SooToo

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.

When did Kelley say anything like that? Yes, he refused to drive the bus over the cliff to satisfy a dwindling few in the nickname-only camp, but why put words in the man's mouth? All I've ever heard him say is that the on-going nickname fight is hurting UND and athletics. If you've got quotes from him saying something different, please post them.

I agree; great post by Yote 53. Overall, I think Faison's done a great job, but I don't understand the reluctance to schedule USD. Personally, I'm all for it on an annual basis. I've seen and enjoyed a ton of UND-NDSU games -- who can forget Jim K. outrunning the Bison D-backs for a TD? I have reservations about a renewal, though, as I find their fanbase increasingly tiresome. Nonetheless, playing the AC, SDSU, USD and maybe UNI with some regularity just makes too much sense not to happen. Maybe time for a Siouxsports letter-writing/telephone-call/e mail campaign to convince Faison?

Getting back to football.... The passing yardage certainly tells a lot of the story and I Bradley had a great looking pass down field to Bickle late in the game, but I thought the quarterback who looked the best was Hendrickson; he stayed in the pocket when he was supposed to, he didn't stare down his receivers and he threw the ball accurately, including some nice middle-distance completions on the run. Alternate opinions?

Agree wholeheartedly. Kelley, rather than a "bumbling bafoon," looks to me like a quy who understands the NCAA holds most if not all the cards at this time. The NCAA appears to want a clarification on the constiutional question before wading any further into this issue. Regardless of whether you believe their stated reason for cancelling, it's probably a prudent position on their part.

Nothing personal, but you've got to love the difference between basketball fans at UND and NDSU. The AC gets a verbal from some guy no one has ever heard of, and the rubes at Siouxville proclaim him a "bigtime get," 'explosive" and "athletic as hell." At UND? A player is scheduled for a recruiting visit and no one has learned his name -- spawning immediate speculation he must be a bum.

I noticed the same thing with the same questions. Seems curious that one of the top prospects for starting QB would not participate in one of the spring's few scrimmages unless there was an injury -- and I didn't hear anyone who was there mention any apparent problems this past Saturday. Hope it doesn't suggest something else. Maybe the Sioux Football Insider guys will have some insight? I was looking forward to seeing Ivery as well.

Reassuring to hear that Ivery and McGill are impressing at WR. Add Hardin -- and Blair Townsend in the fall -- and the team could have a very solid receiving group next fall. In both Nelson's article in the Herald the the scrimmage story on fightingsioux.com, Mussman sounded particularly encouraged by Bradley's progression at QB.

Not questioning the accuracy of your info and, of course, its a moot point now, but I'm wondering about the assessment of the young man's talents. As posted earlier, you never know how recruits will adapt to the college game, but my recollection from signing day a year ago was that Demler was considered the more mobile of the two quarterbacks, and there was some talk at Sioux boosters that he could even play other positions. IIRC, Comes was described as the more classic drop-back passer. I presume with the "pistol," mobility is one of the attributes we're looking for. I agree with Bin; it'll be concerning if we come out of spring ball and still are searching for a QB. It's not exact science to be sure, but if we've recruited 5 QBs over the past 3 years and can't find anyone capable, then it's time to re-evaluate the recruiting strategy. Definitely looking forward to seeing who can throw the ball at the spring game.

I don't have a link, but IIRC the last NCAA report on college athletic expenses and revenues indicated UND made money on broadcasting rights, far in excess of any other school in the Dakotas. Also, if you read the story closely, it appears to say UND makes no money on cable distribution through FSSN and Midco. There's no clear reference to income from the FCS deal, and I wonder if that might not be a money maker.

I hear ya. The mere fact he's stated publicly in several forums that he favors the nickname but thinks options to keep it have been exhausted is not going to convince me he actually favors the nickname but thinks ... well, you know. Especially now that we have hard, third-hand evidence that someone identifying himself as Grant Shaft's son posted on facebook that UND would get into the Big Ten if it dropped the nickname. Based on that rock-solid evidence I too must conclude that Grant Shaft has never been in favor of the nickname and sabotaged efforts to keep it and is clearly undermining attempts even today. Sorry. Just couldn't resist.

