MIBT

If there is no football there is likely very few other sports that can function without the revenue football generates for most schools. Playing without fans would be just as devastating as not playing at all. Many of the expenses still exist without fans but ticket and concession revenue goes away. And alumni development events around those games also don't happen. Hockey at UND may be able to self-fund, but most other sports wouldn't. If Fall and Winter sports don't happen, I could see a much longer tail to being able to fund college athletics again. If a lack of students on campus is what drives the lack of sports I expect to see several small private schools (i.e. Concordia, St. Johns) not survive. Those schools maybe aren't good examples because they have larger endowments. But if they deplete those endowments to survive it could significantly hinder the universities in the future. State schools are a little more protected, but they could still face significant budget cuts and layoffs. Sports is probably the least of their priorities in this case. I don't like it, but I get it.

There is a difference in getting a waiver to not have to sit out a year as a transfer and getting a medical redshirt. If he got the transfer waiver he can play. If he wants to get a medical redshirt to play an additional year that would come after his 5th season (this year and next year).

I believe they both also dealt with injuries this year. I wouldn't assume their lack of progress was because they didn't develop. Neither plays Gue's position either. He split time with Rocky last year and Witz did that this year. If they don't step up next year, I expect the Bison to struggle. They have both shown signs to be very good though. Not a Bison or Sioux fan. Just a fan of ND college sports.

NDSU lost nobody from their Freshman to Sophomore year so their role didn't change. With Vinnie and Tyson graduating this year we'll see if they step up next year. They will be both be big factors in the success of the Bison basketball team.

Last night's game was another great example of the role of momentum in a game. Often momentum can change during a game, but it did not. NDSU is not 30+ points better as evidenced by the score of the previous 2 games. The 9-0 lead was big, but NDSU was missing several shots at that point also and it felt like UND could get back into quickly. It very quickly went to 21-2 and UND never recovered. I'm optimistic about Coach Sather to coach this team. I expect UND to be a contender most years in the Summit as long as he's there. NDSU has been to 5 tournaments, but they aren't always a top 2/3 team in the conference. The conference has been a 2-team race regarding the NCAA tournament, but there is no reason UND can't get into that group.

I think the biggest benefit for UND will be playing more in or closer to the footprint of the recruiting base. Trying to recruit a kid out of Wisconsin or Chicago or Omaha and telling his parents he'll be playing his games in Missouia, Portland and Sacramento had to be tough. Now he/she will have a decent number of games within driving distance of those families. That should be good for a couple reccruits.

Found these on another site and thought they were interesting. Not sure why so many rules have to be changed but they do it every year. 1. Targeting – a player disqualified specifically for TGT will no longer be required to leave the field enclosure. They may remain in the team bench area even though they are no longer permitted to play in the game. It will be up to the head coach to determine the protocol (e.g. take his helmet, take his jersey, or send him to locker room). 2. Unsportsmanlike behavior (pre-game) – Game officials’ jurisdiction will now begin 90 minutes before kickoff as opposed to 60 minutes. At least three of the game officials will be on the field at 90 minutes. The “L” warm-up will take effect at 90 minutes. Any time a player is on the field, even if before the 90-minute mark, they must have a countable coach on the field with them. Additionally, any player on the field pre-game at any time (before or after the 90 minute mark) must have his number readily visible (doesn’t have to be the game jersey, can be a t-shirt, sweatshirt, etc.). 3. Substitutions – the defense having more than 11 on the field is now a live ball foul. 4. Instant Replay & Game Clock – if time expires in a half, and based upon the previous play, the game clock would have started on the ready for play whistle, there must be at least three seconds remaining on the clock in order for replay to restore time to the game clock. 5. Player Safety – Defensive linemen (within one yard of the L.O.S.), on scrimmage kick plays, must be aligned completely outside the frame of the snapper. 6. Player numbering – no more than two squad members may be assigned or wear the same number. The number zero is now also allowed to be worn and it is an eligible number. 7. Uniforms – wearing a fully compliant second jersey on top of another jersey will now be permitted by rule. Vests and/or altered jerseys are not allowed. 8. Penalty enforcement – all fouls that can be carried over the succeeding kickoff may also be carried over to the succeeding spot in extra periods. The fouls for improper jerseys regarding contrasting color with the opponent and/or numerals not contrasting with the rest of the jersey will now be penalized the same with both the loss of timeout and a 15-yard foul at the start of each half. 9. Instant Replay – wording will be added to the rule book that the expectation is that review times will not exceed two minutes. This will not expressly prohibit a review from going longer than two minutes, for example an end-of-game situation. 10. To note: a. Kickoff rules will remain as they were in 2019. b. Feigning injuries (by defensive players) was thoroughly discussed as a problem but there was no action taken to change the rules. The rules committee expects discussion between coaches and AFCA to eliminate this practice. c. Uniforms – eliminating the practice of t-shirts hanging out from the bottom of jerseys and/or jerseys tucked under the pads will be a point of emphasis.

