UND08

I don't begrudge coach Baldwin of anything...he's got a heck of a team in Cheney...and an absolute beast in Kupp. They were down last year...by their standards (and who could blame them after Oregon treated EWU like a JUCO...which is a blatant abuse of the grad transfer rule)...but at some point Bubba deserves some recognition on some level for turning the dumpster fire that he inherited around in 3 years. I know this is a season-only award, but look back to 2008 (UND's first D1 year and Baldwin's 1st year at EWU). Assuming EWU wins on Saturday, this is what both teams have done: UND 52-47 (many of the wins sub-D1 due to transition schedule) EWU 83-31 (1 National Title) EWU in 2015 was an anomaly...Coach Baldwin deserves a ton of credit for getting them back on track this year, and it is tough to sustain a program (for most schools not named NDSU)...but Bubba has taken a team that has done nothing and made them relevant (to what level can and will be thoroughly debated I'm sure) in a relatively short time-frame. That's why most UND fans think he should be coach of the year...if that makes any sense. Maybe they'll split the big sky award. Both coaches are very deserving.

It's Bob Stitt's contribution to modern college football offense. You lose the deception that comes with the possibility of a fake handoff but gain the security of knowing it's incomplete if the timing is off (rather than a fumble). The boos in the Alerus were certainly loud and if you didn't see the pitch you'd certainly think it's a fumble. But our coaches weren't arguing because they knew.

I've never really understood this line of reasoning...you are correct in that the Big Sky has some schools in beautiful locations...however it's not like the football team is going to Missoula, MT on a vacation...those are focused business trips. It's not like they get to go hiking/fly-fishing/hunting/pub-crawling on Friday when they get to town or after the game...It's true that we'd lose the ability to sell recruits on playing close to home...but really the only recruiting area that would be affected is Denver...and the typical signee would lose two games per career in Greeley. We don't seem to have much interest in recruiting California, Montana, Idaho, Washington or Oregon...so it's kind of a moot point. However we do recruit the Twin Cities and Wisconsin hard...so the pros/cons on that are moot at best. Now...if you are looking at this from a FAN perspective...I agree 100%! I'd much rather drive the extra miles to Missoula over a trip to Normal or Macomb any day...but it's about what's best for the program. Being able to make trips to Fargo, Brookings, and Vermillion certainly has appeal to me...even if those aren't "sexy" locations...

I think two this year would be good...especially if one is a JUCO. Then going into next year we'd have: Studsrud (2017) JUCO (2018) Heidelbaugh (2019) Boltmann (2021 assuming redshirt) Bolinske (2020) Note that the above list isn't a depth chart. I'd prefer that Heidelbaugh develops and beats out a JUCO for the #2 job next year...but a serviceable transfer provides good insurance in case he doesn't. In 2018 you'd have a 3 way race for the QB1 job between Heidelbaugh, the transfer and Boltmann. The only age gap would be the class of 2020 assuming that the PWO Bolinske doesn't develop into a starting caliber QB (probably a tough road for him but who knows). I don't think you'd need more than two after this year, so long as the QBs we bring in are productive.

I'd rather have our offensive effort vs Southern Utah a few weeks ago consistently every week...it fits our overall philosophy better

Yeah...QB depth is a tough animal though...because it takes time to develop (like everything else). I wouldn't have been opposed to a juco QB (tough to find a FBS drop down that's willing to come to Grand Forks and have to battle to unseat an incumbent) that would be serviceable...but in all honesty it would have been tough to find one that could beat out Bartels (which isn't setting the bar high...just the reality of recruiting). We are going to have to build that depth organically. I know a lot of people were disappointed we didn't take a QB last year...but I'll trust that the coaches weren't comfortable with any of the prospects that they could have gotten (they don't just sign a QB to sign a QB). In a way it's too bad that Heidelbaugh and (assuming he stays committed) Boltmann weren't switched around age-wise, as I think Boltmann is less of a project (although if Heidelbaugh can figure out his mechanics he's got the frame and athleticism to be a good one). We might have a better opportunity at finding a transfer QB this year though, since the position will be wide open for 2018.

Agree 100%. I agree...although we've seen it be effective at multiple times the last couple years. There have been games where he's been in that 13-15 carry mode...To me he should be in the 3-5 attempts per game mindset (with any others coming on scrambles). Enough to show it on film but minimize chance of injury. He's a good runner...but certainly not dynamic. Stick to the Manitoba Moose and SantiaGOOOOOO (made me chuckle the first time the Alerus guy did this...but it's not as funny when I hear it after a 1 yard run)...

