SooToo

No offense to Beebsb010, but I think it shows how a small minority of posters, both here and in the football board, cannot escape their fixation with the AC.

I believe coach Schweigert said the other day that 3 more prospective 2014 recruits would be on campus this weekend. No names, but I see over on the AC fanatics' recruiting thread that they just offered a Kansas all-state safety who had an earlier offer from SIU but didn't sign. Also, DT Brandon Hines, who UND offered at one point but was reported here to be going to a prep school, now may be looking to sign a college LOI, according to their board.

Hope you're right on this one. Given lack of offers, recruiters obviously see something I don't (speed?), but hard to imagine a down side to a 6'3", 235-pound running back who was good enough to put up big rushing numbers in the top class of Minnesota HS football. If he didn't work out at RB, seems there would be a lot of options on defense for this guy. Anyone know anything more about late offeree Luke Elsner, DE from Wisc? Coming for a visit? Still in the mix?

Curious observation of the "obvious:" From respective rosters: Garrison Goodman 6'2" 226 Grant Olson 6'0" 228 Travis Beck 6'0" 214 Carlton Littlejohn 6'1" 216

This. This is the type of serious insight that keeps me coming back to Siouxsports. I now better understand your appreciation of the head coach at the AC, where I would guess this hasn't been a problem for many years

More than just a great talent on the field, he seemed like a young man of great character off of it. He came from an FBS school and I never once heard a hint of arrogance in any public comment. He demonstrated poise and polish beyond his years when dealing with the media. He credited his teammates when things went well and shouldered the blame when the game didn't goes as we all hoped. I can't imagine he'll be anything but a great success in anything he chooses to do with the rest of his life. I'd love to see him stay around for a year or two as a GA or assistant to mentor our young QB's but best of luck to him where ever his future leads him.

Really? Miller's longest field goal of the year was 50 yards, and he hit on 50% of attempts (1 of 2) from that distance for the season. From 40-49 yards, he was 100% (3 of 3). I don't understand running your 170-pound scat back into a stacked line (where's Hedrickson on a roll out, or your 240-pound H back on the dive?), but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you can get a 1/2 yard on the ground to allow your team a much better shot, statistically speaking, at a winning field goal. In its first year out of transition -- its first in perhaps the toughest conference in FCS -- UND goes 5 and 6. Doesn't sound like a record that warrants dismissal to me. Yet we have geniuses here calling for Mussman's head due to perceived poor play calling and yet crying that we'll "be eff'd" if the offensive coordinator -- who presumably made many of those play calls -- moves on to another position. Somehow the answer always is a retread coach from the old days or a regional coach with no experience outside of D2. UND didn't struggle because Mussman -- or his O coordinator -- opted to try to get 0.5 yard on the ground instead of attempting a 50-50 field goal. It struggled because it couldn't stop any team from running the ball all year long and couldn't -- despite an o line averaging over 300 pounds -- create running room inside for any of UND's running backs. Blame that on coaching, too, if you want to, but who among the experts here anticipated that kind of ineptitude against the run after last year's defensive performance? And when a team lines up and gashes you for 10, 15, 20 yards on successive rushing attempts, I dont think its the scheme that is the problem; it's the personnel on the field.

Like I thought ... delusional.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe you forgot the loss of home playoffs for football; maybe it was the loss of games against Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and, as I recall, South Dakota State. Then there's the looming removal from the Big Sky if this circus continues. But that one isn't "for sure" because I'm guessing your research has proven the Big Sky "can't" drop UND or that "the Big Sky needs UND more than UND needs the Big Sky," despite what the league's commissioner said on half a dozen broadcast stations this week.

Can't quite decide if you slept through the week or you're truly delusional.

I'm not sure "the Native American side" is particularly pertinent at this time. There was an agreement between UND and the NCAA requiring approval from tribal governments at Spirit Lake and Standing Rock; no such approval was received from the SR government, and UND can no longer cling to the nickname without serious and wide-ranging consequences. You can bet O'Keefe is well aware of potential damage; Mr. Black Cloud may be a bright guy, but he has absolutely no insight into the risks facing UND on both the athletic and academic fronts.

I would gladly donate to help get the message out, and I hope other University supporters would, too. Hope for an expedited review of the state law before the state supreme court. Then a month or so before the election -- June or November -- launch a PR campaign on multiple levels. This issue needs recognizable faces associated with the university -- Faison, Jim Kleinsasser, maybe Dale Lennon, somebody from hockey -- on TV and on radio explaining their respect for the Fighting Sioux name and the consequences of keeping it. .

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.