UND Fan Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Thought it was mentioned that Breon was injury related and there was a chance he could return after his shoulder healed but he was going to take this semester away. I thought that was in the comments on SFI. I agree, Javen seemed like a tremendous athlete and both safety positions will be wide open come spring ball. I had thought the "semester off" was the first semester just completed. It would be great if Breon was back in the fall and I certainly agree that we don't want to lose Javen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux24/7 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Does anyone know if all the FB players returned to school for the second semester? I understand Anyu-Gafu and at least one of the Butlers are not in school. That info may not be fact. I saw Anyu-Gafu at one of the men's basketball games not too long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I saw Anyu-Gafu at one of the men's basketball games not too long ago. He is a commercial aviation major - maybe he decided to leave the team to concentrate on studies? I would think that he would still be at the school if he's not on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND Fan Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I saw Anyu-Gafu at one of the men's basketball games not too long ago. It could be that my info was incorrect! I hope so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 An article in today's Herald stated that another transfer could be brought in at the safety position if a need is demonstrated in spring ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Per the live chat, Tim Belmore has accepted the offensive coordinator position at Jamestown College. Good luck to him. Also, Anya-Gafu is no longer at UND, and while both Breon and Javen Butler are still at UND, neither is part of the football program. Both are ineligible and are "highly unlikely" to return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Best of luck Tim Belmore - thanks for everything you have done for UND football and best of luck at Jamestown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'm quite optimistic about the possibilities for the 2012 team, assuming two things: 1) that the QB position has been upgraded, and 2) that the notoriously pourous secondary makes improvement. I know I'm playing Captain Obvious here, but there is talent on the offensive side of the ball with O-Line, Seth Nichols, Jake Miller, Greg Hardin and RJ McGill. Just need a QB to step up and take some of the load off of Miller and Sutton. Hopefully Hanson is the guy to do it. Would also be great if one or more of the sizeable young receivers step up like Jackson, Townsend, or Young. And unless significant adjustments or improvements are made in the secondary, we will get torched by most Big Sky passing games. This defense is not currently well suited to Big Sky play. There are not many "run first" teams in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I'm quite optimistic about the possibilities for the 2012 team, assuming two things: 1) that the QB position has been upgraded, and 2) that the notoriously pourous secondary makes improvement. I know I'm playing Captain Obvious here, but there is talent on the offensive side of the ball with O-Line, Seth Nichols, Jake Miller, Greg Hardin and RJ McGill. Just need a QB to step up and take some of the load off of Miller and Sutton. Hopefully Hanson is the guy to do it. Would also be great if one or more of the sizeable young receivers step up like Jackson, Townsend, or Young. And unless significant adjustments or improvements are made in the secondary, we will get torched by most Big Sky passing games. This defense is not currently well suited to Big Sky play. There are not many "run first" teams in the league. Agreed. Factor in the youth, particularly at safety, and I think there's reason to be concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Hello...is anyone out there? NDSU lost their defensive coordinator to USC. I am excited to watch the Sioux play. The days are counting down. Anyone wanna start a pool for when the IPF will be announced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Hello...is anyone out there? NDSU lost their defensive coordinator to USC. I am excited to watch the Sioux play. The days are counting down. Anyone wanna start a pool for when the IPF will be announced? If the Sioux name stays, throw the IPF idea out the window. There won't be a team to use it, unless Central or Red River use it. As for the NDSU DC going to USC...good for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Hello...is anyone out there? NDSU lost their defensive coordinator to USC. I am excited to watch the Sioux play. The days are counting down. Anyone wanna start a pool for when the IPF will be announced? If the nickname does end up staying, any money that has been raised for the IPF will go back into the athletic department budget just to keep it afloat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If the nickname does end up staying, any money that has been raised for the IPF will go back into the athletic department budget just to keep it afloat. The money was probably designated for that project. If the donor did specifically designate the money it can't be diverted to another purpose without their permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The money was probably designated for that project. If the donor did specifically designate the money it can't be diverted to another purpose without their permission. Right. The fact that the IPF project would be scrapped altogether if the name is kept and we don't get into the Big Sky is what I was getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Right. The fact that the IPF project would be scrapped altogether if the name is kept and we don't get into the Big Sky is what I was getting at. and he was getting at...he doesn't necessarily agree. He was pointing out donors probably specifically mentioned "hey I want my donation to go to the IPF." