Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[Crevec]

Every comparison in your post is apples to oranges. Why? Because none of them have two reasons to leave their current venues, like UND now does.

As you point out, they all either have or had long periods of time in the venue where they did not win championships playing in that venue. That reason alone would not be enough to leave, I agree.

But none of them have the 2nd reason to leave, like UND does have with the REA. None of their venues are potentially doing damage to their school by directly violating the wishes of the NCAA.

That's the 2nd reason that UND has and none the others have and that's the real reason that UND should re-evaluate leaving the REA, not just because they haven't won a championship in the REA since they started playing there. I brought up that point merely to say that UND hockey would not end if they didn't play in the REA. They didn't before and arguably the team was better without the REA back then, per the statistics.

And as I predicted, you tried to defend the REA by saying it's critical to the future success of the program.

So then make a counter point to the valid point I already raised: how was UND able to win all those NCAA championships in the past if they didn't have the REA as a recruiting tool?

NCAA DI hockey has not changed that much since 2000. I don't buy that as a reason why UND needs the REA.

I don't think that the REA would ever do anything to negatively impact the hockey team. If it ever came to a point where the NCAA banned the team from playing in the national tournament I think that is the point where the REA would start doing everything they needed to allow the team the chance to keep winning. But that is where the NCAA would run into it's biggest problem, if they banned the team from the national tournament it would put them in a precarious position of being labeled as a monopoly. They are already having a lot of problems with the BCS and football. If they added this to their profile it could push public opinion even further negatively about the organization. Especially if it crossed over to other sports as well.

And I don't believe anywhere in my response did I say that the REA was "critical" to team success and winning championships. Critical would mean that is the one thing that is holding the team at the level they are at. It would be ignorant and incorrect to say that is the one thing that allows the team to play as well as they have.

What I said was that those facilities, not just the playing in the arena's ice but also the training facilities, Olympic sized practice ice sheet and other amenities are an important factor in trying to recruit the top level players. Granted, even if the team did NOT play in the REA they would still be able to get some top level recruits based on the history of the program, quality of coaches and possibility of future success, they would lose out on some of those recruits as well. Almost every recruit has positive statements about the arena and atmosphere that the REA allows and it is just another piece of the recruiting puzzle.

I wouldn't want the team to lose that piece just because you believe that the NCAA should punish the entire school even more than what is currently allowed in the settlement agreement. One area that is difficult to judge what is and and what is not allowed by the settlement as far as punishment if the REA does not follow the agreed upon deadlines in the settlement. That is because they were never a party in the litigation process and thus may not have to follow the settlement. That is the position that the REA is taking and it remains to be seen how that will end for all parties involved including REA, UND and the NCAA.

And I don't really want to argue how much the game has changed in 10 years, that is a difficult task to quantify in any sport. But even before that there were times that UND went multiple years without a championship, just as they have had some bad luck along the way as well. But to say that they have had no success as a team during their time in the REA is absolutely false. The team has gone to the NCAA tournament for 8 straight years (only Michigan and New Hampshire have a longer streak), four straight Frozen Four berths with one of those ending up as the runner-up, and winning the conference regular season and post-season title twice each. The team has only had one sub-.500 team while in the arena. As far as I am concerned that is pretty good. Of course any fan would much rather have a national title to add to that list but there is only one team each year that gets that distinction and UND has almost always had a chance at getting one.

[MplsBison]

I don't think that the REA would ever do anything to negatively impact the hockey team. If it ever came to a point where the NCAA banned the team from playing in the national tournament I think that is the point where the REA would start doing everything they needed to allow the team the chance to keep winning. But that is where the NCAA would run into it's biggest problem, if they banned the team from the national tournament it would put them in a precarious position of being labeled as a monopoly. They are already having a lot of problems with the BCS and football. If they added this to their profile it could push public opinion even further negatively about the organization. Especially if it crossed over to other sports as well.

And I don't believe anywhere in my response did I say that the REA was "critical" to team success and winning championships. Critical would mean that is the one thing that is holding the team at the level they are at. It would be ignorant and incorrect to say that is the one thing that allows the team to play as well as they have.

What I said was that those facilities, not just the playing in the arena's ice but also the training facilities, Olympic sized practice ice sheet and other amenities are an important factor in trying to recruit the top level players. Granted, even if the team did NOT play in the REA they would still be able to get some top level recruits based on the history of the program, quality of coaches and possibility of future success, they would lose out on some of those recruits as well. Almost every recruit has positive statements about the arena and atmosphere that the REA allows and it is just another piece of the recruiting puzzle.

