UND92,96

This has been a strange series over the past dozen-or-so years. At home, UND has won by an average of 27 points since 1990 and is 6-0. However, at Brookings, UND is just 4-3 since 1990, and each of the losses occurred in years where the Sioux were considered a heavy favorite, i.e. the NCC title and playoff semi-final year of 1993, the Callahan/Tibesar, et al. senior year of 1996, and the NCC title year of 1999. If the Sioux can play defense as they did against Augie and in the second half against St. Cloud, and don't turn the ball over, I like our chances. If the defense struggles and/or there is more than one turnover, then a win is probably unlikely. This is UND's toughest road NCC game, so a win would be huge.

The decision has been made: Wilson is starting against SDSU.

I believe The Sicatoka's comment was tongue-in-cheek and not directed at anyone in particular. I think this topic has officially been beaten to death, but for the record UND's non-conference opponents have a combined record of 8-7 thus far--hardly a disgrace. Even UMC managed to hammer Southwest State last week so it's not even as though UND played the worst team in the NSIC. The problem with proclaiming anyone's schedule as strong or weak before or early in a season is that we have no way of really knowing until probably near the end of the year which opponents were truly good and which were not. As it stands right now, it appears that UND played one pretty good team (Mesa is ranked second in its region for now), one average team (Newberry is 2-2), and one poor team. All in all, probably not as bad is most thought prior to the season. And clearly, all signs point to a stronger schedule in the near future.

Here's the real poll: Midwest 1. Pittsburg State (5-0) 2. Emporia State (5-0) 3. Nebraska-Omaha (5-1) 4. North Dakota State (4-1) 5. North Dakota (4-1) 6. Winona State (5-1) 7. Central Missouri State (5-0) 8. St. Cloud State (4-2) 9. Concordia-St. Paul (4-1) 10. Northern State (4-1) I'm very surprised by how low Central Missouri is ranked, and shocked by Winona being ahead of Concordia-SP (and Central Mo). Either my strength of schedule calculations were way off, or Winona's ranking makes absolutely no sense at all. But at least UND is ranked higher than I anticipated.

I agree with basically everything you said, but I do believe that Bowenkamp is currently a 5th year junior, so after this year he will have already had essentially a full career in the program. True, he will have the opportunity to come back for a 6th year if he so chooses, but I imagine that may depend in large part on whether he is on schedule to graduate this spring or not. Unless he again earns the starting job this season and does well, I agree that most likely the staff will be looking to whomever emerges among Groeschl, Manke and Bellmore as the starter next season. I am a firm believer that in this day and age, a quarterback needs to be mobile, and unfortunately Bowenkamp does not fit into that mold although he does supposedly have good straight-ahead speed. I'm not sure on Bellmore as I haven't seen him play except for briefly in the spring game, but both Groeschl and Manke run very well.

Your points are all well-taken, but what sticks out to me is that in the first 6 quarters of the NCC season, all at home, Bowenkamp has directed the offense to exactly zero touchdowns. While I wouldn't put all the blame on the quarterback, certainly he must bear a good deal of the responsibility. Whether Wilson will be consistent or not is a complete unknown, but it certainly appears that he has earned the right to show what he can do as a starter on a trial basis. I look at this situation far differently than if we had a proven starter, i.e. Kelby Klosterman. I wouldn't be anywhere near as quick to bench him. But Bowenkamp has been very inconsistent during his career as a starter, and I would have to think that his confidence must be shaken at this point. If he can't produce at home, particularly against a relatively mediocre defense like Augie's, I wouldn't expect much more from him on the road against a better SDSU team. Let's see if Wilson's hot-hand can continue.

While I do understand HOW strength of schedule is calculated (I think), I'm a little confused as to exactly how it's used. Is it the primary criteria, or just one of several? The NCAA handbook listed on the NCAA website is the 2002 edition, so if the criteria have changed, I'm not sure how. In any event, I attempted to calculate the current s.o.s. index for each of the probable ranked teams. Keep in mind that ONLY games against dII opponents count when calculating s.o.s. index, so NDSU's number is based ONLY on games against Tusculum, SDSU and MSU-Mankato. 1. NDSU (6.66) 2. Emporia St. (6.4) 3. (tie) Central Missouri St. (6.25) Concordia-SP (6.25) 5. Pitt St. (6.2) 6. UNO (6.16) 7. (tie) UND (6.0) SCSU (6.0) Winona St. (6.0) 10. Northern St. (5.75) My earlier predictions didn't take into account these numbers. As most people would probably agree, relying purely on s.o.s. can cause some pretty absurd results, i.e. Concordia-SP tied for third and Pitt St. in fifth. FWIW, I don't see how Winona could be ranked ahead of Concordia since they have the same record, Concordia's s.o.s. is higher, and whether it's "officially" a primary criteria or not, I have to think that head-to-head results will still mean something.

