IowaBison

I agree that (1) a desire by conferences to expand and (2) geography are the biggest challenges facing UND. But that isn't the question at hand. (I don't know if I agree about your comment about the BSC being a football conference. They have one national power (Montana), 3-4 decent teams (Montana State, Idaho State, EWU, Portland), and a couple of real stinkers (UNC and Sac State). I think the conference would be infinitely more happy seeing two teams go to the dance than having two or three teams make the DIAA playoffs. Adding teams with RPIs below 300 isn't going to get them there.)

Any success (or impression of it) will be of benefit when shopping for a conference. UND hockey is as successful as they come, definite points. The question is can UND translate it's success in other sports, primarily football and men's basketball, to Division I. And here's where the rub comes in. There are limited, (and according to repeated comments out of UND) nearly tapped-out, funds for Sioux Athletics. There are significant costs associated with the move, let's say $3.5 million. Given UND's athletic department's financial situation, it is not a given that it can fund itself at the higher level. UND hockey fans will give to hockey first and everything else second, if at all. If UND can get enough momentum to fully fund football to get money and pr games with DIA and a top 25 rating and have an RPI of 250 or less they are sitting really well. Hockey would be gravy. UND should be fine with football. Even with 40-50 scholies, Lennon should field a quality team. Then it comes to basketball, that may be the 800 lb. neglected gorilla in the corner. If UND struggles like UNC, with DI wins in a season you can count on one hand, things may not be pretty. (This is if one graciously realizes that UND's best, if not only hope for a conference, is the Mid-Con.)

1. You need to see some serious changes for the NCAA to accept Canadian schools. British Columbia is a giant school, a northern institutional peer of PAC 10 schools, certainly not the Big Sky. If, and that's a pretty big if, .... never mind it's all too much of a stretch. 2. Denver would be a good fit. However: (a) I've heard rumors that Denver thinks it's too good of a fit for the Sky and (b) I've heard with my own ears Big Sky presidents state that they will only conference members that sponsor all sports. If Denver added football and wanted in, it would have been a done deal three years ago. 3. The Big Sky would have 6 schools, and still be an bball autobid conference, if three schools left, and that's a pretty big if. Certainly not stable, but not a place where they let a potential member dictate anything. 3b. One thing that eluded Bison fans for while. Even after squinting really hard and seeing Sac State, Portland State, and whomever else leave for the WAC or elsewhere-what the hell does adding a school from the Dakotas add today. If any of these schools are feeling that they want out, adding XDSU/UXD to the mix might make things worse-hence the need for unanymous votes for entry the last time around. In sum, I give your expansion hypothesis about a 9 out of 10, with 10 being completely out of touch with reality.

I think the term 'arrogant asshole' is a little strong. There is a huge difference in opinion primarily between BSC and NDSU and the other nine schools regarding equity funding. As posted elsewhere on this site, Kupchella has missed significantly more meetings than Chapman has in the past few years. Of course if you keep repeating the statement you're bound to believe it. I have no knowledge of other NDSU administrators lobbying the legislature and you apparently have no evidence either by the sound of your post so it seems wise to let that one go. The SBOHE has a tremendously difficult job to do. They chose to let Potts go instead of giving into his ridiculous demand of giving him the power to fire a standing NDUS president. (If you read the beginning of this thread, I am sorry to have seen Potts struggle and ultimately leave when he was trying to do the job he was hired to.) The Governor most certainly has not failed the state. And if so how? I have no response to any of this. I don't know where you coming from. The Board is Chapman's boss, not the Chancellor. He was not Chapman's supervisor. Wow. Chapman lied to Potts and the Board? About what?

Two years ago among ardent Bison fans I'd put it at 80-20 at best. Casual fans didn't know the Mid-Con existed until a few weeks ago.

Why did the Bison do it for three years, up until they realized the Big Sky wasn't expanding to the Dakotas?

that's cause it would take thirteen years to get a bball auto bid and $$$ a DI NCC ain't gonna happen

A two year term makes sense. Spend the next year getting through the 2007 legislative session and spend the year after hiring. I think the SBOHE should wait to begin the search until next summer.

Phil, is that you?

they should have just payed him 200 grand and showed him the door. what's the word, travashamockery? something like that....