I wouldn't want the team to lose that piece just because you believe that the NCAA should punish the entire school even more than what is currently allowed in the settlement agreement. One area that is difficult to judge what is and and what is not allowed by the settlement as far as punishment if the REA does not follow the agreed upon deadlines in the settlement. That is because they were never a party in the litigation process and thus may not have to follow the settlement. That is the position that the REA is taking and it remains to be seen how that will end for all parties involved including REA, UND and the NCAA.

And I don't really want to argue how much the game has changed in 10 years, that is a difficult task to quantify in any sport. But even before that there were times that UND went multiple years without a championship, just as they have had some bad luck along the way as well. But to say that they have had no success as a team during their time in the REA is absolutely false. The team has gone to the NCAA tournament for 8 straight years (only Michigan and New Hampshire have a longer streak), four straight Frozen Four berths with one of those ending up as the runner-up, and winning the conference regular season and post-season title twice each. The team has only had one sub-.500 team while in the arena. As far as I am concerned that is pretty good. Of course any fan would much rather have a national title to add to that list but there is only one team each year that gets that distinction and UND has almost always had a chance at getting one.

All I'm saying is that UND could be a top national team without the REA, as the past indicates and you seem to be agreeing with.

They could play in the Alerus. It wouldn't be as good as the REA, for sure, but they could do it and people would still come and watch.

Will this happen? Probably not. It's not really a reasonable option.

But the foot-in-mouth statements given by the REA representative are just as unreasonable, if not more so. The REA had better get their butts in gear because the NCAA is not going to give them or UND an inch on this.

Lastly, the NCAA has nothing to do with post season play in the FBS division of DI football. That is an entirely separate entity called the "BCS". The BCS is the one that organizes and puts on the all the bowls. All the schools in DI FBS go through the BCS for post season because they can make more money off bowl games than a tournament run by the NCAA.

Even if the post season format eventually switches over to a tournament, the BCS is still going to be the ones running it. They will keep the money for themselves not give any to the NCAA.

The BCS is the one drawing the focus of certain congress members and possibly getting anti-trust investigations.

So the NCAA has little if any risk of congressional attention if they were to ban UND from the post season due to the inaction of the REA.

[82SiouxGuy]

All I'm saying is that UND could be a top national team without the REA, as the past indicates and you seem to be agreeing with.

They could play in the Alerus. It wouldn't be as good as the REA, for sure, but they could do it and people would still come and watch.

Will this happen? Probably not. It's not really a reasonable option.

But the foot-in-mouth statements given by the REA representative are just as unreasonable, if not more so. The REA had better get their butts in gear because the NCAA is not going to give them or UND an inch on this.

Lastly, the NCAA has nothing to do with post season play in the FBS division of DI football. That is an entirely separate entity called the "BCS". The BCS is the one that organizes and puts on the all the bowls. All the schools in DI FBS go through the BCS for post season because they can make more money off bowl games than a tournament run by the NCAA.

Even if the post season format eventually switches over to a tournament, the BCS is still going to be the ones running it. They will keep the money for themselves not give any to the NCAA.

The BCS is the one drawing the focus of certain congress members and possibly getting anti-trust investigations.

So the NCAA has little if any risk of congressional attention if they were to ban UND from the post season due to the inaction of the REA.

It is interesting that you believe you know what the NCAA thinks, is going to do or what they will give an inch on. No one knows how the NCAA would react to the REA deciding not to follow the terms of the settlement. They would probably not allow any tournament games to be held there, but no one knows if they would push any punishments further than that.

And it is pretty well accepted that a tournament would earn more money for college football than the bowl system does. The difference is that the biggest schools would probably have to share more, and that the NCAA would probably run it since they are responsible for running all national tournaments for NCAA member schools. So the BCS would be replaced and there are probably people making money off the BCS that would fight that.

[Crevec]

All I'm saying is that UND could be a top national team without the REA, as the past indicates and you seem to be agreeing with.

They could play in the Alerus. It wouldn't be as good as the REA, for sure, but they could do it and people would still come and watch.

Will this happen? Probably not. It's not really a reasonable option.

But the foot-in-mouth statements given by the REA representative are just as unreasonable, if not more so. The REA had better get their butts in gear because the NCAA is not going to give them or UND an inch on this.

