mksioux

You're close: http://und.edu/finance-operations/human-resources-payroll/careers/job-openings-external.cfm?category=2150+Athletics%2FCoaches

Here is the posting: http://und.edu/finance-operations/human-resources-payroll/careers/job-openings-external.cfm?category=2150+Athletics%2FCoaches

I know nothing about basketball, but seeing that Montana got blown out by Minnesota does not make me optimistic that UND has a chance against Wisconsin.

I'm not an expert in this area and could easily be wrong, but I there are certain posting requirements. I think it might even have to be posted internally for a certain period of time before UND can post it externally (even though there are no internal candidates in this particular case). But that doesn't mean Faison can't talk to people during the posting process and hopefully he'll get everything lined up so that he can pull the trigger on the hiring as soon as he can.

Per @DomIzzoWDAY, Faison said he will not use a search firm for next coach. I like that. He says he wants to hire someone asap, but has to go through University procedures. From outward appearances at least, it sounds like he has a plan and knows what he's doing.

I think he meant "Paul is dead" but I was reading his statement backwards.

Sure, but Hockey East didn't have another team with a national TV deal (correct me if I'm wrong). If Notre Dame would have gone to the NCHC, you'd have two teams with national TV deals making the number of appearances for the other schools comparable to what they ended up getting out of the CBSSN deal. There are too many variables and unknowns to say for sure how many games they would have gotten (for instance, we don't even know whether W. Michigan and/or St. Cloud would have been added). But I think it's safe to say that going solely by number of games on national TV, it would have been close to comparable for the other schools. My point is that there probably were other considerations in play in addition to the number of games - such as getting home games and some neutrality and fairness that a league-deal delivers. And, like you said, there may been non-television reasons the Notre Dames talk fell apart. It would be interesting to see what their other demands were. I wasn't setting forth some conspiracy theory that everyone was out to get UND. But I do think that the other members didn't favor a scenario where 1 or 2 teams in the conference had the vast majority of national TV games and probably preferred a more equitable system that a league-deal provided, where it was closer to equal among the members. That came, unfortunately, at UND's expense.

Since you apparently have inside information, what were their other demands? I'm not sure they've been made public. At least I don't recall anything other than their TV deal being discussed. I never claimed millions of people watched UND hockey. I fully acknowledge that the ratings were probably non-existent (like all programming on FCS). And I never tried to say UND's exposure with FCS was equivalent to Notre Dame's deal with NBCSN. I don't care if Notre Dame had something better, UND still would have had all their home games available on FCS. UND would have been better off with Notre Dame in the league. That's the main point I was making. You may be right about the primary reason why most schools voted the way they did was based on getting on national TV more times. But I think it's more accurate to say 5 out of 6 rather than 7 out of 8. I don't think St. Cloud and Western Michigan are relevant to the discussion. The decision for an exclusivity deal was effectively made before they joined the conference, when the conference walked away from Notre Dame. But it's not like they got a huge upgrade in number of games by going with CBSSN. If you just look the raw number of national television appearances and add up the number of games that these 5 teams (CC, Denver, UMD, UNO and Miami) would have been on national TV through Notre Dame's and UND's deals, it probably would approach the number of times they'll be on CBSSN. Of course, they would have all been road games and on someone else's "production" so to speak. Certainly not as desirable for those schools than what they get with the CBSSN deal (neutrality, some home games, relative equality). So I think creating a conference-first mentality and creating some level of fairness in national TV appearances was at least a consideration for these schools. Of course I'm just speculating.

This has been my theory all along. Speaking for myself, the reason I wanted Notre Dame in the league is that Notre Dame being in the NCHC would have been the death of an exclusivity clause in any league television deal. Notre Dame would not join a league that required it to give up its NBCSN contract. If the NCHC would have capitulated to Notre Dame to get them in the league, that would have greatly benefited UND because UND would have got to keep its FCS contract as well. That's why I was hoping the NCHC would have caved to Notre Dame's demands. Plus, you can make an argument that, even if CBSSN wanted nothing to do with the NCHC without the exclusivity clause (which we don't know), the league still would have had more national exposure with Notre Dame's and UND's deals than with what they ended up getting with CBSSN. But it would not have been equal exposure (with Notre Dame and UND getting the bulk of the exposure). And getting back to your first point, that's why it didn't happen. IMO, it was more important for the teams without their own TV deals to force equality amongst the members than it was to achieve the most overall exposure.

You act as if there is a decision to make. Even if we take your word that the Summit is a better basketball conference, without a home for football, it simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the Summit has a better RPI, has a better tournament, includes traditional rivals, is less expensive, etc. UND is simply never going to voluntarily choose a conference affiliation that leaves its football team independent. It will never happen. It's not even a remote consideration. The fatal flaw in your argument here is that there is no evidence that the MVFC wants UND. All of the public information available suggests that MVFC does not want UND. You don't claim to have any inside information that contradicts the public record. Thus, this "debate" is a complete waste of time in my opinion because you are making a gigantic assumption (UND can easily get into the MVFC) without a shred of evidence.

This part is debatable. If a MVFC invitation were part of the deal, UND would certainly have to take a serious look at it. There would be pros and cons to each option. But I've seen no indication from any credible source that the MVFC is even remotely on the table for UND. Until I see credible evidence to suggest it's a real possibility, there is no decision to make and UND should have zero interest in leaving the Big Sky.