UND was very successful in football when they were D2. Since the move to D1 the football program has struggled while the other Dakota schools have been much more successful (especially the SUs). For some reason I still think hockey is an impact and it may just be a lack of attention or expectation as you say. I don' t think UND should drop hockey. That would be absurd. But when you know the source of the issue you are better able to find ways to address it. UND should be able to have both a successful hockey and football program. They would be the first in G5/FCS to figure it out. UMD is a good example of a current D2 school that is successful in both. I wonder if they moved to FCS if they would have similar issues with football.

There is no reason UND could not build a quality, successful football program. Don't make NDSU's current success the bench mark though. SDSU/UNI/Montana are definitely achievable. The schools aren't that much different. While everyone loves the UND hockey team, that probably makes it harder to raise and allocate the resources. Are there any other FCS/G5 school that consistently does well in football that also has a D1 hockey program? I looked it up and 21 of the 60 D1 hockey programs are G5/FCS in football (10 other D1 programs don't play football at all). Of those 21, 6 are Ivy League schools who approach football differently. I would say Army and Air Force are also a different situation. That leaves only 13 schools. On the G5 side, UConn and UMass have struggled in football and also focus heavily on basketball. The MAC schools (BGSU, Miami, and WMU) are up and down in football like all the MAC schools. In FCS, Colgate, Maine, Robert Morris, and New Hampshire often make the tournament, but they are not football powers. Holy Cross made the playoffs for the first time in 10 years last year and Sacred Heart has only made the FCS playoffs twice (2013-2014). UND has a similar program to many of those schools. Why is it so difficult to have a hockey team and a G5/FCS football team and not be successful? It was probably easier to do at the D2 level. I also think the detour to the Big Sky made the transition to D1 more difficult. The Big Sky is a good conference, but UND as so far out of the footprint I'm sure it had to affect recruiting. UND wasn't miserable in the Big Sky, but I think they would be much more successful overall if they had done the Summit/MVFC route from the beginning.

He's taking a risk that may or may not pay off. Right now he's proven he is an excellent player against the caliber of player blocking him and he's trying to tackle. He would have had a shot at Oregon next Fall to prove it against higher competition. Depending on where he goes though he'll get to prove it multiple times. Drafting is risky for NFL teams. The higher level you've proven it against the less the risk. If a QB has excellent stats at Minnesota State against good D2 teams, does that mean he's as good as the QB at UND who has similar stats against MVFC defenses? Maybe but you can't be 100% certain. If he has a similar level of success as he has at NDSU, it will improve his draft stock. If he struggles and doesn't start it will hurt his draft stock. When I read his tweet last night this is much about the opportunity to fulfill a dream to play at an FBS school. Let's say he goes to Wisconsin. He'll play 6 home games at Camp Randall stadium in front of a packed house. Road games include the Big House in Michigan, Notre Dame at Lambeau Field, Northwestern at Wrigley Field, and Iowa. Those are some pretty cool experiences. If he does well he has a chance to move up to a 1st or 2nd round pick which will be a nicer rookie contract. There is never a guarantee for the second contract.

