Matt

You start your post with a question, then finish with that!?!? If you don't care what people say, better perhaps to write in your diary. It is less expensive.

I don't think you really mean everyone thought that. Of course they didn't. I can fill pages on this topic with media hits referencing the "misconception" that NDSU would struggle for x number of years, and I'm not just talking about the time frame immediately preceding the move. That discussion goes back decades. Sure, many people also thought they could compete. But I brought that up not to argue the point, only to support the suggestion that because the football program isn't having trouble selling tickets, they are able to keep UND off the schedule.

Before NDSU made the move up, there were many people in Fargo asking who would go to the games for the 5-10 years when the Bison were getting their butts kicked by unfamiliar teams few care about, before they could get competitive. I think the fact that didn't come to fruition is a key reason Taylor can say no to Buning. Let's face it, if NDSU were having trouble selling tickets, UND would be on the schedule for '07. They would then need something from UND. How can Taylor afford to keep UND off the schedule? Because he has the cash from last year, and the breathless anticipation of Bison fans waiting for the '07 schedule.

What started out as the new UND AD simply trying to get a game scheduled has been spun to the point that UND supporters now refer to it as begging for a game. It sounds as though (I didn't listen to the broadcast) Buning handled himself well, but I wonder if the whole thing hasn't degenerated into the perception of begging for the game by the public at large. Maybe I'm off, but I think only Eddie benefits from that interview.

Are we sure UND hasn't "officially run afoul of the ncaa"?

"Big Eddie" would be unlistenable even if today's guests are God and Satan.

Given NDSU's effort to keep UND off their schedules, it's difficult to follow where you are going with this. Elaborate?

The interesting question to me for the future of the rivalry is this: What happens if/when NDSU enters the Gateway? Will NDSU hold a date every year to play UND? Assuming NDSU wants to play 1 or 2 I-A teams every year, that won't leave a lot of wiggle room for scheduling other non-conference opponents, particularly given how late many of those I-A contracts are finalized. Consider too, the difficulty in scheduling non-conference opponents is a driving force for Gateway expansion in the first place (given WKU leaving and the uncertainty of ISU and WIU). More conference members=less scheduling hassles. Play or not play, I could live with either scenario. I like how Florida and Florida State maintain a great rivalry every year while residing in different conferences. I think bringing in those differing conference allegiances adds to the intrigue. On the other hand, if the Dakota schools only meetings were the occasional playoff game, the magnitude of the event would be tremendous.

Bold prediction this far out.

"TRUE"-Anheuser Busch

True enough, but unless the numbers are overwhelming, bad teams rarely get the attentioned required to help the individual's case. The Sioux are far from bad, but I'd like a larger media hit to help market him.

Will the team need to finish strong to help his chances?

I've read posts on this board as a guest for some time, possibly a year or more. I didn't register until pretty recently. If you've heard the phrase "long time listener, first time caller" you understand. Not that it should matter. I'm not familiar with any one poster's postings well enough to distinguish one from any other. I don't know about whom, or what you are writing with your JBB reference. I post as Matt because that's the name mom gave me...well, Matthew, but only if I was in trouble, which it seems Star, I am with you. Furthermore, to write only JBB himself would take offense at having his posts called idiotic tells me more about you than your apparent nemesis, JBB. Most folks take offense at having their thoughts derided as "double talk and idiocy". Again, if I were wasting everyone's time by spouting half-cocked, nose tweaking nonsense, I would expect insults. But to the contrary, I asked reasonable questions, ones I would add don't amount to more of an indictment of our (assumably) beloved alma mater than a communication lapse. Yet in the end I have found myself receiving the shower of some juvinile territorial pissing match between two screen names. Grow up.

