fightingsioux4life

Time for a big defensive stand. Hold them to 3.

Big pass completion to the UND 11 yard line. We have to have better 3rd down defense than this! End of First Quarter SE LA 7 UND 0 This one could get away from us in a hurry.

3rd and 9 coming up for the Lions. Let's go D.

Good pass coverage forces incompletion for Lions. 2nd and 10.

The defense has to step up and make something happen. We have to get a spark here.

Trenbeth for 10 yards and a First Down.

Touchdown Southeast Louisiana. Weird play puts us behind on the road. PAT good. 3:56 left in first quarter SE LA 7 UND 0

39 yard completion, First and Goal SE LA at the 7.

More audio problems! 3rd and 9 for Lions.

2nd and 9 coming up for SE LA.

They might not have a good vantage point to watch the action. And the officiating has been scatterbrained at best.

6:31 left in first quarter. No score.

Freund intercepted. Time for the D to step up.

Alex Nicholas to the 38 on 3rd down. First and 10 U-N-D!

Officiating crew is having trouble sorting this out. North Dakota will start at their own 25 yard line.

Time for the defense to step up.

Freund incomplete to Blair Grover.

Brady to the 46 yard line. Third down coming up.

Murray rushes for 2 yards. 2nd and 8 coming up.

Jake Caufield into SE LA territory. First down!

Josh Murray to the UND 38 yard line.

Here is the link to our list of live events available on SIOUXtra. I just signed up and set up an account: https://www.nmnathletics.com/liveEvents/liv...db_oem_id=13500 Hope this helps.

Well, here we go! Another tough road game against a pretty good DI FCS team. The 9 days we have had off should help tremendously, but we'll soon find out if it's enough to get another "W". Prediction UND 27 SE LA 24 GO SIOUX!!!

No offense because you are a true supporter of the Fighting Sioux name and logo and the University of North Dakota, but your post is a microcosm of what is wrong with the current relationship between REA and UND. When Ralph Engelstad decided to build this arena, I think he envisoned an arena that would serve the interests of his alma mater and help make the athletic department stronger and more competitive. And what have we seen during the past seven years? Students treated like third class citizens (behind suiteholders and season ticketholders, in that order), clashes between former head coach Dean Blais and REA management, tighter athletic department budgets and chronic deficits despite the pre-construction promise of REA becoming a "cash cow" for the athletic department and the continued watering-down of the game-time atmosphere to almost Mariucci proportions. I don't think this is what Ralph had in mind when he traveled all around the United States to get ideas for this marvelous facility. And I am tired of our fans glossing these issues over like they don't matter. You are right, REA is a $110 million gift of which all of us are grateful for. But a gift by definition is supposed to be just that, a gift. It should benefit the recipient, not just the people who manage it. It should serve the interests of the recipient, not just the interests of the people who are managing it. And those are qualities that are lacking in the REA-UND relationship as it stands today. The REA-UND relationship should be a symbiotic one; REA makes money (and subsequent profits) off of the talents and efforts of UND athletes and coaches via our season ticket purchases and concession sales and UND gets a fabulous recruiting tool for it's Men's and Women's Hockey programs (I am excluding The Betty for the purposes of this discussion) and a big chunk of the proceeds. But this seven year relationship has seemed to be tilted in favor of REA over UND by a considerable margin. In short, instead of REA serving UND, UND has been serving REA. And that is just not right. As a season ticket holder, Fighting Sioux Club member and longtime booster of all things Fighting Sioux, I often feel like my opinions and concerns don't matter to REA management. And a lot of fans (not just students) have expressed similar concerns on this forum and in other media outlets. My suggestion to file suit against REA was purely hypothetical, we don't know what will happen over the next couple of years. And I would hope that such a harsh action will not be necessary. But like I said earlier, this case would be a good acid test to determine if REA management really is interested in serving the interests of UND athletics and the campus in general or only their own interests, which has generally been the case for the past seven years. In short, philantrophy does not erase the need for responsibility and accountability. My 2 cents (again).

We cannot afford to handcuff the football program with those sanctions; football is one of the main reasons we moved up to D-I in all sports in the first place. Football will have a legitimate opportunity to win national titles and to have a legitimate chance of making a run, you have to be able to host playoff games. Home field is more important in football than in any other sport. If we do what you're suggesting, we might as well move to non-scholarship DI FCS football and join Valpo's conference, because we won't get the blue chip FCS recruits anymore. As for REA refusing to cooperate with a possible name change, I am not a legal expert (nor do I have any desire to become one), but aren't the Fighting Sioux name and logo the legal property of the University of North Dakota? That is, anyone who wants to use the name and logo has to have the permission of UND or else UND can take action against said person or entity. So if the State Board decided to change the name and UND told REA to stop using the name and logo, REA would have a legal obligation to comply or face certain legal consequences. This would be an excellent acid test to find out if REA really exists to serve UND's interests and promote it's general welfare or if it's really the other way around. Somehow, I think the potential long-term benefits of being able to host future regionals and other tournaments (and the profit potential of those tournaments) would outweigh the short-term costs of removing the logos. But I'm not in the minds of REA management, so I can't be sure about that. Some people would take the position that "we just can't sue REA over this". Well, I think we can and we should if it comes down to the scenario I described above. REA just relishes the fact that they are a private entity; then they should be treated like one. Being a "business" and a "private entity" is a double-edged sword, like a lot of other things in this world. Just my 2 cents.