mksioux

This true, which is why I'd like to see the cuts actually make a big difference in the budget. I don't like the idea of creating this much damage on people's lives by nibbling around the edges and potentially just putting a band-aid on the problem. If you have to cut sports, do it in a way that will solve the problem for years to come. I really hope that will be the case here, but protecting women's hockey from scrutiny makes me wonder.

And football has been around for 122 years, which ought to count for something. I don't think any talk about the football deficit is fair unless you have apples to apples accounting, which is sorely lacking. If the IAC could have done one useful thing it would be to force the athletic department to clean up its act on how it allocates revenues and expenses and be much more transparent with its accounting.

While UND has to be mindful of a lawsuit, it can't let the possibility of litigation be the driving force in its decisions. Perhaps some clarity on the issue would be beneficial in the long term? I know attorney fees can be ridiculous, and the bad publicity would not be welcome, but is the threat of going to court any worse than committing to a program that loses roughly $2 million a year with no real prospect of getting any better? Do other schools that are not as Title IX vigilant as UND cower at the threat of lawsuits? Why does it seem UND is the only school unwilling to address Title IX issues in a more affordable way?

That would make regular scheduling with the other 3 Dakota schools very difficult. If true, I don't like the change.

Exactly. If you're going to have a public spectacle, at least have it address the elephant in the room in a transparent way.

Why can't UND start a womens sport that is considerably less expensive than hockey and then fund that top 10% in the country? Wouldn't that satisfy this "tiering" problem?

Let's say jdub's explanation is mostly correct and that "tiering" is the reason womens hockey can't be dropped. Then why not make that publicly known through the IAC process, rather than just saying womens hockey is untouchable and have the public debate and speculate on why womens hockey was spared? You can debate the public nature of this whole process, but if you're going to have a public spectacle where coaches come begging for their programs, why not have it at least do some good and explain once and for all why womens hockey is untouchable? Instead, the one area where some sunshine may have actually done some good, Kennedy makes a unilateral decision and takes it off the table.

How does REA protect womens hockey? Does REA really fund womens hockey? It gives them a place to play for basically nothing I suppose, but the program still hemorrhages money. And is REA really going to bat for womens hockey behind the scenes? I honestly have no idea, but I'm curious. Some indicate that REA does not even want womens hockey anymore. I don't think Ralph himself had any great affinity toward womens hockey considering at the time he announced his donation and built the arena, UND did not even have a varsity womens hockey team. Anyone know REA's position, if any, on this? Womens hockey does not have a rich history or much of a fan base. It didn't start until 2002 and I don't believe it was fully funded until 2007. It's had moderate success since then, but nothing to write home about. Why exactly is the program deserving of sacred cow status? All I hear is that "Grand Forks is a hockey town" or "UND is a hockey school" so that's just the way it is. Call me underwhelmed by that reasoning. Certainly Grand Forks overwhelmingly supports the mens hockey program and UND certainly is a great mens hockey school. But if Grand Forks was such a great overall hockey town and UND was such a great overall hockey school, attendance at womens hockey games would not be so abysmal. Can someone explain to me why womens hockey is untouchable? Maybe I'm missing something. I know it's a moot point because Kennedy has already said womens hockey will not be cut, but I'm still curious as to exactly why when doing so seems to make the most sense. Also, I think it has been well established that Title IX is not a real barrier. UND could cut womens hockey and still be Title IX compliant by being only mildly creative.

UND played Nebraska in 1961, which was in the Big 8 back then, which turned into the Big 12 in 1996. That could be the reference. Or it could be TCU. UND played TCU in 1933. TCU is in the Big 12 now, but was a member of the Southwest Conference back then.

The thing that really stood out to me was penalties. We can argue about play calling and whether the offense has the personnel, but there really is no excuse for the untimely and type of penalties UND got yesterday (mostly on offense, but some bad ones on defense too). The good news is that reducing penalties is something that is definitely achievable this season. It was an ugly and frustrating game, but it was the first win for UND in Bozeman in the DI era, so it's a huge milestone in my opinion. The last win for UND in Bozeman was 1982! The first two games against Montana State in the DI era were BRUTAL. Then UND had a close loss followed by two victories in a row. Taking the long view, you can't complain too much.

Each conference has its dogs. Although I will admit - IUPUI has too many letters and sounds too funny to be taken seriously.

Speak for yourself Kennedy. I, for one, do not want a "swift resolution." I want any investigative process to be slow, deliberate, and above all, fair with full due process rights. I don't like Kennedy pandering to the pitchfork mob and treating due process as some unfortunate pesky procedural barrier to an immediate tar and feathering. I do not defend the action of these girls. Even before social media, a stunt like this would have been stupid. And it's especially dense to do something like this in the age of social media and in this tense racial climate. But the actions of a few teenage girls does not warrant a wholesale onslaught of "diversity re-education" which usually ends up amounting to nothing more than left-wing political, social, and cultural indoctrination. Kennedy used to be a Republican, and so he may be overcompensating here to establish his liberal bona fides to his new peers in academia. But if a few teenage girls acting stupid on a Saturday night ends up being the pretext for the establishment of a re-education indoctrination program at UND, I will have to re-assess my support for this institution. And I would expect legislators would take notice as well.

UND has been having issues with an old wooden ship used during the Civil War era? I must have missed that news story.

The Big Sky didn't have an app yet? What is this, 2010?

The Fox College Sports programming does not list this game. So I take that those of us in the Twin Cities are S.O.L. in watching this game unless we pay for the stream on the MSU website? I'm not seeing the MSU webcast option on their website, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

I was wondering the same thing. The ROOT schedule says they're televising the Montana at Cal Poly game next Saturday and doesn't mention the UND at Montana State game, so I'm not sure why the UND game is not listed on eversports.

Very crazy game. I did not see that comeback coming. And then thanks to Big Sky TV, I didn't get to see it at all.

It's very hard to be a fan of this program.

No decisions have been made yet, but I think it would have shown true leadership for Kennedy to come out and immediately quash the idea that going back to DII is on the table, as suggested by the committee chairperson. Maybe he feels like he needs to let the committee do its work before undercutting them publicly, but that statement, left unchecked, could actually do damage to recruiting.

If playoffs is the goal, then laying the egg against Stony Brook makes this game pretty much a must-win game. It would be an awful lot to ask of the team to go 8-1 for USD and the conference season. Yes, the season is not over if they lose, but they really need to find a way to win this game. Find a way to win even if they are not the better team and even if they lose the statistical battle. Block a punt, get a pick-6, win the turnover battle, get a few bounces, whatever it takes.

There is NO chance this UND team with this schedule makes the playoffs with 5 losses. After last year, there is a reasonable belief they can't lose more than 3. Losing to Stony Brook was a huge loss just because there is such little room for error if you think you need to finish 8-3 to make the playoffs. (Although depending on "quality losses" maybe UND will get in at 7-4 this year!).

Thanks?

Well, that was a letdown. You gotta love football. Fan bases always are able to work themselves into a tizzy of optimism in the offseason.

Has this been mentioned yet? UND PRESIDENT MARK KENNEDY: Collaboration is 'not an attempt to shift blame' Sure is a lot of squish.

It is VERY concerning to me that the chair of this committee would suggest going back to DII as a viable option. I'm not concerned that it will actually happen, but I'm concerned that the people on this committee do not have the expertise to be making these kinds of recommendations. It's also very unfortunate that "going back to DII" is now going to be part of the public narrative going forward and will be cloud over the athletic department until Kennedy finally makes a decision.