Do you realize your post contains three sentences, two of which reference "how was UND supposed to know"? But...if it moves along the conversation...I apologize, it was my misinterpretation. Anyway, we know from star that UND admin had to know the policies because of the NCAA press release in...2005? It does seem incredible, but apparently true, that they knew and never brought it up publicly, even as many in the public discussed scheduling against those programs. It's not a catastrophe, but it would have been nice to discuss publicly a long time ago. Not to mention UND could have perhaps framed the issue on their terms by getting the final word from Iowa, Wisc, and Minn, then announcing the news themselves. Well...hindsight and all that.

It is clear now that you meant more than you posted, but you only referenced Minnesota and Wisconsin. I agreed with the assertion, in that post, that If the administrators at those schools (see above) weren't certain of their policies, how was UND supposed to know?

I can only go by what you write.

OK then. We can consider prior knowledge by UND admin of the Iowa and Wisconsin policies a given. Were the implications of those policies discussed publicly at some point? I have heard and read much discussion about scheduling both Wisconsin and Minnesota since the move to D-1 was announced, and I never heard any "but wait they won't schedule it" in the conversation until the Minnesota story broke. Again, maybe I missed it. The questions I brought up on this topic are legitimate ones, star. On their own merits. Allegiances aside. I didn't come off half-cocked and make wild accusations. Heck, when I asked a question I leave open the possibility that I am missing some pertinent piece of info. However, since I am not from ND, but spent time at both the AG (I say that fondly), and UND, you will come to your own conclusion as to what loyalty or degree(s) I hold. I am also happy to remind you that you are not the arbiter of what is idotic, nor to what school someone is a backer of. You are out of line.

PCM makes the pertinent point on this, and it is why I believe Star2City is wrong here. I don't think everyone was aware of these policies prior to the D-1 decision. There's no way UND could have been certain of anything (perhaps Iowa if it mattered at all) since both Wisconsin and Minnesota had to clarify their respective positions. The administrators really didn't know the boundaries of their policy. Even if someone at UND had an inkling that scheduling those schools could be a potential problem, I agree with dakotadan in that such policies wouldn't stand in the way of a move to D-1 anyway. ps-Star...keep it fun...its sports after all man.

A few questions: Was anyone in UND admin. aware of the scheduling policies of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota (even though they hadn't been following it); If anyone was aware, were such policies part of any of the recommendations concerning a potential move to D-1; was there any public discussion, even on this board, about these policies and their potential impact on a move to D-1? When the original U of M story broke, I think I remember something about UND coaches having difficulties getting commitments from U of M officials for games. That would indicate to me that at least UND coaches were in the dark about the U of M policy (again, even though they may/may not have been following it at that point) It just seems incredible to me that someone in the UND admin could know about the policies of those schools and not speak about their implications in some type of public forum. Perhaps they did and I missed it. But then again if someone had discussed it, why were so many in the public surprised to learn about it? I doubt everyone missed it.

The vast majority of thinking humans don't care at all what the UND nickname is, nor do they care how the NCAA governs its members. This is a big deal to a relatively small group a people, and yes, there are some heavy issues involved, but I don't believe the general public cares much one way or the other, even if they say UND should be able to keep the name. That's just lip service. If UND had to change, the public will shrug its collective shoulders and say "oh well". Now, if the NCAA were to restrict people's ability to wager on the NCAA BB tournament brackets, then you would see the public get crabby.

I'm not going to pretend I had any idea whatsoever that, when considering the pros and cons of a move to D-1, neither Minnesota, Wisconsin, nor Iowa would be on our schedules. Since their policies were in place before the nickname situation came up with the NCAA, the question must be asked if that was taken into consideration and/or public discussion prior to a D-1 decision.

Considering the season runs 20-30 games, you'd like to think they could pull out more than a few of them.

I thought that campus was a bit too liberal to stick with their original statement. http://www.in-forum.com/Sports/articles/155049

I'm beginning to wonder which is the lesser of the evils: The GPI or the regional playoff selection committee. At least the GPI gets rid of the regional nonsense.

In BB, I have no idea; in FB, the last I heard was that after waiting for their respective wish list teams to play, the dates left open didn't match. It doesn't seem like this is a priority matchup for either team anymore.