If it was quick it may have been difficult to see for certain in real time on the court.

That's common of all fan bases including this one. I didn't see this particular play so I couldn't tell you if you it was blatant or not. I'll see something I think was completely wrong and ask one of my official friends and they will often tell me either why I was 100% wrong or why an official may not have seen it. It has definitely changed my opinion of the officials.

Is Haley Bucholz expected to get any playing time in 2020? He was a stud at Shanley.

Goal tending is a judgement call. Whether it's blatant or not is in the eye of the beholder. We tend to be influenced by our biases. If this happened in Saturday's game, I don't believe I saw it. If it was blatant it's possible it was missed because an official was out of position or was in position or had a bad angle. I assume all 3 aren't supposed to be looking at the ball on the rim because then nobody is watching the players on the court. We have no idea. But to say they saw and intentionally didn't call it because they are favoring the home team is ridiculous. That's what we as fans are saying if we say the officials are biased toward one team or another.

Fans always believe the officials are out to get their team. Yet they have never picked up a rule book or truly take the time to understand the rules. I have friends who officiate various sports and they have enlightened me to better understand rules. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I at least understand them better than most. The most surprising ones to me in basketball is there is no such foul as "over the back" or "reaching in". And when you talk about traveling there are things like "gathering the ball" that's a factor and establishing the pivot foot is different if you gain possession or stop dribbling and land with one foot on the ground first or both at the same time. I do know college officials are assigned by the conference so they don't care at all who wins the game. And contact alone is not what causes the foul. It's very liberating to watch sports when you realize you don't understand the rules as much as you think you do.

That's my understanding. The students haven't been using all their seats so it makes sense to turn them into revenue seats. I assume they will also reduce the student fees like they did last time.

Agreed. When Miles Brand and the NCAA came up with that policy I believe there were 19 schools involved. All of them had their instance resolved within 6 months. UND was the only one that stretched it out .Most of the schools got approval from the local tribe and some made concessions (i.e. removing icons/mascots). I think a couple did change their nicknames voluntarily. I was surprised some kind of agreement wasn't reached as well. Maybe it came down to financial and the leadership of the tribe was too stubborn and asked for too much money. I don't expect it will ever fully go away.

He may receive that kind of compensation but the CEO/ED of a similar sized organization is likely making a lot more. Same for other executives who are in the 6/7 figure roles likely would make more money in similar executive leadership roles in the private sector. I've looked into working there a few times and based on conversations I had with people I would have to take a pay cut to do something similar to what I was doing (IT Management). I did find this article from over a year ago and at that time it was $2.4m. Still a large number, but he's leading an organization that is handling $1b. The article also states there are 11 total people making over $450k so that number is accurate. If these 11 people average $1m, that's $11m or only 1% of their revenue. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/06/21/ncaa-mark-emmert-got-nearly-500-000-raise-2-4-million/722482002/

All the rules and policies come from the universities at their annual convention. Representation at that event is by schools (usually presidents or their proxy). These aren't executive policies made by the leadership at the NCAA office in Indianapolis. So the collective members decide what rules they want to play by. All the crazy recruiting rules? The same people complaining about those rules are collecting creating them to keep their competition honest. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with everything, but it's important to understand what the NCAA actually is.

The NCAA does not have a lot of highly paid people. If you work at the NCAA you are generally making less money and working more hours (especially nights and weekends) than most people in similar types of positions in other organizations. When you say over charge are you referring to tickets to events? The only events that generate revenue for the NCAA is sport championships. That does not include the CFP championship as that is run outside the NCAA. Ticket prices for regular season games are revenue for individual schools. Just because you see coaches at the top programs in 3 or 4 sports getting big salaries doesn't mean a lot of people are getting paid a lot of money in NCAA, conferences or school athletic departments.

