UND92,96

I'll be very interested to see whether the starting offense will be more or less the same as from the spring game (with the probable addition of Bondy), or whether we'll see some of the talented young players/newcomers such as Sutton or Davis or Anderson break into the starting lineup. Plus, will Bamba get himself out of the doghouse? He could be a difference-maker, as he showed some real playmaking ability last year.

I don't disagree, at least most of the time, but according to Wayne Nelson's article from Saturday's Herald: I'm sure it's not a decision being taken lightly, but it's apparently being seriously considered.

Speaking of the post, does anybody know whether Ledger will be able to play this season?

I guess I look at certain positions as being more likely for a first-year player to contribute--running back, receiver and corner. If there's a need, i.e. few proven returnees, and if a kid is likely better than those returnees, it may make sense to play him right away. For most other positions, such as quarterback, offensive line, and linebacker, it would be highly unlikely that a kid could play right away. In those situations, unless the kid is really exceptional or the cupboard is almost completely bare, then you red-shirt everybody. I think this is the philosophy that the coaching staff has taken the past few years, as the kids who didn't red-shirt have all been either rb's, wr's or db's. This year, it wouldn't surprise me if Binns and possibly the receiver from Nebraska don't red-shirt because IMO there is need at those positions, and these kids look like they may be able to contribute immediately.

I respectfully disagree. If Binns can show in pre-fall that he's one of the top three backs, let him play. We desperately need playmakers right now, and as we've seen the past two years, keeping our top backs in the program and eligible for more a couple of years is far from a guarantee, so using one of those years on a red-shirt season may turn out to be a waste (see Chappell as Exhibit A).

I'm certainly not claiming that this season is going to necessarily be a disaster, but if Murray indeed can't play (and I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of this info), that would mean that we'll be heading into the season quite unproven at quarterback, running back AND receiver. So how does this affect your expectations for this season? Freund, Murray and Trenbeath are all big shoes to fill (not to mention Troen and Braegelmann). Realistically, the offense is probably going to be down this year, barring a number of pleasant surprises from young players. Hopefully the defense will step up, because winning high-scoring games may not be in the cards this year. I hope the offense exceeds expecations, but to expect as much production as the past three or four years probably isn't fair under the circumstances.

If he can't play, I really hope Binns doesn't red-shirt. I think Sutton and Binns are our best bets for big-play backs.

link

From the same article: Not that I don't trust the coaching staff's decision to start Townsend off as a receiver, but between his amazing senior year passing numbers and his performance at this all-star game, he sure seems like he could play quarterback. On the other hand, the need at receiver seems considerably greater than at quarterback.

It sounds like there have been some new developments since Brad's blog: link

link

I don't really expect to see a population slide in Grand Forks anytime soon. There has been a huge amount of single-family home construction since the flood (far more than what was lost), and a lot of those homes have been purchased by younger people. I just think families have fewer kids now than they used to. I fully expect to see the Grand Forks population continue its slow rise, but school enrollment may take a long time to get back to where it was during its peak.

A few years ago, I'd have been more interested in the Big Sky than the Summit/Midcontinent. But now, even without including football, I'm actually a bit more attracted to the Summit, particularly if Centenary drops out and Denver is added. I'm somewhat skeptical of the long-term viability of the Big Sky right now. Too many schools seem to have real problems financially, and there is always the possibility of the Montana schools looking at moving to FBS football.

The only ones I've heard of are Ryan Smith from Wahpeton, and Kyle Costigan and Matt Eggen out of Wisconsin. Eggen would have to be considered an extreme longshot though, since he's already got a number of FBS offers.

I echo your congratulations. Now I'm sure BD will congratulate us for having the following all-time records vs. NDSU: 62-45-3--football 158-128--men's basketball 40-33--women's basketball

I have an extensive list of "ignored" posters. I find that it's easier to ignore stupidity, regardless of the allegiance of the poster, rather than be bothered by it. I believe the moderators here are very responsive to objectionable posts if they're reported. And plenty of posters have been banned.

It's not like people were defending the post. It was stupid. So why bother antagonize? Do you want to be lumped in with lakes and JBB?

This may be one of the single dumbest things I've ever heard. Question--what has caused more of a "disruption" on the SCSU campus--the dozen or so professional activists who show up to "protest" before hockey and football games when UND was in town; or the whole anti-semitic controversy from a few years ago? Or was that somehow the fault of the Fighting Sioux nickname, too? Did Douple consult with JBB, too?

While I'm pleased that the door is now open for UND to gain membership into an autobid conference, I have to say that the manner in which the Board of Higher Ed. has chosen to handle this issue over the past several months has been quite poor. The "committee" chaired by Grant Shaft was a complete sham. And the fact that the decision was made in Dickinson, with little indication that such a major decision was forthcoming, was fairly gutless IMO.

Here's the latest from the Herald.

I pretty much feel this way too, but I also think that a reasonable compromise between those who want the name dropped now, and those who want to fight this until the bitter end, is to change the deadline for gaining tribal approval to December 31, 2009. I've felt for some time that we'd know shortly after the Standing Rock election this fall whether there's any hope there or not. If we haven't gotten Standing Rock approval by the end of this year, it's probably never going to happen. IMO, giving assurances to the Summit that the issue will be resolved by the end of this calendar year should be enough to get the ball rolling and reserve, for lack of a better word, UND's spot in the conference.

There are no scholarships left for women's bball (and even if somebody leaves early and a scholarship opens up, presumably it would go to Brittany Peterson), so either i) she won't play basketball, even as a walk-on; or ii) she's not getting any soccer scholarship money either, so it wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps she's just getting academic scholarship(s)?

I didn't see this linked above, so here's a Schlossman blog from yesterday on Omaha and the WCHA: link

I really think UNO should desperately want into the WCHA. The reason that never seems to get talked about but which could be a big issue for them is Title IX. UNO doesn't have a women's hockey program, and according to the OPE site, women make up 52% of the students, but only receive 37% of the athletic scholarships. And clearly women's hockey is a sport that makes sense for them to sponsor, and would greatly help them in terms of Title IX compliance. I don't pretend to know how much money they would save by bussing to all the WCHA schools but Anchorage and Tech, but however much it is it would help offset the costs of starting and operating a women's hockey program, which presumably they're going to have to do eventually whether they want to or not.