Spirit Lake maybe. But why would you want anyone from Standing Rock? An opportunity to remind the NCAA which body of legally elected representatives didn't approve the nickname? In any event, I expect we'll hear very soon just how anxious the new "knights" in this fiasco are to take an active lead role in the very public negotiations with the NCAA.

thanks for the suggestions.

thanks for the suggestions.

Or why not just schedule home-and-home series with some of the FCS teams in the region? USD, SDSU, Northern Iowa -- If the MVFC truly wants to stay all-FCS in scheduling, would think it should be possible most years to get a regional FCS team on the schedule rather than a low-level D II team. It looks like we mght be scheduling to get six home games each year, ala the AC. Don't know about anyone else but I'd gladly cash in the sixth game every other year to get a quality game with a regional opponent of interest every year. Costs could be modest, interest would be much higher and you get a game that counts. I agree with those who say it's getting prohibitively expense to buy home games with a low-level FCS teams in hopes of padding your record.

Got to agree with you on this one. I'd gladly see them cash in the DII game and lose the guaranteed sixth home game every other year for an annual game with USD at alternating sites. Definitely a lot more interest, and if the concern is W's and L's, what's gained with the DII game?

My link That's an amazing interpretation of the available information. I posted a link to the original story for anyone who's still interested. No where in it will you find a direct quote from Douple indicating anything close to what you are claiming. You will get verbiage from Kolpack stating that Kelley asked Douple to "publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as members until the controversial nickname and log issue was resolved." But you won't find a single quote to directly backing it up. My perception is that Kolpack is asserting that Kelley asked Douple to go public with the league's concerns about the nickname -- as first verbalized by AC athletic director Gene Taylor and Douple many months prior -- so the SBoHE and alumni wouild be aware of it. But who the hell can say for sure? The truth is Kolpack's original story was a mess -- poorly worded, difficult to follow and backed up by VERY few direct quotes from Douple. Yet you continue to present as fact your interpretation of this story based on the writer's murky interpretation of comments from a rejected suitor who's hardly quoted at all. In another post here you claim "evidence indicates that Kelly spent his time allowing or convincing one or more Summit League presidents to come out with a anti-Sioux resolution prior to membership" How is it even possible that Kelly "allowed" Summit presidents to formulate a resolution of any type? I've never heard your claim anywhere and I'd challenge you to provide any proof of your allegation. It's unfortunate we have to continually revisit some of these old issues. It's unfortunate you continue to present as fact your attacks that appear to be largely distortions or out-and-out fabrications. I enjoy your posts on Division 1 developments, etc., but I think these kinds of statements really add nothing useful to the discussion.

So you blame the client for accepting the formal recommendation of its legal counsel? Bit of a stretch, even if you're looking to rationalize your anger, don't you think? As I understood things, Stenehjem and the outside attorneys who formally worked on this case, concluded they couldn't win the suit and recommended a settlement they felt was the best they could obtain. I think they're open to severe criticism just as soon as someone works out a better one. Three years to get approval from the namesake tribe(s) (just for CAS). I've read nickname-only supporters say we should "let it play out" longer. How many more years will it take? I've read that the NCAA "caved" to Florida due to political pressure in Washington, yet they've got essentially the same deal we have. The lawsuit was lost when the NCAA membership reaffirmed the executive council's authority to make silly rules like this about mascots/logos and other issues that have precious little to do with sports. Neither you nor I have to like it to recognize the reality. The law passed by the legislature, I believe, does nothing to change that.

Yep, they backed Chapman over Potts -- right after the governor, as documented in the attorney general's subsequent investigation, informed his appointees that he wanted Chapman retained because he was doing "a good job." Of course it didn't help that the board had some members (read John Paulsen) who saw themselves as active advocates for a particular institution. Chapman was an excellent politician. He carefully cultivated -- and frequently exploited -- his connections with the governor, who sat beside him in the president's box at nearly every NDSU football game.

