jdub27

Well, at least you can tell UND's is a hawk and it didn't need to come with a breakdown of what the logo actually was/represented....

I also recall you saying there was absolutely zero chance of UND joining the Summit/MVFC because they were going to the WAC despite people telling you they were actively pursuing it. IUPUI had a men's soccer team, which now puts both soccer and baseball at the bare minimum of schools that sponsor the sport. Those are the two sports that keep the league's autobids alive. I still can't tell if Douple is capable or lucky, seems like a nice enough guy but does little to instill confidence. Past actions aren't exactly comforting either.

A big, key difference: Easton Stick is from Omaha. Rutgers is in New Jersey and garbage. If Stick had turned down the in-state P5 school (Nebraska), I'd consider it a lot more comparable. Regardless, appears to be a talented kid. Obviously no one here knows why Iowa and ISU apparently cooled on him, but whatever it might have been looks like it could be NDSU's gain.

Clearly Kennedy (on the job for just over a year) and Sheila Stearns (current UM Interim President for the last 6 months) must have realized that people were on to the plan to move Montana to the Summit so they had Faison and Haslam slap together a contract for 7-8 years down the road to throw everyone off. For the record, I'm not saying something like this can't or won't happen (in fact I'd love if it did), I'm saying that there is currently no grand master plan to make it happen as we sit today. UND moving to the Summit/MVFC wasn't part of any greater plan than to reunite with the other Dakota schools and cut travel costs.

He actually does in this instance because they've already went through it once with baseball: The Summit was at 6 teams in 2013 but one of them was Omaha, who was not considered a full D-1 member, meaning they were really at 5. Oakland left after the 2014 season, so they were down to 5 (4 counters), making 2014 the second season the Summit was below the 6 eligible team threshold. Oral Roberts came back in 2015, putting them at 6 (5 counters) and the Summit received a waiver for the 2015 season as they had a plan to get back to the minimum of 6 (Omaha finally became eligible in 2016).

It seems a little bit gray but my interpretation is that in order to be eligible for automatic bids, a conference has to be considered a core conference, which requires it to be a multisport conference. There would obviously be waivers and extensions, but if a conference can't meet the definition, then it would seem at some point, they no longer would qualifying for the automatic bids.

If the other schools are added as affiliate members for hockey, wouldn't that cover it? I didn't see if there was a requirement for how many full members have to sponsor a sport, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was one. After IUPUI leaves, the Summit will have 6 soccer teams, but only 5 of them are full members (EIU as an affiliate), thus still in compliance.

Per the NCAA Manual: A conference that doesn't have football must sponsor at least two team sports, excluding basketball, in order to be considered an eligible conference and auto bids to national tournaments. Currently the Summit maintains its autobid on the men's side by sponsoring Soccer and Baseball. I would not be surprised to see UNC finally get accepted as an affiliate member for baseball if they are not looked at for a full time membership. This is were Douple dropped the ball big time a few years ago. Not sure if it would have saved UND baseball, but it definitely wouldn't have hurt their case.

They would have had to have been changed in 2015/16 or 2016/17 and there was no compelling reason to change them and even then, require 2/3's to go along with it. Unless you can actually provide hard proof, than there is zero reason to believe they changed. I also feel like any change would have been reported somewhere or at least on an agenda and would have been mentioned.

You're going to need to come up with a new theory that excludes the timeline you previously provided. Unless something changed in the last two years (which would require a 2/3's vote), that information is wrong. There is absolutely no distinction between the time periods for Olympic sports and football. From the 2014-2015 Big Sky Constitution:

It wasn't UND's choice to wait that long to join the MVFC, it was the MVFC. UND wanted to join both at the same time but for various reasons, they were denied. FOIA emails published by the Herald verify this ss UND was pushing to get in sooner. The Big Sky threw UND a lifeline by giving them a two year scheduling alliance. I've never seen a different requirements for different sports, can you provide a link to that? UND will not technically be a member of the Big Sky for football next year, so I'm pretty sure your info is wrong. The Big Sky had a right to charge an exit fee but since UND acted in good faith and kept them in the loop, it was waived as their entry contract stated it would be.

Both schools along with UNI had stopped recruiting him.

I believe the only two that had UND offers were Enz from Wisconsin and Ogbu from Bismarck.

Can we just have a moderator check the IP's and end this stupid charade?

UND wanted to sign a home/home. What they were offering UND as "pay" to play a one time game in Brookings wasn't worth it.

No, the numbers show he actually does worse with the exact same team in front of him....

You've been waiting how long to let that out......? No one in Grand Forks is selling this game as anything but a body bag game while I seem to remember the Fargo media pumping up Valpo like they were the next coming because they were a "D-1" team. But regardless, you obsession is amusing to the rest of us.

At this point, it becomes the developer's risk, though I would guess you'll find a little bit of crossover. They are the one's putting their money on the line, not the voters, who actually come out slightly ahead since they don't have to pay for the Park District to keep up the lot now.

I agree. Glad to see common sense win out on this one. I wonder how many of the "yes" votes could have told you where Arbor Park actually was a month or two ago, let alone today.

So you admittedly spend very little time there yet dismiss the opinions of people who work and live down there because it would benefit them in various ways? I guess I'm not following the logic on that one.

Reading between the lines, her idea of what her job was/should be would was significantly different than what the majority of people would think is appropriate. When using terms like "much broader", "institution-wide" and "big-picture", it seems like her belief was to have a say in everything on campus.

Need's to be that long to get everyone a look when you jam as many kids as you can into it. Kudos for them for getting that many kids on campus for an extended period of time I guess.

Reserved spots = guaranteed revenue for the athletic department, thus the reason they aren't going away. However it sounds like they are open to some sort of tweaks, which is nice to hear.

It is significantly larger than other two lots that are on the same block, one of which does not have the alley access that is required for the project. The fact that you think other lots might be comparable (they aren't) has zero bearing on what the people who are looking to invest millions of dollars into downtown want to do or need to make a successful investment for them and Grand Forks.