SooToo

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.

I caught Kolpack talking up the Summit on the WDAy Saturday morning sports show today. Apparently, the women's final was broadcast on ESPN-U. The announcers repeatedly called SDSU "San Diego State" and put Oakland University in Rochester, Minn., instead of Rochester, Michigan. Apparently, ineptitude is NOT in short supply when it comes to producing low mid-major tourneys.

Why so anxious to paint this as a political issue, Bob? I didn't bother with an exacting count (maybe you did) but as I peruse the vote breakdown in the local paper I see Republicans on both sides of this issue, including Ray Holmberg and David Nething (former majority leader from Jamestown) among those who voted 'no.' I also see Tony Grindberg, a Republican and NDSU administrator, among those voting 'yes.' Hmmm. In any event, I think you have to work pretty hard to translate this to a partisan issue. Last I checked, this was the SiouxSports board. If you're hot for a political debate, maybe you should take it to another board where they revel in that kind of thing. Obviously a lot of emotion around this issue, especially today. Count me among the UND fans who have always valued the Sioux nickname but think now that the cost of keeping it has become too high. No one feels good about the possible elimination of the nickname and I doubt few if any in this camp sent messages to their legislators. And have no doubt that maintaining the nickname, while it feels good today, comes with a price. The football team, really the primary reason for all the effort to move to Division 1, will be hobbled by the prohibition against hosting playoffs. You can bet other schools will be sure that potential recruits are well aware they have no chance for playoffs on their home field if they come to UND. Wil it make a difference? Probably for at least a few. I've read from several posters on this board that they "can live with" the post-season prohibitions. To each his own, I guess, but I've never understood supporting a nickname at the expense of the organization it is supposed to represent. "Ira Murphy" had it exactly right yesterday when he noted that keeping the nickname now will penalize those athletes who choose to compete for THE University of North Dakota. I agree with him that there's little reason to believe the NCAA will revisit the settlement and nothing anyone here can do to force a public vote or change of official position at Standing Rock. Control what is yours to control, as someone on this board posted earlier, and accept and adjust to those you don't. Finally, I'm not an attorney (thank God) but I believe anyone who thinks we can use the First Amendment to force teams to play UND with the Sioux nickname is, frankly, delusional. Every school decides for a variety of reasons who they wish to face on the court, field or ice. A decision not to play UND -- for whatever reason -- certainly doesn't infringe on our "right" to be the Fighting Sioux..

Disappointed to hear that assessment of Carrasco so far but great to get some progress updates just the same. Nice to hear that Ivery (I presume) is looking promising. I've heard coaches more than onece say that the opening week of fall camp is like Christmas; a first chance to see if you got what you were wishing for. More than a little truth there I suppose. While we're talking recruits, has anyone heard anything about preferred walk-ons for next year? I presume UND had some interest in at least a couple players who opted to walk on at the AC. I'm surprised there's been nothing announced on UND's invitees.

Shouldn't get too excited by highlight tapes, I guess, but I really liked what I saw of Carrasco on film. He seemed to have fair speed, run very good routes and showed excellent hands. However, I think the roster last year listed him at about a buck fifty, so he may need a little work at the dinner table and the weight room.

Agree with you here. The addition of Townsend -- and maybe one of the soon-to-be RF, like T. Ivery -- should do wonders for the passing situation. With the addition of Joey Bradley, I think we're likely to have at least one adequate QB and maybe better. Losing Murray will hurt, but Sutton was "rookie of the year" in the Great West the prior year and is capapble of better than he showed last year. Nothing would help the running game more than an effective passing game. Watching the pass defense was frustrating, especially early last year. But I see UND finished second in the league in scoring defense, first in third-down defense and first in interceptions last year. I don't think defense was as bad as some would like to paint it and certainly would be helped by a more potent offense.

Nah, I took offense -- or rather was disappointed -- in your implication we should be satisfied with a 4 percent increase in higher ed funding when the state has the resources to do so much better. And I mention the medical school because we're both physicians and should acknowledge, while we're being critical of requests for funding, that we've personally benefitted much more than most from earlier decisions to fund very expensive educational programs in the state. Thanks for posting the link to the "Financing Public Higher Education" report. I agree, a lot of good info there and a lot of ammo for debating whatever your position. Personally, though, I don't find a lot of solace in the fact we do a pretty good job with substandard resources. I think it's hard to argue we're over funded when per-student funding is 44 to 88 percent behind peer institutions. Unfortunately, North Dakotans seems to be stuck with a 1980s something-for-nothing mindset;. We want a system that allows all our kids access to higher education; we just don't want to pay a fair price for it. As to your objections to the term "draconian" to describe these cuts, I agree. But then no one ever accused The Forum's editorial page of being short on hyperbole.

Excellent. So a time when the state has a $1 billion surplus and oil tax revenues are flowing in like never before, when North Dakota universities are markedly underfunded compared to their peer institutions, these guys want to bump up the two-year budget almost enough to cover inflation. Almost. Can't ask for much more than that, I guess. Here's a thought: We could cut back the medical school to a two-year program. Those people certainly can transfer elsewhere to finish their educations, just like the old days, and we could save a boatload of cash.

For whatever it's worth at this stage of the game, Rivals lists UND "interest" in eight players so far for 2012, including a number of kids from Nebraska, Mollberg from Detroit Lakes and QB Malik Watson from Pittsburg, CA the hometown of the Butler brothers.

Culdn't agree more. I was amazed that arguably the biggest road game of the year was not aired by WDAY, especially after the women's game was broadcast. Having a few games on a radio station, like DAY, with expansive coverage certainly is great progress over past years, but the decision on this one was a real puzzler. I hope we'll see more extensive BB coverage via DAY in the future, especially after we start in the Big Sky.

Thanks for the updates for those of us who are media-deprived tonight.

Thanks for the update.... Keep them coming!

Very good point, although I expect -- based at least on some of his comments yesterday -- that Mussman will be under considerable pressure to show improvement in wins and losses.