krangodance

that's become the clear case. i think we're just all so anxious to know whether or not those of us with directv will be able to see the games that we're going around and around on this hoping for some clarification that isn't available yet. i hope it's on and i just with directv would post something somewhere containing their schedule for 617, 623, and any other channel that doesn't currently show a schedule. after all, the game is on in two days and they're still not letting us know if it will be on.

thank you. exactly what i've been saying. somehow that was turned into me saying 617 was a regional channel.

don't mis-quote me. i never said 617 was a regional channel. i said fox sports net has like 14 regional sports channels and live events not on these can sometimes be found on channel 617. i got this information straight from foxcollegesports.com and posted the text from their site.

at any rate... the one fcs channel on directv plays live events chosen from the three fcs channels. the event chosen is different depending on your region, which is the smart way to do it if you're only going to offer one channel. here's what's on the other two fcs channels during the sioux game: arizona high school football replay pac-10 women's volleyball southland conference football replay big 12 football replay the only live event the sioux will have to compete against for air time is pac-10 women's volleyball. since it's regional, i would imagine those of us living in the five state area would see north dakota hockey before pac-10 volleyball. in fact, i doubt anybody with directv will see pac-10 women's volleyball because i doubt directv or fcs would deem that as more of crowd draw than college hockey. then again, lacrosse anyone?

i was never talking about dish network to begin with. this was about directv

again, straight from the fcs web site: Most Fox College Sports programming is available on the Fox regional sports networks just because it's labelled fsn or some other variation of fox regional sports network and not fcs doesn't mean they may not show it on one of those channels.

straight from foxcollegesports.com: Great news! DIRECTV offers great college sports options from Fox! Most Fox College Sports programming is available on the Fox regional sports networks, which are included in DIRECTV's Sports Pack. In addition, select Fox College Sports programming that is not available on any of the regional sports networks can usually be found on channel 617. Call DIRECTV at 800-DIRECTV to get subscription details. there are 14 fox regional sports networks on directv (there might be some cross-over because of hd vs sd feeds). i imagine between those channels and channel 617, directv subscribers should get most, if not all, of the fssn feeds. fcs has never had a contract like this with one specific college hockey team. they do show plenty of college hockey, but this is the first time there's been a deal with one team like this. that being the case, it would seem strange to me for them to work out this contract and then not show the games on one of their 15 channels available to directv subscribers. in my experience, if it's showing on comcast, it's showing on directv. whereas, if it's showing on directv, there's a small chance it's showing on comcast. since comast will be getting all these games, i'm confident directv will show them all as well. only time will tell though i guess.

plus, if you're an nfl fan, you'll get those five or six games they show later in the season on thursdays and saturdays on the nfl netowrk.

it's not over til it's over and it's not over. i simply do not agree that not playing um in 2012, if that would have happened either way, is a negative. if we ever play them and i can make the game, then i'll probably go. if we never play them, oh well. are you simply choosing not to comprehend this stance that i've repeated several times now or is it really that hard for you to believe that anybody wouldn't give a damn about gopher football?

terrified! what does fear even have to do with my response? the real issue is that the ncaa, along with a host of other organizations, are using hate mongering, which is working well on folks such as yourself, to try and guilt trip people into making unnecesarry concessions. if the two major north dakota tribes are allowed to speak and they both approve of the nickname's use, then clearly the assertion that the name and logo are being used in a hurtful manner is nothing more than a guilty conscience on the part of people such as yourself who's brains, upon viewing such things as the und logo or hearing such words as "sioux", automatically make a racist connection, which speaks volumes about the individual making that connection. letting an organization like the ncaa push anybody around is weak and it's always worth fighting against such organizations before things spin out of control. it's always important to maintain checks and balances when dealing with the powers that be. you don't care about the und logo and that's fine, but to assert that nobody should care is an extremely closed-minded stance. i'm sure there are things you care about and would fight for even though others wouldn't care less about whatever those things might be. your mentality says that, unless there's a global agreement on what's important, then nothing is worth fighting for, nothing is worth defending. i don't agree with that. i think even the smallest things are worth fighting for if they're important to somebody, which our name and logo are to me and many others. it certainly isn't up to you to decide what we should care about. i think this "tangent" is pertinent to the topic because i can safely say that the large majority of sioux fans would much rather keep our logo than ever play umn in football. like i said, there's a lot of much better teams out there, such as tt.

