AJS

Incredible job by the coaching staff, Rizzo is a legitimate cornerstone / #1 guy in a recruiting class. Never too early to speculate, but I'd be interesting to see how the '19 class plays out. You have the following groups: '01 Draft eligible (Seniors): Rizzo, Mancinelli, Blaisdell & Caulfield: This group will all be true freshman with two years of junior experience. Based on their first year, which were all successful in varying degrees, I don't think you'd be able to push anyone back another year. Senior (HS): Donovan: A lot will depend on how high he gets drafted, he has all the tools / size. +1: Randklev: Seemed to adapt well in his short stint last year, would only need one more year. Other: Senden: Would have to come in I realize there are other guys, but I count 7 that I don't think you could push back. Four seniors (3 F 1 D), I think they move Johnson back to Defense for his Senior year, which would take Shaw's spot opening up 4 forward roster spots. I'd also be shocked with the stock pile of recruits they have if Senden ever makes it to campus. That leaves 6 eligible forwards, Donovan is the most likely to push back, which would leave 5. They'd be a pretty good spot with that. A '19 recruiting class of Rizzo, Mancinelli, Blaisdell, Caulfied & Randklev would be a surefire Top 3 class (most likely #1).

Everyone agrees that you need players to fit into different roles to have a successful team. This hasn't been a trend, but I'd hope Berry looks at the junior class as a cautionary tale. What I mean, is depth guys are important, but you should never have more depth guys than guys you think can be offensive contributors. It's much more common for a guy to struggle at the college level after a solid junior career, than a guy to struggle scoring in juniors and all of a sudden become an offensive force. Berry did a lot to fix the '18 class (offensively), but the 50 / 50 ratio they are bringing in makes me nervous.

There's going to be a lot of questions in this post. I'll start with the defense. Looking back last year would the following quick assessment be fair. Defensively: Poor (One a 1 to 10 scale about a 2) My big questions would be: If fully healthy, would the ILB's go from the biggest weakness to the biggest strength on the defense? Is it a reasonable expectation that this front 7 returns to one of the stronger units in the Big Sky? Going from a team that couldn't stop the run or pass, fixing one of those completely would go a long way in becoming competitive. What needs to happen when viewing the secondary? Strictly guys staying healthy? I'm fully optimistic in the Front 7 doing a complete 180, but not so much the secondary. Even so, is it reasonable that there should be improved play from both the Safety & CB spots next year, strictly with guys coming back from injuries / getting experience? My hope is that after being a 2 last year, they can be either a 6 or 7 this year (Slightly above average defense).

Good information - with Frisch playing his senior year at Moorhead, I would bet he'll play a year of juniors after next year. UND wouldn't currently have any D-man recruits lined up for next year. Luke Bast would be a nice fit in that spot.

https://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/videos/5784829667001/rbc-blaisdell-joins-exclusive-club Next year will be a fun one to follow for the committed recruits. The 2019 recruiting class has the potential to be very, very good. Not only good, but extremely young. A lot depends on their development, but you have 3 (Mancinelli, Blaisdell & Caulfield) that will be in their 2nd year of juniors in what will be their draft / senior year of HS. All three had strong 1st years, given their ages. Add in Randklev as well as the only +1 and I can't see there being room for anyone else.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4446387-emails-show-logo-betty-part-kennedy-engelstad-feud Email correspondence between the assistants for Kennedy and McGarry runs contradictory to a statement McGarry made to the Herald about meeting availability. “(Kennedy) refused to have a meeting with me,” she said to the Herald on May 9. “I said let’s meet anytime in April or May, I’m open -- he said, ‘I’m not -- not available.’” Emails show a Kennedy assistant offering meeting dates April 12-13, 19-24 and May 1. I always find it amusing when someone flat out lies about something that can easily be proven otherwise. Unfortunately for her, the only Herald reporter (*one of the only) that actually tries to report on facts and not try to spin their story to fit their agenda got this one.

To me at least, everything is becoming clearer and clearer. The article that transpired today is likely one part of "the feud", but it doesn't paint McGarry in the best light. Others have commented on this, but it's as simple as a group (not only Kennedy) wanting what they feel is best for UND and the athletic department (branding, ect) and McGarry shutting it down. What really surprises me is (1) Why she'd care (2) all emails in Millers article were to the Engelstad Family Foundation. That surprises me (or I guess really doesn't), but shows that McGarry is the one that calls all the shots. I'm really stuck on the why 'd she care what the logo was in the center of the Betty. The problem for Kennedy is he doesn't have any chips and McGarry has them all. It doesn't matter how unreasonable she's being, he has to figure out a way to smooth it over.

Looking at their schedule from a semi-optimistic look, here's what I like. Start with MVSU at home - it'll be a D1 win, will get a lot of different players reps (need to sell hope) Washington - Big loss, but it'll get the guys reps against the best team they'll see all year SHSU - Don't like this matchup at all Idaho State - Perfect team to start the "conference" season against, at home UNC - One of the better teams to start the "conference" road season against Montana - Bye week going into a home game against Montana Sac State - If you were hand picking an away schedule, you'd have this team on it I've never experienced a season as a fan like last years, where the rug was completely pulled our from under me. Was this just a one time occurrence? For me, this year is about selling hope for as long as you can. The way I look at it, is you start out with a win and a pay game. That brings you to your first fork in the road. You can sell optimism at 1-1 with a loss to Washington. A win against SHSU would significantly change everyone's expectation. A loss would hurt, but not completely derail. I really like the way the first four / five games of the "conference" schedule start out. I don't know if we'd make any significant changes if we could hand pick a schedule. The back end is much tougher @ Idaho & @ Northern Arizona, but better play those games at the end, then at the beginning. Also, how about not having the bye week scheduled the last week of the year. It's in a pretty good spot next year.