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 and he was getting at...he doesn't necessarily agree. He was pointing out donors probably specifically mentioned "hey I want my donation to go to the IPF." And what I'm saying is that if we don't have a D1 conference, we will not be building an indoor practice facility unless 100% of the funds were designated specifically for that cause. Any money that would have to be contributed by the university from general athletic donations will not be going towards an indoor practice facility because without a conference, every cent possible will be going towards keeping the athletic department simply operational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 And what I'm saying is that if we don't have a D1 conference, we will not be building an indoor practice facility unless 100% of the funds were designated specifically for that cause. Any money that would have to be contributed by the university from general athletic donations will not be going towards an indoor practice facility because without a conference, every cent possible will be going towards keeping the athletic department simply operational. You're probably right. But it just depends on how much was donated and how it was designated. For money designated to the IPF, if it isn't built they could go back and talk to the donors. They may want to donate it for something else, or they may decide not to donate at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In case you forgot...Despite the nickname "controversy" last year UND set a record for donations: In fiscal year 2011, the UND Foundation saw the largest number of donors ever. A record 13,770 people donated $50.5 million in new gifts and pledges. Though some alumni voiced concerns and said they would no longer donate to the school, it is clear many were not bothered by their alma mater's name change. Most athletic programs already run in the red. Maybe UND could run in the red like them and still build a IPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In case you forgot...Despite the nickname "controversy" last year UND set a record for donations: Most athletic programs already run in the red. Maybe UND could run in the red like them and still build a IPF. False. Most athletic departments do not run in the red. Bad athletic departments run in the red and Good athletic departments break even by choice or lose a small amount of money meaning that "on average" collegiate athletic departments lose money. Running in the red by choice in the amount that would cost is not an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 False. Most athletic departments do not run in the red. Bad athletic departments run in the red and Good athletic departments break even by choice or lose a small amount of money meaning that "on average" collegiate athletic departments lose money. Running in the red by choice in the amount that would cost is not an option. I just remembering i thought I read most FCS programs lose money. And when I read Montana athletic directors letter it further stated that conclusion? With revenues presently capped at about $13 million per year, we are having to find ways to cut expenses… and one option may have to be scholarships to out-of-state student athletes if we cannot find new revenue sources. We have continued to cut our expenses about $250,000 or more per year for the past three years…. But now we are down to the bare bone. Any further cuts will affect programs. You can see that already --- our entire budget for recruiting for all 14 sports is $178,000; at Montana State it’s $408,000 per the recently released NCAA audit numbers. I guess many programs might break even thanks to cutting expenses And isn't it all just accounting? Montana St to help keep up with Montana has "institutional support" and twice the student fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Here is what I read: COLUMBIA, Mo. -- Count college sports among the sagging economy's latest victims. A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before. The fiscal fortunes of major college athletic programs without football teams were even worse. None of the 97 schools in that category reported making money from athletics, with median losses of more than $2.8 million. http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5490686 I guess it might be still feasible to build the IPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Here is what I read: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5490686 I guess it might be still feasible to build the IPF. Yes, median losses are big but a number like that is misleading when you don't dig deeper. There are athletic departments that struggle mightily and lose 10+ million dollars but there aren't athletic departments that have 10+ million in profits because they operate like a non-profit organization and sink any excess revenue right back into capital investments in things like facilities improvements or staffing budget increases. If it was the goal of athletic departments to turn a profit, that median number would be much closer to zero. And although there are athletic departments that lose boatloads of money and still operate, intentionally losing multimillions of dollars is the kind of business decision that gets an entire athletic department fired. I'm not saying we can only build the IPF if it means we stay near the black. What I'm saying is that if we do not have a conference, we will not be anywhere near turning a profit whether we like it or not. Stacking a 10 million dollar project on top of an athletic department that is already losing money is not