Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

BisSioux

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BisSioux

    Eight Bison football players charged

    in Community

    Posted

    According to the USA Today, overall athletic department 2012 finances:

    Ticket sales Contributions

    NDSU $2,915,196 $2,632,918

    UND $3,889,681 $3,108,472

    Out of curiosity, how are you getting those numbers? By my count, UND hockey brings in about 18% more than NDSU football when you combine ticket sales with seat fees.

    Math:

    (my NDSU numbers are pretty solid, but my UND numbers may be off by a bit since I estimated the size of your student section)

    NDSU season tickets cost $125(end zone) and $175(sideline); single games are $25/$35. I estimate season tickets are split 75/25 in favor of sideline, and single games are about 50/50. I'm running with 12,100 season tickets sold, and about 1500 single game tickets per game. Those are conservative numbers since they only total up to 17,600 when you include the 4000 students while the capacity is actually around 19,000. That's 1400 missing tickets. But I'll stick with those numbers because I'm not sure how suite money is handled and how many tickets are reserved for family and recruits. Here's the equation:

    [($125 x .25) + ($175 x .75) x 12100] + ($30 x 1500 x 6) = $2,236,250 or about $2.25M

    For UND M hockey, I used a simpler system since I'm not as familiar with it. Regular season tickets are $390 and student season tickets are $140. I'm going to assume UND holds some tickets back for families, recruits and promotional reasons and use 11,000 as the total number of seats. I'm going to use a conservative figure of 2000 student seats(looks like more than that on the seat map), and I'm not going to separate out single game tickets since I couldn't find a current price chart. So this equation looks like:

    ($390 x 9000) + ($140 x 2000) = $3,790,000 or about $3.75M.

    Adding together we get:

    NDSU: $2.25M + $2.8M = $5.05M

    UND: $3.75M + $2.2M = $5.95M

    If I've made any major mistakes let me know, but those numbers don't look anything close to 50%.

    A silly computation using these numbers is to figure out what the average seat is worth. You take the total amount raised between tickets and seat fees and you divide that by the number of total seats multiplied by the number of home games. Using that method, an NDSU FB seat generates $44.30 per game, while a UND hockey seat generates $25.76 per game. Just a little silly fun with numbers.

    2010 Census

    in Community

    Posted

    The numbers quoted in this article are estimates--the official count will be released by April 1. The annual estimates have been consistently wrong. Not to say GF county will see significantly less growth than Cass and Burleigh, but just pointing out those are not official counts.

    Whats up Grand Forks County? Ten years and it gains 200 people! :lol:

    Newspaper article

    House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.

    in UND Nickname

    Posted

    Great post, it's amazing how many people on this board and in the ND legislature are either blind or willfully ignorant to the North Dakota Constitution. Post after post talking about what the sanctions will mean and whether UND can or cannot host a postseason game. I've got news for everyone, It doesn't matter what the sanctions will mean! The State Supreme Court has already ruled in Spirit Lake v. SBHE that the SBHE has the Constitutional Authority to retire the nickname. The Attorney General has also issued an opinion stating that the North Dakota Constitution includes a provision that says the State Board of Higher Education shall have full authority over the institutions under its control." He further went on to state "I am committed to the nickname. But Im even more committed to the Constitution. I just swore an oath to uphold it. Even if this bill makes it out of the Governor's office, It will never go into effect as it is Unconstitutional on its face. That fact has been already been affirmed by both the State Supreme Court as well as the Attorney General. Only a constitutional amendment stripping the SBHE of its authority would make this law constitutional. The SBHE and UND can and will continue to retire the nickname regardless of whether this bill passes or not, because it's their Constitutional right! The Constitution is a wonderful thing. Y'all should read it.

    Some of us have read it -- and understand it.

    The Supreme Court ruled on the narrow question of whether the board of higher education had the authority. Most people would agree the board does. However, the court did not address the extent of the legislature's authority with respect to this issue.

    While it is true the board of higher education has some degree of constitutional status, the board is not a fourth branch of government that is allowed to operate in a autonomous manner. Read section 26 of article XI of the state constitution -- Section 26. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are coequal branches of government.