Lastly, the NCAA has nothing to do with post season play in the FBS division of DI football. That is an entirely separate entity called the "BCS". The BCS is the one that organizes and puts on the all the bowls. All the schools in DI FBS go through the BCS for post season because they can make more money off bowl games than a tournament run by the NCAA.

Even if the post season format eventually switches over to a tournament, the BCS is still going to be the ones running it. They will keep the money for themselves not give any to the NCAA.

The BCS is the one drawing the focus of certain congress members and possibly getting anti-trust investigations.

So the NCAA has little if any risk of congressional attention if they were to ban UND from the post season due to the inaction of the REA.

I also see that you at least somewhat agree with me as well by admitting that it is not really a reasonable option to play in the Alerus or anywhere but REA. And for the statement after that, it is something that would have to be decided by people much better versed in the specifics of the lawsuit and settlement and would most likely need a clarification by a judge and ALL parties' lawyers. It may have been assumed that REA was a party in the lawsuit when they are a privately held company that allows UND athletics to use the facility. It would have been no different if the Alerus Center was named in the lawsuit and not allowed to give it's opinion on the matter. That facility is owned by the city of Grand Forks and also rents to the UND football team.

And as far as the BCS/NCAA thing I don't really feel that this is the place to argue too much over how involved the NCAA is with it but to say that it is completely devoid of the NCAA is ridiculous. Even on the BCS website there are multiple references to the NCAA and how they abide by their eligibility rulings and other qualifications for play in their games.

And furthermore it wouldn't be too difficult for congress to mandate a playoff if they truly wanted to, they would just have to do something similar to what they did for national highway funding or are planning on doing to control internet piracy. For the highway situation they stated that in order to receive federal funds for highways the state had to pass the legal limit while driving for alcohol to be 0.08. The states weren't forced to change but there was no way any state would have been able to maintain the highways and interstates if they didn't pass the law, so now it is the same across the US.

Similarly there is a push to force colleges to take measures to reduce internet piracy on campus networks and the stipulation is that if they don't follow the demands then the school will not receive any federal loans for students. There are no schools that would even consider not having federal assistance for a large majority of their students and students likewise would likely not choose a certain school if they couldn't receive the federal money. Again maybe some would be able to afford the school of their choice but not as many as the school would want attending.

So Congress could just tie some stipulation that if you are a member of the NCAA at the Division I FBS level you must vote for a college football playoff or risk losing federal loans or grants from federal institutions.

[Ole in MSP]

All I'm saying is that UND could be a top national team without the REA, as the past indicates and you seem to be agreeing with.

They could play in the Alerus. It wouldn't be as good as the REA, for sure, but they could do it and people would still come and watch.

Will this happen? Probably not. It's not really a reasonable option.

But the foot-in-mouth statements given by the REA representative are just as unreasonable, if not more so. The REA had better get their butts in gear because the NCAA is not going to give them or UND an inch on this.

Lastly, the NCAA has nothing to do with post season play in the FBS division of DI football. That is an entirely separate entity called the "BCS". The BCS is the one that organizes and puts on the all the bowls. All the schools in DI FBS go through the BCS for post season because they can make more money off bowl games than a tournament run by the NCAA.

Even if the post season format eventually switches over to a tournament, the BCS is still going to be the ones running it. They will keep the money for themselves not give any to the NCAA.

The BCS is the one drawing the focus of certain congress members and possibly getting anti-trust investigations.

So the NCAA has little if any risk of congressional attention if they were to ban UND from the post season due to the inaction of the REA.

Play at the Alerus? Yes, it could be done with a portable ice and refrigeration system, but last I remember, Blais and the wise folks at the time said NO to including that capability on a permanent basis. At the time I thought it was short sighted and time will tell whether it was the right decision. Playing at the Alerus would likely set the program back 20 years. Better off playing at Great Plains center in Fargo.

[Goon]

So the NCAA has little if any risk of congressional attention if they were to ban UND from the post season due to the inaction of the REA.

You're talking about a scenario that is never going to happen.

[Stromer]

You're talking about a scenario that is never going to happen.

And he's talking about a scenario that I don't believe can happen, at least under current rules.

[Goon]

And he's talking about a scenario that I don't believe can happen, at least under current rules.

I am just wonder where he pulled it out of.

