What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?

[bincitysioux]

Quick question regarding the sanctions on the women's hockey team:

If they finish, say, #3 in the PWR and match up with the #6 team, does the #6 team now get a home game?

Or...will they re-seed UND to #5 and force them to travel to the new #4 (formerly #5)?

That's a double whammy if they have to travel AND face a tougher opponent.

Who cares?

It's not MEN'S Hockey...................

[bincitysioux]

Scheduling is already in effect to 2016 - http://www.wdaz.com/...rticle/id/8191/ (April 28, 2011 -- right around the time the nickname bill was passed)

Fullerton did not say that if the Montana schools bolt to the Mountain West (and they're being pursued mightily, as I understand it from the FOIA responses) Big Sky is fairly screwed

Fullerton did not say that two of the 13 schools are FB only schools -- Cal Poly and UC Davis -- and if the Montana schools bolt, conference is down to 8 schools anyway with UND in the mix

Montana, MSU, and UND are the only schools that attract a regional or TV interest. UND is needed at all costs as an insurance policy.

Also, Fullerton stated that some Big Sky Presidents don't care much about the nickname. By stating that Fullerton is effectively stating that a unanimous vote to expel UND is not even theoretically possible.

Fullerton admits that the WAC badly wants Big Sky schools. If UND was available, the WAC would instantly accept UND (like they did for swimming). No bitching about travel -- See Louisiana Tech. With Idaho, Denver, Seattle, Utah State, N Mex St, and San Jose St, the competition is actually a step up, but the problem for UND is that it would need to spend more for football.

Big Sky is as interested, if not more interested in UND as an institution of Higher Learning: the EERC, Med & Law Schools as well as the Undergraduate program, mean as much, or more, than the Athletic programs. The actual NCAA "sanctions" really do not amount to much.

Contract to BS signed while UND was known as "Fighting Sioux" no representations to be relied upon in writing that name would be changed -- http://www.scribd.co...ig-Sky-Contract (prior to 11/30/10 deadline)

The NCAA is working on a neutral site for the national championship game as they do for division 2 championships.

Conference championships are not subject to NCAA sanctions (See WCHA Final Five)

The SBoHE and Kelley Administration, I have no doubt, have encouraged the NCAA to hold fast. More will be revealed in the litigation in this regard, no doubt, if it goes that far.

Well, if you say so ......................

[Chewey]

Believe it or not, the documentation says so. Capice?

[darell1976]

Scheduling is already in effect to 2016 - http://www.wdaz.com/...rticle/id/8191/ (April 28, 2011 -- right around the time the nickname bill was passed)

Fullerton did not say that if the Montana schools bolt to the Mountain West (and they're being pursued mightily, as I understand it from the FOIA responses) Big Sky is fairly screwed

Fullerton did not say that two of the 13 schools are FB only schools -- Cal Poly and UC Davis -- and if the Montana schools bolt, conference is down to 8 schools anyway with UND in the mix

Montana, MSU, and UND are the only schools that attract a regional or TV interest. UND is needed as an insurance policy.

Also, Fullerton stated that some Big Sky Presidents don't care much about the nickname. By stating that Fullerton is effectively stating that a unanimous vote to expel UND is not even theoretically possible.

Fullerton admits that the WAC badly wants Big Sky schools. If UND was available, the WAC would instantly accept UND (like they did for swimming). No bitching about travel -- See Louisiana Tech. With Idaho, Denver, Seattle, Utah State, N Mex St, and San Jose St, the competition is actually a step up, but the problem for UND is that it would need to spend more for football.

Big Sky is as interested, if not more interested in UND as an institution of Higher Learning: the EERC, Med & Law Schools as well as the Undergraduate program, mean as much, or more, than the Athletic programs. The actual NCAA "sanctions" really do not amount to much.

Contract to BS signed while UND was known as "Fighting Sioux" no representations to be relied upon in writing that name would be changed -- http://www.scribd.co...ig-Sky-Contract (prior to 11/30/10 deadline)

The NCAA is working on a neutral site for the national championship game as they do for division 2 championships.

Conference championships are not subject to NCAA sanctions (See WCHA Final Five)

The SBoHE and Kelley Administration, I have no doubt, have encouraged the NCAA to hold fast. More will be revealed in the litigation in this regard, no doubt, if it goes that far.

UND can't join the WAC for football we don't have a facility that seats at least 15,000.

[Chewey]

Not an insurmountable obstacle though Darrell. What is the capacity of the "Al" right now? 12,000 or so? Certainly all the money that would be required to jettison the nickname and logo could be applied to more productive uses such as expanding capacity there.

[jodcon]

Actually Fullerton has said that there are 4 presidents who don't have a strong feeling either way but they will follow whatever path the ones who do care choose, which I wouldn't take as a positive sign.

[darell1976]

Actually Fullerton has said that there are 4 presidents who don't have a strong feeling either way but they will follow whatever path the ones who do care choose, which I wouldn't take as a positive sign.

