Gothmog

You seem to be suggesting that an institution with a $65 million total research budget could add $50 million if only it were allowed to apply for grants in areas in which it has no experience

Sure, Ag research isn't very Important, especially not in a state like ND. And we're only talking 50 million or so. No big deal. BTW - read the post I responded to. It implies that that ndsu needs football as a source of revenue because und has such an advantage in research and donations. That's not simply not true.

You know, I used to think that, eventually, the legislature would intervene in the situation and require the two schools to play each other again. But, given Al Carlson's ill-fated attempt to intervene in the nickname issue, I now highly doubt that will happen -- at least not anytime soon. It's been almost 10 years since the last Bison-SIoux game. The world hasn't exploded and the game, in my opinion has really not been missed, certainly not by NDSU fans. In fact, these have been great years for football in the state. Years of exciting changes and new challenges. Better, by far, than anything that preceded them. Including the old, poisonous rivalry. As each year passes it becomes less and less likely the the rivalry will be renewed. Kolpack was right, the era has passed, the football rivalry is dead.

Or, you just decided not to sell your house. Either way, the offer isn't on the table anymore. No explanation is necessary.

Not to demean anyone, but NDSU is, by a considerable margin, the larger research institution.

Don't know...don't care.

Gene Taylor is doing what he believes is best for NDSU. No more explanation than that is necessary.

No, the marketer's dream happened in Dallas last January. NDSU ticket sales are higher and donations stronger than they ever were when the rivalry was on-going. NDSU v UND is one game out of 11. NDSU is looking for more than that.

The problem is you, and others on this site, are the brick wall.

Those are your opinions. Have you actually spoken to NDSU season ticket holders and donors? Have you done any surveys to determine what ticket sales and donations would be if NDSU scheduled UND? Do you have any knowledge of NDSU's cost and revenue structure? Do you really have any idea at all whether what you're saying is really true?

No, you're wrong. A marketing startegy is what drives finances. NDSU could not schedule UND without a change to its marketing strategy. As I said before, part of this about hurt feelings. But you are dead wrong about this not involving NDSU's marketing strategy. It's all, ultimately about the way they sell their program to their fans..that's called a marketing startegy.

Man, that makes no sense at all. Decisions such as: who to schedule, how many home games you want, whether to play a local rival or pay an outstate team to come to town are all part of a school's football marketing strategy. The posts I was responding to both claimed that the poster had demonstrated that NDSU could/would make more money by scheduling UND. Since that would requiree a change in NDSU stated strategy of always scheduling 6 home games, it would clearly be a change in the way they sell their football program to their fans. I call that a marketing strategy. What do you call it? Red herring? Not at all.

You did that analysis based on what? You're simply not privy to sufficient information to draw any conclusions about NDSU's marketing strategy. All I know is what they're doing is working. Why would they change it?

I would say that you're probably not in possession of enough inside information to evaluate NDSU's football marketing strategy, or draw any conclusions about whether NDSU would, or would not, make more money by playing UND vs. paying an FCS team to come to town. I'll trust that the people in charge at NDSU know a bit more about it than you, or anyone else on this board. Things are going pretty well in Fargo... In any case, you are right, at least part of this is about the feelings of Gene Taylor, and other folks at NDSU, towards UND -- in a personal. not a competitive, sense. You can argue that he/they should just get over it, but hard feelings die hard.

You're missing the obvious point. NDSU would have to give up a home game at least once every 4 years, possibly every other year, in order to play UND. The lost revenue from that game cancels out the 200K paid to a team like PVAM. You can say that you would personally like to see the game started up again, or speculate that the people of Norh Dakota want to see the game played again. But it's much more difficult to make a actual case that NDSU has anything to gain, financially or otherwise, from playing UND. For now, NDSU is exactly where it wants to be. Scheduling UND can't really improve the situation.

Oh, I really doubt that a majority of the citizens of ND is "desperate" to see the two schools play again. I have no doubt that, if asked, a majority would say that they want to see the game played. But, I suspect that most would not lose much sleep over it. Truthfully, the "never play those bums again" crowd, on both sides, seem to me to be much more passionate about it.

Check recent attendance numbers at Alerus...there's your answer.

So, why did you post a message in the first place if you didn't want people to reply? It's an FCS forum not a UND forum. When you post a smack-talk message (which your post ultimately was) you have to expect that more people will disagree with you than not. The reason only Bison fans responded is that, on that website, only Bison fans have strong enough opinions about UND to even bother to respond.

As I said on AGS, any team can say: if we were better at this or that, we'd be a contending team. You have to prove it by winning games before you're entitled to any respect. UND hasn't proven anything yet, simple as that. Did you happen to notice that, other than Bison fans, the response to your AGS post was crickets chirping? You've got a long way to go.

Here's the bottom line: NDSU's scheduling philosophy since moving to DI has led to three 10-1 seasons, six playoff wins, a national championship, booming season ticket sales, and significantly enhanced regional and national exposure. Why on Earth would they want to mess around with that? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

So it is a bit?

You're right. It's not important anymore.

The NCAA instituted the local approval requirement only to prevent petty rivalries from entering into the equation. The Seminoles of OK might, for instance, withhold support for FSU using the name simply out of spite against a competing school's sports program (same with the SD Sioux tribes). In the case of Catawba, there is no other tribal government to give approval so the NCAA allowed the SC tribe to give approval out of necessity. As I said before - and I may have simply missed it - I have never seen any official NCAA document stating that one tribe approval was ever sufficient when more than one tribal government existed.

Ahh, but it is the University of Central Michigan (or is it CMU?). The scope of the university is different...therefore only the approval of the Chippewa of central Michigan is required. Also, the CMU campus is actually located on the reservation itself. Not the case for either FSU or UND (or Utah). Again, I don't believe that it was ever the case that UND could simply have gotten the approval of SL or SR to satisfy the NCAA.

82, I don't see that anything you have posted supports the idea that the approval of one tribal government was ever sufficient - in the case of there being more than tribal government in the state. The link you posted refers to the support of "the tribe", but that seems to refer to the tribe as a whole, not individual tribal governments (i.e. the "Sioux" meaning all Sioux people in the state, not the Spirit Lake or Standing Rock Sioux). That is my understanding of how the policy developed. FSU was able to get approval of only one tribal government because there is only one Seminole tribal government in Florida (http://www.semtribe.com/government/) not because the NCAA policy was different at the time. Of course, I could be wrong.