[MplsBison]

Play at the Alerus? Yes, it could be done with a portable ice and refrigeration system, but last I remember, Blais and the wise folks at the time said NO to including that capability on a permanent basis. At the time I thought it was short sighted and time will tell whether it was the right decision. Playing at the Alerus would likely set the program back 20 years. Better off playing at Great Plains center in Fargo.

What about setting the program back to the year 2000? Would that be an acceptable outcome?

[MplsBison]

And he's talking about a scenario that I don't believe can happen, at least under current rules.

Do you really want to find out?

It's unbelievable how selfish the hockey fans are. Yeah, lets get UND banned from all post season play in all sports...who cares? So long as we make our point that the NCAA can't force us to get rid of the nickname.

[MplsBison]

It is interesting that you believe you know what the NCAA thinks, is going to do or what they will give an inch on. No one knows how the NCAA would react to the REA deciding not to follow the terms of the settlement. They would probably not allow any tournament games to be held there, but no one knows if they would push any punishments further than that.

And it is pretty well accepted that a tournament would earn more money for college football than the bowl system does. The difference is that the biggest schools would probably have to share more, and that the NCAA would probably run it since they are responsible for running all national tournaments for NCAA member schools. So the BCS would be replaced and there are probably people making money off the BCS that would fight that.

Maybe they won't. You could be right.

But why risk it? Just to prove a point that you've already lost?

[Goon]

Do you really want to find out?

It's unbelievable how selfish the hockey fans are. Yeah, lets get UND banned from all post season play in all sports...who cares? So long as we make our point that the NCAA can't force us to get rid of the nickname.

It's not going to happen MPLSBISON_FAN Skippy, you can pontificate/defecate till you're blue in the face but the scenarios you are mentioning are out side of the realm of possibility, they are not going to happen. UND hockey isn't going to play anywhere but the REA. Why don't you come out of your mothers basement and find something else to do. These outlandish scenarios and wide eyed ideas aren't going to happen, the REA management is posturing to see if the school and or the state of North Dakota will step up and pay for the changes to the arena. Why should they have to pay for it they aren't a party to the NCAA settlement. If actually you lived in the real world (out side of the liberal arts mind set) you would be able to figure these things out. I have no idea why you come to this forum because all you are here to do is cause problems and pollute this forum.

[Big A HG]

What about setting the program back to the year 2000? Would that be an acceptable outcome?

No. UND hasn't won any titles since that one in Y2K. However, UND appears to be on the verge of making many championship runs here in the next few years. I'd take my chances.

[MplsBison]

It's not going to happen MPLSBISON_FAN Skippy, you can pontificate/defecate till you're blue in the face but the scenarios you are mentioning are out side of the realm of possibility, they are not going to happen. UND hockey isn't going to play anywhere but the REA. Why don't you come out of your mothers basement and find something else to do. These outlandish scenarios and wide eyed ideas aren't going to happen, the REA management is posturing to see if the school and or the state of North Dakota will step up and pay for the changes to the arena. Why should they have to pay for it they aren't a party to the NCAA settlement. If actually you lived in the real world (out side of the liberal arts mind set) you would be able to figure these things out. I have no idea why you come to this forum because all you are here to do is cause problems and pollute this forum.

I and most non-UND hockey fans read it as the REA management drawing a line in the sand to say that they don't really care what the NCAA thinks they won't be complying to the settlement.

It sure sounded that way.

You can pretend that it really meant this or that, but I can sure see how it looks to the NCAA and the rest of the country: anti-authority.

It's well within the realm of possibility for the NCAA to ban one of its member schools from the post season for non-compliance. It's already happened in other sports.

Don't be a fool.

[Goon]

It's well within the realm of possibility for the NCAA to ban one of its member schools from the post season for non-compliance. It's already happened in other sports.

Don't be a fool.

Pot Kettle Black, listen Skippy the NCAA isn't going to ban UND. You're sucking up too many bong hits if you think this is going to happen.

[jodcon]

It's well within the realm of possibility for the NCAA to ban one of its member schools from the post season for non-compliance. It's already happened in other sports.

But there are so many grey areas in this deal can they really ban them and make it stick?

If UND changes their nickname and everything that goes with it and REA, who the school has no control over, drags their feet changing the logos do they ban UND from playing there even though they held up their part of the deal? And even if REA decides to start changing out the logos, who decides when items like seat cushions are worn out and need replacing? It won't be the NCAA because they won't be helping pay for it.