I wonder if Terry Wanless would talk the Sac St president in keeping UND?

[bincitysioux]

Believe it or not, the documentation says so. Capice?

The documentation also oulines what would be required to expel UND from the Big Sky.

And the WAC is not an attractive alternative to the Big Sky. And what would give anyone the idea that the WAC wouldn't have the same problems with nickname that the Summit and the Big Sky have had?

[fightingsioux4life]

The documentation also oulines what would be required to expel UND from the Big Sky.

And the WAC is not an attractive alternative to the Big Sky. And what would give anyone the idea that the WAC wouldn't have the same problems with nickname that the Summit and the Big Sky have had?

There you go, using logical reasoning again!

[gfhockey]

Paging Gloria Allard to birng a lawsuit here

[gfhockey]

Hell I dont even know why the Big Sky would want us. We are creating extra BS they dont even need or wnat. Fullerton is having to make special calls to mdeia for s.h.i.t he shouldnt have to

I think its great we are still in the league

[fightingsioux4life]

Hell I dont even know why the Big Sky would want us. We are creating extra BS they dont even need or wnat. Fullerton is having to make special calls to mdeia for s.h.i.t he shouldnt have to

I think its great we are still in the league

For the moment.

[Chewey]

The documentation also oulines what would be required to expel UND from the Big Sky.

And the WAC is not an attractive alternative to the Big Sky. And what would give anyone the idea that the WAC wouldn't have the same problems with nickname that the Summit and the Big Sky have had?

Big Sky does not have problems with the nickname. It has problems with UND possibly not being a "viable" member. What does that mean? Let's see, that would depend on any loss of revenue UND would have because of not being able to host playoff games. Perhaps 10 protestors at some games with nothing better to do. That boils down to $$. Are UND's television partners/sponsors going to bag on it? If one just focuses on NCAA sanctions, one could probably divine a very quantifiable number. Put this concern with viability into dollars and sense instead of leaving it in innuendo-land.

[bincitysioux]

Big Sky does not have problems with the nickname. It has problems with UND possibly not being a "viable" member. What does that mean? Let's see, that would depend on any loss of revenue UND would have because of not being able to host playoff games. Perhaps 10 protestors at some games with nothing better to do. That boils down to $$. Are UND's television partners/sponsors going to bag on it? If one just focuses on NCAA sanctions, one could probably divine a very quantifiable number. Put this concern with viability into dollars and sense instead of leaving it in innuendo-land.

I think your entire argument is based on innuendo as well.

-Saying that Montana and MSU may go to the Mountain West so the Big Sky needs UND is innuendo

-Saying UND brings TV interest is innuendo, because thanks to our hockey program and the NCHC, our current TV deal is dead in the water

-Saying the WAC would instantly accept UND is innuendo

-Saying a unanimous vote to expel UND is "not even theoretically possible" is complete innuendo

I'm of the opinion that even with the anchor of the nickname around the athletic department, the chances that the Big Sky will expel UND from the leauge are not very high. But I would rather have the chances be zero. And I would like to see UND continue to play Minnesota and Wisco in hockey, I'd like to be able to attend football and women's hockey home games. I'd like to see the Gophers, Badgers, or Hawkeyes come to Grand Forks for women's basketball and/or volleyball, I'd like to see UND play the Gophers, Badgers, or Hawkeyes in men's basketball.

So yes, there is alot of innuendo on both sides of the argument............

But the facts (not innuendo) are, that with the nickname and sanctions in place, there will be no home playoff games for football or women's hockey, and there will be no games in any sport, including men's hockey, with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, or several other schools.

Luckily, St. Cloud St, Nebraska-Omaha, Texas PanAm, and New Jersey Institute of Technology will probably be there for us..............................

[forumcrew]

Did you guys actually listen to the podcast? The reason he brought up the FBS conference wanting Montana or MSU, was to reiterate that the BSC doesn't need UND, why may you ask? Because U of M, MSU, or whoever, TURNED THEM DOWN to stay in the BSC. Basicly Fullerton is pissed, you guys are f*cked, right fully so, now carry on. DaveK, I would love your reaction?

[jedi]

http://www.kfan.com/player/?mid=21803044&station=KFXN-FM&program_id=KFAN_Barreiro.xml&program_name=podcast

Here's what the rest of the country is thinking...

[82SiouxGuy]

Let's review some of your "facts":

Scheduling is already in effect to 2016 - http://www.wdaz.com/...rticle/id/8191/ (April 28, 2011 -- right around the time the nickname bill was passed)

The schedule was done that far out to complete a full run through the rotation. Schedules can be changed without a great deal of trouble, just ask all of the conferences that have changed members in the past year. Conference games are not like non-conference games. Non-conference games have individual contracts and the visiting team is paid. Neither is true of conference games. The Big Sky wouldn't have a difficult time changing the schedule to remove UND.

