Herd

The top conferences in FBS (SEC, B12, B1G, P12, ACC) would need to tell the lower FBS conferences (MAC, MWC, BE, CUSA, SBelt), "We are no longer going to play you". Then the lower conferences would be on financial life support at 85 scholarships and would be forced maybe cut scholarships, separating them from the 85 scharship level of the top conferences. You simply cannot have three tiers if two of them are at the same scholarship level. How do you force the FBS lower tier away from the top? You can't, unless you don't play them. This might be OK for Alabama, USC, TX, MI . . . but Kentucky, Iowa St, Colorado, Indiana need the lower tier, or they whither and die vs the power teams. Top Tier 85 Mid Tier 75? (Not likely) Low Tier 63 How to you force teams not to sponsor 85 scholarships, because the top tier is not taking scholarships up, that much I can tell you. Right now, three tiers is a philosophical discussion at best. In the end, what's best for college football? I would contend that having an FBS championship that gives all FBS conference an opportunity is what's best. My 12 team playoff model that has 8 conference champs (bottom 4 champs of the 10 conferences would play-in for 2 spots) and 4 at large teams. This would greatly improve FBS excitement, lift up all of college football (not just the top 25), and would provide stability and balance. The top 4 seeds would get a 1st round bye, and would only need to win 3 games to be champs. (1 more than the current plus 1) In this scenario, Boise would not need to join a specific conference to have a road to a championship. At large teams would be selected via a formula, and could be top 4 and receive a 1st round bye. A playoff like this would generate excitement to the level of ncaa BB, and it would benefit all conferences financially, not just the haves. I think that is necessary, and way more likely than 3 tiers, just my opinion. It might take 5-10 years, but eventually all conferences will have an avenue to the championship, like I have outlined.

Yes I agree, that is correct. UND now has an 8 game conference schedule, so the NDSU game is less important.

So are the Gophers ducking NDSU when they choose to play us every 4-5 years? No, they are doing what in their best interest.

When the Gophers schedule NDSU in FB, it lifts our entire program up, it provides huge exposure, it helps recruiting, and fans and alumni view the school in a different light. These games are craved by NDSU, and viewed as ho-hum and a risk by MN. The gophers are selective about scheduling NDSU in football too often, if for no other reason than maintaining its leverage vs. a neighboring team that recruits in its backyard. NDSU football is in a leverage position right now vs UND (sorry, that's just the way it is), and some of the same items that I listed above apply, although it's a different animal than MN vs NDSU, with both of us being on the same level. Therefore, I understand why GT is not in a hurry to schedule UND. You can keep your heads in the sand and think otherwise, but there is not a big advantage for NDSU to schedule this game. The off-the-hook atmosphere that the fans want has been found in other games, especially the playoff run last year. This game does little for NDSU, while lifting up UND. For me personally, I would miss an annual FBS game more than I lament the end of the series with UND. Would I like the game? Yes, but it is not a huge void. The games I really crave are the FBS games where there's more national attention. This advantage for NDSU is short term and mostly related to our DI transition coming first, but right now NDSU is in a leverage position. This changes the dynamic, and its not surprising that the game has been slow to get scheduled.

It doesn't benefit NDSU. Would it benefit UND to play NDSU in hockey if NDSU had a program and wasn't in your conference? No, it would just give DI NDSU hockey legitimacy, and give recruits somthing else to consider. Would UND hockey play NDSU? No you wouldn't, for the same reason. NDSU does what's in NDSU's best interest. Are you able to look at things from another point of view, or just your own?

And NDSU would beat you in Wrestling, MN would beat you in Rowing, and Denver would be you in LaCrosse. What's your point again? We both have DI Softball (well you kinda do), yet you want no part of NDSU, what's up with that? We play baseball, but Softball is noticably absent.

You're right Darrell, are you guys afraid to step up and get your *sses kicked us in NDSU's best sport? Still no Softball game, huh?

