fightingsioux4life

There's a lot of hockey left to be played son. Don't use all your ammo up at once.

Look out SWSiouxMN, you'll be accused of wanting a "gold-plated version" of D-I athletics. For the record, I agree with you 100%

Isn't that a rip-off of the Presidential Seal?

I'm talking about that sad sack team they put on the ice last year. And you know what I am talking about.

Ralph Engelstad built REA (and the BESC) to benefit UND athletics and UND as a whole. He didn't build it so that it would benefit a small group of executives. And I do believe that most (if not all) of our fans that post on here contribute to our athletic programs and our academic programs. I know I have contributed to both. So yes, I can and will say what I think our programs need to be competitive at the D-I level, which is a whole different ballgame than D-II. Also, I didn't "demand" REA make any investments. What I objected to was CM's assertion that we shouldn't talk about what our programs need because it involves "other people's money". Well, some of that money came out of our pockets in ticket revenue, concession revenue, ect. So those "other people" are (in part) everyone that goes to games in REA and BESC. That whole complex is one big sea of red ink without the fans buying tickets and concession food once they are in the door. And that needs to be pointed out sometimes, especially to those that have some sort of reverence to REA and REA, Inc. Also, it is worth noting that REA didn't have problems coming up with money to upgrade the video boards in the main arena a couple of years ago. Or replace all the old TV sets in the concourses with flat screens. So there are obviously revenue streams available for upgrades and necessary maintenance. And I for one will not be shy about saying what I think we need to be competitive in the Big Sky and as a mid-major D-I program. I know we haven't been D-I all that long, but we are losing ground to NDSU several important areas and I am sick of hearing all their crowing. And I do think it has a negative impact in recruiting, sponsorships, fan support and so on. If all these things are "grand improvements" that we cannot afford, then maybe the move up to D-I wasn't as well planned as it should have been. I am a person that wants to do it right or not do it at all. Any questions?

Is this a subtle message for us to shut up? Well, I don't plan on taking that advice. All of us on siouxsports.com give to this university and this athletic department in varying ways (season tickets, Champion's Club donations, etc.). So I think we have the right to say what want about whatever is happening with UND sports. Any questions?

You must remember, FU fans already think Fargo = Minneapolis, so the next logical step is to promote the pipe dream of FU = B1G or FU=Big 12. I think the Sun Belt is the most logical home for an FBS FU team and that is bottom of the barrel. If FU is smart (yeah, I know, oxymoron), they'll stick to FCS.

But I think he is to blame for ruining Michigan football. And you just don't talk to fans and alums like he did. If he was still employed, I am thinking he would tell fans to shut up and get over what happened today. Faison has his flaws, but at least he has more respect for the fans than this toolbox did.

But according to Michigan's former AD, if fans don't like the state of the teams, they should just find another school to root for. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/10/dave_brandon_the_resignation_of_michigan_s_villainous_athletic_director.html Based on this article, today's result shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Brandon effectively ran Michigan's programs into the ground. Good luck to whomever is hired to clean the mess up.

Nice comeback!

Wow, I guess the Roughriders are back.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

^^^^^This!^^^^^

My point is that the day has come. There is now a clear division between the P5 and G5 schools in FBS. The P5 schools will likely begin paying stipends to their athletes and the G5 schools won't be able to keep up with that. Being labeled FBS doesn't make you big-time, which is why UND and NDSU should avoid the tempation to move up under the current format. This is the "Idaho Syndrome": We aren't FBS caliber, but that is what our alumni and boosters want to hear, so we'll just stick with it and finish 2-9, 1-10 (with the occasional 6-5 season) on a regular basis. I was just guessing as to how it could be divided up; however it happens, it will happen and schools will have to decide where they belong.

So you really believe that the P5 and G5 schools can co-exist peacefully when the former group has a huge advantage in resources (financial and otherwise) and the latter group will never be able to compete? Sorry, that situation isn't sustainable. Just junk the asinine FBS and FCS names and rank schools in 5 Divisions based on resources. That's how it's going to shake out anyway, might as well embrace it.

