UND92,96

I expected a bit more from a former UND student body president. It sounds like he just enjoys being contrarian. That attitude probably isn't going to help him in his mayoral bid.

Per a Wayne Nelson tweet, an announcement is apparently going to be made tomorrow regarding the women's basketball program, presumably naming Brewster head coach.

Keep in mind these players are currently high school juniors, and would not be coming in until the 2013-14 season. I assume any players brought in for next year would play the 4/5 positions.

Happy for any road win at this point, but to put things in context, UND's two road wins this season came over teams with current RPI's of 331 and 334.

UND now up 38-30 about four minutes into the second half.

In the final regular season road game of the year, UND and Longwood are tied at 28 at the half.

Mussman letter: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229761/group/homepage/

I'm sure they're all nice kids, but the experience UND has had with redshirting a large group should serve as a cautionary tale to any transitioning program. If it works, like it did for NDSU with the Woodside group, it's a brilliant move. If it doesn't, it can really hamstring a program for several years because you then have basically zero margin for error with regard to recruiting. With so few available scholarships, essentially every subsequent recruit has to pan out, and quickly. It almost looked like that was going to be the case with last year's freshmen, but while talented, they aren't good enough to completely carry the load. They need some help, but have not gotten it as of yet.

So to recap, in the past week we've had prominent former UND letterwinners Tim O'Keefe, Dave Hakstol, Dale Lennon, Bruce Smith, Corey Colehour, Dan Martinson, Dave Williamson and Kelby Klosterman all publicly say the nickname must go for the good of the school and the athletic department. Frank Burggraf is the only former letterwinner I'm aware of on the opposite side. I'm guessing the first group will continue to grow in the coming days and weeks. Will Frank's?

Lennon, several other prominent football alums say nickname must go: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229740/

I realize this has all been discussed before fairly extensively, but now with the season nearly over and either a 1-14 or 2-13 road record, I have two questions for bball fans: 1. Realistically, minus Mitchell is the current roster capable of doing much better than this next season? 2. If you answered "no" to #1, what would you do if you were Jones, knowing full well that a .205 road winning percentage may put you on thin ice, and no available scholarships barring some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions?

Jones' road winning percentage is amazingly consistent: .208 (5-19)--first two years (dII) .203 (11-43)--transition years .205 (16-62)--overall It's kind of the college basketball equivalent of the "Mendoza line".

And yet another gem from Frank Burggraf:

I suppose ol' Frank is going to go after Hak next.

It makes even less sense when you factor in that the statute is, in the opinions of PhillySioux, Scott M., myself and probably others on this board, unconstitutional without even getting into the issue of the relative powers of the board of higher ed. and the legislature. Frankly, I hope the Supreme Court's holding is based upon a finding that the statute was an unconstitutional attempt to alter the state's obligations pursuant to the settlement agreement. Let Al find some other excuse to have the battle he so desperately wants.

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229449/

I would not characterize the quoted section as giving UND a "choice". I believe it's merely describing what would happen if UND breached the Agreement, which of course is what Carlson's statute caused UND to do. Which brings us back to Art. I, Sec. 18 again...

Updated/expanded Herald article: http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229350/

It could, depending on exactly what the Court rules. If a holding that the statute is unconstitutional is based on the legislature overstepping its bounds with regard to board of higher ed. authority, then a constitutional amendment could still be an issue. If Art. I, Sec. 18 is the basis for the holding, I don't see how there's any getting around that. Of course, I realize some will disagree with this.

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229348/

I just found this: https://www.facebook...Faculty.Advisor

Good question--I am not sure. I agree that Stenehjem needs to step up to the plate here. While I certainly don't condone his previous inaction at the time the statute was first enacted, I'm not necessarily surprised that he didn't want to tick off his political allies. But the game has changed now, as it's not a board of higher ed. vs. legislature battle anymore. He needs to defend the deal he made, or get the hell out of the way and resign.

I'm with you on this. I keep trying to come up with a compelling argument as to how the statute/proposed constitutional amendment could possibly NOT conflict with Art. I, Sec. 18 of the ND Constitution, and I honestly can't think of a good one (granted, it's been nearly 20 years since I took con. law, and it was hardly my best subject ).

57 UND 72 NJIT final UND finishes the season 1-4 on the road in the Great West, after going 4-2 on the road last year.

UND down 52-41 with just under 8 minutes to go.