82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
This is easy. Basketball practices in the Betty Hockey in the ralph. During conference season you work the schedules so MBB is only playing at home when MHcky is not. Both leagues will accomodate that.
During conference season
Sun-Tues - Hockey practices in ralph bball in betty
Wed morning - - men's hockey practice convert REA to basketball after
wed night - basketball practice
Thursday Men's shoot around in morning in Ralph game at night
Friday Men's practice in ralph
Saturday - Men's game in ralph
Sun morning. - Convert back to hockey for the next week
During non conference
Conversions take place 1 day prior to bball game so the team can practice. Otherwise they practice in the Betty
Any games against mayville st, etc. gets played in the betty
D1 non conference in the Ralph
MBB would have main locker room in the Ralph and one still in the betty for the non d1 home games.
Women's Hockey is always in olympic which is their new home
There's your schedule folks...Any other planning need to be done to get this going? Think we got it covered.
School might be one thing that gets in the way of your schedule. The teams have to have a consistent practice schedule so that the players can go to school. I'm pretty sure that most athletes are in class some time between 9 and noon on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. That's the most popular times for classes. These are student-athletes and I don't think the school or the NCAA would appreciate them missing a bunch of classes for practice when they are at home. They already have to miss a lot while they are on the road.
The women need to practice on the regular rink the weeks they are going to play on regular rinks, which means most weeks they are on the road even if they play home games on the Olympic. Those hours need to be fit in your little schedule, along with their class schedules since they are also students.
Now you want 3 different leagues coordinating their schedules just for UND. You want the Big Sky, for both men and women, plus the NCHC and the Women's WCHA setting up their schedules so that UND can pull off your little dream. That isn't happening. For instance, the men's hockey team played at home 4 straight weekends in January this year. Under your plan the men's basketball team would have to play on the road those 4 weeks during conference play, the women's basketball team would play at home the same 4 weeks. I don't see the Big Sky agreeing to anything close to that, and I don't see UND giving up home hockey games selling 11,000 tickets to put basketball in the REA and sell 3-4,000 tickets at a lower price per ticket. Your plan isn't feasible.
-
Six. That's a squiggly number.
Lots of round in that number, too.
-
I'm saying that NDSU fans have much more to be excited about than playing UND. This game just ain't a big deal compared to what Bison fans have experienced over the last few years and have come to expect. That's just the way it is...playing UND is a bore.
Playing UND is a bore... that NDSU fans will be willing to pay several hundred dollars a seat to watch. But they really have very little interest in watching the game. NDSU fans just have a lot of extra money that they are willing to spend for something that they don't find interesting. Got it.
-
You know what I meant, but if this fits your premise, go with it. Lol
If no logos or nicknames used in the past are going to be allowed as stated by Sicatoka a few posts ago, when will all the N's and D's be removed from campus? Seems like quite an undertaking, hopefully The Herald takes some pics.
The agreement doesn't say that they have to stop using the ND logo (and certainly doesn't say that they have to stop using the letters N and D). tSic didn't say that no logos or nicknames used in the past are allowed. The agreement says that they have to stop using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, and that they have to replace the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo with a new nickname and new logo. It is spelled out pretty simply in the settlement agreement section printed above. The ND logo has been a secondary logo for many years. It can continue to be a secondary logo. But UND has to choose a new nickname and a new logo to replace Fighting Sioux as the primary nickname.
-
So, by this argument, the new nickname may not have been used... ever? Completely new? Original? That's quite a leap.
One reading of the settlement agreement would say yes, may not have been used.. ever.... BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA. You missed that part. UND could use Warriors or Tigers, 2 of the most popular nicknames around, because UND has not used them before.
-
It's just nonsense to say that demand among Bison fans will be appreciably higher for this game. For Christ's sake 20,000 bison fans routinely show in Frisco 1,000 miles from Fargo. 30,000 (estimated) followed them to Minneapolis to see them play the Gophers. All non-student single game tickets sell out basically as quickly as the ticket office can take the orders. Do you really think that those people need a game against UND to get them excited about Bison football?