Looking at this realistically, even under the best-case scenario for the NCAA, there are going to be many, many Sioux logos on the floors, furniture, and seat cushions for many years down the road. Plus the obvious Sioux logos that many people have overlooked, all the memorabilia from the Sioux teams over the last 60+ years... jerseys, team pictures, banners, etc...that stuff is going to say "Fighting Sioux" whether they play in the REA or move back into the old barn...history is history.

My guess is as long as UND makes the nickname change and REA at least starts changing out the logos, regardless of how painstakingly slow they move, the NCAA is going to keep quiet and let it take its course, because the potential for lawsuits from both UND and REA is something they would really rather not get into again, and could drag this out another 10 years.

[Hammersmith]

Yikes. I rarely come into this forum anymore, and when I do, the current topic being debated is one that can be put to bed with 10 minutes of researching. (Of course, the most recent tangent of the thread was started by MplsBison, so I really shouldn't be surprised.)

From the settlement agreement:

Section 2h: Control of Venue. The NCAA recognizes that UND does not own or control all venues in which its athletic teams ordinarily compete. If UND is removed from the list of institutions subject to the Policy because it transitions to a new nickname and logo, UND may host NCAA championship events at facilities which do not contain or display imagery inconsistent with the Policy or this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any facilities owned and controlled by UND. It may also host regular season contests in any venue of its choosing, provided the venue is otherwise fit for use. However, absent namesake approval as set forth herein, UND expressly waives any opportunity to host NCAA championship events at outside venues(i.e., venues UND does not own) containing or displaying imagery which is inconsistent with the Policy and/or this Agreement.

It looks like the only thing at stake is whether UND wants to host one of the DI men's hockey regionals, the DI women's hockey Frozen Four or a first round home game, or maybe a DI women's basketball subregional. That's it. If the REA refuses to make changes, things will continue to go on just as they have with these few exceptions(and the only one of those with a real shot is the first round women's hockey game).

[Crevec]

It looks like the only thing at stake is whether UND wants to host one of the DI men's hockey regionals, the DI women's hockey Frozen Four or a first round home game, or maybe a DI women's basketball subregional. That's it. If the REA refuses to make changes, things will continue to go on just as they have with these few exceptions(and the only one of those with a real shot is the first round women's hockey game).

Well I guess that solves the subject at hand by MPLSBison then. I didn't know that they had covered that part in the settlement and I also didn't know if the settlement was available to the public. Although there is one other sport that could be affected as well and that is women's volleyball and even then the host site goes to the highest rated teams in the tournament. So yes those are the only sports that would be affected and that is the only way the entire athletic program would be as well.

Thank you Hammersmith for clarifying this situation for me, although I am sure that there will still be some conspiracy theories posted about how the NCAA will just change their rules to ban UND from even being able to grant degrees in the near future or something else along those lines.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Well I guess that solves the subject at hand by MPLSBison then. I didn't know that they had covered that part in the settlement and I also didn't know if the settlement was available to the public. Although there is one other sport that could be affected as well and that is women's volleyball and even then the host site goes to the highest rated teams in the tournament. So yes those are the only sports that would be affected and that is the only way the entire athletic program would be as well.

Thank you Hammersmith for clarifying this situation for me, although I am sure that there will still be some conspiracy theories posted about how the NCAA will just change their rules to ban UND from even being able to grant degrees in the near future or something else along those lines.

If you would like to read the settlement and its appendices, they are available at the website linked below. And FYI for anyone wondering, most court records are open to the public and any discussion the SBoHE had on the nickname should be as well via ND's open meeting laws.

AG's website about the settlement

[MplsBison]

But there are so many grey areas in this deal can they really ban them and make it stick?

If UND changes their nickname and everything that goes with it and REA, who the school has no control over, drags their feet changing the logos do they ban UND from playing there even though they held up their part of the deal? And even if REA decides to start changing out the logos, who decides when items like seat cushions are worn out and need replacing? It won't be the NCAA because they won't be helping pay for it.

Looking at this realistically, even under the best-case scenario for the NCAA, there are going to be many, many Sioux logos on the floors, furniture, and seat cushions for many years down the road. Plus the obvious Sioux logos that many people have overlooked, all the memorabilia from the Sioux teams over the last 60+ years... jerseys, team pictures, banners, etc...that stuff is going to say "Fighting Sioux" whether they play in the REA or move back into the old barn...history is history.

