MplsBison
-
Posts
2,229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MplsBison
-
-
Good for NDSU - would that be for the basketball practice lean-to, the new weight area, or the actual BSA BB court?
There's not really going to be a new BB court. That's why that portion of the updates costs the least. The actual court itself will be the same and the arena will be the same size. All they're going to do is replace the folding bench seats on the east side and lower west side with permanent, green&gold chairbacks, replace the old chairbacks on the upper west side with new green&gold chairbacks and possible permanent green&gold chairbacks on both ends of the court. Almost might upgrade the concessions and restrooms, can't recall.
That's the first thing they ought to update - it will get the most visibility, be the nicest for the fans and be the quickest/cheapest of the updates to complete.
So naturally it will be the last thing they do - count on that.
-
I don't know man, a lot of people in the GF area are stubborn fair weather fans that are used to playoffs every year so what you are saying isn't entirely true; though you do have a good point point. I think that once the team is consistently putting a better product on the field against real teams (which I believe is happening) more and more people will slowly and steadily come to the games.
Technically, I think that proves my point. The reason I say technically is because it depends on what you mean by "putting a better product on the field".
When I was replying to Matt, it was understood that we were talking about an improved level of football talent. In other words, "putting a better product on the field" means you're literally putting two teams made up of more talented players on the field for people to watch. This is when I come with the argument that the relative talent level is basically irrelevant. Most people can't tell the difference in person at full speed unless one team is severely less talented than the other.
However, when you say it above I take "putting a better product on the field" to mean winning more games. In the case, then yes I do agree with you - winning will result in higher ticket sales, because ultimately it results in the game being a more exciting event.
I'm over using the word exciting, don't take it literally. What I'm really getting at is the psychology of the potential ticket buyer. There has to be some motivation to pay for a ticket.
-
Why not? That's what the school to the south said and did just a few years ago I thought?
NDSU tried to sell more tickets using DI as the carrot - sure. But they didn't imply that the reason people should care about DI is because it means better football talent. They just said "you should care about DI....because it's DI .... and DI must be better than DII".
-
I wasn't referring to the quality of the opponent. The quality of Cal Poly in 2004 is secondary to the quality of ndsu in 2004. It's the quality of the home team which matters, which is what my bolded text was emphasizing.
Again you're wrong and for the same reason. The actual quality of the football being played is almost inconsequential to the number of tickets that are sold to games!
Ask yourself this question: would you be less likely to buy tickets to a UND football game vs. Montana if you knew that every UND and Montana senior player was suspended for that game (make up your own reason why that happened)? If you say yes, then I don't think you're being honest with me or yourself. So there you have it, the quality of play has undoubtedly decreased, yet the excitement of the Montana game has not. The game still sells out.
The reason to buy that ticket is the excitement of that match up between UND and Montana, two great flagship schools from two great states and with two great football programs. It's an exciting event to be at. That's the draw. Somehow, UND's program has to generate that kind of excitement week after week to sell out every home game.
You can't sell that excitement to people by proclaiming that UND is now DI and therefore they have better talent on the field.
-
I believe this is the key factor for attendance, inside a transition or out of one.
Sadly, I have to disagree.
Some of the best football teams to ever visit the Fargodome have produced some of the worst attendance. For example, Cal Poly in 2004 was one of the best teams in the nation. I think attendance was something like 12k. Could've been higher and also could've been because of hunting.
It comes down basically to how excited you can get the core fanbase - the ones who will buy season tickets. And the prime motivation for that excitement is not necessarily how talented the players on the field are (again, sadly).
Transitioning from DII to DI itself can generate a lot of excitement in the core fanbase.
-
Money is tight right now, I'm sure Gene Taylor would love to have the facility you are talking about but Saul Phillips can only wait so much longer for the facility that he absolutely needs. The track has to come first, the BSA is used by so many teams that it is vital to have that space up and running for when the rest of the BSA is gutted. So it isn't like NDSU can sit around wait for another $5-10 million to come when they are already waiting for 5-10 million to finish what they have planned. An indoor practice facility is a luxury at this point and it isn't like in a few years it couldn't be added, I'm sure it would be much cheaper to build minus the seats and 300 meter track.
How do you know the dome has a problem with NDSU using it's facility? Last time I checked the school pays rent and the dome makes a good deal of money on NDSU's games. Obviously they aren't going to cancel concerts/trade shows to let NDSU practice but it isn't like the dome is jam packed with events, especially during football season. Plus I don't think Bohl has any issue with practicing outside on his nice new sprinturf practice field.
