nodak651

Thanks. Was curious what the holdup was after the TIF stuff was passed because I haven't seen any of the permitting stuff go through yet. Haven't seen any new permits for any of the other TIF projects yet either. Hopefully they all get started soon.

Source?

is there a timeline for the building that replaces memorial stadium? When is that supposed to start?

Unds game at ndsu also had unds midco broadcast

Unless we're talking about team vaccination rate or Alerus center policy, can you just post it in a different thread? You know this will cause the discussion to drift away from football...

Same. I think we could raise a good chunk of money. Especially if some type of message about this were to be stickied on the ss home page.

I think in Noriega's tweet about UND he just said offer, and didn't mention scholarship or walk on.. my guess is the prep red zone guy just guessed if they were both walk-on offers, or maybe und threw a few thousand towards him, as we all know it isnt all or nothing. Moving on.... stealing this verbatim from AGS.... good luck to Zeb! "Update on ex-NDSU QB Zeb Noland: After initially hanging up his cleats and taking a GA position with South Carolina, Noland has un-hung(??) said cleats. It seems the Gamecocks presumptive starter went down with a foot injury in practice last week and the depth behind him was a true freshman, a walk-on and a 5th year transfer from St. Francis. Noland, as pretty much the only person in the 803 area code with remaining college eligibility and actual game experience, was quickly fitted for pads and is now in the mix to play vs. E Illinois on Sept. 4. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sp...253546169.html

Just embrace it. Things like that make life more interesting.

Starting to think that this so bad that it could be good... lol But I also think they should reviver thundar the bleacher creature for football games for on field entertainment with mike hawk at intermissions/commercial breaks, so that isnt saying much..

I don't think there's any reason to think they wouldn't renew the contract, unless FSN/Bally made some type of unexpected offer. There is somewhat of an existing relationship there, as they have aired a bunch of UND basketball/volleyball games, and they already air some NCHC hockey as well. I was more interested to see what the new UND/Midco contract looks like, or will look like, as we are getting about 300k per year from them. Curious to see how much that changes. Was also more curious about the learfield contract, because I don't know how our contract with them is structured, and they haven't done much for licensing since we began working with them, imo.

The media will not allow it.

I agree to an extent. I don't like the new name or logo, but what I HATE is the split in our fan base. Legitimately pisses me off. I've moved on and think others need to as well, and I go out of my way to support our current name/logo when it comes to referencing our teams or buying apparel, etc. Either way though tacky is tacky. I think it's ok to have a negative opinion about a statue without disrespecting current student athletes.

Which is "better" ?

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/grandforkscountynorthdakota 4th row down says 2020 census.

Based on what I've read about the estimate so far, this seems to be a surprise to the upside, correct?

Thanks for setting this up. Way to go everyone! Very impressive.

holy crap....

This is the 1979 interpretation that is now relevant in this case: 4. Application of the Policy - Selection of Sports. In the selection of sports, the regulation does not require institutions to integrate their teams nor to provide exactly the same choice of sports to men and women. However, where an institution sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex, it may be required either to permit the excluded sex to try out for the team or to sponsor a separate team for the previously excluded sex. a. Contact Sports - Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances: (1) The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and (2) There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team. What is the ratio of D1 mens and womens hockey players to youth hockey players of each respective sex? Assuming there is a higher % of D1 womens hockey players (compared to men), relative to youth participation, could UND successfully make the argument that opportunities have not been limited for women in D1 hockey?

Thanks for the link. The person who wrote the post that you linked to makes a lot of sense, but I'm pretty sure he is wrong about the former players making any argument, thus far, in regard to the 1979 interpretation. Whether or not that matters, I don't know, but I just want to make sure the facts are correct. I do agree with his opinion of the possible outcomes. On a separate note, UND seems to have already been cleared by the Department of Education's OCR in an investigation about this, which implies that the 1979 interpretation in regard to the separate teams rule is no longer relevant, imo. Or at the very least, it will make this very difficult for the plaintiffs to successfully argue. I found the text below, from the third opinion, to be very interesting: "This 1979 separate-teams mandate has largely disappeared from public view since it was issued. No court has relied on the mandate to find liability under Title IX. Neither the complaint nor the parties on appeal point to any instance in which the government has enforced the separate-teams mandate. According to the University, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigated a complaint that discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program violated Title IX, but closed its investigation without alleging a violation. By contrast, the Department repeatedly has addressed how an institution may comply with obligations under Title IX by meeting the Department’s three-part test.8" "Nor has the University yet presented evidence about OCR’s inquiry into the discontinuation of the women’s ice hockey program. If it turns out that the Department were to abandon the separate-teams mandate, and clarify definitively that the “effective accommodation” inquiry is limited to the three-part test and quality of competition, then that would change the complexion of this case. Or if the Department retains the separate-teams mandate “on paper” in a 43-year-old policy interpretation, but as a practical matter does not enforce the mandate, then there may be a serious question about whether the mandate is really a valid regulatory interpretation that provides a basis for civil liability or attorney’s fees in private litigation brought under an implied right of action." "Even if it ends up that the 1979 separate-teams mandate is a current and reasonable interpretation of § 106.41(c)(1), there is also a question of fair notice to the University. If the agency’s public pronouncements and enforcement activity have muddied the waters to the point where an institution is unable to identify the rules with “ascertainable certainty,” then the University may have a defense to liability and attorney’s fees based on due process. See Wis. Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 727 F.3d 700, 708-09 (7th Cir. 2013); Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328-31 (D.C. Cir. 1995). But such a defense would not establish at this point that the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim."

done!

Thanks. I thought they had a more recent extension so no wonder I couldnt find anything!

When do UND's deals with midco and learfield expire?

Depth chart for start of fall camp is up on UND's website.

Valpo has chosen the Beacons as their new nickname.