Passage of this amendment would be a huge mistake. As others have mentioned earlier, anyone who thinks higher ed would be better under more direct political control needs to review what happened at NDSU back in the 1930's before the creation of the SBoHE. The biggest fiasco of recent times occurred when one university president was able to defy his boss (chancellor of higher ed), skirt the rules and build his own personal fiefdom (see president's house fiasco, lavish charters to Washington), in large part because he had the explicit political backing of the sitting governor. Please note also that one of Al Carlson's goals with this measure is to remove from direct voter control the state department of public instruction, which just happens to have been held by the opposition party for 20+ years. If your issue is that too much money is spent -- and that's always Whistler's issue -- in higher education, I'm not sure how this measure would help. Appropriations still would be controlled as they are now, by the legislature. You would do better to campaign to close schools or limit higher ed enrollments, but then you'll run into stiff opposition from local elected officials, who see their local institution of higher education as an engine of local economic development.. You're right that North Dakota spends a lot per capita on higher education. The much more salient statistic, of course, is that we spend relatively little per student compared to other states. Again, the answer would be to limit enrollment. Good luck with that; North Dakotans historically have strongly supported "open access" to higher ed." Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with a 1980's something-for-nothing attitude in the state; we want all our kids to be able to go to college; we just don't really want to pay for it. The "peer institutions" model may not be perfect but it represents an attempt to objectify questions on spending. We may not have to spend money just because they do so elsewhere, but universities and colleges here have to compete in the same market for employees (professors, researchers, etc.) and face similar infrastructure costs as universities elsewhere. Wthout some attempt at comparative spending assessment, we're left with only arbitrary blanket states like "they get too much money and they spend it stupidly."

Any updates, any hints, any details?

What legal impasse? The state and the NCAA, a voluntary organization, negotiated an agreement over rules approved by the NCAA membership. The legislature now has told UND not to comply. I'm sure no one at the NCAA in Indianapolis cares if the state -- and therefore UND -- chooses to take sanctions rather than comply with the agreement. As to your politics, please take the ranting to a forum where it belongs.

...and I didn't indicate any disdain for the legislature, just utilized the description included in your post. I'd ask, however, how much confidence you felt when the author of this bill stated he had "no idea" of the impact on UND. The poiint of my post was that those who are miffed at the SBoHE at the moment might be best served by a little research on events that led to the creation of the board in the first place. It wasn't a pretty picture when the legislature directly controlled higher ed in the past and the state's demographics don't suggest a promising future for UND if state lawmakers have direct control in the future. Your local leglslator may be directly accountable to you, but an increasing number of legslators from Minot, Bismarck and Fargo may have local or political interests they'd promote at UND's -- or all of higher ed's -- expense.

Did either the Republican or Democratic caucus take an official position on this issue? Not to my knowledge. There may have been, as your careful count suggests, tendencies to vote one way or another based on general philosophy but what of it? Last I heard, the rules of the forum were to steer clear of blatantly political discussion. God knows we all get more than enough of that through other venues. Seems to me there is plenty to discuss without this thread deteriorating into a political rant. If you feel unable to carry on without a political diatribe, perhaps you might want to consider a hiatus while you cool off.

If you're implying the state would be better off with higher education in direct control of a "self-important blowhard" legislature than under control of the SBoHE, you might want to review the history behind creation of the board in the first place. I've watched it up close and personal in the past, and the ND legislature is, to put it politely, a myopic beast. Members, for the most part, are fixated on bringing home the goodies for the folks back home. As Grand Forks county's population stagnates while the Fargo, Bismarck and Minot areas grow, you should be more than a little nervous about UND's future beinng under direct control of a overtly political body with largely parochial concerns. Please see the newly created "Energy Center" is Bismarck as an example of the future with the Legislature in control. Whether the SBoHE fights the nickname bill is an interesting question. My initial impulse is to say they will challenge it, but when they guy who has the authority to appoint board members indicates he'll sign this bill, board members must be questioning their next step.