thanks for the recap...again.

brutal, but honest.

even if he was the sole policy maker, it's not like he fire-bombed homeless people, then jerked off on their corpses here. the wish for one to "rot in hell" should be reserved for the most vile among us, unless of course you don't believe in hell, but then again, why would you even use the expression? unless it's just become a figure of speech for you. damn, i'm arguing with myself again.

no act. goofs suck. if everything works out and we get to keep the name, umtc will still invite us and we'll play them. however, like i said, if we never play them ever, no sweat off my balls. we'll just go play a good d1-a team instead and let those cute little gophers take their mindless, un-informed stand. they really are trailblazers at that university, aren't they?

oh, no need to pretend. i did forget that the goofs have that new stadium though, that might be kind of cool. i'll certainly go watch the badgers smack them around on their home turf once they open the gates on that place and if und ever played them, it would be fun to go to the game, but it's not worth changing our nickname over. i can live my whole life happily without ever playing the gophers in football.

if the name changes before the ncaa established deadline while the tribes are still trying to get a vote in, then i can blame them and i will blame them. what's best for the university is to allow things to play out rather than making rash decisions.

oh that would be so sweet. travel to the state-of-the-art metrodome, park 3 miles away, and sit in a nearly empty arena for some awesome football against one of the worst teams in d1-a. oh, but maybe texas, usc, florida, and the likes are all just waiting for the nickname change so they can come banging on our door for a chance to play us. i suppose you'd blow off texas tech to have a chance to play the mighty gophers? more blah, blah, blah.

nope, i wondered the same thing.

all tremble before the mighty "big universities". do as they say! or else! maintain the status quo. do not fight the powers that be. submit! submit! submit! give up now! your only options are conformity or death!!!!

i'm guessing there isn't enough time for the ncaa to change it's position on this matter.

it's quite clear that every fan site's posts declares that their rival or rivals are the worst, most biligurent, most classless fans in the world. that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be. that being the case, it's impossible to decide which team's fans truly are the most annoying and least classy. fact is, every team has a percentage of annoying fans and good fans. my guess is that those percentages are pretty consistent across the board, regardless of what team you're talking about. the sioux fans and bison fans on here who claim that their fans are the best and the other team's fans are classless and moronic would have the reverse view if they were a fan of the other team. that's simply the way it is and it makes clear sense that it would be that way. of course everybody wants to be associated with the "good" guys, just as everybody would like to believe that their closest rivals possess a fanhood of troublemakers and imbiciles. you see the same thing in fraternities, branches of the military, competing companies in a given industry and, of course, in world relations. for this reason, you won't see me posting something on a rival team's message board bashing them for being crappy fans and declaring that the fans of my team are far superior, like some kind of retard who actually believes that, somehow, all the "good fans" just happened to flock toward my team and all the "crappy fans" somehow ended up rooting for my team's rival. therefore, i don't understand why this message board is constantly bombarded with fans of other teams, one specifically, who's only goal is to talk trash about the sioux. if you're one of these people, i'm curious, do you really believe that people who root for und athletics are just, by some giant, impossible coincidence, all jerks and poor fans? honestly, do you believe that is possible? i only ask because that certain percentage of annoying, biligurent fans i referenced early...well, if you're on another team's fan site bashing the fans of that team, then you're likely in that percentage of your team's fans. ironic, isn't it?

i guess that depends on who you ask: http://www.nokiasugarbowl.com/Football_Tea...ball/15050.html

well, i'm glad to note that i'm not the only person who saw the obvious notre dame rip-off.

yeah, it does look pretty modern though, which takes away from the old-timey look you'd expect from a university as old as und. i think it's fine, though. it'll probably be old-timey looking in ten years anyways and at least we're not blantantly copying notre dame anymore.

nope. und is the flagship university. no question.