analyzing this game is difficult precisely because the two teams haven't shared that many common opponents and haven't played each other for such a long time. That said, a UND win, or even a relatively close game, is highly unlikely. Based on where the two teams have been in the recent past, I'd say the odds of an upset are <10%.

Pointing out the records of the two teams over the last few years IS focusing on the game. These teams haven't played in 11 years, how else is anyone going to figure out which team is likely to win the game?

I've never even used the word "superiority" in any post in reference to anything other than football.

If there's something I've personally posted that you think is incorrect, please correct my error.

Funny how people will give lip service to the idea of a spirited rivalry, but when the other side of the rivalry demonstrates any of that spirit, they accuse them of "trolling," and want them silenced. You can't have it both ways. Do you want a rivalry, or not? A spirited rivalry can't exist in an echo chamber.