The Division I Question? New Answer?

[The Sicatoka]

that was the number for 2000, not the early 90's when it was built, and i'm sure the didn't pick the cheapest method in order to help "sway" the voters

Go back and look at what you first said: "all that is need is $40k for the compressors". Sure back in 199x. But you don't pay 199x prices in 200y.

The ~$250,000 for ice in the dome was a gnat in terms of "sway" compared the $42 MM price tagged arena they wanted.

[IowaBison]

sorry, should have used was, instead of is,

[Bisonfan1234]

I'm pretty sure you guys could get away with saying $42M for $42 million.

[ethanm]

also, the Dome was designed and can take ice, all that is need is $40k for the compressors and community interest in hockey

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's too bad that the IceSharks couldn't make it in Fargo. I worked for the Sharks for a while. They scheduled a home game one Sunday while the Vikes were playing. They could have had a "have your own section" promo for that game with the number of people that showed up. It was interesting watching UND recruits (or potential ones) playing. Plus, it was something to do when the Sioux were on the round. McFeely's column in the Forum points out the problem hockey has in Fargo (competing with HS/college football & bball). Of course, you can say that playing in a dump like the Coliseum doesn't help.

[url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=71747

[siouxrunner]

Facilities=Success?

How did NDSU have the most dominant NCC track programs with what has been called a not-so-great BSA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

any functional indoor track would help UND. the only other teams in the NCC with decent indoor tracks (until a few years ago when mankato built a new one) were USD and St. Cloud. USD has consistently put out good runners, but most of them have been distance runners who don't need to work out inside. NDSU dominated in track for many years because they had a place to train in the winter. It doesn't have to be a state-of-the-art track...it just has to be at least 200m, oval, and indoors. the BSA easily qualifies for all three. UND has Hyslop, with only 160m, tight corners, crowded floor, etc. when you can't practice effectively, you can't compete effectively. that's why NDSU was good.

[The Sicatoka]

I'm pretty sure you guys could get away with saying $42M for $42 million.

Use of "MM" for million is pretty common in banking.

[Bisonfan1234]

Fair enough.

Again you UND fans have no idea what indoor track is.

It's not: a time period during the winter when you train indoors (since it's too cold to be outdoors) for the upcoming spring track season.

It is: a separate sport from outdoor track. To compete you must have a 200m oval exactly (not at least) and a 55m dash.

Since 200m ovals have such a tight bend radius, it's definitely worthwhile to invest in a banked oval.

[siouxrunner]

Fair enough.

Again you UND fans have no idea what indoor track is.

It's not: a time period during the winter when you train indoors (since it's too cold to be outdoors) for the upcoming spring track season.

It is: a separate sport from outdoor track. To compete you must have a 200m oval exactly (not at least) and a 55m dash.

Since 200m ovals have such a tight bend radius, it's definitely worthwhile to invest in a banked oval.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

technically speaking, indoor and outdoor track are two different sports. this is a fairly new separation, as the ncaa started funding both separately only a couple years ago

i didn't say that it wasn't a separate season. what i'm saying is that if you don't have a place to practice effectively from november through march, you aren't going to be able to compete at a high level throughout the entire track season. it isn't like you can just come to march at the start of the outdoor season, touch your toes, and go out and qualify for nationals...

moving on, you are wrong on a couple points here.

you can compete and qualify for the national meet on a 300 m indoor track, which, last time i checked was not EXACTLY 200m.

200m ovals DO NOT have such a tight bend radius that you need to have a banked track. banked tracks are nice to have, but usually are only implemented in competition facilities. UND would probably be better off using a flat track if it was going to be designed mainly as a practice facility.

[Bisonfan1234]

I was always coming from the POV that UND would want to have a competition facility so they could host.

And beyond that, why wouldn't you want an exact replica of what you're going to be running on in competition for practice?

The football team doesn't practice out in the parking lot, do they?

I've ran on a 200m track. If you have any talent at all, you're going to need that bank to maintain top speed around the bend.