Cam Newton is 6'5" 245 lbs and doesn't feel "safe" playing quarterback...so I don't always think that bigger quarterbacks are less prone to getting hurt than smaller ones... I think it's more important that you have depth at QB if you are going to run your QB a lot. I was watching the Air Force/Fresno game last Friday night (insomnia)...and Air Force's QB went down with an injury in the 4th quarter (happens a lot to them with their flexbone offense). The backup came in and it was like nothing changed...that's what you need if you are going to give your QB 15+ carries per game in my opinion...

Another thing I'll add in regards to those who call out UND's "style of play" as being boring. What do these coaches have in common? Brian Kelly (Notre Dame) Bob Stoops (Oklahoma) Todd Graham (Arizona State) Barry Odom (Missouri) Charlie Strong (Texas) Answer: all of these are former defensive coordinators who adopted fast paced spread offenses. Ya know what else they have in common? Their defenses suck...and it's hurting their teams (some more than others...but all have lost big games this year). I remember Mussman's offenses that were supposed to be soooo vaunted...and ya know what we couldn't stop anyone. I'd rather score 25 points a game (no matter how we get them) and find ways to win than score 40 and lose...but hey...that's just me...

For 5 years of college I never once sat during a game that was within 35 points...and that's how the entire student section was...when I watch NDSU games they stand the entire time the other team has the ball... As to your last paragraph...it's the perfect descriptor as to why the people of Grand Forks don't deserve to have nice things...7 freakin wins in a row...but Bubba's style of football is too "boring." I would kill to have a boring, first place in the Big Sky FCS football team in Minot where I live. That way I wouldn't have to drive across the dang state every weekend...which I do anyway because I appreciate the attitude and effort that Bubba's crew displays (and I love all things UND). The hockey team only scored two goals on the weekend...would the good people of Grand Forks find them to be "boring" too?!? If our defensive effort in the second half wasn't satisfying enough...well then I guess there is no hope for Grand Forks...

Watching the playcalling in the first quarter today...it almost made me wonder if he was having shoulder issues going into the game...if not we've GOT to do a better job of mixing it up...a few things I'd like to see: A fake-toss play-action pass - we run the toss so much that teams are really starting to overload and over-pursue...sneak a tight end against the grain and he could run for days. Counter runs - again anything to keep defenses honest. We ran the jet-sweep reverse today and Weber was caught with their pants down...more of that please! A slip screen - again to keep defenses honest Salty effort by the D today...especially in the second half. They picked up the offense when they needed it most (after Keaton went down). Hopefully it's just a bruise and we can get him back soon...great gutty win for UND!!!

For what it's worth...and this is all secondhand, but I live in Minot and followed MSU during a good chunk of his tenure (i.e. before their D2 move killed my interest). From what I heard, some of MSU's struggles during his time here were due to players (especially but not limited to quarterbacks) not being able to fully grasp playbook terminology and get into a rhythm. His offense is significantly more complex than the zone read schemes a lot of teams are going to nowadays, so new players can't just step in and light it up from the get go. With new and inexperienced players at receiver and on the line I think some of the timing was off at the beginning of the season, but I expect those issues to continue to minimize going forward this year and in future years as we build up a more experienced and balanced roster. I think the training wheels were on the playbook even through last year, but going forward we are going to be more and more balanced...and I'm excited for that. I remember his offenses at St. Cloud with Keith Heckendorf under center...it was a thing of beauty for a football purist to watch! It kind of reminds me of some of our performances the last couple weeks. Paul is definitely not a "nobody" in Midwestern coaching circles. He's been a collegiate head coach for 15 years (albeit at lower levels)...but he's not some kid that calls games like it's Madden (see Bisonville's "critiques" of Polacek). When he has the depth and roster continuity to work with that we are building towards...well I'm thinking efforts like last week will be the norm.

Simply put...do I think football has the ability to break even or turn a small profit? Yes I do... Do I think women's hockey has that same ability? No I do not... I don't love the fact that these decisions need to have a "bottom line" focus...but that's the world we live in unfortunately. That said...because of Title IX it's not going anywhere...so I hope they can continue to grow interest to the point where it can generate some revenue...

More commitments from boosters for Football than any sport outside of Men's Hockey.

I agree Biz...I think based on some of the financial data available that things probably did look ugly for UND football for awhile. However...we are on pace to end the year up 2,500 people per game attendance wise. That's an additional $250k in revenue right there. Plus the higher interest levels are going to lead to more advertising and sponsorships. Football was definitely underperforming financially in prior years...but it has the potential to more than hold it's own (while being a big draw for the University).

