Bison06

Echo chambers don't lead to good discussions. you seem to prefer it that way.

Darell, just stop dude.

Gophers or Sioux, better hockey program? If you are trying to compare NDSU football all time success to UND, we both know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Cherry picking time periods can be done on both sides. You picked the absolute epitome of UND football success to use as a comparison to NDSU.

Not in any way germane to our discussion.

It's so interesting to me that a UND fan is so adamant to make the point that a 20 year stretch without a championship in a schools primary sport is considered utter failure, when UND hockey just broke their nearly 2 decade championship-less run last year. if you had asked me who the best program in college hockey is in say...2013, the answer would still have been UND. Championships are not the only way to measure success. A UND football fan should be well aware of that.

If that's a question, my answer is yes. NDSU football is ultra successful. Some have called it the most successful college football program in history. I think that's a stretch, but those people are welcomed to their opinion. NDSU had great teams and great players who had some really big, program changing wins. Without the players in those years and those stepping stone wins, NDSU football would not be the program it is today. I know it fits your narrative to believe that those are the dark years of NDSU football. But it simply isn't true. NDSU football may never again achieve 5 championships in a row or ever have a 7 year stretch like the past 7 years ever again. But if you think NDSU football will crumble, you're going to live a life of disappointment waiting for that.

You've created the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Championship or bust may be the mantra, but in reality a championship isn't the only way to measure success.

You've been throwing the "this is the year NDSU falls from grace" mantra at the wall for 7 years to see if it'll stick. Even a broken clock is right twice a day Darrell, but just to be safe you might want to stay out of the prediction game and keep your day job.

I agree

Having Deluca in that game would have significantly impacted JMU from embarrassing our defense in the first half on the ground. I don't think he would have been enough for NDSU to pull out the win, but he absolutely would have helped NDSU stop their amazing running back.

I'm not sure what you're getting at darell. We're agreeing that the 90's weren't as dominant as the 80's. But you make it sound like the 90's are some sort of dark age in NDSU football. There are very, very few college programs that would look at a decade stretch like what NDSU had from 90-99 and not call that a very successful decade. ln fact, UND fans see the 90's as their rise to glory and as the above numbers show, they had nearly identical decades in terms of success.

You definitely have us there. You noticed that I left that little detail out huh? Somehow the head to head completely slipped my mind to type in my post.

NDSU football 1990-1999 Overall record of 88-27(76% winning percentage) 1 National championship 4 conference championships 6 Playoff appearances, which includes 3 national quarterfinal appearances not counting the national championship year Finished in the top 20 in the DII polls 6 of the 10 years UND football 1990-1999 Overall record of 73-27-1(72% winning percentage) No national championships 4 conference championships 6 Playoff appearances, including 2 national semifinal appearances So...yeah I feel pretty confident in saying that NDSU in the 1990's was pretty damn successful. Just not in comparison to the insane amount of dominance they showed in the 80's.

Even in D2 they were fine. I think that's what always gets lost in this conversation. NDSU in the 90's was very successful. Just not by their previous standards. The difference between winning and losing is at times minuscule. The scholarship change among other factors just shifted them to the other side of that very thin line between winning and losing.

NDSU turned out just fine I think.

Maybe UND would still be top 5, maybe not. When you change the rules of a game, some people adapt to those rule changes faster than others. UND has mastered college hockey under it's current format, if things were to change they would have to adapt to those changes. Maybe another team would take advantage of that faster than UND, maybe not. Hard to say.

Some ideas are more complex than your clever one line responses.

These funny little one liners may be cute, but they certainly aren't accurate.

I should further clarify. In no way am I saying this was the only reason. That would be foolish. UND's rise through the 90's and early 2000's had many factors, which included really, really good coaching and recruiting good solid kids. All I'm saying is that reducing scholarships, definitely hurt NDSU in the early 90's. And they without a doubt came back to the pack for a decade.

I should clarify one point. reducing scholarships in this way would only affect the teams at the top negatively in the short term. Eventually, having the resources be lesser but still equal would find a new equilibrium and the "better" programs would still be the "better" programs.

Sure it helped teams who don't fully fund, but it helped teams who were fully funding scholarships as well. Read through my example.

Just take a minute and use some logic and you'll understand. It's really quite simple. I'all use an FBS example. If this afternoon the NCAA announced that they were reducing the amount of scholarships from 85-76, 9 players that would have been on Alabamas roster are now on another team's roster. 9 players, scholarship players, good players that could turn into stars and/contributors are now on another teams roster. 9 players from clemsons roster, 9 players from Ohio state, Washington, Michigan, Oklahoma etc, 9 players from each of those rosters are now on a "lesser" team's roster. who gets worse? Who gets better? Maybe alabama had it down to 2 really great running backs coming out of high school. RB just happens to be a position that they don't have a huge need this year in recruiting so they have allocated only 1 scholarship to the position. So they take the one that they think is better, but really it's a toss up. The other guy takes a scholarship to auburn and turns into a star. The guy Alabama took was riddled with injuries and didn't see the field much, non contributor. If they had those 9 scholarships the auburn kid would have been on their roster. Quick and small example, but it's easy to see that the teams at the top are hurt by a scholarship reduction while the teams at the bottom are helped, as kids who would have likely accepted a scholarship to Alabama were now at auburn.

I suppose it can be debated how big of a role scholarship reductions played in NDSU coming back to the pack in the 90s, but you must at least acknowledge that going from 45 to 36(someone correct me on those if they're wrong) would hurt the teams at the top and help the teams at the bottom.

Correct, thanks for the clarification.