[bisonguy]

Looks like there will be a report tonight on the WDAY 10:00 sports about UND talking to the Big Sky, and the DII vote UND is keeping their eye on. Not sure if it will be on WDAZ or not .

[bisonguy]

From the WDAY news:

Roger Thomas stated tonight that he has been talking to the Big Sky conference and NDSU about the transition moving to DI. UND has not applied for membership in the Big Sky. Thomas said that if the DII football grant reduction legislation passes in Jan. that UND will "strongly consider" a move to DI.

If UND waits until the vote in January, and declares 2005-2006 as the "exploratory year", UND would be two years behind NDSU in the reclassification process.

[siouxrunner]

I was always coming from the POV that UND would want to have a competition facility so they could host.

And beyond that, why wouldn't you want an exact replica of what you're going to be running on in competition for practice?

The football team doesn't practice out in the parking lot, do they?

I've ran on a 200m track. If you have any talent at all, you're going to need that bank to maintain top speed around the bend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it would be great to have a banked track, no question

if UND wanted an exact replica of what we would be running on in competition, we would install a flat track. the only place UND competes on a banked track is in boston at NCAAs. all the teams in the region that we compete against have a flat track.

the football team doesn't practice in the parking lot, but they don't practice indoors on artificial turf either. they use the grass field next to memorial stadium, so it seems that they aren't practicing on an exact replica of their home games.

if UND were to build an indoor track, we would build a 300m track, in order to fit about 80 yards of field in the interior, which eliminates the "need" for banked corners.

i have seen some pretty fast times run on a 200m flat track...it doesn't need to have banked corners.

[Bisonfan1234]

If you move up to DI, you'll be seeing more banked ovals.

[The Sicatoka]

I just realized something fundamental here: The point of what UND is looking at is an indoor training facility. The key there is training, not track. Track will benefit from it, but the goal is more than just track.

NDSU has a track mindset. UND has a hockey mindset. To each their own. The question originally was "... The Division I Question? New Answer?" About the only thing more silly than discussing the merits of minutial details like banked 200m ovals versus flat 300m ovals (that include 80 yards of indoor practice field which would mean a modular 200m oval could be temporarily brought in and set up) to a UND fan at this juncture, under this question, would be trying to explain the merits of NHL width versus Olympic width ice for home hockey games to NDSU (no NCAA hockey at all) fans.

What should be noteworthy here is what bisonguy posted, namely:

From the WDAY news:

Roger Thomas stated tonight that he has been talking to the Big Sky conference and NDSU about the transition moving to DI. UND has not applied for membership in the Big Sky. Thomas said that if the DII football grant reduction legislation passes in Jan. that UND will "strongly consider" a move to DI.

I believe some folks wanted a story in something other than the hometown college press. Well, there it is.

[WYOBISONMAN]

If UND is going to make the jump they will have to eat their crow quickly and then get on with the move. I am surprised that they would even wait for the vote. This is so typical of what D2 has been doing. If this does not pas now, it surely will a little later on down the road when it is brought up again. Time to eat crow and get on with the move to D1. We may tese you guys a bit, but it is nothing you can't handle. Much more of a delay would put UND 3 years behind the Bison in the jump.

[IowaBison]

that's exactly what i was waiting for, i hope that the process goes well for you guys, with that report i think we should start a new thread things are definitely serious

must make that jerk who said you have neither the letter nor the stamp feel kind of silly right now

(the wday report did say that UND had yet to send a letter, though there is clearly strong interest)

[teamsioux]

I don't think very many Sioux fans will be eating crow. In this whole process, the reason most Sioux fans made fun of NDSU was the knee-jerk reactions they made. UND had taken the wait-and-see approach because there is no rush at all. NDSU had been told to get settled in first and find a conference, but no they had to do everything right now! Almost as if they had to have something to hold over UND's head. Maybe UND will be no better off, maybe they will, especially if anything with the Big Sky comes through. Only time will tell.