The best part is that he can pursue any part or full time position as he sees fit.

bitterness based on experience, not doubt about it NDSU will not be leaving the Mid-Con for the Big Sky. The Big Sky has institutions that look like NDSU and football with an autobid and that's about it. ?

these revelations explain so much self-loathing subconscious Bison fans Give in to the dark side HockeyMom and Sioux-cia, give in to the dark side................

I don't think UND would be playing UNI if Lennon didn't want to. The game compares almost perfectly with NDSU/Griz. I didn't foresee a Bison upset then and I don't see a UND one this year, but it should be an exciting game, especially if you like cheering for the underdog. I really don't want to see a drubbing. I agree with rabidrabbit, '07 or '09 will be the first year. Ignore the Bison fans who say never again or something similar, it's a good game that will continue when it's best for NDSU (and our athletic department isn't as vendictive as many think). If UND makes a serious commitment to DI, they should be able to recruit well throughout the transition. I think that the upcoming year will be toughest as UND still hasn't made a formal commitment to DI imo. It will get steadily easier after that. So years 0, 1 and 2, would be the toughest to me.

I think this talk of DI-A is pretty silly (and is as goofy as that school to the south considering it), but there are a couple of points. 1. UND could almost surely count a game against the U as a home game, if Idaho and Wazzu do it, why can't UND? That would bump annual attendance over 15,000 for the year. 2. You only have to (or had, they might have changed the rules) average 15,000 every other year (I'll have to ask Phil Harmeson about that ). 3. The NCAA hasn't enforced the rule anyways. The low end DI-A schools are embarassing, if you can't average more than 3 wins a season or win 5 games every few years (including against DIAA teams) maybe you're in the wrong place. But schools do it anyway, I say let them, they're the ones paying the price.

Lori Peterson who is quoted at the bottom of the story stated that the burning of a turtle by some teenagers was an act worse than gang rape and that all involved should receive the death penalty. I'm not a Hooter's fan, but if it pisses a woman like that off, I'm all for it.

It really makes a lot of sense. A school needs a couple of years to manage the move with all the changes in requirements, after that it's just a punishment. If a conference wants a team what's the need for the wait? I too doubt it will pass.

I agree with all of your points, PCM (although the use of vehement is rather strong). And I don't have an answer for any of them.

I prefer the term unfortunate mischaracterization to lie. My assumption is that Chapman wants the 'truth' out ?

I think the most logical explanation is that the opinion mischaracterized Chapman's intented meaning by using the term "demand" in its strong sense. A new house and more pay were obviously not unconditional demands, because they weren't met and Chapman stayed. However, one could read the AG's opinion and feel that they were. I think that is Chapman's greivance. We do not know the specific language used by either the AG's attorney or Chapman, although the opinion is strongly worded. I'd imagine the AG's office has the interview on tape. Once again, why would Chapman care to contact the press stating that a new house and more pay were not demands? I don't see what the big deal would be if they were.

That is a logical fallacy. The AG's Office could have erred. And you don't know if he did or not! As for Chapman rebuking the AG's opinion, this isn't good enough: Forum Article ? "Chapman and representatives from NDSU

And it was the 21st century (2000) during the Engelstad standoff. Get your facts right, Keith! (that is, of course, unless you're a real stickler and believe in ordinality)

No problem, it's just that with personal information, threads often turn personal when they shouldn't. I do realize that I am somewhat of a hypocrit have outing one of the University's Flickertail Operatives in the past few days.

I know I can't win, but I try. I come here to post about issues of interest to me; I don't see the need to talk about me personally.

Sioux-cia Thanks for the ad hominem on D-I, very impressive. With respect to my challenge, I'll take your word on it. I'm glad to know you aren't hiding and I'm sure you are just as classy in person. I also deduced that your entire argument relies on your interpretations and assumptions that could very surely be wrong, primarily that the AG's office didn't mischaracterize Chapman's 'demands'. And there is no way that you could know the truth, Sioux-cia! Instead, you assume that Chapman "lied" when it could just as surely have been an error (deliberate or not) on behalf of the AG's office. You then begin spouting off terms like dirt bag and bald faced liar. One would have to wonder why an objective person would do so? Additionally, there is no reason for Chapman to have "lied" to the AG's office, how would he benefit? And he certainly hasn't benefited by contacting the press in aims to clearing up the information. Thinks are certainly fishy, but to assume you know the truth, which you to do, and then disparage someones character based on your assumption lets everyone know where you stand. But feel free to share your position with the world.