Basically you are comparing this game with a national title game or a game with a team from the Big 10. But it isn't an important game to NDSU fans. Got it.
-
You are correct- "people" do, but the university doesn't. The deal is with the university, not the general population. People will still wear their Sioux apparel for years to come regardless of a new nickname or not. If it went to court the ncaa would have no grounds to stand on.....they would be using a Thought Police reasoning to state their case.
And besides, the interlocking ND is a new logo.
Slippery Rock University gets by calling themselves Slippery Rock with an inference to "The Rock" also being their nickname. So, their nickname is the same as their schoolname, yet they somehow get by without litigation from the ncaa.
UND has been using the interlocking ND since at least the 1930s. It was modified a few years ago to try and make it a little different from Notre Dame, but it is still an interlocking ND. It isn't a new logo in any way, shape or form.
-
There are plenty of arenas to look at as examples of how this could look. MSG manages to make it work for the Rangers, Knicks, concerts, and countless other events they hold. It obviously can be done. The question is, does REA/UND want it done? So far we've seen what that answer has been...
MSG isn't also used as a practice facility. It is only used for events, like games or concerts. The Rangers and Knicks practice in other facilities. Just like the Wild don't practice at the X, they practice in another facility. The Ralph is not only a game venue, it is a practice facility for both men's and women's hockey. The Olympic rink is a good place to practice when they are going to play a game on an Olympic size rink. But the teams need a place to practice for games on regular size rinks, which means most weeks. How do all of those hours and days of practice time fit into your scheduling model at the Ralph?
-
You are absolutely right. But do we want better basketball program? Games at REA could be huge advantage. Yes there are other things that matter, some dealt with in other threads. As for kids, they want the glitz and glamour, give it to them. We will get the best players and become dominant. I honestly believe UND should be the school to attend if you aren't going to MN or other major. Its close, has good facilities, and great fans. Could have best facilities and no longer competing with anyone close for talent.
REA isn't some magic pill that is going to attract an all-star team. Tradition is big in attracting basketball players. The actual game day experience is big. You can create a much better game day experience for basketball in the Betty than you could in the Ralph. Coaches are the biggest factor in attracting kids. There are reasons that kids go to places like Duke and Kentucky, and the facilities aren't at the top of the list. Glitz can be created almost anywhere. The Ralph is a great arena, but I don't see it as the right answer for basketball.
-
I get your points, but a lot of what you are saying I think are reasons to do this. Again think with vision and growth. See below
In my opinion, I don't think that many people are going to show up just because the games are in the Ralph. At least not on a regular basis. I've been told that it is a poor shooting background, which the teams don't like. That is especially true when the upper deck is empty.
- Although a small sample size history has shown more people will show up if it's at REA. I stick to the opinion that if REA is permenent home to MBB you get at least an additional 1000-1500 on your season average initially, more as it grows. If UND/REA believed that and got after it they would see the results. As for the background after 5 games and some practices suddenly UND is adjusted to it and it's only a problem for the visiting teams. The reasons it's an issue now is because they play one game there every 4-5 years. Won't be an issue after practice and a few games.
Because it was designed especially for hockey, the permanent seats are too far from the court to give an intimate environment, and you can't put in bleachers because they would block the view for the permanent seats. You don't get that feeling of the crowd being right on top of the court that you get at top arenas.
-You and I must've attended a different game when NDSU was there 2 years ago. They brought seating down on the sides and ends right up to the court. bleachers on the ends, and small bleachers and court side seats on the side. If you just used the lower bowl to start with I think it would still be a great atmosphere. Not as good as the Betty jam packed, but the goal is grow UND basketball to 5000 plus attendance and NCAA tourney appearances.
I think that winning games will attract more people no matter where the games are. I think the Betty can be a very good home without huge costs. Even the Alerus could be a better option. The Ralph is a good option for big crowd games, but I don't see it as a great option for every day games.