How do you see the NCAA stealing from the colleges. The NCAA is the colleges. It's a membership organization and they collectively decide what rules and arrangements they want. The NCAA is not some separate entity that provides rules the schools have to follow.

Minor league baseball is popular locally but nobody outside the local markets is watching the games in person or on TV. The fans of the parent club pay some attention, but it's mostly watching box scores than actually watching the games. I would expect similar attention would be given to minor league basketball or minor league football which is fine. I think the G league could easily function as a minor league for the NBA and the XFL could be a minor league for the NFL. It's important for NCAA athletics to remain scholarship based as much as possible. Let the professional leagues focus on the professional side. Many athletes could still go the collegiate route to the NFL or NBA just like MLB and NHL players do.

I agree they are impacted by it as well. But they aren't the ones screaming for this. It's the ones at the large D1 schools that feel their schools are profiting at their expense and they want to make thousands of dollars off their likeness. The D2/D3 guy just wants to get a part-time job at the local grocery store or working at their coach's camp. The start D1 RB wants to get paid $50k to sign autographs or speak at a fundraiser. It would be great if that D2/D3 guy could get that "real" job and I believe they can to some extent. A friend of mine has a son who is a D3 player and he's been officiating HS football, basketball and softball the past 2 years and getting paid to do it.

If fans and boosters could be trusted this wouldn't be an issue. But they can't and opening this up will only make it worse. The best policy is to try to keep them away as much as possible. The NCAA organization only wants to be a policy making and championship organization but they keep getting drug into these things for 1% of their total student athlete population. I've always said one of the worst things that happened to them was the rise in popularity and thus huge sums of money for the NCAA basketball tournament. It's great because it helps pay for so many other sports. But it's created so many more issues because of the amount of money. D1 basketball and football players are given a free education plus many other perks and they are given a very high visibility platform to show their ability. There are 460,000 student athletes associated with all sports in the NCAA. If we assume every D1 team (252 FBS and FCS teams) has 85 players that's over 21k. Spread them out over 5 years and there are over 4000 per entry year. There are approximately 325 drafted each year about that many make an NFL roster. I know undrafted free agents make it too, but there are draft picks that don't make it so it wouldn't change the overall numbers much. Add in 5k D1 basketball players (347 teams times 15 spots) with only 60 draft picks each year (many of them never make a roster and some are from other countries). That's 26k athletes (6%) with 5k exiting each year and maybe 400 (8%) of them making a professional roster. Does it make sense to change the rules for less than 1% of their participants? If those 1% decided to never play NCAA sports the organization would be just fine. They need the NCAA so much more than the NCAA needs them. Who these athletes should be most upset with is the women's lacrosse players and the tennis player and D3 football players who ultimately benefit from the money they generate both at the NCAA and school level. The money they are generating is going to fund those programs.

I don't believe the NCAA would be against alternative leagues for those who don't really want to be in school. Individual schools may be opposed, but the NCAA is really just about championships and compliance. Those will exist even if there are minor league options available. They make no money off FBS football so there would be no impact there. Even if 100 basketball players decide to go minor league rather than NCAA that's only one player for every 3 D1 team. It may reduce the overall revenue to NCAA from reduced media money, but the bigger impact would be to the school/conference payouts and not the NCAA has a whole. This is a recruitment issue. Once unethical recruiting comes to biology students then it becomes an issue. It's apples and oranges. I agree! See my recruiting comment above in regards to the biology student. If this was only limited to Billy paying $50 to attend this one day camp it would be less of an issue. But Johnny DeepPockets would "sponsor" 20 kids to attend the camp to a tune of $5000 each. The NBA one-and-done is entirely an NBA rule. I know the NCAA isn't a big fan, but there isn't much they can do about it. They would prefer the players who don't want to go to school to go directly professional (either through existing professional leagues or for the NBA to eliminate their draft rule). NCAA basketball and specifically the tournament was just as popular when high school graduates could go directly to the NBA than it was before and after. It didn't hurt the NCAA at all.