IowaBison

Thanks for bringing this up, lawkota. The ranking is pretty accurate (Conrad's a little low). I worked on the Senate side of the Hill for a while. Pomeroy is a nobody. There aren't many reps on the radar, but he certainly isn't. My old boss is number 4 on the Senate side.

NDSU will accept the first conference to offer membership, no doubt in my mind.

NDSU's five year plan, which is nearly complete, was to get to $10 million per year. Interesting that the Herald uses the $10 million budget number which according to the task force report included about $3 million in one time expenses. I'd imagine that UND's budget will likely have to be at least $2 million more than NDSU's with men's and women's hockey. Depending on who's numbers you trust UND will have to double it's athletic budget?

Exactly. Hypotheticals are fun, but there is too much uncertainty imo. A year ago who would have guessed that Chicago State and Valparaiso would leave the Mid-Con leaving a place for IPFW (who had been repeatedly rejected) and NDSU and SDSU (geographic orphans) in a prime position to gain conference membership. The only reason I'm raining on your parade, GeauxSioux, is because you chose to hold it in Seattle in February.

I disagree with the premise of your hypothetical: the Big Sky is quite stable. They have 8 core members (meaning they could lose 2 and be fine), in five years they will have 9. Accepting your premise, you mention that adding the Dakota schools would add stability to pre-empt a move by some members, I think that is ridiculous.

?

Add stability? Former DII schools have to make it through transition and then be members of the conference for years before they add anything as far as stability goes. So you think it is logical to give schools on the cusp of leaving the conference another significant reason for doing so, even though the 'replacement' schools would be of no value for almost a decade? I certainly don't. There is a reason why the Big Sky required agreement by all members before UNC was added. A bird in the hand is worth three in the bush.

What sense would that make? You think the BSC would essentially trade exisiting members for new ones? ? That adds stability? As much as fans like to dream up scenarios, this one makes no sense (you are one of many of have entertained it, geauxsious).

you're correct. also, representatives of individual institutions are not allowed to lobbying for anything other than the NDUS line.

Wrong, wrong, wrongie wrong. Potts left because he refused to be the NDUS's lapdog.

And I think that is all that any serious fan is hoping for.

I disagree. I think it would be just a beneficial to play a BCS team as a mid-major, especially when one accounts for the payout discrepancy (Ball State $150k vs. Minnesota $300k). Ball State isn't really a money game as NDSU should be seeing that much at the gate at home. Ball State also isn't a sacrificial game as NDSU could win that game (I'm not expecting them to, but it is probably no more than a 4:1 shot).

I understand and appreciate your side of the argument, DaveK. I believe that the tradeoff is worth it. There is no need to take my position to hyperbole, I believe that playing more than 1 BCS team is sacrificing the team. (Depending on the dynamics of the future) I don't see any DIAA team that is sincerely aiming for the playoffs playing more than one DIA team.

What good will come of it? How about a few hundred thousand dollars to balance the budget and a great deal of pr?

The board did make this mess, Cratter.

I'm okay, Clayton. Are you okay?

It's 300k.

I'll remember this post when UND plays Minnesota in 2011.

funny. linky

What agreement did they sign? I assume you're referring to the results of the higher ed round table.

is Kupchella included in 'they'

I'll take your word for it that's debatable. although it may not seem that way, a number of UND officials spent time and effort assembling the report. and UND still ignored the report's results!

They did. I think they followed Carr's guidelines until they realized the difference in cost. The big advantage of the proportionality method is that it is quite defensible. You point to your enrollment, you point to your scholarships, concerned party goes away. With interests and abilities. You point to survey, concerned party critiques the survey and results(too old, flawed methodology, etc.), concerned party files lawsuit.

no argument here

How 'bout an analogy. I say the animal is like a duck. (may be a millstone) I say it's not a bear. (not a money tree) You then say I'm without honor. funny.