-I agree winning games will draw fans and winning games is the entire reason you completely move MBB in the REA full time. What helps you win games?..1.Great Players 2. Great Coaching. What helps you attract that?.....Great Facilities, University, etc. I agree the Betty can be a good home, but do you want to sit back while UND plays in the Betty hoping for UND to make the NCAA and that attendance grows or do you want to make it happen right now?
-Again, heres the deal. If you dress the REA up so it's the home of UND MHCKY and UND MBB basketball, basketball suddenly goes up a notch for casual UND fans which will help attendance initially. What grows interest and attendance long term is winning and success. Do you think UND would have more success showing kids around the REA saying this is your home, weight room, etc, and the Betty is where we practice sometimes.....the answer to this is a big time yes...UND would kill it recruiting. Probably could start trying to get multiple 3* type talent kids at UND as it would make a huge impression on kids. Also, some people don't think Jones will be here much longer, what type of coach do you think UND could get if REA was the main home of UND MBB? You could make a serious run at some pretty high level candidates. Ben Jacobson is of the market after this year, but prior to this year I think that is the type of coach you could attract assuming you payed similar. We would have no shot a getting a Craig Smith type now, but I bet he would be a guy who might give it a look if the REA was the main home.
-No reason with the REA as the main facility that UND doesn't have the top talent in the Big Sky, Summit or wherever it plays which would mean multiple NCAA tourney appearances which means more fans, better recruits, etc. No reason we couldn't be Weber State after 6-8 years drawing 6000-7000 fans in the REA. This whole idea is about winning and building up MBB.
One other consideration in the matter. Putting the basketball court on top of ice usually results in lower grade ice, and can result in condensation problems on the floor. Most arenas that are used for both have plenty of complaints about the ice. I know that it used to cause problems with the ice at the Ralph. That was before the system was replaced. I don't know if it would still cause problems.
-Again Scheels arena, Century Link center, Kohl center, etc all make this work.....shouldn't be what holds up UND from doing this. This is small minded thinking on an idea like this.
Facts are facts, and the fact is UND has more growth potential and ability to do big things with MBB than any other sport on campus. Do you want to sit around playing in the Betty waiting for this to happen, or do you want to make it happen by moving MBB to the REA full time. IMHO it is a no brainer. Shoot, do it next year for 5-6 games to test run it and maybe challenge fans a little by saying if we get 4000 plus average in the building for these 5-6 games combined we will move MBB to the Ralph full time and renovate the Olympic for women's hockey. Do it for NDSU, SDSU, UNI, and 3 Saturday Big Sky basketball games when hockey is gone and I bet money you have an average over 4000. Do you know the revenue impact 6 games of 4000 plus fan would have? The potential for moving basketball to the REA is off the charts good for all parties long term.
I wasn't at the NDSU game, but I've been to games there before. It is a pleasant game experience for the fans because it is comfortable. But I don't think it makes for a really great basketball experience. There is too much open space. It is too high with nothing up above. It would be somewhat better if the upper deck were full, but even then those seats are quite a ways from the basketball court. A full house is always going to be good, but I don't see a great home advantage when the place isn't full.
You keep saying that they do it in other places. That's true, but it didn't address the issue of bad ice in those venues. I've heard a lot of people say that the ice is bad at Scheels this year. I've heard about problems with the ice at most places where they do both basketball and hockey on a regular basis. Quality of ice is important to hockey for both quality of the games and to prevent injuries.
I agree that there is room for a lot of growth in the basketball program. I just don't think that the Ralph is the answer. Take the money you want to spend on the Olympic rink and spend it somewhere else, maybe on the Betty, and create a great basketball experience there. "Thinking big" isn't always the answer when those "big thoughts" aren't the best answers. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
-
1
-
-
I will take your word on the conversions. I will ask this though I have heard faison talk about the need for a bigger bball arena down the road, i hear fans talk about wanting video boards, suites, club seating, more amenities in the betty. That costs a lot of money to do that and a lot of fundraising. It might be 15-20 years down the road for some of that. I am saying UND has an arena locked and loaded with all of that right now.....NO future fundraising needed except maybe locker room renovations.