1 - The reason I talked about "local" recruits is two-fold. The first is the more local your player base is, the lower the recruiting budget...and the cheaper the scholarships (even after reciprocity). Second, a more local player base makes it easier to draw fans and generate interest. That's why I listed it as one component in the bigger picture. 2 - Facilities - You are right...when I looked at facilities, I should have stated that not all off-campus facilities are bad (like the Alerus). But Apollo Park doesn't seem D1 quality to me in the case of softball. If we want to compete at a high level we probably need to address facilities for softball. As to your recommendation, I think you are right about the Summit/Big Sky combo. It is the best choice financially (if they'd have us...that is). If I had my druthers, I'd rather see a mix of the two leagues as an all-sports conference with the following makeup 1 - UND (all sports) 2 - NDSU (all) 3 - SDSU (all) 4 - USD (all) 5 - Montana (all) 6 - Montana State (all) 7 - Idaho (all) 8 - UNC (all) 9 - UNI (football only) 10 - Omaha (all but football) 11 - Denver (all but football) 12 - Oral Roberts (all but football) 13 - UMKC (all but football) That would leave 8 conference football games, 22 conference games in everything else (could divisionalize). Travel would be better than the current Big Sky and philosophies would be pretty complimentary (other than maybe UNC and some of the non-football schools, but they fit in well geographically in this setup or offer some value in where they are located). That being said...I'm not drinking the same thing that SiouxVolley is...so I don't think it will ever happen...but alas I can still dream.

Here's how I l would look at it if I were Kennedy. We currently have 5 revenue sports (M/W basketball, M Hockey, Football, Volleyball). UND needs to look for ways to increase revenue in these sports through sponsorships, advertising, ticket sales, etc...After that, I'd want to see a complete and accurate financial breakdown of each sport with PROPER allocations of expenses. From there, I'd look at other mitigating factors such as: conference requirements, Title IX requirements, quality of facilities (on-campus or not, condition), roster makeup (how many players are local and can we succeed with local athletes), and potential for success (are there inherent roadblocks to success, such as weather or geographic/cultural differences). In my mind (and this is without looking at the numbers) I'd imagine the sports with the largest target on their backs would be: 1 - Women's Hockey (Title IX is the only thing that saves it, miniscule revenue and high cost even with improper allocations) 2 - Softball (No on-campus game facility, no local athletes, tough to compete with warm weather schools, lots of travel) 3 - Swimming (Aging but adequate facility, some local athletes but many not, higher travel costs) 4 - M/W Tennis (Big Sky core sport, so if a conference move is coming this could be expendable, not a large budget team) 5 - Soccer (On-campus facility that's adequate, access to turf/HPC, core of athletes from Twin Cities) If UND were to stay in the Big Sky, my thoughts are that Softball and Swimming (maybe just men's) goes down the road to put us at 18 sports. If UND moves to a Summit/Big Sky combo, I can see it being Swimming/Men's Tennis. I think UND hurt it's chances at the Summit somewhat by cutting baseball, since the Summit could use core baseball teams. It'll be interesting to see what shakes out. If I could have my way, and "tiering" wasn't an issue...I'd axe women's hockey and Men's Swimming/Tennis to make it equal (and I'd cut Faison as well - thanks a lot Kelley!). I think that would ensure that we don't have to do this again and allow UND a more balanced and competitive athletic department. I'm sorry for some of you guys that think we need to give everyone an opportunity, but this should have been done the minute we left D2...We need to get out of the mediocre mindset and focus on getting the best bang for our buck!

If the players come into this game with that attitude then we have the wrong kind of players on this team! 80% of the roster should remember Idaho State and Weber last year...if they don't...well I don't like thinking about that... Like others have said...play a clean game and run the football down their throats. On paper I like how we match up with Sac State...but they are coming off a big win and it's a road game with a 2 hour time change...so nothing is a gimmie. I'm hoping for Bubba's sake this is the week the team puts it all together and plays their most complete game of the season.

Agree 100% on him returning kicks. He's an explosive player and it might be a good way to build confidence with a big return. Holm is pretty green and doesn't add a whole lot back there at this point. I think Santiago will be fine as well...but I think he can be most dangerous for us in space...and we should look for ways to get him to that point more. I'd like to see a lot of the time where both Santiago and Oliviera are on the field...let defenses try to scheme for that!

I will say...Rudolph is more than capable as an OC. I remember the Witt/Heckendorf combo at SCSU being a pretty tough animal to stop...If we were struggling this badly with a veteran offense, I'd be much more critical. At this point I'm hoping that we follow a path like last year where we improve significantly starting from game 5 to the end of the year.