But isn't this a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Should the teams have to win more to get the upgrades or will the upgrades help the teams more?

I have pointed this out myself several times.....and gotten flamed for doing so each and every time.

Might as well do it now. Five Division I conferences (FBS P5), five Division II conferences (FBS G5), Division III (FCS), Division IV (D-2) and Division V (D-3). Scholarships could be as follows: Division I (100), Division II (80), Division III (60), Division IV (40), Division V (0). Division I and II could each have an 8 team playoff field, Divisions III-V could just keep what they have right now. Yeah, I know, makes too much sense!

Honestly, both the Slummit and the Big Sky are 1-bid leagues. I just like the schools in the Big Sky better than the ones in the Slummit.

Yeah, but Montana still looks like Siberia to 18 to 24 year olds who are not from there. And I would argue that North Dakota is not nearly as desolate as Montana is.

No we are not the same person. But we often see eye to eye on things. What is your point?

Another person who just doesn't get it.

You are missing the point. When NDSU (a peer institution by any measure) can go to the NCAA tournament twice since becoming playoff eligible (including in their first season of eligibility) and consistently beat and/or gives high-major programs a run for their money, it debunks a lot of the excuses that some in our fan base are making for the Men's program. UND and NDSU have some of the same problems to overcome (weather, geography, one-bid conference affiliation, ect), but only one of these schools is having success and we both know which one it is. While NDSU puts together signature wins and contends for the NCAA tournament, UND works hard to punch their ticket to the CIT. If you don't have a problem with that, that is your perrogative. I for one expect more.

And people wonder why fans are cynical about the Twins. Hunter is as old as the hills in baseball years but hey, it is a "small market" franchise so this is just how it is, right? Funny, that wasn't the song they were singing when they were begging for public funds for Target Field. Look for new record low attendance figures at Target Field in 2015. Maybe that will send ownership and management a message about how crappy the product is.

I believe the whole Osborne debate started when you suggested that Bo Pelini should not have been fired by Nebraska. And I contended (and still contend) that comparing Osborne and Pelini is apples and oranges. Would I have fired Osborne way before 1994 came around? I would say no. Would I be critical of his teams losing big games on a regular basis? Yes I would. And that is the situation we have with Hakstol right now. As for how we should define success (national titles vs. regular season wins), that is a dilemma Gopher fans debated (quite heatedly, IIRC) during the 1980's and 90's. Would I want a bunch of losing teams and then one or two NCAA title teams? No I would not. But I would contend that scenario is the exception rather than the rule (and yes, yes, I know all about Duluth in 2011 and Wisconsin in 2006). On the other side of it, would I want a bunch of winning teams that fall short over and over and over again despite having world-class talent more years than not? No, but that is what we have right now. Hakstol is 1-5 in five trips to the Frozen Four. If the team is good enough to get there, why all the failures on the biggest stage in the entire sport (some of which were very hard to watch, btw). That is what some of our fans cannot figure out (including me). It isn't about "hating" Hakstol, it's about getting over that hump for the first time in almost 15 years. In closing, do I think "nattys" are all that matter? No, but they can and should be a part of the success of a storied, tradition-rich program like ours. The notion that national titles aren't "realistic" anymore and that we should just feel satisfied with "being there" is what infuriates me and others on this forum. As a kid in the 1980's and a college student in the 1990's, our fans were very disappointed when one of our championship-caliber teams failed to win a "natty". I remember 1998 and the crushing loss to Michigan; I believe a good portion of our fan base chose not to attend the Frozen Four. I sense that this level of passion does not exist in our fan base anymore. We have mellowed and have been conditioned to accept being "participants" in the NCAA tournament instead of winning it once in a while. I have not mellowed that much and I hope I never do. End rant.