Why did NDSU fans care? NDSU was fighting for playoff seeding, and fell 3 spots on a bye week. I think it's pretty obvious why NDSU fans cared. We were trying to get into a position of being home for the playoffs, period, end of story. If NDSU poll votes were being confused with any school, it would have been the same story. As always, you want to make this about UND, but the story in Fargo was about how a mixup might impact NDSU playoff seeding. Certainly you can understand this concern.

Yep I agree, Rocky would have done exactly like your AD did. What does that say about your AD? Our current Administration has some integrity from everything I have seen, and they are focused on doing things the right way.

So is it fact or conjecture that there were media stories by cbs, fox, tsn, forum com, etc, etc, etc? Your AD could have prevented that from happening, making the ncaa and ndsu look bad. But why do the right thing when its so much more fun to be an a**. And you wonder why GT would prefer not to associate with your athletic department. It is over and done with . . . on one level it's no big deal. On another level it was a preventable situation, and I would prefer that these two schools tried to do the right thing by each other. This isn't the kind of thing that helps.

Had that been a UND banner which had arrived in Fargo, I can assure you that the result would have been No media stories, and quiet re-shipment. Just a different mode of operation and a different level of professionalism that seems to surface again and again.

UND decided to separate itself from USD. Otherwise, they could have joined forces and leveraged a move to either the BSC or the Summit/Valley. Staying together they had options. The States decided that they were stronger together, while the U's were more concerned about their own interests, due partly to the nickname situation to be fair. Just dIfferent philosophies I guess.

Finish the following sentences . . . NDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite, SDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. USD received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. You see, there is a trend above. With a commitment to the Summit, the MVFC said yes to all of the above. The same would have been true for UND if desired. UNO and MVFC is not even a discussion as they could not afford the sport in DI, as I have stated . . . so please remove that notion from your mind, it is not a factor in UND's situation with the MVFC.

In DI, keep football for UNO was not an option . . . Period, due to their financial situation.. UNO keeping football at the DI level was never financially feasible, and not on the table as an option. If . . . If UNO had been able to keep football at the DI level, the MVFC would not have let them flounder very long as an independent. FCS football is a fraternaty that would have found a way to support that addition, as they did for USD. The situation would have been the same for UND. The Summit teams in the MVFC would have found a way to move UND into the conference for football. UND was not going to be added to the MVFC, when they had not even made a commitment to the Summit yet. With a Summit commitment, the Valley would have followed, that is the only sequence.

At least get your facts straight. UNO dropped football to be able to afford the move to DI, not because the MVFC would not accept them. If UNO would have taken their football team with them to DI, I am sure the Valley would have accepted them into the league by at least year two, as they have a solid football history, a good location, and maybe some winnable games during the transition in a tough league. Likewise if UND would have wanted to join Valley football, they would have been accepted fairly quickly IMO with a better quality program than UNO. All it took was a little effort and being able to play nice, see USD. Due to a rather largish ego by UND admin and a greater desire to burn than build bridges, we will never know how quickly the Valley would have taken you in. The Summit/Valley would have been crazy not to accept you into the league if you would have pursued it, which you did not. I Can't agrue with the Big Sky decision made by UND, but doing it while taking shots at the Summit/MVFC was not necessary and in your best long range interest. It seems likely that you will either move east or the bison will move west at some point, but maybe not.

The bottom 5 conferences in FBS are funding football at the highest level, why does everyone want to take that away from them. Why can't Boise, Nevada, TCU or the conference champion of these conferences get a shot at winning a national title? Should Butler baskeball be forced into a lower tier of college basketball because it has less money, a smaller statdium or fewer fans? No, they have the same scholarsips (13) and are allowed to complete for the same national championship. What distinguishes the level is the number of scholarships, and that won't change. You will not have a BCS champion and a FBS champion both at 85 scholarships, it simply doesn't work that way. Telling schools and conferences that they have to move up or move down the totem pole of scholarships will get very interesting and will shake up college football much more than we have already seen. i'm not saying that I'm opposed to it, I just saying that if you are assuming their will be a 3 tier system, scholarship changes need to happen, and that will be very painful for CFB as a whole.