an option. It would force the university to prop up the department and sacrifice investments in research and academics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yes, median losses are big but a number like that is misleading when you don't dig deeper. There are athletic departments that struggle mightily and lose 10+ million dollars but there aren't athletic departments that have 10+ million in profits because they operate like a non-profit organization and sink any excess revenue right back into capital investments in things like facilities improvements or staffing budget increases. If it was the goal of athletic departments to turn a profit, that median number would be much closer to zero. And although there are athletic departments that lose boatloads of money and still operate, intentionally losing multimillions of dollars is the kind of business decision that gets an entire athletic department fired. Do you have any evidence of any of this? That most athletics departments don't lose money. Which I proved they do? You talk like a politician, saying much while saying nothing. If not I will listen to the Montana Athletic Director and articles from ESPN on people who have done the research. And it states many athletic programs lose millions a year. Some lose many millions some lose less millions and its hard to argue that the article states if you don't have football and basically are division I, the median loss is $2.8 Million. I know how nonprofits work yes. They can make profits. And So do many athletic programs like Ohio St. Yeah they "sink" it back in. Doesn't mean they don't make a "profit." Its semantics, I get it. The nonprofit Altru can pay its CEO $1 Billion if it wants. Call them profits call them whatever...its money made from operations. The main point.....if Montana has to cut $250,000 a year in expenses. I guess that means the odds of Montana building anything new for athletics....might be the same as UND building anything new for athletics. Pretty sure playing football in the Big Sky will be a money loser for UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Do you have any evidence of any of this? That most athletics departments don't lose money. Which I proved they do? You talk like a politician, saying much while saying nothing. If not I will listen to the Montana Athletic Director and articles from ESPN on people who have done the research. And it states many athletic programs lose millions a year. Some lose many millions some lose less millions and its hard to argue that the article states if you don't have football and basically are division I, the median loss is $2.8 Million. I know how nonprofits work yes. They can make profits. And So do many athletic programs like Ohio St. Yeah they "sink" it back in. Doesn't mean they don't make a "profit." Its semantics, I get it. The nonprofit Altru can pay its CEO $1 Billion if it wants. Call them profits call them whatever...its money made from operations. The main point.....if Montana has to cut $250,000 a year in expenses. I guess that means the odds of Montana building anything new for athletics....might be the same as UND building anything new for athletics. Pretty sure playing football in the Big Sky will be a money loser for UND. I don't have any articles or quotes but I'm just telling you what I learned in a college course on the economics of sports. An athletic department like Ohio State doesn't report profits because they are able to very accurately predict their revenues and budget to spend as close to that revenue as possible. That's for a department that can build up their expenses to match their revenues. For a department like Montana, they have to cut their expenses to match their revenues to get close to their goal of breaking even. You can choose to believe me or not but that is the way that the business side of collegiate athletics works. Also, I should rephrase what I said earlier. Most athletic departments do lose money technically but its either a small amount by design or a large amount because that's the best they can do. My argument is schools are losing money not because they can't make money, but because they choose not to make money. Right now, UND is likely fighting like Montana to keep as near the black as possible. If they are not allowed in the Big Sky, they will move from being near the black to losing a very large amount of money. Nobody would be able to justify an expense like the IPF while the department is losing 5-10 million dollars a year. Right now, if we are allowed in the Big Sky we would be able to pay for the IPF without digging us further into a financial hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I don't have any articles or quotes but I'm just telling you what I learned in a college course on the economics of sports. An athletic department like Ohio State doesn't report profits because they are able to very accurately predict their revenues and budget to spend as close to that revenue as possible. That's for a department that can build up their expenses to match their revenues. For a department like Montana, they have to cut their expenses to match their revenues to get close to their goal of breaking even. You can choose to believe me or not but that is the way that the business side of collegiate athletics works. I get the theory. But by your own admission "the median would be closer to zero." Meaning about half the programs lose money and half made money. Or at least that is what the "amounts" would say. We will never know. And also as it has been pointed out the stats would be skewed by schools like Montana "losing money" on athletics but thanks to cutting expenses making it look like they broke even. So "it goes both ways." I get what you are saying. I think I have said my peace. Good debate. Good discussion. 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.