My guess is as long as UND makes the nickname change and REA at least starts changing out the logos, regardless of how painstakingly slow they move, the NCAA is going to keep quiet and let it take its course, because the potential for lawsuits from both UND and REA is something they would really rather not get into again, and could drag this out another 10 years.

Yes, if the REA starts changing logos outs as they're supposed to, then there would be no reason for the NCAA to do anything further. The nickname will be changed and eventually the REA will either have to change out everything or the building just won't be used any more.

But what the REA management is saying sure sounds like they aren't going to change a thing - not even the Sioux logo at center ice.

[MplsBison]

Yikes. I rarely come into this forum anymore, and when I do, the current topic being debated is one that can be put to bed with 10 minutes of researching. (Of course, the most recent tangent of the thread was started by MplsBison, so I really shouldn't be surprised.)

From the settlement agreement:

It looks like the only thing at stake is whether UND wants to host one of the DI men's hockey regionals, the DI women's hockey Frozen Four or a first round home game, or maybe a DI women's basketball subregional. That's it. If the REA refuses to make changes, things will continue to go on just as they have with these few exceptions(and the only one of those with a real shot is the first round women's hockey game).

Thanks for confirming that the REA will not be allowed to host NCAA championship if they continue to display Sioux imagery not consistant with the settlement - which is sure sound that's their plan. In other words, REA is saying "to hell with UND! This is Ralph's arena it will display Sioux imagery forever!!!11 ARRRRGH!!!".

That's too bad - such a beautiful arena would be an amazing thing to put on display for the nation and showcase UND and the state of ND as a MBB regional host.

[Hammersmith]

Thanks for confirming that the REA will not be allowed to host NCAA championship if they continue to display Sioux imagery not consistent with the settlement - which is sure sound that's their plan. In other words, REA is saying "to hell with UND! This is Ralph's arena it will display Sioux imagery forever!!!11 ARRRRGH!!!".

That's too bad - such a beautiful arena would be an amazing thing to put on display for the nation and showcase UND and the state of ND as a MBB regional host.

Never, ever going to happen. Regionals go to major cities or metro areas with large to huge facilities. The 2011 facilities are the Superdome(55k), Alamodome(20k-40k), Prudential Center in NJ(18.5k), and the Honda Center in CA(17.5k). Even if you meant the subregional(or 2nd/3rd round site), those still go to places like the Metrodome. The smallest of the eight sites for the 2011 tournament is the 14.5k seat McKale Center in Tucsan(home to the U of Arizona). Even the site(s) of the First Four is/are going to large cities like Dayton, OH. There will not be a DI MBB tournament game in the Dakotas for at least 25 years*, and I seriously doubt there will be one even after that.

The NCAA has been moving the WBB subregionals to smaller, on-campus sites rather than major venues mainly due to poor attendance. They also doubled the number of subregional sites from 8 to 16 starting in 2009. Other than ice hockey, WBB is the only DI tourney that the REA has even a chance to host a part of, and even that's a long shot. Local volleyball subregionals will continue to go to the UofMN or Iowa State since those are given to the seeded team in the pod, and UND(and NDSU, SDSU & USD) will never be a top 16 team.

I don't follow hockey site selection, but it seems like most of the posters here acknowledge that the NCAA is looking at larger facilities in bigger cities for the Frozen Four. Maybe a regional is possible, but the Xcel Center and the Mariucci Arena in the Twin Cities are some pretty tough competition when you consider air travel, hotels and food availability. Hosting a women's hockey tournament game is by far the most likely of all of them, and it's pretty tough justifying the cost of the conversion just for that.

As for the conversion, the first major deadline is Dec 31, 2011. That's when all the circular brass plaques in the railings need to be removed(not the ones on the ends of the aisle seating) as well as the lighted outside logos. So, the REA has got about a year and a half to make their final decision.

*25 years is as far as I will make a prediction for anything, no matter how unlikely I believe it to be.

[MplsBison]

Never, ever going to happen. Regionals go to major cities or metro areas with large to huge facilities. The 2011 facilities are the Superdome(55k), Alamodome(20k-40k), Prudential Center in NJ(18.5k), and the Honda Center in CA(17.5k). Even if you meant the subregional(or 2nd/3rd round site), those still go to places like the Metrodome. The smallest of the eight sites for the 2011 tournament is the 14.5k seat McKale Center in Tucsan(home to the U of Arizona). Even the site(s) of the First Four is/are going to large cities like Dayton, OH. There will not be a DI MBB tournament game in the Dakotas for at least 25 years*, and I seriously doubt there will be one even after that.