So tell me specifically how you would structure 3 tiers while keep the lower 2 tiers at all relevant and forcing current FBS confernces out of the top level? That is the question. There is a huge disparity of resources even within conferences at all 3 levels. Look at the Big 12, you have Texas and OU, then you have K.State and Iowa St. This kind of change would start tearing confereces apart from within ad really hurt college football. If the Big Sky or Valley was foced to move up to 75 scholaships, the casualties would be significant and their woud be realignment everywhere. In current economy, I don't see this 3 teir talk as real . . . there are way to many problems that would hurt all of college football.

So the NCAA is going to tell the Sunbelt, MAC, MWC, CUSA, WAC (who are spending to be at the top level of college football) that now you can't? You are going to tell many teams in the Big East and ACC that they have to move up from 85 to 93 scholarships to stay at the top level of college football (a level they can't afford) and loose millions every year? Are you going to allow games between the 3 levels to be counters? Why would any team want to be at the middle level? Don't the top 6 conferences need the rest of DI for non-conference games, so there are not teams that have 0-12 records? Why would anyone want to make a move like this to destroy college football and make the 2nd tier totally irrelevant? People talk like this is going to happen, but in reality I don't see any clean way to make it happen that feasible financially or tolerable for all the tiers. This is akin to the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cardinals, Tigers, and Braves forming their own division of the MLB, because they have more money to spend than the rest of the league. In reality, these six need the rest of the league to be successfull. FBS football would be wise to involve all 10-11 conferences in a championship, raising up all of college football, rather than destroying it.

So if Notre Dame was on NCAA Sancations due to a state law related to its moniker, Purdue and Indiana would be also? Right, pretty clueless logic.

The levels of college football are dictated by scholarship levels, not by petigree or by fans in the stands. FBS football is 85 scholarships and FCS is 63. So if there are 3 level of Division I college football, what are the scholarship level differences going to be? If you say that BCS and FBS will both still be at 85 scholarship, then you have answered the question . . . there will not be a split. And FCS schools are not going to want to increase scholarshps to goto the 2nd Level, that makes no sense. So, wise people, tell me what the scholarship levels will be for the 3 tiers of DI college fooltball if this 3 tier system is ever going to happen. . . and please be specific. DI - 3 Levels (tell me what the scholarship differences are going to be?) BCS Todays top 6 conferences currently at 85 scholarships ?? FBS Todays next 5 FBS conference at 85 Scholarships ?? FCS Todays 119 schools currently at 63 scholarshps ??

You remember the story of King Solomon who instructed his servant to cut a baby in two pieces, so that the real mother of the child would cry out to save the child? Well those of you who are willing to keep the nickname are clearly willing to cut the child in Two. The Real supporters of your university are stepping out to retire the nickname and save what is important. For those of you willing to sacrifice the university for a nickname, your bluff has been called. For the save the nickname at all cost folks, get to the back of the line behind the "Real" supporters of UND.

The policy violation was handled swiftly and directly. That is what is important in this situation. Nothing good comes form exposing a student to unncessary media attention. If Dorn's violation did not involve or impact a student, I would feel differently. Her violation and discipline are on file an in place, regardless whether the incident becomes public. More publicity, and the student's regular life as a student is over, and they are gone from NDSU while doing nothing wrong. But God forbid that the media would not get a chance to destroy everyone in their wake, for the sake of a good story.

Agreed, as it should be. No need to drag a private situation through the media if it were not necessary to do so. After the media finds out, clarification is necessary.

Dorn was being disciplined with the same punishment regardless of whether or not the incident was public or private. The obligaton is to make sure the incident was handled correctly and the policy enforced. Only after there was knowledge that the press was aware of the incident, was it necessary to make sure that questions were answered and fact were made clear to the press. Otherwise, there is no obligation to report. Many more of these situations are handled privately than publically. When they leak, it's necessary to clarify if the situation is deemed as "high Profile" enough.

Thanks for your selective history lesson. The SR vote is clearly No, regardless of what happened in 1969. Are you seriously arguing otherwise? If we can't agree that the SR vote is No, then I guess clear facts don't matter it's pointless to have a discussion with you. I'm not saying that a tribal council vote is an end all to the debate, but the tribal council vote is clearly No.