[IowaBison]

you must have selective memory TeamSioux

our move was part of a deliberate process followed every step of the way by belittling comments from the administration and athletic department at UND

[nodakvindy]

For all those so worried about track, perhaps UND is waiting for a joint announcment of the move to DI and a contact to train pilots and air traffic controllers for Air Kenya.

I wouldn't mind seeing UND focus some money on getting so internationals who could potentially make their nation's Olympic teams. This could get us some media attention. Women's hockey, track and swimming all seem like possible targets.

[tony]

To all the folks that want every UND thought process to go out as a press release to all the world's media, here's how the Big Sky does business:

Seems like the Big Sky does business like UND: Quietly until it has studied things and thought them through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, I knew I should have followed this thread more closely.

If you remember back when NDSU was deciding whether to go DI, UND did not conduct business privately and quietly. Heck, Kupchella was writing anti-DI opinion pieces and sending them off to the NCAA and sharing them with every paper in North Dakota. Back then, UND was hard at work making sure that anti-DI bills had a provision to exclude hockey. Back then, pretty much every coach and administrator at UND had something to say about DI.

The Herald hasn't even covered the story yet. You may remember them from such editorials as "[DI:] A sucker's game", "Bisons' D-I move doesn't make sense", and "Division I? Say no!"

If UND and the Grand Forks media had no problem discussing DI when NDSU was considering it, they should have even more to say about it now.

Anyway, I came not to mock you guys (that was just a bonus), but to inform. Steve Hallstrom at WDAY reported that, according to Roger Thomas, UND will strongly consider DI if DII cuts FB schollies by 12.

[teamsioux]

you must have selective memory TeamSioux

our move was part of a deliberate process followed every step of the way by belittling comments from the administration and athletic department at UND

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess it all depends on what you call deliberate. I think NDSU happened to jump in head first without a conference affiliation being secured. I am not saying UND will be in a better shape, but I don't them being worse off either. There definitely has been no need to rush into the move.

[The Sicatoka]

If you remember back when NDSU was deciding whether to go DI, UND did not conduct business privately and quietly. Heck, Kupchella was writing anti-DI opinion pieces and sending them off to the NCAA and sharing them with every paper in North Dakota.

If you check the details and look back to Dr. Kupchella's February 2002 position piece, a statement from UND on the subject was requested by a member of the legislature. That's why he (and UND) wrote it. As such, it would have been public domain information (sunshine laws).

[The Sicatoka]

If UND is going to make the jump they will have to eat their crow quickly and then get on with the move.

[tony]

They don't make a font big enough for the "HAHAHAHA!" your response deserves

A. You don't appear to understand open meeting / sunshine laws. I guarantee they don't require Kupchella to send copies of all his communications with individual legislators to every major paper in the state. A newspaper would have to request it.

B. If the sunshine law did mean that communications between Representative Bob Martinson and President Kupchella had to be sent to every major newspaper in the state (as well as the NCAA), this same law should dictate that all current communications between UND and the Big Sky, UND and NDSU, and UND and any office holders in the state should be printed in the newspaper, shouldn't they?

C. The whole letter thing looked like it was thinly-disguised PR gambit to me. Look at the content of the letter - you can't tell me the target audience was Rep. Martinson. It wasn't. Then look at what Kupchella did with it... he sent it everywhere, he even re-worked it and sent it to the NCAA. It was also published as an editorial in the GF Herald entitled "Costs outweigh D-I benefits." It was not a letter to Martinson in either content or intent.

[The Sicatoka]

Did Kupchella send them, or did Martinson? Either way, the request would be made sooner or later by some paper and it would go AP shortly thereafter.

Contract negotiations (which is what deal with a conference is at its essence) are exempt from sunshine laws until a deal is done.

Letter? No. Position paper? Yes. What was asked for?

You have to admit, we both are assuming a lot in regard to that one position paper. (You admit you assumed it was a "thinly-disguised PR gambit". I'll admit it was too in-depth to be targeted to respond to just one legislator.)