The only poll that means anything is supposed to come out tomorrow for the first time this year. My GUESS is that the poll will look something like this: 1. Pitt St. 2. Central Mo. 3. UNO 4. NDSU 5. Emporia St. 6. UND 7. St. Cloud 8. Concordia-SP 9. Winona St. 10. Northern St. Winona St.'s loss yesterday really threw a wrench into things. They likely would have been ranked third or fourth. Now, who knows? They really can't be ranked ahead of Concordia, who beat them yesterday, since they both have one loss. Concordia lost to USD, which is probably one of the weaker teams in the NCC, so they can't really be ranked very high, either. St. Cloud has two losses, but both were on the road against quality opponents. It should be interesting...

I also have been baffled as to why there are not more passes thrown to the tight ends. For that matter, an occasional 5 to 10 yard pass to Wisthoff may be a good idea, as well. Yesterday's catch by Kussler was the first TE reception since UMC. If it's zone coverage, the tight end should always be able to find a soft spot. If it's man coverage, I would think Mielke's speed (although perhaps not the other tight ends) should be good enough to be able to beat a linebacker trying to cover him.

IMO, starting Wilson next week is the obvious decision. Bowenkamp doesn't seem to make very good decisions, and he does not have much of any ability to elude the pass rush or scramble for yards. Wilson is not exactly a sprinter, but he did show relatively quick feet yesterday, and was able to elude the rush several times and at least get back to the line of scrimmage. Plus, he just seems more fiery and possibly more of a leader than is Bowenkamp.

Wow, am I glad I didn't leave at halftime! I have to admit that at halftime, I was thinking to myself that it was like the end of the Behrns era/early Thomas era all over again. It was an equally terrible performance by the offense and defense. But it was truly an incredible turnaround in the second half. I told a friend of mine at halftime that all we needed was Frank Reich to come in at qb--referring to the famous comeback by the Bills against the Oilers in that playoff game in the early 90's. It turns out that Wilson played the Reich role perfectly! I have to eat crow with regard to Wilson because prior to this game, I didn't see the logic of having a seldom-used 6th year senior as the backup quarterback instead of an up-and-coming freshman. Obviously, I was wrong. Wilson can play. Great job, guys! Now if we could only get rid of the bubble screens/0 yard passes to the wide-outs and running backs, I would be really happy! BTW, kudos to Randy Hedberg and staff for an incredible turnaround in the fortunes of the SCSU football program. A few years back, that was a struggling program. Now, they are clearly one of the best in the league and really seem to be a classy group. Best of luck to them the rest of the year.

The Sioux get a verbal commitment for the 2004-05 season: link

IMO, two things lost this game for the Sioux last year. One, the uncharacteristic inability to stop the run. A then-unknown freshman named Matt Birkel ran for an unheard-of 180 yards against UND. That can't happen again, needless to say. The other thing that hurt the Sioux was the fact that we could not run the ball at all against what had traditionally been a very porous SCSU run defense. 19 rushes for 15 yards isn't going to get it done against anybody. Heckendorf is a great qb, but I would much rather be beaten via the pass than the run. I have to wonder if maybe too much emphasis was put on slowing down the passing attack last year, which the Sioux did a pretty good job of, but that emphasis resulted in the running game doing far better than what they normally would have against a UND defense. SCSU has a very balanced offense, so I think the Sioux need to play their base defense and just count on the fact that our defensive scheme and talent is good enough to limit SCSU to 20-24 points without putting any special emphasis on stopping Heckendorf. Even having given up 430 yards last year, the Huskies only managed 20 points. Offensively, UND needs to utilize its big receivers, particularly Lueck. He generally has a large advantage over the db's who will try to cover him with 6'3" to 6'4" height, excellent speed, and a 36"-plus vertical. It would be foolish not to utilize him more in the passing game. Hopefully, the Sioux can figure out a way to run the ball consistently, as well. Obviously, Roland's numbers ended up being very good against Augie, but I don't think they can wait until the 4th quarter to run effectively against St. Cloud and expect to win. And finally, I agree that Jeff Glas has to be able to make some field goals if given the opportunity. Thus far, he's 0 for 4 on the year beyond 24 yards.

I'm not qualified to come up with any all-inclusive definition of a "common person." I just think that most people who will be at the game probably fall into whatever that definition is. I'm sure there are some people who aren't going because of the ticket prices. There are many others who don't go because they can watch it on TV. And you know what? All that means is that somebody else will go. I would feel bad if there were empty seats and people who really want to go but can't afford it. But when the seats are full, then I don't see that this is all that big of an issue. In the unlikely event that it doesn't sell out, then I guess the price was too high. If it does sell-out, then I guess the demand supported the price. As for what the Herald has to say about it, who cares. Neither Dennis nor Jacobs knows anything about sports, anyway. If it's not about the Sioux name, it's generally outside of their scope of interest. This is apparently an issue where you're on one side of the fence or the other. You're obviously not going to change your mind, and nor am I, so we may as well agree to disagree.