The NCAA has been moving the WBB subregionals to smaller, on-campus sites rather than major venues mainly due to poor attendance. They also doubled the number of subregional sites from 8 to 16 starting in 2009. Other than ice hockey, WBB is the only DI tourney that the REA has even a chance to host a part of, and even that's a long shot. Local volleyball subregionals will continue to go to the UofMN or Iowa State since those are given to the seeded team in the pod, and UND(and NDSU, SDSU & USD) will never be a top 16 team.

I don't follow hockey site selection, but it seems like most of the posters here acknowledge that the NCAA is looking at larger facilities in bigger cities for the Frozen Four. Maybe a regional is possible, but the Xcel Center and the Mariucci Arena in the Twin Cities are some pretty tough competition when you consider air travel, hotels and food availability. Hosting a women's hockey tournament game is by far the most likely of all of them, and it's pretty tough justifying the cost of the conversion just for that.

As for the conversion, the first major deadline is Dec 31, 2011. That's when all the circular brass plaques in the railings need to be removed(not the ones on the ends of the aisle seating) as well as the lighted outside logos. So, the REA has got about a year and a half to make their final decision.

*25 years is as far as I will make a prediction for anything, no matter how unlikely I believe it to be.

Hammer...I'm stunned that the likes of you, research god with infinite credibility, would not know that Boise, Idaho's Taco Bell Arena (capacity 12.8k) has been a 1st/2nd round host EIGHT times since 1983!

Or how about Spokane, Washington's Arena (capacity 12.2k)? Three 1st/2nd round hosts since 2003.

You're telling me that Boise and Spokane are major metro centers with huge facilities? Plainly you're wrong.

If they can get it, Grand Forks and the REA can get it. I won't budge.

[Gothmog]

Hammer...I'm stunned that the likes of you, research god with infinite credibility, would not know that Boise, Idaho's Taco Bell Arena (capacity 12.8k) has been a 1st/2nd round host EIGHT times since 1983!

Or how about Spokane, Washington's Arena (capacity 12.2k)? Three 1st/2nd round hosts since 2003.

You're telling me that Boise and Spokane are major metro centers with huge facilities? Plainly you're wrong.

If they can get it, Grand Forks and the REA can get it. I won't budge.

Both the Boise and Spokane metro areas have populations around 600k. Making them ~ 6 times as large as GF.

Seems significant to me.

[Hammersmith]

Hammer...I'm stunned that the likes of you, research god with infinite credibility, would not know that Boise, Idaho's Taco Bell Arena (capacity 12.8k) has been a 1st/2nd round host EIGHT times since 1983!

Or how about Spokane, Washington's Arena (capacity 12.2k)? Three 1st/2nd round hosts since 2003.

You're telling me that Boise and Spokane are major metro centers with huge facilities? Plainly you're wrong.

If they can get it, Grand Forks and the REA can get it. I won't budge.

Hmm, Boise is a city of over 200k and a metro of almost 600k. That makes it roughly five times the size of Grand Forks. It's one of the largest 100 cities in the US. It has air service with Delta, United, Southwest, and four other smaller carriers. It's a half day drive from Salt Lake City(<6hrs) and a bit more from Portland(<8hrs); both are straight shots. It's also fills a void in the northern Rockies; the next closest major arena is in SLC.

In contrast, GF has one major airline(Delta), and one minor(Allegiant). It's a half day from MSP(<6hrs), but not a straight shot(though going through Fargo isn't exactly a big deal). But the real kicker is this: why would the NCAA chose to put a subregional in GF and have almost all of the people fly in through MSP rather than just choosing one of the three comparable or better venues in the Cities(Metrodome/Target/Xcel) plus everything else the Cities give you?

Budge or don't budge, I don't really care. But GF is not getting a MBB subregional no matter what REA does or doesn't do. And Fargo ain't getting one either, no matter what NDSU & the city do for a basketball arena. We could build a 25k seat palace to BB that would put the REA to shame and we still wouldn't get a sniff unless bribes were involved. MSP is just too close and too well equipped as a city. GF needs to focus on getting whatever hockey games they can, and Fargo needs to focus on WBB and as many Summit tourneys as possible. Anything else would be a waste of time, energy and money.

And with that, I'm done on the nickname forum for another couple months, or the next time I get really bored.