SooToo

The depth of your irrationality on this subject is truly mind-boggling.

Disagree. If the legislation fails --and the threatened constitutional amendment doesn't happen -- I think UND is in. That's certainly been the tone of comments I've heard from Fullerton. (And please tell me you're pessimistic assessment of the Big Sky isn't just another rationalization to keep the nickname.) At this point, I hope and expect the SBoHE will challenge the constitutionality of the law requiring the nickname that was passed last session. No lawyer, but I would hope/expect they would win. I've got to believe its abundantly clear to most legislators now that maintaining the nickname will have dire consequences, and I can't believe they'd have much enthusiasm to penalize/aggressively oppose this SBoHE move. Rendering the law -- and initiated measure -- moot might encourage the petition drive for a constitutional measure, but it would provide more time for an organized effort to fight it. IIRC, the bar for passage of a consitutional measure is higher (60%?) and there would be additional arguments for keeping the constitution clear of this type of issue. In any event, there needs to be a well-organized PR campaign -- perhaps partially funded by university backers on this forum -- to educate voters on the repercussions of passage of either of these two measures. Faison, UND coaches and maybe some hockey alumni should be recruited to participate. Most native North Dakotans understand the populist/isolationist leanings that lead many here to say "Hell no!" when told by a large, out-of-state entity that they have to change. But I've got to believe that getting the word out about the crippling consequences of keeping the name would convince a majority of voters to make the right decision. Whether that could happen before June, however, is an open question. And on a related point: What should Hakstol's standing with the university be if the law he played a significant role is passing ultimately ends up crippling the athletic department in which he is employed?

Apparently, the next generation of leadership at SR didn't get the memo.

...or maybe we should have dumped the arrogance and intimidation years ago and stated an honest discussion with the people who held the power on this issue all along: the tribes in North Dakota. At this point, however, I'm not sure doling out blame gets anything done.

I'm aware UND makes money; I read the financials and I'm thrilled. But how does that benefit other members of the Big Sky financially? I'm unaware of a constitutional amendment to keep the nickname; maybe you're referring to the petition drive to get one on the ballot. The Big Sky hasn't made any moves because, so far, nothing has happened here. We'll see how long they wait if/when either of the ballot measures passes. Judging by Fullerton's comments, I'm guessing it won't be long. I trust you'll be around to assure us that everything is just fine.

Congratulations. An excellent summary of some of the delusional drivel perpetuated by the nickname only crowd. I guess the Big Sky doesn't need UND more than UND needs the Big Sky ... but almost. I'm unclear how the BSC "makes more money" with a marginalized UND as a member when 90% of mid-major/FCS porgrams are money losers. Is it in the further subdivision of the league' support from the NCAA? Maybe it's in the additional travel expense for other members to come to ND. I agree UND has intrinsic value to the Big Sky due to its academic programs, but I'm not sure there's a lot of money to be made with that one. UND had value in stabilizing the conference, allowing for divisional play and expanding the leagues foot print, but much of that value vanished when USD bailed out the back door at the last instant. It's laughable to claim UND brings the Big Sky much exposure in the Twin Cities, especially since Lucia appears to be putting together a plan to keep UND off Minnesota's schedule for the foreseeable future. The regional television coverage? Apparently traded away to prop up the new hockey conference. Hard to find the "profit" that would convince Big Sky presidents to put up with the negatives a sanctioned UND would bring to the conference. Hard to see why Fullerton would be blowing smoke on the consequences for UND of keeping the nickname.

Two facets of this boondoggle that continually amaze: 1) The unending propensity of the nickname-only crowd (Chewey, crazy Dave, et al) to spout flights of fancy and irrational assumption as fact despite all evidence to the contrary. (I'm still waiting for the post-New Year's announcement, promised so frequently by Star last fall, that the Montana schools are off for the WAC, proving that "the Big Sky needs UND more than we need the Big Sky."); and; 2) The eagerness of some supposed UND supporters (e.g. Scott Hennen) to continually exploit this as some sort of larger liberal-v-conservative poitical issue regardless of cost to the University.

I realize this is the mantra down at Bisonville and among boosters of the AC in general, but the state doesn't and never has funded higher ed on a "per student" basis. It's not elementary ed. While enrollment obviously is a factor, funding also hinges on the costs associated with that institution's physical plant (which can vary greatly due to age and other factors), historic program costs and, in most recent years, funding levels at comparable peer institutions. I'm also interested in your assertion that the "marginal cost is much lower" for on-line students. Do you base that on specific program budget numbers or just your general sense that on-line students cost less because they're not taking up floor space at the student union?

Yes, you're correct .... and it's the headline writing that's F'd up; the story is just fine.

Rivals lists two additional prospects in Henderson, NV, Tuilagi's home town: -- QB Kamana Nacua 6'2" 180 -- RB Niko Kapelli 5'9" 190

Rivals now showing Tuilagi as a UND commit.

I like the potential of some of the current tailbacks, but it seems a bit strange to me we wouldn't sign a RB this year; I think there is effectively only one with last year's class (Sparks) after Garman played as a true freshman. I don't know anything about them aside from their post-season accolades, but Sam Sura and Antonio Ford out of the Cities would seem to be good prospects. I've heard very little about either, recruiting-wise.

.... or move the cameras to the west side.