Would eating the conversion costs in the short term be worth it to see basketball grow rapidly....The answer to that is a big time yes IMHO. I have no doubt you would see results in fan interest, attendance, recruiting, wins, presteige, etc. Again you have to have some vision which good leaders do. If you try to find excuses for it not to happen it never will. Your conversion costs is the only one of merit I can think of and the long term growth potential right now tells me that is a cost I would pay.
I can tell you NDSU, SDSU, USD, Montana, Montana St, Weber St, and even some MVC schools would be a little worried if UND did this because the bar would be set with UND facilities wise. If other schools are worried it usually means your doing something right.
In my opinion, I don't think that many people are going to show up just because the games are in the Ralph. At least not on a regular basis. I've been told that it is a poor shooting background, which the teams don't like. That is especially true when the upper deck is empty. It's similar to the problem they have holding games in domes only on a smaller scale. Because it was designed especially for hockey, the permanent seats are too far from the court to give an intimate environment, and you can't put in bleachers because they would block the view for the permanent seats. You don't get that feeling of the crowd being right on top of the court that you get at top arenas. I think that winning games will attract more people no matter where the games are. I think the Betty can be a very good home without huge costs. Even the Alerus could be a better option. The Ralph is a good option for big crowd games, but I don't see it as a great option for every day games.
One other consideration in the matter. Putting the basketball court on top of ice usually results in lower grade ice, and can result in condensation problems on the floor. Most arenas that are used for both have plenty of complaints about the ice. I know that it used to cause problems with the ice at the Ralph. That was before the system was replaced. I don't know if it would still cause problems.
-
Yes it has. Back in 02-03 they played NCC conference games there and drew around 4000 a game.
As for the conversions 82 I think you over estimating. If Scheels arena can do it for the 3000 people that attend force and NDSU games I think REA can for 2 UND sports. Plus if you committed to it and UND made a couple NCAA runs i think you would see attendance approach 5000 plus. Their are a ton of basketball fans in ND.
Maybe REA should test it next year with 5-6 games in the REA and if it's worth it make the move to have men's hoops there permenently.
I see nothing but upside with this.
They tried it in 02-03, as you already pointed out. They decided then that it wasn't worth it.
We don't know how much NDSU is supplementing Scheels Arena to have their basketball games there. They can't play at home because of the renovations so they may very well be paying what ever it costs to have the games at Scheels. Extra costs could even be figured into the renovation costs as a cost of doing business. I helped with the conversion 1 time, so I know how much work it is.
-
unlv played at usd or sdu last year???
use some connections...dale brown....lute olson...these have a lot of pull at those schools to make a one game thing happen...not saying it likely but things can happen if you make them happen...plus most mid majors don't have a 12,000 seat arena with fifty boxes that could be filled if the game is big enough...most play in arena not much bigger than the betty....
There is very little to draw those schools to play at places like UND or NDSU or any other Summit, Big Sky level school. They make more money going to play at places like Minnesota, Kansas or any Big 5 level schools than UND could afford to pay. Most also make more money playing low level teams at home where they don't have to pay nearly as much for a guarantee. Plus they don't want to give lower level teams a home field advantage. It is a lose-lose proposition for most of them. They are ranked much higher so they are expected to win. If they win, they were supposed to. If they lose, they embarrass themselves. If you look at schedules around the country, those games are very rare.
-
Why can't it??? Scheels in Fargo hosts NDSU and Force, Century Link in Omaha hosts UNO and Creighton. Whky will never draw more than 1500-2000 fans a game tops...this year way less. Dress the olympic rink up to 2000 seating and make that their home. it's the perfect size.
