SooToo

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.

Agree with this wholeheartedly. UND needs to get experienced quickly at a number of positions -- and you can add RB now -- and the abysmal 2011 schedule may be just what's needed. Interesting to see if Garman will play as a true freshman. On another note, I caught the news today when I tuned in briefly -- first time in months -- to the noon sports show on 740 in Fargo. Don't know who the host was. Unfortunately, he announced the hour would be "wall to wall" NDSU pimping but interrupted the schedule to "break the news" of Murray's dismissal at UND -- all in a celebratory tone and repleat with sound effects. Heard a little of McFeeley yesterday on 790 as well, ranting about the Douple story and asking why Grand Forks media wasn't digging up the details of Kristo's injury. He went on to broadly infer, on the air, that Kristo was drunk. What a vindictive, classless organization Radio Fargo-Moorhead seems to have become ... but maybe its a stipulation of the contract with the AC.

OK, I'll make it a third. Reading other message boards, I think SS.com has by far the most negative posters whether the subject is the football schedule, the city of Grand Forks, UND leadership or coaches, or almost any other topic ... except hockey.

Good Lord. What part of "never" can't you accept? In this case, it would appear the term may only apply to the date at which you will accept Faison's denials to a poorly written story containing absolutely no direct confirmation of a premise laid out in its opening paragraph. Much ado about nothing.

I'm willing to be convinced. Can you provide any fact, any direct quote from this story or any other source to show that Kelley or anyone from UND pushed the Summit to say the nickname decision was prohibiting consideration of UND's application to the Summit? Don't think you'll find it . Instead, many seem to want Kelley to prove a negative, expecting him to show he did not work against the nickname. And if you think journalism at the level of The Forum is exempt from shoddy reporting, faulty reasoning and just plain bad writing then, well, I might have a bridge I could sell you.

Really? Hey, as we used to say in the newsroom, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. There is nothing -- n-o-t-h-i-n-g -- in this story to back up Kolpack's claim in the lead that Kelley or anyone at UND asked the Sumit "to publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as a member until the controversial mickname and logo issue was resolved." NO ONE is quoted in the story, either directly or indirectly, saying this. Douple doesn't say this anywhere within the story. I realize this is an opportunity for every nickname die-hard to rail against the guy in charge when the Fighting Sioux name was lost but honestly, this is the kind of reading comprehension and hysterical, Chicken-Little response I would expect over at Bisonville. And I hope Star doesn't practice law; I didn't know that "allegations would prove Kelley to be a dishonorable liar." Unless, of course, you made up your mind long ago. Amazing responses to a complete non-story.

What a complete and utter non-issue. Kolpack's article is a mess -- can't tell if this is an example of bad writing, bad logic or if there's another agenda there. The lead on this story states that UND asked Douple and the Summit "to publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as a member until the controversial nickname and logo issue was resolved.." Three paragraphs later he states this would represent "a 180 degree reserval of what has commonly been reported for more than 2 years; that Summit League officials insisted the nickname issue be resolved sooner than the NCAA-imposed deadline." So which is it? What's the contention? Did UND push Douple "to publicly come out agaist accepting the Fighting Sioux?" Or did Kelley et al ask the Summit to "insist" on an earlier resolution of the issue? The interpretation of all the quotes/intervews in the story -- and probably the answers themselves -- changes drastically depending on the actual questions asked. If Kolpack asked the president's office if they pushed Douple to "publicly come out against accepting" UND with the Fighting Sioux nickname, then of course, Peter Johnson's emphatic denial is absolutely correct. Douple was quoted repeatedly during this process saying he wouldn't present UND's application to the league's presidents until the Sioux nickname controversy was settled "one way or the other" -- and I heard Bill Goetz on Mac Talk hesitantly admit the league wanted the name "gone." No where in the article does Douple deny he wanted the controversy ended before considering UND. If the issue was whether UND administrators pushed for an earlier resolution .... what's the point? Numerous board members, including Grant Shaft from Grand Forks, have detailed all their attempts to get approval -- or at least some answers -- from Standing Rock officials. Tribal leaders ultimately said they would never bring the issue up for consideration. As pointed out here ad nauseum, we could have waited until hell freezes over and still not had a positive outcome on this issue. And Bin has it right: Douple was never quoted in the news pushing for an earlier resolution -- he just bragged about the multiple schools interested in joining the Summit. (I wonder what ever happened with them anyway.) Faison frequently was quoted on the advantages of early decision on the issue. At the very least, waiting may have delayed joining a conference by another year. Anybody see the 2011 football schedule? Hard to figure what prompted this story at this time. Does Kolpack have an agenda, or is this just how the world looks through those green-and-yellow glasses?

