NoiseInsideMyHead

https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/4885173-ND-public-entities-spend-big-on-travel-using-purchasing-cards Another meandering, pointless Forum Communication hit piece that supposedly was intended to gin up anger against public employees - and especially UND and NDSU sports. Does this company realize that those athletic programs are responsible for probably 90% of their hits, clicks, traffic, and revenue? Why keep this campaign going? On top of everything, I'm not sure the writer had enough information, or context, to even make a point.

Good Lord...they're 12-3 and in first place in the East by 4 points. Hardly a crisis.

That inbox...

https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/weather/4873960-Grand-Forks-has-gotten-more-than-4-feet-of-snow-so-far-this-winter

The Blaine-Blake outdoor HS game earlier Saturday on FSNorth not only had UND paid spots, but UND sponsored the drone cam, too. Not sure if UND supplied the drone or pilots, but the campaign was nicely on-message.

Your rants are all over the map. I specifically addressed "current practices" and you want to talk about the 60s and 70s. Let's agree that compliance and enforcement were lax 30-40 years ago. Does that alone justify letting athletes get paid for name and likeness now? What about current practices is deficient? Are you suggesting that it's still the wild west? How many pay-to-play scandals since, say, SMU have been provable but ignored, or botched, by the NCAA? Even more to the point of my statement, do you feel that the soon-to-be reality of letting schools try to sort out which payments are legit is preferable to the zero tolerance model that we're about to wind down?

And how much did you report to compliance? How much did compliance investigate? Are you suggesting the schools were complicit? That the NCAA was arbitrary or selective in enforcement? The fact that it happened does not mean there was evidence that could be proven up. Or that more than a fraction was ever reported via the proper channels. You’re generous with hyperbole, but stingy with analysis.

Arguably, the rules were never about fairness or equity, but were put in place to prevent runaway corruption or worse. High-profile sanctions suggest that the system can work, though we can certainly debate specific outcomes and enforcement levels. Most of the anecdotal knowledge about under-the-table deals for star athletes is either fantasy, urban legend, or incapable of proof under current compliance practices. A zero-tolerance model seems harsh, but it’s perhaps preferable to one that now forces schools to try and decipher between bona fide commercial activity and sham transactions. On the plus side, I think that the increase in income tax collections for Uncle Sam will help the economy. This is a 2-way street, and Joe QB may end up regretting the sunlight on his cozy deals with boosters and used car lots.

Anybody else seeing the smudge on the left center of the camera lens? Obvious against the ice...thought it was the puck a second ago. Now there are two.

When was the last time both GF schools lost on the same day?

This issue is a strange fit for popular elections; the vocally offended are almost always going to be in the minority. The anonymity of the ballot box makes it incredibly easy for people to vote their conscience (PC be damned) and I think we all know how over broad prohibitions based solely on one view of social injustice/inequality will fare. Kind of makes one wonder...how would the NCAA's policy - enacted broadly (can't remember if unanimous) by the Association's members - have fared in a popular vote in ANY of the individual jurisdictions where the voting members resided? Is there a single state, city, county, or precinct that would have supported it? Even in 'liberal' college towns?

Rough night for the REA graphics team. Threw up an ADMINISTATIVE on a Hockey Fights Cancer fundraising screen after showing a bunch of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts with the caption WECOME SCOUTS. But I do think the HFC campaign came off nicely. F*** cancer.

Doctor: Tell me again, why do you want synthetic ice in your uterus?

I believe in my heart that 'Brad the Counselor' knows all too well that a large number of overly zealous people are following him very closely and that he views it as his solemn duty to the community to manage public expectations - and emotions - responsibly. With this fan base, you can't be too careful. Expect a split, get a sweep...it's equal parts elating and soothing. Expect a sweep, and don't...break out the pitchforks and riot police.

https://t.co/XnYsJsnRka?amp=1

Laviolette axed in Smashville. Or is it smashed in Axeville?

Sorry if a repost, but this made me laugh a little.

NHL Network radio on SiriusXM online has the radio feed. Better than nothing.

The GF Herald stretching the definition of "UND connections" to unbelievable extremes, damn near the breaking point. https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/4845677-When-Mark-Kennedy-was-named-president-at-U-of-Colorado-he-was-chosen-ahead-of-others-with-UND-connections One "connection" had no such connection at the time, the other was a one-time commencement speaker who may not have even had that on her calendar when she applied. #clickbait

11:30 eastern, 10:30 central.

Like one sticker for every 5 students left after halftime?

Oh, the irony.

Child? Sounds like you're deflecting. It's about damn time this 'fan base in denial' undertakes some meaningful introspection; sometimes the glances into the mirror are the hardest ones. Cheers!

Pandering to the lowest common denominator? That's where the character gets called into question. The kid should take the high road and show some class, or at least some awareness that he understands that life isn't always fair.

Maybe. But the kid apparently lacks any grasp on reality or the ability to accept simple facts he finds unpleasant. Just like so many on here, the pathetic tantrum goes on, year after year after year. Hope he gets his wife's name right at their wedding.