Why wouldn't you put a sport that can draw 3000-4000 fans a game and potentially more down the road in the REA?? UND suddenly goes from decent mid major facilities to some of the best in the country. We'd be able to compete with MVC schools facilities wise for recruits.
The revenue potential is off the charts for this.....why wouldn't UND and REA look into this. You would now have an awesome bball facility complete with suites video boards and the whole nine yards. Guess what you didn't even have to fundraise for it.
I changed my mind on this after some thought and now think the best thing UND could do moving forward would be to move all games to REA and MAKE MENS BBALL THE SECOND MAIN TENENT AT REA. Someone with vision at REA should look into this. It's not even that big a risk considering men's bball already showed it could draw 4000 in REA in 03. I bet a lot of casual fans would hop on the bandwagon. a couple 1000 extra people at games is a lot of $$$ not to think about.
One thing that you haven't figured in is the cost to convert, and the time needed. It takes at least 4-6 hours with a good size crew of people. And then about the same to convert back. It isn't cheap to make that conversion. They have 2 layers that go down on the ice, then put together the basketball floor, add the baskets, etc. If you're putting 10,000 in the seats it is probably worth it. I don't know if it is financially for 4,000.
-
i like the talk of moving bigger games to the rea side but really what is a big game??? sdsu, ndac, usd?? come on let's live a little...if we have a facility that can sit 12,000 for bball lets really talk about a school that is a bball school then...lets' get some big time teams to come here...Gonzaga, Butler, Creighton, LSU, DePaul, Cincinnati....a friday night game without hockey in town on a friday or saturday night would draw enough to cover the costs of paying them to come here...heck do a 3-1 if you have to get someone like them to come here...
Big time schools don't travel to mid major or lower mid majors except in very special cases like when Kansas came to Grand Forks. Even a 3 for 1 isn't going to get one of those schools to Grand Forks. They either go to top level conference schools, tournaments, or host lower level schools and make big money on the home games. It's a nice dream, but very, very unlikely.
-
Unfortunately for the do-gooders, house parties don't need a liquor permit. I'm somewhat excited to see what happens when there isn't an organized effort in the park to contain some of the madness. I almost expect to see new city ordinances banning the consumption of alcohol in front yards by individuals under 30 soon.
A lot of ways for the police to break up private parties. They will be very busy that weekend. Not having a public event will probably stop some of the out-of-towners from coming to party. And I think the city already has some public consumption laws in place that will be enforced that weekend.
-
Kelley lobbied the city council to not issue the liquor permits.
And the city has been more and more reluctant to issue the permits each year. That event has been on borrowed time for close to a decade. It almost got cancelled after the couches got burned.
-
Forgot the flippant emoji.
Always hard to be sure without the emoji (sometimes even with one).
-
Will there be a dial-in # provided?
More likely an email address.
-
Somewhat off topic, but on the criteria for a free agent. Am I correct, player that went undrafted or player that does not sign in certain length of time (ie, seniors)? Is there other ways? Is it beneficial to become one?
Undrafted, yes. I believe if they are drafted the deadline to be signed is Aug 1 of what would be their 4th year of college, but that might be off a little bit. I also believe that if their drafting team decides not to offer them a contract they can become a free agent, or if they are released after being signed. If is beneficial to be a free agent if the player is playing well. Playing well usually means more than 1 team will be interested. If they aren't playing well it might be better to be drafted. Most teams will sign their draft picks and at least give them a chance. They don't want to give up on a draft pick until they are pretty sure it isn't going to work out. The higher the draft pick, the longer they will hold on to that player.
-
They dropped the word "Fighting" from the name. Also, I've heard that the tribe is extinct, or at least no longer an organized/recognized group, thus no one had to approve of the name, but that could be bad info flowing in...
They still use Fighting Illini. They made a claim that the term Fighting Ilini referred to Illinois residents that fought in World War I, and had some evidence that the term was used in that context. The tribe has not existed for a while. They had to drop their NA mascot and all references to Native Americans. Getting rid of all NA references was enough to get off the NCAA list.