Fullerton did not say that if the Montana schools bolt to the Mountain West (and they're being pursued mightily, as I understand it from the FOIA responses) Big Sky is fairly screwed

The Mountain West is not pursuing the Montana schools, especially since they combined with Conference USA in October to create a 22 team football conference. Even if they were after the Montana's, U of Montana would have to squeeze to make it work financially and Montana State would have much more difficulty. It isn't happening in the next few years. EDIT: The Mountain West-Conference USA football conference announced last fall has lost a few schools, but they are now in serious discussion for a complete merger which could leave them with 16 full members plus Hawaii for football.

Fullerton did not say that two of the 13 schools are FB only schools -- Cal Poly and UC Davis -- and if the Montana schools bolt, conference is down to 8 schools anyway with UND in the mix

Everyone knows that the numbers are 11 full members and 13 football starting July 1, 2012. Since the Montanas aren't leaving, losing UND would leave them at 10 and 12.

Montana, MSU, and UND are the only schools that attract a regional or TV interest. UND is needed as an insurance policy.

It is true that these are the biggest regional draws, but see above where the Montanas aren't leaving.

Also, Fullerton stated that some Big Sky Presidents don't care much about the nickname. By stating that Fullerton is effectively stating that a unanimous vote to expel UND is not even theoretically possible.

This is a huge leap. They don't care about the nickname, they care about the disruption and whether UND will be an effective partner. It is still very possible they could expel UND at some point.

Fullerton admits that the WAC badly wants Big Sky schools. If UND was available, the WAC would instantly accept UND (like they did for swimming). No bitching about travel -- See Louisiana Tech. With Idaho, Denver, Seattle, Utah State, N Mex St, and San Jose St, the competition is actually a step up, but the problem for UND is that it would need to spend more for football.

There is some talk about the WAC getting out of football with the additions of schools like Denver and Seattle. That wouldn't be a good fit for UND. The WAC is teetering on the brink of extinction and would be a risky move, if they would consider adding UND.

Big Sky is as interested, if not more interested in UND as an institution of Higher Learning: the EERC, Med & Law Schools as well as the Undergraduate program, mean as much, or more, than the Athletic programs. The actual NCAA "sanctions" really do not amount to much.

The academic interest in UND is very true. But it won't be enough to keep UND if there is enough bad press and if the school is a drag on the athletic departments.

Contract to BS signed while UND was known as "Fighting Sioux" no representations to be relied upon in writing that name would be changed -- http://www.scribd.co...ig-Sky-Contract (prior to 11/30/10 deadline)

The announcements were made that UND was changing the nickname well before the contract was signed. It was a very public announcement. It would not need to be part of the written contract. As a matter of fact, the conference could pass a rule within the conference to follow NCAA practices at any time and remove UND because of that new rule.

The NCAA is working on a neutral site for the national championship game as they do for division 2 championships.

The FCS Championship football game is already played at a neutral site, Frisco, Texas. All other rounds are played at school sites. Which is why NDSU hosted 3 playoff games before going to Frisco for the National Title game.

Conference championships are not subject to NCAA sanctions (See WCHA Final Five)

Conference championships can adopt NCAA policies. See SEC and ACC policies for hosting conference tournaments in South Carolina.

The SBoHE and Kelley Administration, I have no doubt, have encouraged the NCAA to hold fast. More will be revealed in the litigation in this regard, no doubt, if it goes that far.

The NCAA needs no encouragement. See South Carolina and the NCAA policy on Confederate flags, and also see NCAA settlement with UND and the state of North Dakota.

[Uncle_Rico]

http://www.kfan.com/...am_name=podcast

Here's what the rest of the country is thinking...

KFAN represents the rest of the country???

[forumcrew]

KFAN represents the rest of the country???

Did you actually listen to it?

[Fetch]

Like one of their recorded viewers says between segments "he (Berreiro) is not a mentally stable person"

You do know his whole show is to provoke controversy & get callers to call in plus they are Gopher Fans

[jodcon]

Did you actually listen to it?

He said the same things he said in the Herald article earlier today, when we discussed it 7 hours ago.

We know what the situation is, thanks for the concern though.

[forumcrew]

Like one of their recorded viewers says between segments "he (Berreiro) is not a mentally stable person"

You do know his whole show is to provoke controversy & get callers to call in plus they are Gopher Fans

That is every talk show, duh.

[PhillySioux]

Like one of their recorded viewers says between segments "he (Berreiro) is not a mentally stable person"

You do know his whole show is to provoke controversy & get callers to call in plus they are Gopher Fans

Just like your posts!

[forumcrew]

He said the same things he said in the Herald article earlier today, when we discussed it 7 hours ago.

We know what the situation is, thanks for the concern though.

It doesn't seem like it when you read some of the comments on here. I mean, getting invited to the WAC? Are some of you smoking crack? Holy sh*t

[Fetch]

KFAN is the rest of the Country & Berreiro is your hero & you respect his oppinion It will make the yes vote a landslide