I think it's called humor, buddy; a little joke for all those who insist on playing "mine is bigger than yours" with any subject involving UND and the AC. Thank goodness this is one instance where we can actually see who "lights it up" on the court. Sorry you couldn't play along.

During a period break of last night's hockey game, I noticed a tall young guy in the Sioux Shop wearing a T shirt referencing the Illinois 6A or 8A football championship. He appeared to be there with his father. After looking at his photo, I think this may have been Ryan Bartels, the Illinois QB recruit. Anyone know if other recruits were in town this weekend? Seems like a good time to bring some prospects through before the dead period.

...but on the bright side, UND is getting excellent coverage in The Forum; on the morning of the AC's biggest football game ever (I guess), UND warrants a six-column banner headline at the top of the Forum sports page. Obviously the always neutral editorial staff at The Forum finally has recognized just how many fans of THE University of North Dakota are within its circulation area. I for one look forward to this type of extensive coverage of football next fall, when UND enters the Big Sky

From the OPE report... NDSU Football Total expenses 3,332,907 Total revenue 3,332,907 NDSU Basketball Total expenses 1,988,215 Total revenue 1,988,215 I now have a better understanding of Dan's extreme suspicion of institutional accounting.

Great site and info. I was somewhat surprised to see that UND, according to the report, actually makes money on football (although only about $20k). Also note that Montana's budget is about $1.7 million less than UND's total but they spend and earn twice as much on football, roughly $5 million, and spend about $500,000 more on basketball. It will be interesting to see where UND can go with football revenues once established in a solid conference like the Big Sky

Gotta remember, though, its hard to learn milking on line.

A lackluster first game -- which they won, as you may recall -- and you're ready to write off the season? It's obvious you have no regard for Mussman, but why not give the team a chance? It's very much the same as the team that competed at Montana last year, with the addition of a serviceable QB, so maybe there's a chance they'll be more competitive as the season progresses. UND is losing right now at Fresno State, 14-9 at the end of the first quarter. The rushing yardage so far is UND 104 and Fresno -3, so maybe the coaching is improving.

Damn, Dan. Every day I read SiouxSports. And every day there are more and more posters from the AC. Right away I get my underwear in a bunch expecting more snide, smart-ass cheap shots that add nothing to the conversation. I'm rarely disappointed. Then you post a reasonable comment like this. Cut it out. You're effin' with my preconceptions.

Really? I think you're confusing "PC narrative" with "facts." I've forgotten on what basis you've concluded that statements from the BSC are "nothing but a bluff," but I've yet to see a good explanation -- or any explanation, aside from the Great Berkley Conspiracy against NA Nicknames -- why they would be bluffing at all. What did they stand to gain? The BSC is the second of two potential conferences to express reservations about accepting UND with the nickname controversy (thank God things didn't work out with the Summit). It's not just the position of NCAA bureaucrats but many member schools as well, who several years ago demonstrated their backing of the NA policy by affirming after the fact the NCAA executive committee's authority to make rules like this. Minnesota won't play us in any sport; Wisconsin has indicated a similar position. And yes, without conference affiliation, ALL UND athletes would be handicapped. More importantly, the athletic program would be decimated. Why in the world would UND choose pariah status with so little evidence -- if any -- that everyone else is only bluffing. Too bad at this stage of the game we're still dealing with this issue. As to your observation on the UND-Drake game, I would agree; Lackluster performance on the field and little energy in the stands, at least after the first half. Hopefully the O line improves (disappointing number of sacks versus a no-scholly team) and Mussman opens up the playbook and the team shows a lot more offensive potential against Idaho next week.

How in the world does planning violate the law requiring UND to keep the nickname? Everyone in the state, except ol' Al, seems to have acknowledged that given the potential ramifications for UND the law has to go. When did it become illegal to think about making a change? As many noted from the beginning, this never was about UND or the Fighting Sioux nickname; this always was, for Al and his cronies, about asserting legislative control over the SBoHE. Now he wants to lay claim to the right to micromanage administrators at the campus level as well.

Of course he's already switched positions at the request/suggestion of the coaching staff -- twice just last year. I haven't heard that they've asked yet another change from him this year. Goska and Hendrickson didn't look good last year, but Hendrickson spent most of the year practicing at WR. I'm certainly no football coach but for my money, he was the best looking QB at the spring game. He stood in the pocket when he needed to and ran well when it was time to scramble. He threw accurately on the run and showed a nice touch completing the mid-level throws, something no one at UND was able to do last year. I don't know who'll end up as the starting QB, but I wouldn't be too discouraged if it was Hendrickson.

Yep, he's done it again. Still adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5. Say what you want about Kelley, but I think we've hit the jackpot with this guy; Star's convinced me he has single-handedly dictated policy and position to the NCAA and two conferences of which we're not even a member. What can he accomplish for UND two years from now working a gaggle of addle-headed legislators? Seriously, I doubt you'll find many critics here of a meeting with the NCAA. If you want to pat Al Carlson on the back for making it happen, well good for you. It's just that most posters think there's zero chance of a meaningful change. But go ahead; surprise us. What I'm waiting for are the promises from the nickname-only crowd that when the NCAA-Carlson meeting ends, the issue is over. No more talk of "letting it play out" into eternity. No more talk about lawsuits, referendums or appeals to the state's congressional delegation, all of whom (John Hoeven included) have run as fast as they can away from this issue. Give the meeting a chance, but when it's over, give it up for the sake of the university.