-
Fact is that the amount of 1st and 2nd rounders playing college hockey is going down.
That number will fluctuate over time. But the total number of NHL players that played in the NCAA continues to grow almost every year.
-
Honest question for the hockey fans on this forum. If all of the schools that sponsor FBS and FCS football, also sponsored hockey and financed it like it was the focal point of their athletic department (like they do football now), do you think UND would play at the top level of collegiate hockey? If yes, do you think they'd be at all competitive? I say they'd either be in a lower level (an "FCS" level) or they'd be the equivalent of a Wyoming or Idaho in terms of relevance to the division I hockey world.
The fact is anyone who denigrates UND football because of their level of competition needs to at least own up to the fact that UND hockey can only succeed to the level it does in Division I hockey because most of the other NCAA schools either don't sponsor the sport or care very little for it.
First, I am a long time season ticket holder for both football and hockey so don't try to put me in a hockey fan only slot. As far as an answer to your question, I think it would depend on several other factors that you haven't addressed. First is history. Part of the advantage that UND has right now is a history of being a hockey power. Most of the strong hockey programs have been strong hockey programs for many years. Some combination of Michigan, Minnesota, Denver, Wisconsin, Boston College, Boston University, UND and a few other schools are on the top teams list most years. If UND had a similar history and had been a strong program for decades then they probably still would. If they were just moving up to Division I like they are in football, than they wouldn't be nearly as strong a program.
Location is an advantage in hockey for UND versus many other NCAA schools and would be in your scenario. Hockey is important in this region of the country and the close proximity to Canada would always be advantages for UND over schools in Florida, Alabama, Texas and other southern schools. Hockey would probably always be stronger overall for northern schools than southern schools. Places like Florida, Texas and California have more football athletes growing up, and very well might under your scenario, so they have an advantage in attracting football players to southern schools.
There are also outlier programs in all sports. Boise State in football. BYU has had a pretty strong history in football. Gonzaga in basketball. Several other smaller DI programs have had good runs in basketball. So there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen in hockey.
Bottom line is that there is no way to know what would happen in some made up scenario. UND might still be a top program in your scenario, or they might be a bottom feeder. No one knows for sure and will never know because your scenario isn't going to happen. The fact is that UND has a strong hockey program and is one of the best in the NCAA every year. Enjoy it while it lasts, and hope it lasts for a long time. The other fact is that UND plays at the FCS level in football, and has only played at that level for 3 years. The future will tell whether they succeed or not at the FCS level, whether UND becomes part of a higher level if football is realigned, or how they might do at that higher level if they move up. Hopefully UND can continue to build the football program and it will have success at whatever level it plays.
-
2
-
-
By supporting the idea that FCS is JV and D1 hockey isn't you contradict the facts. D1 hockey is the #2 supplier, basically jv.
I didn't say anything about either one being JV, and never have. You questioned whether NCAA hockey was the 2nd largest supplier of players for the NHL, or whether a Swedish league was bigger. I gave you specifics on where both NFL and NHL players come from. More than 31% of NHL players come from NCAA hockey, and that is the 2nd largest behind Canadian Juniors. Less than 9% of NFL players come from FCS schools. That is a much smaller percentage than 31%. FCS is either the 2nd or 3rd largest supplier, depending on whether you want to separate FBS into Big 5 and the rest or not. A lot of people would separate FBS since 67% come from the Big 5 conferences and about 20% from the rest of the FBS conferences. Those are called facts. Using a term like JV associated with either FCS football or NCAA hockey is not a fact.
2015 season
in Football
Posted
Of course most fans aren't going to sell their tickets. 10,000 tickets aren't going to be resold for the game. People want to see the game too much. But there are going to be plenty of tickets sold when people see the prices. And both UND and NDSU fans will be trying to buy those tickets. If NDSU were really as indifferent about this game as you are trying so hard to sell, then there would be thousands of tickets sold because people would look to pay for their season tickets by selling a game they don't care about. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.