Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So ScottM, in other words, you're saying you can't. That's what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 http://mobile.grandf...icle/id/229087/ What do you think "reiterated this in formal terms" means? It means they sent letters (not phone calls) explaining their plans to void contracts, revoke invitations, and follow the NCAA "best practices" scheduling policy. I would surmise this is good news for the lawsuit antitrust claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 UND will not be able to continue as a Division 1 school as long as they are known as the Fighting Sioux. With NDSU, USD and SDSU all Division 1 schools, how can you justify a University falling behind because of a nickname? The consequences have started and the student athletes are paying the price for fools and their petitions! This isn't a Division 1 issue, this is an NCAA issue. If for some reason UND decided to roll back to Division 2, they still wouldn't be able to host playoff games or wear the name/logo at playoff games. The timeline just happens to coincide with the move to D1, but this isn't just a D1 issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxrunner Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 This doesn't quite fall in the "since restoration of the nickname" timeline as per the first post, but I think its relevant. (Sorry Sica) The UND track and cross country teams have felt the effects of the nickname since the NCAA first placed UND on notice in 2005. Minnesota hosts what has become one of the 2-3 largest cross country meets in the nation, the Roy Griak Invitational. UND participated in the first ever meet in 1986, and was a participant until 2005, when Minnesota declined to invite UND due to their newly adopted policy against competing against teams with NA nicknames. As a cross country runner, this is a major deal. When I was running at UND, it was one of the highlights of every season. Nearly every other regional team is invited to the meet (as well as teams from across the country). Also, UND used to compete at indoor track meets at Minnesota. Starting in 2005, UND was no longer allowed/invited to participate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 ...The Big Sky season starts in a couple of months. Why haven't they removed UND yet? What are they waiting for?" Probably the same thing that Iowa is waiting for as it pertains to the soccer game. They want to see if UND still has the Fighting Sioux nickname. Just like Iowa, the Big Sky agreed to let UND in when it seemed the nickname issue was being resolved. Now that there are setbacks, Iowa has pulled that acceptance, but is waiting before they pull the soccer agreement. According to the Big Sky Commissioner, it won't be very difficult to pull the acceptance of UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm simply amazed that UND has been able to survive its D-1 transition without playing Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. How on Earth will the athletic program continue to survive when it can't play these three programs that it has never played before? Ask any of the fb people that post here what playing MN 3 times did for the NDSU fb program. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux,CO Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 This isn't a Division 1 issue, this is an NCAA issue. If for some reason UND decided to roll back to Division 2, they still wouldn't be able to host playoff games or wear the name/logo at playoff games. The timeline just happens to coincide with the move to D1, but this isn't just a D1 issue. I think everyone understands that this is a NCAA issue and not a D1 issue. They would not be moving back to DII they would be moving to NAIA or sports such as Tennis, Baseball and other programs would be dropped. UND sports would be NCAA hockey, minus Wisconsin and Minnesota for Mens. Exciting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 How can we know who else will or won't agree to play us until it becomes clear whether or not we will actually be keeping the name and thus actually be under sanctions or not? For all we know there could be another 10, 20, 50 schools out there who will decline to schedule us when approached but we will never know that until we are actually under sanctions and desperate to fill our sports schedules, and then it will be too late and the schedules will start filling up with whoever we can pick up like a last-minute prom date (insert DII, NAIA schools here), is that really worth the risk? And the answer forthcoming will be, as usual.... TherewillbenomoreteamsbanninguseverybodyneedsusweneednobodytheBCSisbluffingwedon'tcareaboutnothostingplayoffsathletesdon'tcare aboutnothostingplayoffswewillneverlosearecruitbecauseofsanctionsourathleticswon'tsufferblahblahblahblah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Probably the same thing that Iowa is waiting for as it pertains to the soccer game. They want to see if UND still has the Fighting Sioux nickname. Just like Iowa, the Big Sky agreed to let UND in when it seemed the nickname issue was being resolved. Now that there are setbacks, Iowa has pulled that acceptance, but is waiting before they pull the soccer agreement. According to the Big Sky Commissioner, it won't be very difficult to pull the acceptance of UND. You were making a lot of sense up until the last part. UND can only be removed for cause according to the bylaws. Upon this showing, UND can only be removed with unanimous consent of every Big Sky president. "Won't be very difficult" is disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You were making a lot of sense up until the last part. UND can only be removed for cause according to the bylaws. Upon this showing, UND can only be removed with unanimous consent of every Big Sky president. "Won't be very difficult" is disingenuous. They are probationary. They can be removed very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ask any of the fb people that post here what playing MN 3 times did for the NDSU fb program. Is Minnesota the only horse sh1t FBS program that UND is able to travel to? No, there's more than 110 out there. Heck, if I was NDSU, I wouldn't schedule UofM anymore. You guys need to face some real competition if you want to repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 They are probationary. They can be removed very easily. What is the removal policy for probationary members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So when/if those scenarios don't occur . . . You do realize that speculation goes both ways, right? Let's talk facts. We know where Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota currently sit. We have for several years. This isn't new and EVERYONE realizes it. It's time for you all to move on from your anectodal stories about these three schools. So what other schools have adopted policies like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over the last seven years? How many of the other 360 D-1 institutions won't be playing UND? For everyone's benefit, please don't use the response, "But if other schools follow suit..... what happens if other programs . . .." For starters, let's see if ScottM can name three more. Okay smart guy name me 3 reasons why keeping the name will benefit the University? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Okay smart guy name me 3 reasons why keeping the name will benefit the University? Who said that keeping the nickname would benefit the University? I think that they'd be incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Is Minnesota the only horse sh1t FBS program that UND is able to travel to? No, there's more than 110 out there. Heck, if I was NDSU, I wouldn't schedule UofM anymore. You guys need to face some real competition if you want to repeat. No, Minnesota is the closest FBS program to North Dakota. A large number of UND alumni live in the Twin Cities and even more live within easy driving distance to attend the games. That includes Grand Forks and Fargo. Minnesota is also home to the regional cable sports affiliate, and they give good coverage to the Minnesota program. Therefore a regional school that plays them gets more exposure in the region. Wisconsin and Iowa would be among the next closest, and are still within reasonable driving distance. That's why those schools are important to a new Division I school, and to a FCS school. Not having them available as potential opponents is a blow to the program. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What is the removal policy for probationary members? I've asked that question several times and read through the Big Sky bylaws. I still haven't found the answer so I don't know if it is different from removal of a full member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who said that keeping the nickname would benefit the University? I think that they'd be incorrect. Then what are you blathering about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What is the removal policy for probationary members? What you referred to was the procedure for removing an existing full member of the BSC, which requires a unanimous vote of all league presidents. Fullerton alluded to that when talking about removing UND during his press conference, basically saying that it would take less action to cut UND loose than a full member although he never spelled out exactly what that would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Then what are you blathering about? Don't bother asking him. He can't even acknowledge that the sanctions are already hitting the athletics program. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 FWIW, I've heard SDSU may buy out the FB game at the Al in 2013 if UND still has the nickname under sanctions. That may mean they wouldn't schedule us in other sports as well. I think they would honor the games for this current sports year (played twice in basketball, think there are a couple baseball games scheduled, etc), but not starting in Fall 2012. Not sure if it's accurate, however, as I never saw anything official come out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Also I've heard the argument that the BSC has to take us now because it's too late for UND to find games to replace the 2012-13 schedule, I assume what would happen is the BSC would honor those games and play them as OOC games, and we would be on our own in 2013-14. Not official, just my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Then what are you blathering about? The fact that the UND contingent now believes that the absence of three non-traditional opponents from UND's athletics' schedules will kill the program. These policies have existed for a long time; UND has survived. Central Michigan has survived without scheduling this apparent holy trinity. In other words, UND's survival is not contingent on playing three specific schools, which UND has hardly, if ever, played before. In seven years, all I've heard is Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Finally, I am asking for the name of any other schools. ScottM can't even name one more. All I'm asking is for someone to name a few other schools, which have adopted similar policies in the last seven years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Also I've heard the argument that the BSC has to take us now because it's too late for UND to find games to replace the 2012-13 schedule, I assume what would happen is the BSC would honor those games and play them as OOC games, and we would be on our own in 2013-14. Not official, just my guess. Logical, good point. A lot more reasonable than the plain assumptions that the BSC will dump UND and that's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The fact that the UND contingent now believes that the absence of three non-traditional opponents from UND's athletics' schedules will kill the program. These policies have existed for a long time; UND has survived. Central Michigan has survived without scheduling this apparent holy trinity. In other words, UND's survival is not contingent on playing three specific schools, which UND has hardly, if ever, played before. In seven years, all I've heard is Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Finally, I am asking for the name of any other schools. ScottM can't even name one more. All I'm asking is for someone to name a few other schools, which have adopted similar policies in the last seven years. CMU isn't under sanctions you idiot. And they are scheduiled to play Iowa. And Michigan State. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Who said that keeping the nickname would benefit the University? I think that they'd be incorrect. So who will benefit from keeping the name? What is your end game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.