nodak651

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.

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.

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?