UND92,96

He may develop in time, but Antwi has not done much so far (total of 7 points scored in 7 games played), particularly compared to what Huff, Webb and Anderson did as true freshmen last year. IMO, UND needs some help on the inside, AND more quality depth on the perimeter.

It's not an either/or proposition. If Arvidson comes to UND, it will be as a walk on. Nobody is disputing that whatever scholarships are made available for next season, they need to go to a couple of bigs. A case could be made that Arvidson's offensive potential is better than any current UND bench player aside from perhaps Schuler (and he's definitely more athletic than Josh). If you can get him to walk on, why not?

He's 6'2" and plays shooting guard. Good athlete. My feeling is that if UND can get him as a walk-on, he could possibly help down the road. I believe he's more skilled offensively than some current scholarship players.

I was told UND has interest in Red River sr. Mack Arvidson, although with the scholarship situation I suspect it may be as a walk on. Kroeplin would presumably also be on UND's radar. The interesting thing to me is that as I understand it, both Arvidson and Kroeplin may be better than Shanley jr. A.J. Jacobson, who has garnered far more attention as a potential dI prospect.

There are valid arguments on both sides of the "to schedule or not to schedule a dII/NAIA" question. In the end, it only really makes any practical difference if UND finishes 7-4 and does not get into the playoffs due to a non-dI win.

For what it's worth, SDSU hasn't scheduled a non-dI since 2006. I like the model they've been using--one FBS, and generally two home-and-home's with quality FCS opponents. It would seem the other possibility is to use part of the guarantee derived from the FBS game to bring in a Pioneer League team, instead of scheduling the second home-and-home. Of course, the problem since the dI move is that home-and-home's that actually work out have been few and far between, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, I probably should have addressed that in my post. Chances are that date would have been filled by SD Mines, but on the other hand, whether it's SD Mines or some other low-level NAIA or dII school, you'd think UND could buy out an existing contract and bring in this kind of opponent on relatively short notice if all else fell through. If Mines were playing Mayville State in week one, for example, how much would it cost to buy out that contract? Probably not much. Ultimately, my criticism is that it seems like this game was scheduled too far in advance, as it was announced in March of 2011. In the scheme of things for dI scheduling, maybe that's not really that far in advance...until you consider how quickly Portland State was found after Central Arkansas dropped us. It sounds like that whole thing occurred in a matter of weeks. It would just be interesting to know whether the SD Mines game was just a contingency plan, or whether it was always contemplated that a non-dI was going to be on the schedule.

I agree that SUU is a good example of a decent performance despite 350 passing yards allowed. The game that really drove me crazy was UNC. That one was just ridiculous, particularly considering UNC was not exactly a prolific passing offense for most of the season. In 2011, UND was statistically among the bottom 10 or 12 teams in FCS in pass defense, and to me that's not acceptable regardless of how few rush yards are allowed. I'd just like to see the pass defense statistically closer to the middle of the pack if at all possible, or at least not so close to the absolute bottom.

Replacing Hendrickson and Goertz will be a key, but to me the biggest key is whether the secondary as a whole can play at a consistently competent level. There were far too many blown coverages/mental lapses this year. Besides Brown at corner, I have a feeling the competition for the other three starting spots is pretty wide open, with a number of redshirt freshmen getting a look.

If I'm not mistaken, SD Mines doesn't even have a conference at present, so chances are they won't have a full 11-game schedule in 2012, just like Sioux Falls only had a nine-game schedule this past season. The point being, this was probably a game which could have been added at the last minute, if all else fell through with dI opponents. It would be interesting to hear the rationale behind not only scheduling this game, but announcing it so far in advance.

The question was asked in the Herald live chat yesterday, and according to either Wayne Nelson or Tom Miller (can't remember which one), it didn't sound likely that this game will be replaced for one with an FCS opponent.

Another terrible free throw shooting performance--11 of 20.

Predicted highs in the 30's on Saturday and Sunday--pretty balmy for this time of year!

Unfortunately, this is a situation where to some extent Jones is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. If he maintains the status quo, he's conceivably blowing an opportunity to have a legitimate chance to make the NCAA tournament--an opportunity that may not come again any time soon. On the other hand, if he non-renews the scholarships of a few fifth-year seniors-to-be so that better talent can be brought in to supplement the talent of the current group of sophomores, some will be view that as unfair and/or unethical. I'm glad I'm not in his shoes. I suspect this may serve as a cautionary tale to any coach who may be tempted to redshirt a large group at once.

Mussman has been named one of the five finalists, so please keep voting.

Could you imagine the football program having a 24-person red shirt junior class, all on full scholarship, and there being no starters from that group, and only minimal playing time? That's roughly the equivalent of the current situation with UND men's basketball.

That's true, but although a coach is technically justified in non-renewing a scholarship for almost any reason, there are going to be some who will cry foul if the non-renewal is due to simply not being a very good player. I'm just curious whether those same people feel that the fact that a kid red shirted means that he/she is guaranteed a fifth year so long as there are no academic or behavioral issues? As somebody who donates money for scholarships, frankly I don't like the idea of funding a fifth year for a kid who isn't contributing on the court, but I'm open-minded enough to see the other side of the argument, as well.

Hypothetically speaking, would you draw a distinction between the non-renewal of a scholarship during a player's first four years, and not inviting a red shirt senior-to-be back for a fifth year on scholarship? Or do you think that the two situations are essentially identical?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no particular significance or order in terms of how schools are listed for an individual player.

On ESPN, the offers are listed in order of how the player is graded, with the highest-graded player listed first.

Here is a pretty good compilation of commitments so far by Minnesota high school players: http://www.mnfootballhub.com/page/show/345136-2012-college-commitments

Huff has really rebounded well so far this year--7.5 per game to lead the team.

That was the point I forgot to make--clearly the west is still very much an area of emphasis. My gut feeling is that we will probably still see a few Cali signees, but they will probably be kids who, for whatever reason, weren't listed as UND targets on any of the main recruiting sites.

I'm surprised at the complete lack of info regarding UND recruiting in California this year. At this time last year, scout.com had UND listed for 10 or so kids from Cali.

Not really news per se, but rivals is finally showing Taj Rich as a UND commit. Obviously you can taking rankings with a grain of salt, but it's encouraging that ESPNU has both Mollberg and Rich ranked among the top 20 prospects in Minnesota: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/playerrankings/_/state/minnesota/class/2012/view/state