Thanks, I figured it was probably just an oversight. The other thing that sticks out to me is the weight, or lack thereof, of Franklin. I didn't realize he was quite that thin.

I have a tendency to agree that the playcalling has been rather poor the past two seasons. What is more perplexing is that Mussman did guide UND to being the top-scoring offense in the NCC during his first two years--2000 and 2001. And just so there's no misunderstanding, that was in NCC games only (not including games against UMC and the like). Plus, he did have a lot of success as Mankato St.'s offensive coordinator prior to coming to UND. So I guess my point is that it's not as though Mussman is incapable of calling good games. He just hasn't seem to have been doing it much during the past 15 games or so. I don't claim to be some sort of offensive genious, but at least he should ditch the stupid bubble screen, and start using some misdirection in the running game instead of just trying to bowl straight ahead between the tackles all the time. There should be at least one end-around or reverse to Travis Lueck every game. He's the best weapon we have right now and he's barely seeing the ball other than as a punt returner. And start using the tight ends once in awhile. The offense is somewhat handicapped by the fact that unlike Klosterman, Bowenkamp is not at all elusive or effective as runner. But that shouldn't mean that the offense can't be somewhat creative.

The new mens basketball roster has been posted: link No Doyle or Gutter, though. Does anybody know whether they're enrolled at UND?

Kudos to the defense. The "d" has been getting better and better since the first half of the Mesa game. Of course, they had to play very well due to the complete futility of the offense for 3 1/2 quarters. Ugh. Finally, the Sioux offense got something going in the last two drives when Augie's defense apparently succumbed to fatigue since I don't think the offense was doing anything differently. The fatigue must have resulted from all that running on and off the field before and after UND's offense went three-and-out umpteen times in a row. Seriously, I'm wondering whether this is a case of poor play-calling, poor execution (penalties in particular), personnel not being utilized properly, or some other reason? I really don't think Augie's defense should have been able to shut out the Sioux offense for 3 1/2 quarters. Any thoughts?

I'm going to limit my comments to football only, but I really haven't seen any indication that more than a very few people are there just to schmooze. At least not the people who sit around me in Section 204. The way I see it, while the "atmosphere" may be better at an outdoor facility, it's a proven fact that the majority of people are quite literally "fair weather fans." At least with the Alerus, people do come out in bigger numbers. Sure, not all of them are necessarily hard-core fans, but so be it. At least they're there. If somebody has a solution to get big crowds to the games, made up exclusively of "real" fans, without cutting ticket prices so much that all the burden will fall on the alums and/or season ticket holders to pick up the revenue slack, then by all means tell the athletic department about it.

I'm confused by your post. If you think the game will be a sell-out, but not to the so-called "common person" (of which I'm pretty sure I'm one), who exactly are these 13,500 people who will be in the stands?

I may very well be overly optimistic, but I see the Sioux winning about 34-17. We have a tendency to remember the poor performances against Augie, i.e. 2000 and 2002, but the Sioux have won 7 of the last 9 against the Vikings, and each of those wins was by 13 or more points. Unless the Sioux get too conservative, which of course has a tendency to happen sometimes, the offense should be able to score points. Defensively, don't give up the big play and hit DeGraff early and often. I think Augie lost a lot off both the offensive and defensive lines from last year's team, and UND's experienced lines should be able to take advantage of that youth.

So let me get this straight, Dennis says that UND may have priced itself beyond the means of the common person for the football game against NDSU, uses the division I hockey program as a model for scheduling (and at least by inference for ticket pricing), but fails to mention how many tickets have already been sold for that game (I believe it's already at or near a sell-out), and that at least for non-season ticket holders, hockey also has different ticket prices depending upon the opponent which, in the case of two series, equal the price for the NDSU football game? Nice research job, Tom. If they felt the need to have an editorial on a UND sports issue, at least let somebody who knows something about UND sports (Bakken, Fee, etc.) write it. Jacobs and Dennis clearly do not.

Running down SDSU? At most, I would say that some of us are critical of Miller and Oien, but certainly no more so than are some columnists for the largest newspaper, by far, in South Dakota, namely the Argus Leader. Furthermore, being critical of two individuals is not exactly the same as criticizing an entire institution. I'm curious, have you been writing letters to the editor to the Argus Leader expressing your disapproval of what has been written there? I suspect that if you're really that concerned about SDSU's public image, that may be a better forum in which to affect public opinion of the people of SD. At least it would be a far better forum than this since other than CRH, few if any SDSU fans seem to even know this message board exists.