    Learned that in grade school.

    House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.

    in UND Nickname

    Posted

    I think that if something is in the ND Century Code, that has to be the guiding principle for the ND Legislature, the Executive Branch and all county and municipal governments in the State of North Dakota. The ND Supreme Court is the body that interprets the laws.

    If the "dry" provision was not in the Century Code and the Legislature voted to make all campuses dry, then the campuses would be required to "dry out" since there is nothing in the Century Code to prohibit the Legislature from governing that issue. However, in the issue of the nickname and logo, the ND Supreme Court has already ruled that the SBoHE has the authority to tell UND to get rid of the name and logo. I would imagine they used the Century Code as a guidepost to help make this ruling. If the Legislature doesn't like the Century Code as is, they certainly can take appropriate steps to change it. But right now, as far as I can tell, they will have no choice but to adhere to the Century Code whether they like it or not. But I guess the courts will have to figure it out; that is what they get paid to do.

    Not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but you do realize the legislature adopts the laws that comprise the Century Code?

    House Bill to Save the Sioux Passes 65 to 28.

    in UND Nickname

    Posted

    SIOUXPR, on 21 February 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

    I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The constitution gives the SBHE full authority over the state's higher ed institutions. The legislature provides the money, that's it. They have no control over what it is used for. The decision to retire the nickname is fully protected by the SBHE's constitutional authority. It's a distinct and unique separation of powers that creates essentially a fourth branch of government in the SBHE.

    Article 8, Section 6 of the North Dakota State Constitution

    1. A board of higher education, to be officially known as the state board of higher

    education, is hereby created for the control and administration of the following state

    educational institutions, to wit:

    a. The state university and school of mines, at Grand Forks, with their substations.

    6.b. The said state board of higher education shall have full authority over the

    institutions under its control with the right, among its other powers, to prescribe,

    limit, or modify the courses offered at the several institutions. In furtherance of

    its powers, the state board of higher education shall have the power to delegate

    to its employees details of the administration of the institutions under its control.

    The said state board of higher education shall have full authority to organize or

    reorganize within constitutional and statutory limitations, the work of each

    institution under its control, and do each and everything necessary and proper

    for the efficient and economic administration of said state educational

    institutions.

    Statuatory limitations: indicates the nickname is fair game.

    Statuatory limitations: indicates the nickname is fair game.

    Exactly.

    Thank you, someone finally read the constitution.

    The Ralph's cherry is broken!

    in Men's Hockey

    Posted

    My recollection was that it was real and that it was Jim Adelson in the tv booth. And, he got very POed.

    Anyone on here old enough to remember back in the late 70s, early 80s when someone hid a stuffed animal badger in the ceiling and had a fish line attached to it just waiting for the right moment to pull the string. Badgers were ahead most of the game but about the middle of the third Sioux went ahead and the string got pulled. The stuffed toy was lined up perfectly in front of the camera angle from the press box and they had to scramble to get somone up in the rafters to cut it down.

    Ed Schultz was doing play by play I believe and got a little POed mostly because it was screwing up their camera coverage. it was great. Must have been some engineering students behind it because they had the hanging angle just perfect and it was held up by fishing line so no one but those right around it knew anything was up.

    Also remember in the 70s when one guy had a rubber chicken on a long pole and used to sit behind the visiting goalie and drop the chicken over his head between periods - wow the stuff we got away with back then.

    Those were the days.

    Big news in the wind

    in Community

    Posted

    Shocking, but true :) -- being an attorney and a vp doesn't necessarily mean he has a clue about what he is doing.

    A little math here folks:

    - Harmeson is an attorney (as well as VP) and knows the law

    - Harmeson says he's legally prevented from discussing Buning's LoA

    - Buning is a public employee at a public institution in an open records state

    - Performance reviews of Buning are being made public by the press (as they are open record)

    - Yet, Harmeson maintains he can not discuss the matter at this time.

    So why can't Harmeson talk about why the LoA?

    Well, there are some employment related matters that can not be included in an open record (and thus public discussions). Paragraph 4 is the one that applies to NDUS employees.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

×
×
  • Create New...