UND92,96

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.

The watering down of division II is one issue. I think we can agree that it is not as good now as it was 5-10 years ago. But the issue involving SDSU's proposed move to division I is another issue, i.e. whether they have gone about it the right way and whether the legislature is going to step in. That is certainly a worthy topic of discussion. Their leadership has mismanaged this by painting themselves into a corner regarding the conference issue, and then doing an about-face. I think you can admit that this could have been handled better. I see no reason for you to get so defensive about us questioning the SDSU brass's handling of the whole issue.

tony- The point is, in my opinion, that there are plenty of articles in SD newspapers critical of SDSU's move and in particular, the about-face on the conference issue. Just because those articles are being linked and/or commented on by UND fans doesn't make them any more or less valid. You may question our motivation, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the underlying issue of whether the SD legislature is going to take some action to either block SDSU's move altogether or at least make it more difficult. I think that's a worthy topic of discussion on this board since it may very well affect the future membership of the NCC.

Ahhhh, yes. 1906. I remember it like it was yesterday... Here's the REAL scoop. In 1904 and 1905, the two teams played twice in a season, with each team hosting once. However, in that fateful year of '06, NDSU apparently refused to travel to UND (the one game played in '06 was AT NDSU according to the UND media guide), thereby causing such ill will that the series was apparently suspended until 1910. UND won the 1910 matchup 18-0. That was the happiest day of my life up to that point... That's MY story, and I'm sticking to it.

The Sioux are back in the poll at number 25: link I can't understand this love affair the pollsters have with UMD. They've lost to USD, who just lost to a dIII team. Their one win over an NCC team was over probably the worst team in the league, MSU-Mankato. Their other win was over a pretty bad Southwest St. I realize UMD had a good year last year, but that loss to USD should have made it clear that this is not the same team as in 2002.

Augie will, of course, throw and throw often, but I doubt very much they will be able to run against the Sioux. The good news is that the Augie receivers should seem relatively slow compared to what the Sioux faced against Newberry. I think Hoffschneider and Manke can cover their receivers one-on-one, so I hope the Sioux blitz a lot and get after the quarterback. I do think the Sioux should be able to score some points. Although UND lost by seven last year in Sioux Falls, this was the team who Bowenkamp threw for 500-plus yards against. BTW, remember a few weeks ago when there was a lot of talk about how UND was going to utilize the tight ends in the passing game, unlike last year? Well, in the past two games, the tight ends as a group haven't caught a single pass. I think Mielke in particular needs to be utilized as a receiver.

Well, it certainly wasn't a great performance by the Sioux, but it was a step forward from last week, and I think the positive's definitely out-weighed the negative's. Positive's -got off to a good start for a change, forcing a 3-and-out on the first defensive series and scoring a touchdown on the first offensive series. -offense played pretty well, scoring 42 points. -Bowenkamp threw 4 td's and 0 int's. -Lueck continues to look like the big-play threat the team needed. -sacked Newberry qb 6 times. -had two great goal line stands. -db's played fairly well until very late when the game was already well in hand. -gave up less than 1 yard per rush. Negative's -committed far too many penalties. -defense went to sleep the last two or three possessions. -had a punt blocked. -stubborn insistence on running between the tackles when Newberry was stacking the line of scrimmage to stop the run. -continued to call the "bubble screen" when it has fooled nobody in about five years. Please get rid of this play, Mussman! -appeared to suffer injuries to some key players, i.e. Grant and Ahlers. All in all, I'd have to say that Newberry is a pretty talented team offensively, and I wouldn't be surprised if they win several games. Those may very well have been the most talented receivers UND will see all year. Newberry needs some help on the o-line and on defense, but they are definitely not a 1-10 type team. It's hard to predict how the Sioux will do in the NCC. Everybody in the league now has at least one loss, and nobody appears to be dominant. UND likely will be a very dangerous team, particularly at home, but the Sioux still have a lot to work on in order to be a serious threat to make the playoffs.

I see where you got the hypothetical $35.00 price from, but that's a little misleading. You have to keep in mind that hockey prices for non-Minnesota/SCSU games went from $16.50 last year (I think) to $21.00 this year. Football prices for games against everyone except NDSU remained relatively unchanged, going from $15.50 last year to $16.50 this year. So yes, if you were to add 66.7% to the non-Minnesota/SCSU hockey prices, which were already increased by 27% from last year, you would get $35.00.