I should have looked up his stats before posting the "high end" part. Still, would be a nice piece in someone's class. I still don't see how he'd fit for UND coming in next year. Would be all for him playing in the USHL and coming in the year after. Edit: @scpa0305 put it well above. You can ignore my two posts on him.

In this day and age it happens less and less with how young recruiting has gotten, but I do enjoy these rare recruiting battles for an actual high end proven player.

I think this is much, much more likely. The timing is pretty brutal overall for Senden, but I'd look at this as an addition by subtraction for the incoming recruiting class. We all know we need players to fill different roles, but I would say it would be worrisome to bring in more depth players than potential impact players in a forward recruiting class. With Senden (if true) not coming in, UND brings in 4 forwards, with an even balance, this move will also bring the total number of forwards next year to 15.

Yes.

So, you have JBD probably coming in a year earlier than the coaching staff planned (for a good reason obviously). This caused Casey Johnson to move full time to forward. My question would be, I think we now have 1 more forward than usual. There's no really incoming forwards that could be pushed back. Does everything think there will be a Wilkie type situation this summer?

One thing that I hope most people take from this story, is that at the end of the day, Kennedy was trying to do what's best for the University of North Dakota. His tactics or how he approached the situation clearly didn't work / could have been handled better, but he saw something in the contract or how things were being handled that was a red flag. What's really frustrating, is to take a step forward as a University, they need a President with a vision who is willing to lead. It might not be popular at times, but I'd much rather have someone who's ambitious, then someone who would have looked over the contract, noticed a red flag and didn't say anything. It's much easier to sit back, not say anything and go along with their day. The problem for Kennedy is it appears there's too many who just want the status quo, would rather have him just bury his head.

I think when the dust settles and if we get all the information into the situation (which is the biggest part), I don't think too many people will be 100% in either persons corner. Right now, I have no doubt that the contract stinks for UND, but also, Kennedy should have handled it better. Which side I'll end up supporting would be just how bad is the contract / where is the extra money going vs how out of line Kennedy was (that part will be tougher to determine, since it'll be he said / she said). *I shouldn't have said nobody will be 100%, those who have hurt feelings over Kennedy applying for UCF job / cutting Women's hockey will be 100% in one corner

I'm still having a hard time comprehending the 52% of Football sales. Did I miss where someone explained how that would make sense for UND?

There has been a lot of 03’ commits today (mostly east coast schools), as far as UND goes, you’d think they’d be done currently with anyone born before ‘02.

It's clear that McGarry has different interests when it comes to donating money than Ralph did. I mean it makes sense, why would she want to donate any more money than she's forced to, to a University where she has no personal ties?

You both had great questions, ones that I'd love answered. All speculation on my part, but after reading others thoughts and some of the questions that were asked, my theory would be. It's clear that Kennedy wanted to renegotiate, because he feels UND is getting the short end of the stick and they have been for along time. I'd bet that there's excess revenue that's not going into maintenance of the building that the REA Foundation is using for different philanthropic endeavors that have nothing to do with UND. Basically, each year, there's a sum of money that's leaving The Ralph and UND that's going elsewhere. Side note: We all can agree that when Ralph built the arena, that wasn't his intent. That would make sense to me. As simple as someone finally asking where is all the money going. *As others have said, they can spend their money as they'd like, but as I mentioned, I don't think the intent of the contract originally was for money to leave The Ralph / UND. Part II (Edit): Is it possible that Kennedy could have handled himself better? Sure. I'm not saying that at all. I could definitely see a situation where he tries to renegotiate, they reject and he gets frustrated.

One could argue that trying to renegotiate a bad contract at a time when UND is “looking for money” would make sense. For those reading headlines, this doesn’t come off looking good for Kennedy. Brad definitely doesn’t have an agenda though, no ulterior motive at all.

Lots of good discussion, my only hope is that most of the general public will look into some of the details of this and not just base their opinion off headlines (which we know how the Herald is trying to frame it). If I was trying to summarize, would this be fair: The way the current contract is written, on a yearly basis, the revenue split favors the REA Foundation over UND. Kennedy wants to renegotiate better terms with REA Foundation, so that the split is more even. Kennedy is doing what he feels is best for UND, McGarry is doing what's best for the REA Foundation. At the end of the day, I like that Kennedy tried to renegotiate better terms, but should have dropped it once it appeared it was going nowhere. It's obvious the intentions McGarry had by going to the Herald for a sit down. I personally don't think she looks good at all, but will win in the court of public opinion. I would even say that McGarry looks much worse than Kennedy, but ultimately she knows that won't matter (& I'll be in the minority that thinks that). Here's where I'll be attacked. What's so disappointing to me, is I think Kennedy is a true leader that is (& will be great for UND). The problem is GF & UND seem to be even less willing to embrace change than most. They would rather have a complete zero in charge that doesn't change the status quo. I think the town and school still have a "D2" mentality. Anybody who tries to lead will be railroaded. Edit: The last paragraph has to do with the other events Kennedy has been called out for since he started, not so much to this discussion.

I don't think it'll change, unless it's Shaw looking for a different opportunity. It took me just over a decade to finally come to terms that it doesn't matter who is in charge of UND's PP, it'll always be at best, mediocre.

Kunz goes #9 overall to Green Bay in the Phase I USHL draft. Think Schmaltz is the only recruit who is eligible (or hasn't been drafted) for the Phase II draft today.

5-6-11 In 5 games

https://www.usahockeyntdp.com/news_article/show/914753?referrer_id=3865497 Four uncommitted players that will be part of the U-17 team next year, 3 from unconventional recruiting areas. Not sure if there's any mutual interest, but looking at location only, it'd be an even playing field for them.