iramurphy

Sad news. Great Sioux fan. Started at UND same year.

Tix are gone.

Great seats. $150 for both tix all sessions. I have them in Detroit Lakes.

Great goaltending from former UND goaltender and an outstanding rookie from Bismarck St. Mary's.

I wouldn't make plans to raze it until we are closer to decision point but I believe it is structurally sound and could be repurposed.

It can be used for something else.

I have 2 tickets for sale. Section 115, Row M, Seats 11&12 (2 tix both nights). Total $200. PM me.

Most teams try same or similar. St. Cloud power play set up looked similar today.

That doesn’t make sense. At the level of University President you need to be able to deal with controversy including difficult donors. In this case, if we are asking to renegotiate a signed contract, with all due respect politely make your case. (You don’t demand anything and it isn’t a pissing contest. Be patient and keep trying until you learn who you are dealing with, then form a strategy to solve the issue making sure both sides see the advantage a compromise solution. Whatever non-hockey revenue that may be the issue isn’t enough to destroy a relationship with a generous though difficult donor.

They were trying to do that almost all night. Some passes off a bit, sometimes winger wasn’t squared up for quick shot, too many missed the net and others on target but didn’t miss goalie.

I don’t believe that is correct. I will be visiting with one of the Co-chairs of the drive in a couple of weeks. I will ask him.

I attended the program. It took place in Barry Hall. (Large donation from UND alumnus B John Barry). They mentioned initiative for their business program started after donation from UND Alumnus Tom Wold. Today’s donation to fund an initiative suggested by their Dean of Business College Scott. Beaulier then sold the idea to Challey. Beaulier apparently had contacts with Koch foundation while at ASU. An NDSU Alumnus next to me mentioned Tom Wold also had a connection to the Koch foundation. He also said they have raised most of their $35 million to build an indoor practice facility for FB. Some of our wealthiest alumni have great respect for Beaulier. While we focused on a damn logo our rival focused on moving a college of business that wasn’t accredited to what we saw today. Ideas I have suggested to Kennedy and to UND alumni officials were written down today by the President of a foundation that can be a difference maker for either or both schools and plans to follow up. I haven’t heard back from UND. We have a lot of work to do. UND recently raised over $300,000,000. That should have created momentum and excitement to create new programming and initiatives and a strategy to continue that momentum. We have discussed a new college of business and we have talked about HPCII. We need to have a plan in place with a timeline and goals to get this done in next 5 years.

NDSU receives $30 million donation for college of business. Program still going on. NDSU alumni want UND to keep Kennedy because they feel he is incompetent.

Most donors and supporters don't care that much. If you are referring to hockey donors and supporter you are probably correct, although she has previously stated the logo is a non-issue for her. Doesn't matter where in the arenas they put the logos. We need to focus on success of the programs. The logo issue was settled by the NCAA a long time ago. I think she is smart enough to realize that.

That is a lot of assumption. Maybe you are correct. I wasn't there. I don't know how often the contract is to be renewed. I hadn't heard that. Where did you hear that? The Logo issue is so stupid I don't want to argue. Who cares if there is a logo at center court or where it is. It is on the floor at the Betty. Getting upset about that is just as pointless as the people who are hanging on to the Fighting Sioux issue. Either way it is negative and doesn't help UND. I am not sure who is at fault with Kennedy vs McGarry. Kennedy also has issues with the family of Ray Richards. Sometimes University Presidents need to know when to back off and come back later with a different approach.. The issue now seems to be the bridges were burned. Doesn't matter who started the fire.

I am not sure how we would know what the "spirit of the contract" is. The contract is also different from UND's Charter I agree that the arena was built to benefit UND. I was at the announcement ceremony and in the back room at Hyslop with UND officials, Ralph, and others after the announcement. From everything I heard there, this was to benefit, not just UND hockey, but UND athletics. Most of the work and planning involved Ralph and hockey people though. The contract was likely recommended to Kupchella by Tom Clifford and Earl Strinden, who did the key work with Ralph on behalf of UND over the years of planning and building. There is no reason to be disrespectful of the opinions and work of KEM. She is abiding by the contract. UND needs to be respectful in the efforts to tweak the contract. It isn't her fault if we negotiated FB moneys to the REA. It seems she has inherited her Dad's impatience with politicians and administrators. I do not know timing of the issue with FB monies. I do feel that the REA needs to move past the logo issue. We have a new one. Who cares? It hurts UND and UND hockey to continue all of the negative publicity, negative energy and arguing over a logo or mascot. No one cared about the name and logo for years and it never won or lost us any games. The only logo worth. I doubt the logo is part of the contract It was never a requirement in the contract for the Arena in the first place, despite what some believe. Although I disagree with a donor refusing to work with UND unless the President is replaced, I think Kennedy handled the issue poorly.

I get all of that. I would agree the contract gives up way too much. No way should UND have agreed to put FB revenue outside of the athletic dept. I don't know about "hissy fits" but from what I understand about the contract, we do not have the upper hand.

What are you referring to? What "original charter"? The contract is a legal issue. I think UND gave up to much but UND must abide by the contract.

There is going to be a major announcement this Thursday at the Ag School. Rumored to be possibly their largest donation in history. I have been invited to attend. I will likely find something else to do. I suspect it will be open to public. It will be at Barry Hall.

The contract between UND and REA is what we must abide by. It is reasonable to approach the appropriate powers and attempt tp renegotiate. It does no one any good to get in a pissing match with alumni nor with donors. If the answer is no, shake hands, thanks them for their support and have a beverage or dinner to see if there are opportunities for your donors to consider in the future. Remind them you wouldn't be doing your job if you don't at least discuss the possibility of improving the University's position. Obviously we are dealing with two large egos. One holds the purse strings to a substantial opportunity. A better approach may have been to invite McGary to participate in strategic planning and present opportunities to not only the Englestad Foundation, but other major donors.

Got it.

You don't want a "full season" opportunity for younger kids. Medical studies show kids who play only one sport especially without taking breaks have more injuries and peak at an earlier age.

What does that have to do with St. Mary's new school????

I don't believe it ever was. It hasn't been for at least 40 years. Some refs used to call "over the back" but I don't know if it was ever in the rule book.

If you don't think there is pressure on these guys you are mistaken. Every decision administration makes must be with what is best for the program. This coaching staff is evaluated every year and they will be asked what went wrong and what ithe corrective action plans ill be. They will also review what goes well and how to build on that success and continue to improve. Most of the pressure is self induced from the coaches themselves, who want the kids and program to succeed. The difference is that they have a horse in the race. We are just watching. Your "problem that nobody is asking the tough questions and putting any pressure on the coaching staff" is not what should occur. It should be worded " someone needs to be asking the tough questions and asking what else they/we can do to support the coaches and the program to help them succeed".