NDSU grad

Ruley resigned from her coaching duties of her own accord. Both of these women left NDSU AFTER Taylor left. So maybe Taylor was fostering a great environment for women in the workplace. He'll probably engineer something similar at Iowa to turn that mess around.

The first part of this is true. She was not a good administrator. If anything, being a woman is the only thing that kept her employed as long as she was.

Nope.

That's awesome. You've failed to address your previous statements. You've been caught in a lie and you know it. In the Iowa case, the field hockey coach was fired and the womens' AD reassigned BEFORE Gene Taylor got there. In Lynn Dorn's case, she retired AFTER Gene Taylor left. And Ruley worked with Taylor as an employee of NDSU for at least 8 years before she left voluntarily. Yes, quite the history of misogyny there.

Liar.

Although I disagree with that statement, at least you're man enough to come out and say it unlike Sic, who thinks he looks intelligent by speaking in platitudes.

So Gene Taylor was hired at NDSU in 2001, hid his homophobic tendencies for six years and then decided to fire Ruley (oh wait, you lied about that; she resigned and got a job in the same athletic department that Gene Taylor oversaw). And then realizing he hadn't done enough to perpetuate his misogynist attitudes also had Lynn Dorn reassigned (oops, lied about that too, she was womens' AD when Taylor was hired and continued in that role until her retirement). But probably the greatest feat of all was firing the Iowa women's field hockey coach before he started working there. That, my friends, is power. Yep, quite the coincidence.

I getting tired of reading between the lines on your posts. So I'm just going to say it. You think Lynn Dorn and Amy Ruley are lesbians and partners; you also think Gene Taylor is a homphobe, had Amy Ruley fired and Lynn Dorn demoted because of their homosexuality?

Navy?

Definitely agree with you, but I just think the committee will fall in love with him, and it's a move that will 'look good' in the eyes of the legislature and Board of Higher Education. Native North Dakotan, completed all of his schooling in North Dakota, and has a decent (not great) CV.

My wife works at MSU. Shirley's a rock star there, very well liked. I'd say the chances he's your guys' next president is about 30%, so I'd take the field if I was a betting man, but if I had to pick one candidate amongst the group it would be him.

Sem and NDSU parted ways before the season started. He will definitely not be attending NDSU, so I would think UND would have a great opportunity to land him.

The winning percentage actually increases if you include the transition years. 1-10 since the transition ended.

I can really only speak for grad students in STEM fields. I've never heard of a graduate student in these fields paying tuition, unless it's changed in the 10+ years since I've been in grad school. Whether the grad student is actually applying for the grant or not depends on the quality of the student. Generally, they're working for their major adviser, who has applied for the grant. Often times, the university will waive tuition, and the graduate student's stipend will come from the grant money their major adviser receives. Also, total research dollars has grown at NDSU year over year. It's the proportion of competitive vs. non-competitive grants that must change if NDSU really wants to be know as a high quality research university. With federal grant dollars, the university basically receives "bonus" money on top of the actual grant. For instance, when I was at Iowa State an NSF grant resulted in a 46% "bonus" on top of the grant. So if a professor secured a $1,000,000 NSF grant over 5 years the university received an additional $460,000 they could use however they saw fit. At ISU, I believe the university received 5%, the college receive ~10%, the department received the lion's share, about 60%, and the rest went to individual or individuals applying for the grant. They could use that money for computers or other technology for line items not specifically covered in the grant, or could pocket it as a bonus. This is why federal research grants are so coveted.

How so? Grad students really don't place any burden on the infrastructure of the college. The only cost one could argue is opportunity cost, but that's not really appropriate since these students wouldn't be here without the tuition waivers. Additional faculty doesn't have to be hired, they're occupying lab and office space already available, and usually live off-campus. And if they do live on-campus, that's actually a benefit to the university, since dorm construction expense can be bonded and actually provide a profit to the university.

In part by having graduate students do research and teaching assistantships. The monetary value of that work could be upwards of $30,000-40,000/year per student. My research assistantship at Iowa State required me to work 20 hours/week in my major adviser's lab, which was a joke since it was usually 30+ hours a week. Using Iowa State wages, my major adviser would have had to pay somebody about $45,000-$50,000 per year for that work.

Schools can make a fortune off tuition waivers. You have to remember, these students are still paying tuition, just not the full amount. NDSU waived about 9.2 million dollars more in tuition than UND. However, NDSU received about 5.4 million dollars in tuition dollars than UND from those students receiving waivers, about 3.8 million more in room and board dollars than UND, and about 1.2 million more dollars in student fees than UND. It's also important to note often these students aren't just getting free money. They're serving as research or teaching assistants in return for partial or full reimbursement of tuition.

True, I think they're the only AAU public institution not in DI.

I think now that tv money has dried up, we'll see G5 conferences try to shrink their geographic footprint as much as they can to reduce expenses.

UCSD has been "attempting" to move to DI since 2011. Students resoundingly voted down an athletics fee increase last time, will be interesting to see if they come close this time around, of course they haven't even decided if they're going to hold a vote or not.

The latest 6-year graduation rate I could find for UND is 52%, so I would think the retention of players on the football must be considerably greater than that. All teams have attrition, you guys will survive.

NDSU athletics are definitely in compliance with Title IX.

Interestingly, it's a preferred, but not required qualification.

The FCS championship game will probably have better or similar ratings than about 3 or 4 of the lesser bowls. As has been stated, bowl game viewership is generally much greater than the FCS championship game, and it's really not even close.

That's interesting. I thought he looked like a really good high school football player. Definitely has potential at this level.