The Sicatoka

That's one way to spin that information. The others are: A. Minnesota believes they shouldn't have to travel for non-conference games. They deserve the home ice advantage because "they are who we thought they are" (thank you Denny Green for the quote). B. They can't afford to travel from an overall Athletic Department revenues point of view. They have to have those home hockey gates to pay the overall expenses. No non-conference travel is mandated by their accountants. Honestly, I believe "B" is behind the "mandated" that Cardinal mentions.

And you've never been talking about something exciting in your life, that you're looking forward to, like starting college and playing football at that level, and had something come out not as clearly as you may have wanted or intended. I say we start over-analyzing all of your posts because you're "DI" now too (albeit as a fan). Shall we?

Sadly, the late Gino-era of hockey only half filled the old (6067 capacity) REA most nights. Given that .... Why would anyone be dumb enough to build UND a state-of-the-art hockey facility with twice the seats?

Ya'know, I had a long and logical answer typed out for this. Instead I highlighted it and then hit "delete". I choose to respond this way: If it's a good strategy, recommend it to Gene Taylor.

Get 'im an application! :D

Your answer is above: Title IX. UND has chosen to meet Title IX via the proportionality option (in my opinion that's the safest route). Athletic "grants in aid" (NCAA-speak for scholarships) at UND are aligned to the breakdown of the general student population. If the M/F ratio is 52/48 then 52% of grant will go to male athletes, 48% to female athletes. Now, with FB having a big number of grants and no corresponding womens sport you have to have the womens sports to balance the number of FB scholarships. UND runs with 9 mens but 11 womens sports, and most of the womens minor sports run closer to the NCAA scholarship limits to balance FB. In the roughest sense: MH balances WH MBB balances WBB Baseball balances Softball M S&D balances W S&D M Track (In and Out)/CC balances W Track (In and Out)/CC M Golf balance W Golf Football takes Volleyball, Soccer, and Tennis to balance it out. And those aren't enough. The NCAA limits for grants for a team for womens BB, S&D, and Softball (and Track?) are higher than the corresponding mens team limits. Why? To create a mechanism to try to balance out football. Some schools are trying to grant "cheering" and "dance team" scholarships as "athletics" aid in an effort to balance out Title IX. And do you think "womens crew" or (sorry) "womens equestrian" is really the hot new sport or just a way to try to create scholarship opportunities for women? All those teams aren't cheap, but they're still cheaper than a Title IX lawsuit (and the bad press that'd come with it). Again, ask yourself: Would a school really maintain the womens sports (and fiscal losses) it takes to balance out football per Title IX if not for Title IX?

If college sports was about making money (in the truest, capitalistic sense; with no subsities from university funds or student fees; just spectator revenues) I'd speculate there'd be: - fewer than 50 football programs - about 100 basketball programs - a handful of hockey programs and really not much else. In general, college athletics is a loss leader (like that 24-pack of soda for $4 at the grocery store). It's out there to get you interested in what else is there. Ask yourself: Would a school really maintain a wrestling or swimming program if there wasn't a mandated minimum number of sports/teams by the NCAA? Would a school really maintain the womens sports (and fiscal losses) it takes to balance out football per Title IX if not for Title IX? In the world we live in we've created a situation where the true cost is an afterthought. All you can do in that world is try to minimize the losses.

I'm sure there have been days USD's football team wished they could claim that stat.

Number of seats does not matter per se; however, .... The requirement for FBS (formerly DI-A) is "Once every two years on a rolling basis, the institution shall average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games." See Section 20.9.7.3 of the 2007-08 NCAA DI Manual for all of the gorey details.

But there is a plan. And it's more than a plan, there are renderings. The scale of what is being talked about however is something that'd have to be done in phases.

I'll say it again: A year from now you'll Marto and LaPoint to be "veterans". The defense could well be those two, Jones, Genoway, and a bunch of freshmen. If you think skating a bunch of freshman defensemen is a good thing look at Minnesota's season so far.

1031 is more than some DI mens games out east.

Strictly speaking of the candidates I've met and dealt with during my life or time at UND*, Phyllis Johnson would be my least preferred. I wish I could've met the candidates from U Wyoming and U Florida to compare to the ones that have some UND history. * Johnson ran the Human Nutrition "Nut" Lab at UND for a while in the 1980s and 1990s.

Didn't they do that at a football game during the fall also?

The Olympic practice arena (200 x 100 sheet) between The Ralph and The Betty can hold about 1000. As far as baseball facilities making a difference (ala Newman): May 15, 2006, Minnesota wins at NDSU 11-10, attendance 503 at Newman Field. That's a little better than 10% full. That's the "most excitement" game of the year and it's really not all that much better than UND's 2006 season average of 324. The college baseball season is tough in this climate.

Well darn it, he left before he got to me. For the record, the quoted post was "puck swami", a Denver fan, and not me, although I agree with much of it. I look back at Bochenski and what I said then was: He made a mistake; let's see what he learns from it. Bochenski didn't make another public mistake. Then it was Parise (and a couple BC boys) and what I said then was: He made a mistake; let's see what he learns from it. Parise didn't make another public mistake. As far as chances, UND brought TJ in and gave him a chance. In January (2007) TJ made a mistake. UND gave him another chance. Unfortunately TJ made another public mistake. That disappointed me. And I said so. But ultimately my disappointment means exactly squat. Yup, nada. Not. A. Thing. And you heard it here first. The disappointment that matters was shown by a man who wore the jersey, Dave Hakstol, when he sat him for a game and took away captaincy. So if "credentials" are in question, question former Sioux captain Dave Hakstol's credentials. TJ disappointed the man who gave him a chance, Coach Hakstol. But he has another chance from Coach Hakstol also. I'm glad. I trust Hak.

You at "Bob's Country Bunker"?

Doing a little digging around in various UND info I've acquired I find: - UND's "pro forma" staffing budget projections include a coach, an assistant, and a grad assistant from 2008-09 through 2012-2013. (Currently it is a coach and two grad assistants.) - UND projects to have 7.5 baseball scholarships in FY13 (2012-2013 season). That's 30 "25% scholarships" for folks without a calculator handy. Even though I like the notion of lacrosse, yes, the prime issue now is finding an all sports conference home. After achieving that comes aligning specific sports to that conference (add mens tennis? add mens soccer? drop baseball? drop softball? other?). After that comes an evaluation of other possibilities under the new circumstances. I'd love to see UND Lacrosse one day, but there are bigger fish to fry first.

Maybe you can't ... I recommend everyone read what 'jimdahl' linked to and take it to heart, especially that last paragraph.

Ya know, I won't disagree with that. But I will say the following: Before you post it here ask yourself, "Would I say this to the person's face?" When you post it here, you just may have.

No Kelling in the last cut? I owe a couple "beverages" to some folks.

Here is the other thing: So do athletic directors and other administrators. I'd say if it's happened out there for all to see or in the public record it's out there for discussion. If it's a rumor (or "I know a secret" info) how do we know if it's true or if it's someone waging a smear campaign. Shouldn't the standard be to "discuss what has happened in public (or as public record)" instead of "discuss what has rumoredly happened privately or behind closed doors" to folks in visible positions in UND athletics?

From: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=63797 So they've effectively raised the scholarship minimum (mandatory 25% offers), added the "transfer and sit" rule (like FB, BB, and hockey), and capped rosters. With a 35 man roster you figure 7 or 8 recruits every year. If each guy has to get a 25% offer that's about 2 full scholarships for a program that only has 3. How's that going to work?

This thing just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser .... And you thought special assessments in Fargo were bad today ...

Patience. :D