Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Sicatoka

As March 6 Looms ...

Sport Predictions  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. UND Athletics will cut ...

    • Women's Hockey
      15
    • M/W Swimming and Diving
      10
    • M/W Swimming and Diving and M/W Tennis
      18
    • Nothing, just cut budgets
      11
    • Other (provide your option in the thread)
      6
  2. 2. UND will end up with ___ NCAA sports.

    • 20
      9
    • 19
      7
    • 18
      16
    • 17
      5
    • 16
      23
    • Other (provide your number in the thread)
      0


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, dlsiouxfan said:

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but has it occurred to North Dakotans that they could avoid this boom/ bust cycle if they'd pay higher state income tax rate than 2.9%? At what point does the state government just admit that there is a base level of services that North Dakotans desire (universities that function, highways without potholes, etc.) and then come up with a plan to raise that revenue that isn't entirely dependent on the price of a volatile commodity?

And that's the highest rate.  Vast majority are paying between 1.1% and 2.04%.  Income tax rates have been cut nearly in half since the start of the oil boom.  In 2007, comparable rates for the vast majority were between 2.1% and 3.92%, with a max of 5.54%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I think if you look at how much the government spending has grown in the last 6-8 years, it seems like there should be plenty to cut out and still be above levels the state was previously at. When "one-time spending" happens, a chunk of seems to just work its way into the next baseline. I don't think anyone is advocating for cutting highway infrastructure or dysfunctional universities. There is plenty of fat to go around, reevaluating priorities and making some cuts isn't a bad thing.

For example - Higher ed had appropriations of $472 million in 2007-2009. The proposed level for 2017-2019 is $650 million. That's an increase of 38%  and doesn't take into account increase in tuition revenue from $553 million to $768 million. During that same time frame, FTE's went from 35,585 to 38,089.

Also, Large salary increases accross the board from 2007-9. We're Div I school now, gotta pay everybody (all professors, not just coaches) to play this Div I ball game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I think if you look at how much the government spending has grown in the last 6-8 years, it seems like there should be plenty to cut out and still be above levels the state was previously at. When "one-time spending" happens, a chunk of seems to just work its way into the next baseline. I don't think anyone is advocating for cutting highway infrastructure or dysfunctional universities. There is plenty of fat to go around, reevaluating priorities and making some cuts isn't a bad thing.

For example - Higher ed had appropriations of $472 million in 2007-2009. The proposed level for 2017-2019 is $650 million. That's an increase of 38%  and doesn't take into account increase in tuition revenue from $553 million to $768 million.

38% in the last 10 years in North Dakota really isn't much.  And UND's percentage increase would be less than the system average.  Higher Ed certainly needed a kick to encourage reorganization and prioritization, but they're going to have to do more than that to meet the current expected cuts.  

Also, the $650 million you reference was the Dalrumple number.  The Senate took it down closer to $615 million (a 30% increase from 2007-09).

Now, is the world ending?  No, like you said, there's plenty of fat to cut.  But the cuts are going to go a bit deeper than just the fat and most everybody will feel some pain from it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these budget issues in part because of the move to D-I and if so, did the leaders not do any sort of cost analysis before making the move?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dlsiouxfan said:

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but has it occurred to North Dakotans that they could avoid this boom/ bust cycle if they'd pay higher state income tax rate than 2.9%? At what point does the state government just admit that there is a base level of services that North Dakotans desire (universities that function, highways without potholes, etc.) and then come up with a plan to raise that revenue that isn't entirely dependent on the price of a volatile commodity?

south dakota has zero income tax and no oil and they pay their bills....it's a SPENDING problem!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football: won a NC in 2001 and a conference title (post transition) in 2016

Men's hockey: won a NC in 2016

Women's basketball: has won conference titles and a trip to the dance

Women's volleyball: has won conference titles and a trip to the NCAA Tournament

Men's basketball: (after this weekend) should win its first conference title and is favorite to go to the dance, plus attendance is up over last year.

Then there is:

Women's hockey: no conference titles, and no wins in the NCAA Tournament.  808 average attendance (4th in the nation) but at 6.9% of capacity which is down from 1009 last season.

Usually records and championships don't matter whether to keep a sport but when a school has to pick and choose this could be an argument along with the revenue that isn't coming in and the expenses that is killing the UND athletics budget.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zonadub said:

Can anyone explain why Mayville and Valley City are still open?

Back in 1999, there was a measure on the ballot to take the names of the colleges and universities out of the Constitution, presumably to make it easier to shut down campuses. It was voted down big time (80-20 or something like that). That is why the Legislature won't go there; the people have said HELL NO to shutting down campuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

 

Women's hockey: ... 808 average attendance (4th in the nation)

This must be why there will be a national outcry if women's hockey is dropped

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Back in 1999, there was a measure on the ballot to take the names of the colleges and universities out of the Constitution, presumably to make it easier to shut down campuses. It was voted down big time (80-20 or something like that). That is why the Legislature won't go there; the people have said HELL NO to shutting down campuses.

Any guesses how much of a deficit they run?

Burgum has the mandate, doesn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zonadub said:

Any guesses how much of a deficit they run?

Burgum has the mandate, doesn't he?

I don't know if the people's attitudes have changed or not.

And Burgum isn't exactly best friends with Al Carlson and the other Legislative leaders in Bismarck. Remember, he ran against the Legislature as the "good old boys club".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zonadub said:

Any guesses how much of a deficit they run?

Burgum has the mandate, doesn't he?

