The Sicatoka

Based on Jim Dahl's updated http://collegehockeyranked.com/forecast/pwrbywins/ Who's out (32): Niagara, UAA, UAH, RPI, UMass, Brown, NMU, AIU, FSU, Alaska, RIT, Mich St, Sacred Heart, ASU, Colgate, LSS, Mercyhurst, Bentley, Holy Cross, BGSU, Maine, Princeton, Dartmouth, UNH, Merrimack, CC, Army, MSUM, Canisius, Clarkson, BSU, MTU Who's effectively out, meaning they have to win all (or lose just one) of their remaining games, seven or more, just to have any shot (6): Michigan, UConn, Yale, Northeastern, Quinnipiac, RMU Who's really on the bubble, meaning have to win 2/3 or more of games just to make PWR15 (6): Miami, Notre Dame, USAFA, Cornell, Ohio State, St. Lawrence The above is 44 of 60 NCAA DI teams. Who's got some work, meaning have to win half or more of their remaining games just to be PWR15 (6): UNO, Wisconsin, SCSU, UMLowell, Vermont, Providence, The above is now 50 of 60 NCAA DI teams. Who's pretty safe, meaning can't lose out, but can go under 0.500 and still get to PWR15 (8)? BC, UND, Harvard, Minnesota, Union, PSU, WMU, BU Who's in, meaning they can lose out and get in (2)? UMD and DU. And there's 60. DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know PWR 15 is not safe as it can be stolen via a surprise autobid but I had to use some cut line.

I get what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure there's a better ROI on WBB and WVB than WIH. If we have to have some womens sports that are guaranteed fiscal losers we need to pick the smallest fiscal losers. That's the "objective" I'm looking for. Now, if WH, because it has facilities (see: MH) is a better fiscal option than < insert sport here > show me the number and I'll gladly listen.

Is Kennedy this smart about UND and ND politics walking in the door? No. Now, if Kennedy maybe had a good job mentor for a few days, say his predecessor, and then maybe a guy who maybe knows his way around ND politics to maybe clue Kennedy in about what's on the horizon in Bismarck. Maybe Kennedy could be advised put together a long game something like this. But alas, all Kennedy had for a predecessor was ... Ed Schafer. Oh ... wait ... didn't Ed get inside all the details of UND and have some kinda experience in Bismarck?

We're all good.

You know what I think of sacred cows? They're fabulous with South American sauce on the grill. Quite sincerely, women's hockey must be evaluated objectively.

Don't smash my dream. Don't crush my butterfly. Don't harsh my mellow. (But yeah, we aren't trading sports, dropping and adding different, in this economic climate.)

Their RPI right now (the biggest factor in PWR) is all about their winning percentage (and not their opponent's).

$7.8 million? Toews is pulling in a cool $10.5 million. And other parts of his life are pretty OK also.

I believe M/W BB, MH, VB, and FB are completely safe. Heck, M/W BB are Summit mandatory. FB is going MVFC. MH is going nowhere. And VB is solid ROI. There's five. I also believe M/W T&F/CC are just fine. That's (ready?) SIX teams because T&F counts Indoor and Outdoor as separate teams. And we have the HPC. There's eleven. (Oh, and UND would be above Summit minimum here.) What's the remaining nine left to look at? M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W S&D, W Hoc, W Soft, W Soc. To me, now it comes down to facilities now and for the next ten years for the teams. On a personal note, I'd like to stay at 16 teams*. *This is where I'd really like to be radical and say dump everything in the "remaining nine" except the two cheapest and then add M/W lacrosse as spring spectator (better revenue potential) sports.

Trying to answer my own question, I found a DU blog that claims the Summit requires "men’s and women’s basketball plus five additional core sports". That sounds low. So, I looked at Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_League ): - the lowest mens sports sponsor in the Summit is DU and IPFW at 5 each. NDSU is at 6. - the lowest womens sports sponsor in the Summit is DU at 6. IPFW, NDSU, and ORU are at 8 each. So DU has 11 in the Summit; IPFW has 13, and NDSU has 14. I know DU has M/W skiing and lacrosse (and they claim to have hockey ) to get to the DI minimum of 14. IPFW has MVB to get to 14. NDSU has 14 not counting FB and wrestling.

What are the minimum sport sponsorship numbers (M/W) for Summit League membership?

I believe I've seen/heard/read that as well.

Ouch. Sunuva ... someone call a chiropractor. My shoulder just came out patting myself on the back.

FCS is 14 (7M/7W or 6M/8W). FBS is 16.

If you want to play "20% chop", what's NDSU going to do about its "20% chop"? <-- That knife cuts both ways. But instead I'll just say, ... Oh Dan, all you have is more deflection? ... < sigh > NDSU should've got out in front of this sooner, like when they had a chance, like when they saw what UND did. NDSU had a warning and tried to skirt the issue. Now it's gonna bite.

Miller's article says nothing about NDSU's 12.2% problem that amounts to $18 million. And those are the numbers. And this is the "Moo U" thread. But nice try at deflection. Where is NDSU going to chop 12.2% from it's budget?

Read more: http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/featured-columnists/4208939-mike-jacobs-north-dakota-created-its-own-budget-woes So, what's NDSU going to cut in Athletics to make this 12.2% number? They're running at or near Division I minimum sport sponsorship now.

QUICK! Call a moderat... nevermind.

Oh re-e-e-e-e-eally ... http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/featured-columnists/4208939-mike-jacobs-north-dakota-created-its-own-budget-woes Seems UND manned up last time and made real cuts where NDSU floated around the edges.

The clean-up crew.

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Remember the three factors in RPI*: Your winning pct; your opponents' winning pct; and your opponent's opponent's winning pct. You can have a good RPI by (a) winning a lot against mediocre teams playing mediocre teams or (b) you can win a majority of your games against great competition. If you're doing it by method (a) you have to keep winning (keep your win pct high) or else your bad competition starts to shine through. *Yes, they've added some "wiggle factors" on those for home versus road wins, etc. But the primary influences remain those three.

Be sad all you want; here's the proof. PS - I was wrong. This is not across from the traditional Mens and Womens rest rooms. Those are across the wide corridor. This room is across from the Gender Neutral rest room. I was a tourist and doing the tourist thing (meaning photos, albeit badly based on these 90 degrees off rotations ). You should visit sometime. They seem prepared to meet all your needs.

Raising the roof and adding a second deck would probably be cheaper. Ponder that. And a second deck would allow for the fire code concerns to be resolved as they could access it through new outdoor "walk-up spirals" that lead directly to the upper without affecting the egress of folks in lower. Again, ponder that and what it would cost. As others have said: New construction would be more cost effective. But then there's that little detail of money.