Can't wait for the game on Saturday...it's a big one and a must win in my opinion! Hopefully we get a good and boisterous crowd to help energize the team and get in the heads of the Mustangs! Knowing how these two teams play, this could be the SHORTEST game I go to all year...haha! Bubba and Company know their way around the triple option. It's not the most fun thing to practice for in a short timeframe, but I like to think our guys will be up to the challenge. Assignment football and eye discipline are going to be huge...I watched the Poly/UM game on Saturday and their QB is the real deal. Much more multi-dimensional than what they had last year. Our db's will have a lot of pressure on them with the dual threat of play action and having to make tackles on the edge...that should be a good matchup. Hopefully on offense we can get a running back (my guess Oliviera based on watching the Poly/UM game) going to wear down the inside of their "D". Do that, hit a big play somehow (hopefully Santiago in some form), cut down the penalties and get Studsrud on track with some easy throws/rollouts and I think we'll be ok on offense. Personally I'd like to see a few back-shoulder type of throws. Our receivers aren't very fast but they are tall/lanky with decent body control...so I think this is something we could incorporate if we are seeing 1 on 1 coverage on the outside. We held these guys to something like 150 yards rushing last year and forced a couple turnovers...if we do that again we'll win. If they get to 250+...well at least we'll have a banner raising at the Ralph to brighten our mood.

I don't disagree with you on the offensive efficiency, and perhaps I should place more emphasis in my posts regarding the fact that I don't think our offense is anywhere close to where it should be from an efficiency standpoint. I would however say that the talent argument is relative (I think our defensive talent is much greater right now than it was in 2001...especially in the secondary - which is hard to say knowing we gave up 3 rushing touchdowns the entire 2001 season!). In all honesty I wanted to use stats from the 2001 NDSU game, mainly because they were a premiere opponent at the time and also partly because if I remember right that CWU game was played on a Friday afternoon in a brutal wind (I was a junior in HS on my way to our season opener listening on the radio...UND football has been in my blood for years haha), but I think the point I'm trying to make is that we are likely going to work towards the type of team that scores somewhere around 25-27 points per game and gives up around 10-15. That's the formula that won us a title in 2001, and that's the formula that much of our staff is familiar with. That involves grinding out long drives and chewing up clock. I think we did a better job of that last week against MSU, but we missed 2 field goals and should have had a td but our LT got a 15 yard personal foul that wiped 7 points off the board. If you add those back we end up with 27 points. If Santiago doesn't fumble we may only have given up 12. I think a lot of us would be happy with a 27-12 road victory over MSU...but we can't shoot ourselves in the foot, that's how we get games that are closer than they should be. I might be in the minority, and it's hard for me to say this publicly, but with where our offense is right now I think Oliviera is a better choice for a primary back. He does a better job of grinding out yards and keeping the offense on schedule, and that's going to be crucial against a team like Poly this weekend. I like the idea of using Santiago in ways to get him out in space (along with seemingly everyone else on this board). I'm hopeful that we get to that point. 22 carries for Oliviera/15 for Santiago/5 for Studsrud with 23 passes (5 to Santiago) would be ideal if I was up in the box.

Longtime follower of Siouxsports...just recently decided to contribute a little bit more...haha!

http://www.undsports.com//fls/13500/pdf/Football Scores/2001/Und vs Central Washington.pdf I know a lot of people keep dogging on the playcalling and the offensive performance, and it's true that there is still a lot of work to be done...but take a look at the link above. This is a box score from UND's season opening win over Central Washington during the 2001 National Championship year. If you look at these stats, and compare them to our stats vs MSU...I seem some striking similarities on offense (almost 2-1 rushing vs passing yards, winning time of possession by over 8 minutes). Our head coach and DC were both part of this team, and that year we won a fair amount of close games by relying on our defense. I think we are going to see UND continue to move back to this style over the next few years, and I think it can be successful again. Are there teams in the Big Sky that we should be able to beat by 20 or more? Yes...just like there were in the NCC. But against the marquee teams...we are going to play a grind it out, minimize mistakes type of game and lean on our defense. I expect our offense to gain efficiency as experience comes, and cut down on penalties...but we aren't going to consistently score 40+ a game, because we won't play a style of football that allows for this (we won't be running 90+ plays per game under Bubba).

Amen...part of the problem with the Mollberg/Bartles divide was that neither QB ever consistently showed that they wanted the job (you'd see flashes...then stretches of poor play). Ideally I'd like to see one QB a year, so that any QB has at least two years in the system before they get a start (and ideally three). It worked well with Wentz...and should be the standard here. I also agree with UND-FB-FAN that we need more competition for roles on the offensive side...and that'll continue to come with more depth. Last year we had something like 4 OL scholarship recruits, and 2 PWOs (it could have been 5/1...I can't remember). If we can develop those players, it'll be huge for this squad going forward. I know the prior coaching staff could recruit receivers...but they didn't do much in the way of development on either side outside of that position group. I'd much rather take the roster that we have today...and continue to build towards a more complete team.