The schools are named in the North Dakota Constitution. A change in the Constitution has to be approved by a vote of the people. The people are very unlikely to close one of the schools.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Back in 1999, there was a measure on the ballot to take the names of the colleges and universities out of the Constitution, presumably to make it easier to shut down campuses. It was voted down big time (80-20 or something like that). That is why the Legislature won't go there; the people have said HELL NO to shutting down campuses.

 

5 minutes ago, 82SiouxGuy said:

The schools are named in the North Dakota Constitution. A change in the Constitution has to be approved by a vote of the people. The people are very unlikely to close one of the schools.

Yeah, forgot about that constitutional thing. 1889 political back-scratching...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, UNDBIZ said:

Higher Ed saw huge funding increases during the oil boom.  How they prioritized the use of that funding is on the campus presidents, not the legislature.  Schafer did more long-term positive work for UND than the last 3 presidents combined.  Giving teams the chance to raise funds to keep programs afloat was the worst decision Schafer made.

I'll concede that the presidents were definitely more to blame for the problems. I don't agree that Schafer will have a positive legacy. Sure, he was wise to look to the longterm but some of the cuts he made just didn't make sense when matched to his requirements, not to mention some of the expenses he incurred. For better or worse those types of cuts should have been left to Kennedy to make.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darell1976 said:

Football: won a NC in 2001 and a conference title (post transition) in 2016

Men's hockey: won a NC in 2016

Women's basketball: has won conference titles and a trip to the dance

Women's volleyball: has won conference titles and a trip to the NCAA Tournament

Men's basketball: (after this weekend) should win its first conference title and is favorite to go to the dance, plus attendance is up over last year.

Then there is:

Women's hockey: no conference titles, and no wins in the NCAA Tournament.  808 average attendance (4th in the nation) but at 6.9% of capacity which is down from 1009 last season.

Usually records and championships don't matter whether to keep a sport but when a school has to pick and choose this could be an argument along with the revenue that isn't coming in and the expenses that is killing the UND athletics budget.

 

All true. But none of those teams face the perennial powerhouse teams that have won most of the NCAA titles to date. The Big Sky is not a powerhouse conference. Also by your logic, softball, tennis and soccer are all good choices as well. Better choices even since W Hockey at least makes the tournament occasionally.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

All true. But none of those teams face the perennial powerhouse teams that have won most of the NCAA titles to date. The Big Sky is not a powerhouse conference. Also by your logic, softball, tennis and soccer are all good choices as well. Better choices even since W Hockey at least makes the tournament occasionally.

Those sports don't have the expenses like women's hockey that's why I think they either axe women's hockey or they will axe swimming and tennis to get us down to 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

I'll concede that the presidents were definitely more to blame for the problems. I don't agree that Schafer will have a positive legacy. Sure, he was wise to look to the longterm but some of the cuts he made just didn't make sense when matched to his requirements, not to mention some of the expenses he incurred. For better or worse those types of cuts should have been left to Kennedy to make.

By expenses he incurred, I'm guessing you're referring to the new logo at a cost of $50,000 (not even a rounding error on UND's financial statements).  Putting out the logo dumpster fire before a new president was hired was one of his primarily duties.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

By expenses he incurred, I'm guessing you're referring to the new logo at a cost of $50,000 (not even a rounding error on UND's financial statements).  Putting out the logo dumpster fire before a new president was hired was one of his primarily duties.

I was never a Schafer fan, he was not fond of giving much to HE over the years. But, did a good job of trying to stop the logo bleeding. Many people are accepting the Hawks. Time was going to do this anyway, but he got it done. The Ralph will put the final nail in the coffin next season.  This will be easier to do with the Hawks success in FB, VB, WBB, & MBB and not as successful a ND hockey season (at least so far).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

Also, Large salary increases accross the board from 2007-9. We're Div I school now, gotta pay everybody (all professors, not just coaches) to play this Div I ball game.

That is so much hokum. And it keeps being spewed out there are gospel.  (None of that is aimed at you BWSE.) 

Division I is an athletics designation, the NCAA, the National Collegiate ATHLETICS Association. Some folks < cough, in Fargo, cough > sold that notion and it is bunk. 

University rankings in terms of research and scholarship matter far more when it comes to faculty salaries. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed!

 

merely meeting the mandated $1.3 MM cut does not do anything to increase funding resources for those teams that remain (that Kennedy wants to be competitive)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's saying the $1.3 million isn't already going above and beyond? Even if it isn't, they are figuring the cuts without factoring in the following:
Any cost savings that will be realized from moving to the Summit/MVFC.
There will be some small increases in Champions Club dues that I would guess will add up to at least an additional $250-300K for next year, if not a little more.

On top of that, in the first round, they made cuts that went beyond what they needed to, even after revenues exceeded projected budget (mainly due to increase in football tickets).

UND is cutting what was reported as the equivalent of their direct state allocations over the biennium. More realistically, assuming the $1.3 million is an annual number, UND is cutting around 18% of their direct institutional support (5.4% of their overall budget).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LeftyZL said:

Why are we only looking at the $1.3 million number? Why don't we cut more than that number? It's ok to have extra money laying around for unknown expenses/surprises.

If we want to be lean and successful, in my opinion you need to cut women's hockey and any other sports that the Summit League does not offer/support/require.

People are going to be upset regardless about the cuts. Make the knife cut be deep and sharp to the budget. And be done once and for all.

Time for the President to put his big boy pants on.

The only sports we have that the SL doesn't sponsor is M&W hockey, and football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×