No disrespect to Paul Ralston, but if they must replace Hammer -- and Sean Johnson sounds in the Herald as though they'd like to find a way to continue utilizing him -- I hope they recruit agressively for a replacement. UND football has benefitted from having high-profile football broadcasters over the last decade in Ed Schultz and Hammer. There are a number of "retired" sportscasters in the valley who might have an urge to dabble again in sports and would provide, I think, better visibility to UND football, including Scott Peters and Brian Shaun, late of KVLY, Steve Halstrom ( ) and a couple of others whose names escape me at the moment. Don't know for sure that they would be better but probably would bring more attention/notoriety through their association with the program..

$60

I have a single ticket available for Saturday night only. Lower Bowl, sec 114, row H. Leave a reply here or PM me.

Jones is doing his recruiting via Twitter?? Really, I can't imagine that will work out very well. IKIK

Waaay off topic, Wyoming, but I noticed you locked a topic -- coincidentally it was about a regular poster here -- over at B-ville today because of "petty, personal !@#$." With that new standard, aren't you afraid the whole place is going to implode?

My first answer would be bargaining power, as in "none." Although it certainly appears USD has had much more success in getting quality opponents to their house.

Yup. Definitely better looking schedules. I have no idea what NDSU was paying out for one-time opponents then (were they all home and home?) but the landscape's not the same for 2011 as it was for 2007, in terms of availability of OOC opponents. See Taylor's annual struggle filling in your schedule's two OOC games. What I DO see in the XDSU schedules for 2007 is lots of help from your future conference mates (3 games for SDSU; 2 games for you), the product, IIRC, of the Gateway's decision to drop Western Kentucky from the schedule one year early after Western notified the league it was jumping ship. No such option for UND next year. Good point on using next year to go on the road and build in some home games for future schedules. Unfortunately, I suspect the same people whining about the weak schedule now would be complaining about the lack of home games under that scenario as well.

Couldn't agree more. On all counts. Those wondering how "gene taylor gets all those teams" haven't been paying attention to the AC's annual struggle to fill two home FCS OOC games, the cost and the quality of opponents available at a single-game price of $100k +.

Your money. Obviously your choice. But will that really help a program you clearly support? No doubt a brutal schedule. B.R.U.T.A.L. I'll attend the games that fit my schedule but can't imagine this does anything to build interest among casual fans, especiailly with the team down south coming off a playoff run and returning a very good team next year. Are we simply economizing for our last transitional year, booking low-cost teams and hoping fans have their eyes on the Sky? The only positive -- and its a stretch -- is that perhaps a softer schedule allows a new quarterback and what again will be a very young team a chance to gain some game experience and perhaps build some confidence. A winning record in 2011 -- and I sure hope we will have one -- might be something that could be used to fuel some excitement, advertising-wise, going into the first year of the Big Sky. I agree, though, I'm not sure how a soft schedule next year realistically prepares this team for a full FCS slate.

.... Festivus! (Only makes sense for those who were around for Seinfeld) And I suppose someone should point out, regarding the "obsession" driving this thread, that the topic was started by .... a jackrabbit troller.

Always nice when the neighbors stop by for a visit.