nodak651

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.

It's worth the read IMO. https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/192517P.pdf

If we raised 8k last fall, think we could have a shot at getting 25k for a named scholarship endowment in her name?

There's a time and place for jokes like this, and this is neither, given that Bubbas mother just passed and that the news was just announced in this thread, in which someone is also starting a memorial for her. Sorry to hear you can't get it up, though. But that doesn't really come as a surprise - try cutting back on the whiskey.

Seems like this is where the aquarium should be built.

I'm posting a link to a Utah State blog that has a bunch of good info on what they look like going into fall camp, with projected depth charts and info on each of the projected starters. It looks like their CB's seem to be on the smaller side - hopefully guys like Maag will be able to use their size to their advantage. https://bigblueusuaggienews.com/2021/08/04/2021-usu-football-preseason-preview-cornerback/ PROJECTED PRESEASON DEPTH CHART CORNERBACK LEFT 14 Zahodri Jackson (5-10, 185, Sr., 3L, 3*) 21 Andre Grayson (5-8, 175, Sr., 3L, 2*) 7 Xavion Steele (5-9, 170, Sr., 1L, 3*) 22 Mike Anyanwu (5-9, 170, Jr., 2L, 2*) RIGHT 1 Kyle Mayberry (5-10, 180, GR-Sr., TR, 3*) 6 Cam Lampkin (5-10, 170, Jr., 2L, 3*) 2 Terin Adams (5-11, 180, GR-Sr., 1L, 3*) 00 Shawn Gates (6-0, 175, Fr., HS, 3*) 39 Jaden Smith (5-9, 175, Jr., SQ, NR)

Is UND's new partnership with Space Force a big deal? https://news.yahoo.com/und-become-first-university-nation-003100045.html

I disagree with the stadium issue. Given the current size, they can leverage ticket scarcity by keeping ticket prices high while still bein able to effectively sell out every game and have an awesome atmosphere. I don't see how a bigger stadium is needed at all when they already generate more ticket sales than any school in the MAC, Sun Belt, or CUSA, not to mention half of the MWC. They can renovate the dome to add suites or club seats as well, so $200 million for a new stadium seems like a hell of risk to me -- for what reward? I'd really like to see a hypothetical financing/business analysis on this. Also, disregarding any financial risk, the home field advantage at the new stadium would undoubtedly be worse, which I believe would actually cost NDSU W's at some point. It's a TOUGH place to play at for a road team... we've all seen it. I'll refrain from comparing the Fargo Dome to the basketball arenas at Gonzaga or Duke, but you get the point.

Not sure if it's a hot take, but I think BOTH lines are going to be better.

https://knoxradio.com/2021/08/03/gg-council-keeps-aquarium-plans-afloat/ With some hesitancy the Grand Forks council voted last night (Monday) to continue discussions with a company looking to locate an ecosystem aquarium at the Grand Cities Mall. The proposed site for the 17,000 square foot SeaQuest would be the former Kmart building. One of the hurdles is a potential $1 million dollar subsidy to seal the deal. Mayor Brandon Bochenski says it’s a big “ask” that needs more assessment. “I am not a huge fan of having public money involved in these projects but something has to start the growth.” Continued....

What would Brown do?

I think you can add ISU. They aren't really a cakewalk and they put up some good offensive numbers this spring. Nearly beat EWU and UC Davis and their other two losses were to Weber. Not sure who they have returning. https://isubengals.com/sports/football/schedule/2020

NDSU is having a similar problem to UND with students not showing up. This comparison here is between NDSU football and UND hockey, to be specific. Both have top programs in the country and both are having student attendance issues. I believe NDSU recently removed one of their student sections like UND did for hockey at the Ralph. A lack of students could partially account for reduced attendance. I don't have a point here - it's just an interesting comparison to me. I think part of NDSU's issue is that their success has come almost too easy, which makes winning less rewarding, which can cause complacency and also hinder attendance. This is part of the reason I like following UND football more than hockey... a lot of people like rooting for an underdog, or at least accomplishing a feat that isn't pretty much pre determined. In regard to the Fargo Dome, I don't think a new stadium is needed for NDSU to be successful at the FBS level. It provides a HUGE home field advantage, and ticket scarcity in comparison to a new stadium allows NDSU to support higher ticket prices. If it's hard to get a ticket, people are more likely to go when they get the chance as well. Just look at the dozens of half empty FBS stadiums around the country to prove my point... a lot of these schools are also selling tickets for about half the price. NDSU doesnt need the bigger stadium when their annual ticket sales are already much higher than most G5 schools as it is. They could instead take that stadium money and put it into travel costs and women's sports. The Dakota schools, Montanas, UNI, Illinois State all have athletic departments that fit the FBS profile. These schools generate more ticket sales and donations on average than most G5 schools, the main difference is the smaller buy-game payouts, no CFB championship revenue, and no TV deal. If any of these schools move FBS, they will always have conference stability issues unless they are in the same conference. They are all very similar schools in the North, and the only reason they aren't all FBS already is Geography. The rivalries are important for NDSU's fan base as well. The Dakotas playing together at the same level as the G5 schools is inevitable - it may not happen tomorrow, but geography and finances = G5... together, though it may take ten plus years to play out.

For anyone interested in the finances for the athletic departments at the D1 schools around the country (fbs & fcs), this list is GOLD. Matt Brown, who broke the news on the Southland/WAC realignment, put together a directory that contains the athletic department financial reports for nearly every school in the country. These are the reports that schools are typically obtained through FOIA requests, which schools are required to send to the NCAA each year. The reports contain a bunch of detail on revenues and expenses for each sport at most of the schools. Disclaimer: some of the data occasionally needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Posting this now because it is relatively new, but it's also very relevant, given the potential for conference realignment. https://www.extrapointsmb.com/foia-directory/

Montana and Montana State. Montana State has surpassed Montana as THE school in the state. MSU is trending towards doubling the enrollment of Montana. I think both together, rather than Idaho, would be most likely in this scenario.

UND has some significant challenges when it comes to FBS. The first is the Alerus center capacity - I'm pretty sure the sound end can be blown out and renovated, but not sure on the cost or how much additional attendance it would net. The second is its deal with the REA, and the REA taking such a huge cut of ticket sales, with no clear guidelines on how much profit gets sent back to UND after the REA puts most of it in it's piggy bank. Did anyone see any announcements on how much money the REA allocated to UND this past year, by the way? Pretty sure it's supposed to be a minimum of 500k annually, but I don't recall seeing an announcement. Football revenue needs to flow back to football if UND ever does move to FBS. UND also needs to do a better job of marketing - why is everything available for purchase either hockey apparel (without the hawk logo) or a generic UND/Fighting Hawks shirt? UND has got to do a better job of marketing it's football program, and apparel is a huge part of that. There's no reason my high school has more football shirts for sale than a D1 football team with nearly a 10k attendance average. Also, PHASE TWO!! Phase two appears to have stalled, similar to the Gateway project when Chaves was at EWU. Not a fan of Chaves at the moment.

Punctuation is key here.

This would be a great "get" for grand forks - especially with the lack of things to do during the winter - although I would rather see them build at the Columbia mall. The grand cities mall should be torn down and redeveloped, imo. Sea Quest is popular and well liked a the Rosedale mall in the Twin Cities. My wife was there recently and she commented on how busy it always is. It has an impressive google rating at 4.7 stars with almost 3.5K reviews. Not sure anything in Grand Forks can match that except maybe the Ralph.