I think it's pretty futile to compare the Big Sky's transition from DII to DI-AA in 1978, which was the first year of existence of DI-AA and the playoffs. Division affiliation back then was all over the place - some schools moving "up" to DI-AA, some reclassified "down" from University/DI status to DI-AA. Plus, the number of teams that made the playoffs started out at only four, then moved up to 8 in 1981, 12 in 1982, 16 in 1986, and 20 in 2010. So it would have been much harder to make the playoffs in those early years than it is now. Having said that, some Big Sky notables: Nevada: 1st year Boise State: 3rd year Idaho State: 4th year (national championship) Montana: 5th year Idaho: 5th year Montana State: 7th year (national championship) Eastern Washington: 3rd year Portland State: 5th year I think the only valid transition comparisons for UND are UNC, NDSU, SDSU, and USD. Of those, NDSU and SDSU clearly had better transitions. UND and USD were roughly about the same, but USD, after a coaching change, appears headed in the right direction and UND is headed in the wrong direction. UNC has been a train wreck and obviously not something UND wants to emulate.

I know Behrns is thought by many people to have destroyed the football program that UND and I'm sure he left the cupboard pretty bare for Roger Thomas, but his record was downright exemplary compared to the current administration. Does anyone remember if Behrns was actually fired, or did he voluntarily leave?

NAU is having a good season and still only had 4,895 at the game. Is that normal for NAU? Also, why would they decide to build a dome in Flagstaff, Arizona?

It continues to amaze me how undisciplined this team continues to be. Just one example, I think it was NAU's second touchdown, the defense had them held to a field goal attempt, but someone jumped offsides giving NAU a first down, which they promptly turned into a touchdown. This team isn't nearly good enough to make those kind of boneheaded mistakes if it wants to stay competitive. On any one particular mistake, I suppose you can say it's the players fault. But the cumulative effect falls to the coach. This is simply an undisciplined team and that is ultimately the head coach's fault. Also, comments like this by Bartels really bother me and I can't help but think that it's the player taking on the coach's mentality: “We battled our heads off,” said Bartels. “Obviously, we want to win games. But we’re playing good teams. We’re (still) new in the Big Sky.”

You mean someone posted inaccurate information on siouxsports.com? Shocking! Talk about a HUGE AND UNFORGIVABLE MISTAKE! I know UND is exempt from a lot of city development requirements. Maybe this wasn't exempt because of the involvement of REA, Inc., which is a nonprofit corporation. Quite frankly, I don't really care enough to research it. Obviously a few people really do care, so I should have just stayed out of it. As someone who lives in a larger city, I find this entire thread charming. Anyway, carry on....

UND owned the land and, as a State institution, was exempt from the City's parking requirements. UND has historically done all sorts of development on campus that the City wouldn't approve (as-is) if they had the power.

I've bashed the NCHC deal enough. I still don't get it and I don't like it. But I'm done. I just hope CBS SN decides they like the product so much that they televise more than 18 games in future years of the contract. I also hope the NCHC is in a better bargaining position the next go-around and can get the exclusivity clause eased a bit. I agree that, at most, the exclusivity clause should only apply when CBS SN is actually airing a game that night. Those are my hopes going forward. No sense bashing what already happened any more. I think UND fully understands that its fans aren't happy about this deal, so there's no use beating a dead horse. I trust UND will do what it can to improve the TV deal going forward. As for the rest of the sports, I really like the fact that FCS is still engaging UND, even with mens hockey off the table. That is a really good sign. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised. I like the fact that the relationship still exists and is strong. It's great for the other sports. And it will help that a relationship is still in place for if/when the NCHC exclusivity clause is eased. This is a really good announcement IMO.

The short answer is that there were cheaper ways for UND to comply with Title IX other than starting a very expensive women's hockey program. But that ship has sailed. Now that's it here, UND isn't going to terminate womens hockey in the foreseeable future.

I was surprised when the Alerus Center opened up and tailgating was free. The facility was actually losing money by allowing tailgating because they'd have to clean up after the tailgaters while getting no revenue from them. I'd be surprised if you can tailgate for free anywhere these days. $100 per season for two spots seems like a pretty good deal. The single-game tailgating pass is a bit more spendy, but it's not way out of line. The big thing is for the team to start winning. That would liven up the tailgating atmosphere quite a bit and really make the experience worth the money.

Digger Anderson was from Coon Rapids, MN.

ISU - 38 UND - 35

I have been very much in favor of resuming the series against NDSU. But after these last two games, I'm glad the series hasn't resumed yet. The Montana schools are good, but they're not as good as NDSU. It's downright scary to think what NDSU would have been able to do to UND this year. I'd still like to see the series resume at some point, but not right now. As for all the other garbage on this thread, all I can say is that I'd rather be talking about appropriate punishment for misdemeanors of a few UND players after two national championships than talking about blowout losses and blowing up the program and starting from scratch. The fact that a few NDSU players had run-ins with the law this off season does not make me feel better about the current state of UND football.

That assumes the UND defense is capable of laying one hit on him.

One thing is fairly certain if this proposal comes to fruition, NDSU will not stand for moving down a division. They will go FBS no matter what it takes. I assume UNI might feel the same way. And I'm pretty sure SDSU will follow NDSU, and USD will have to try to follow SDSU if they can keep up. For UND, we'll probably have to rely on the Big Sky conference and Doug Fullerton and the Presidents having some sort of plan. What concerns me is that I don't think this proposal is the "split" Doug Fullerton had in mind. I think he imagined a split where the BCS schools broke off and the Big Sky would be positioned to be in the second-tier with the bottom FBS and top FCS schools. I don't know if he has a plan for moving up all or part of the Big Sky to the top tier. The good thing for UND is that I think Montana and Montana State will have the same attitude as NDSU and that moving down a division will be unacceptable. So hopefully if this proposal comes to fruition, UND can ride the coattails of the Montana schools into FBS.