NoiseInsideMyHead

I think it will work something like this...

In fairness to those following along, I think you need to qualify that statement by telling us the extent to which, if any, this site relies on any form of official or credentialed content whatsoever. Even if the proprietor of the site were credentialed and desired to remain so, the forums -- where the "play-by-play" accounts appear -- could easily be split off as a separate 'outlet' and not jeopardize the owner's status.

But not his credential. He's still a member of the working media and will continue to be treated as such. As would Schlossman if the same thing happened here. Unlimited and unfettered access was a vestige of a prior era. Quaint, but totally unrealistic.

But you haven't identified a single byte, frame, or millisecond of exposure that UND stands to lose. All NDSU fans are 'losing' is that pre-game shows will be filmed off-site, a different voice might be asking questions at interviews, and that they may have to change their radio presets. Big deal. If the Forum has any journalistic integrity at all, they won't punish fans by cutting coverage over sour grapes with NDSU. After all, the Forum needs eyeballs, too.

But here's the rub...my premise is that, just like at NDSU, UND's games stay on TV (although I will continue to attend in person, as well). UND Athletics has a strong presence of Twitter, and I expect they will continue to adapt to whatever new media come down the road. I have no doubt that SiouxSports.com and USCHO.com -- who both operate completely free of UND influence -- will continue to exist. And so long as Schlossman stays employed at the Herald, I can count on him to continue providing the level of hockey journalism he always has. I don't need the Herald, though. As a non-subscriber, I only read the free online content or whatever physical copies get left sitting in various lobbies and waiting rooms. So if the Herald put everything behind a pay wall tomorrow, I would get over it immediately. So, basically, that's the full extent of the coverage and exposure of UND that I consume and/or need. What more do you need? What more does anyone need?

Didn't say it was a great idea. Only that it was inevitable, and not the end of the world (as some seem to think). So long as games stay on TV, I could care less what UND does or does not put in its contracts. I am not in the media and I have no loyalty to any of their broadcast partners. Heck, I still miss Pat Sweeney.

Rest easy, Fargo...Grand Forks' Flying J is the new Detroit. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/4085087-man-found-dead-sunday-near-flying-j-grand-forks

There are only two kinds of schools: those who have sold their soul to the devil, and those chomping at the bit to. Up and down I-29, it's money that talks.

I think you're underestimating the passion of sports fans. They will find the content. And at the end of the day, do you really hope nobody consumes NDSU's product? Media shuffling to the chagrin of the public is nothing new. Look at the Big Ten Network. A lot of people laughed it off as a greedy money-grab by the conference and schools. Hundreds of thousands of loyal fans, accustomed to watching their teams on ABC/ESPN, were faced with a choice - pay for expanded cable, or not. At first, nobody even knew where BTN was on cable. In fact, many cable providers didn't even offer BTN, so they had to be lobbied. Did some fans bail? Probably. But a lot of people figured it out, and now it is a legitimate media player and reaches more homes than ever. Nobody knows how this will all shake out for NDSU in the end...but I certainly don't think it's the show-stopping controversy some are making it out to be. It's business, plain and simple.

You're confusing "coverage" with unlimited access. Exclusive media access went to the highest bidder. Everyone else can 'cover' all they want, but they have to play by the rules (which I gather had always been in place but were not enforced). The click-bait headlines and the Ports and McFeeleys are doing nothing but clouding the issue. Which is interesting, because they're all paid by Forum, who coincidentally got outbid for NDSU's media rights. Think about that for a minute. (Maybe it's no coincidence at all.)

You're precious. Now run along to the playground and let the adults visit some more.

Does anyone honestly believe that UND is immune from, or above, chasing money? The media industry is constantly evolving. It's only a matter of time.

No clue. How ironic is it that we need to rely on the media to inform us WTF is going on down there?

Difference of degree, not character. NDSU is selling media rights, and apparently there's a buyer. How is it any different?

NDSU has been on a five year media bender with more publicity than money can buy. I don't think there are too many viable markets that remain to be penetrated. If the media rights money is good, shouldn't they strike while the proverbial iron is hot?

Not getting all the outrage. How is this different than any of the megabuck media and broadcast deals that have defined sports for decades? Pretty much every sports property has been willing to trade exclusivity for money. Blackouts, embargoes, all of those things trace back to exclusive rights having been granted to singular entities. It's NDSU's events and venues...why should they be chastised for monetizing media access when that is the norm? Go ahead and try to broadcast your little, indie sports show from the grounds of the Super Bowl, Final Four, World Series, etc., and see what happens.

I'll just leave this here. http://deadspin.com/hey-come-look-at-this-hockey-teams-logo-before-they-ap-1784447220

Hyperbole, much? '12-'13 13-14, independent, ranked 47th nationwide in attendance '13-'14 8-26-2, 6th place B1G, ranked 8th nationwide in attendance (brand new arena) '14-'15 18-15-4, 4th place B1G, ranked 7th nationwide in attendance '15-'16 21-13-4, 3rd place B1G, ranked 7th nationwide in attendance, ranked 22nd in final USCHO poll Four D1 seasons, one transition year in a brand new league, two consecutive seasons of marked improvements in on-ice performance. Sioux fans have quite the warped view of success.

Chance? Willful blindness? Who knows? Are we talking about sales or visibility? Someone certainly has objective sales data, but perception is 100% anecdotal.

And no discussion about FH merchandise sales would be complete without taking into consideration the impact of the National Championship in April. Tons of NC items flooded the market, creating an attractive alternative to FH and having a direct impact on current inventory levels.

Setting aside whether a random Scheels employee has enough data or perspective to meaningfully comment about sales, it seems there are a few different hypotheses: 1. "Fighting Hawks" merchandise sales did not meet expectations because of lack of demand. 2. Demand was fine but Scheels ordered too much. 3. Scheels moved items (including back stock) to the "SALE" rack to accelerate turnover of inventory in anticipation of August release of new merchandise. Only (1) supports the notion that consumers rejected "Fighting Hawks." (2) and (3) -- both equally plausible in my mind -- are evidence of normal market forces.

If Toucan Sam had a sidekick...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/4076688-new-fedex-airport-facility-fargo-approved-tax-incentives-worth-660000 Amen. And I almost never agree with ND politicians. Does Fargo have anything that GF can steal?

Committees. They need committees. Oh, God, how they need committees. And facilitators. Can't forget the facilitators. Is SME available?