I'm not advocating taking money away from completing the new basketball practice facility or making the updates to the BSA basketball arena seating. Those updates have to be done as the top priority. But my point is that they should only take around $15 million.
That leaves $17 million from the total $32 million that is being raised. So my point is that the next projects should be to spend $12 million on a true indoor facility (like the Youngstown facility) and then the rest of the $5 million can go for the new weight room and training room addition to the BSA.
The other upgrades can wait.
NDSU has an agreement with the Fargodome, the specifics of which I am not privy. But I'm pretty certain that it requires the Fargodome only to prepare the main arena floor with the football turf for the 6 home football games and a limited number of practice dates - the whole year!
It's not like Bohl can just call up the dome manager willy nilly and say "Set the floor up, a lightning storm just rolled in and we have to practice today!". Doesn't work like that.
And there are times when NDSU need an indoor place to practice.
-
I stirred that pot a little and you're right there is no way that Sioux will be in the name. When young Mr. Davidson from Spirit Lake passed away last week and his grandmother is a huge Fighting Sioux supporter, I was thinking that Spirit Lake Sioux would be a nice tribute to those who supported the Fighting Sioux name.
I'm not so sure that Spirit may not be part of the new nickname.
Hmm...Spirit is not a half bad nickname itself. The UND Spirit.
It could be a way of honoring the Spirit Lake Sioux and their efforts to keep the Sioux nickname as well as the spirit of all the UND alumni who fought the good fight against the NCAA.
-
I don't think Carlson is clever enough to have thought of a scheme to undermine the SBoHE by leveraging the nickname, in the first place.He was just trying to get some free publicity, which is what he's still trying to do.
Article says that they want to retire the nickname by the end of the year, which seems to contradict the official statement from Kelley that he has been instructed to resume planning to retire the nickname and finish by the end of the year.
From the posts I've read on here, the law is toothless anyway. Sounds like UND would do well to just go on ahead and retire the nickname even if the fake law isn't repealed.
-
NDSU has been dominating the Summit League in track, so this is a good move for them. So this new track facility won't be attached to the BSA? From the renderings, at least this building's architecture is consistent with the BSA: tin pole barn motif. Never would know that NDSU has an architect school.
There's still $10 million in fundraising for a refurbished BSA? Is that thing ever going to be built? A number of years ago (five or six?), I was ripped on for stating that UND's practice facility would get built before the BSA was ever redone. I certainly didn't think it would take UND this long to begin, but again, prophecy was fulfilled.
It's going to be a piecemeal deal. First they're going to build a structure that houses a 200m track, some seating and a few nets so that baseball/softball can have batting practice and golf can take swings into the net. Nothing more.
Next they'll upgrade the BSA arena with new seating. Hopefully they'll remove the beams that obstruct the view of the court on the west side seats.
Then they'll build the bball practice facility addition. Next they'll do the weight training/training room addition/update. Last they'll remodel the BSA locker rooms and offices.
I just get the feeling that after spending $32 million, NDSU fans are going to be disappointed with what they see. The BSA and the new track building are going to have a cheap looking exterior and the BSA arena is basically going to be band-aided with new green seats.
-
I wouldn't laugh, some of NDSU's current and former track athletes have done very well for themselves on the highest of national levels. NDSU doesn't need an indoor practice arena, the Fargodome is the home of NDSU football and it takes a handful of people hardly 30 minutes to setup the field besides that Bohl likes practicing outside.
Supposedly the new track had to happen first so work on the rest of the BSA could begin later.
NDSU does not control the Fargodome. They have to ask permission to use the space for football practices and if the Dome is hosting an event, obviously it can't be used. It takes more than 30 minutes to set up the field and once the new turf goes in the conversion will take hours. The Fargodome would prefer if no NDSU teams ever practice there, because it takes money away from the Dome and they get no revenue out of it. They only want to host football games and basketball games.
No doubt about it, NDSU's outdoor teams would greatly benefit from an indoor field. The building is being built and it is incredibly - stupidly - short sighted not to at least have turf in the infield of the 200m track. Building a 300m building would be far superior and frankly some of the other updates that they have planned for this $32 million can just wait.
-
I am still trying to wrap my head around this. 5 million dollars for a Track Facility - in North Dakota. Do they realize they will never ever be near the top of the track world no matter how hard they try. And even if they do get good nationally, what does that get you? Nothing. The sport is worthless, it gets very little media coverage and no revenue. To not make it viable for football is stupid.
The point is to get the indoor track out of the BSA arena, so they can upgrade the arena into a full-time bball arena.
But you're right that to not make the indoor track capable of housing an indoor field - just stupid.
-
I just read the article about the contribution by Stop and Go to make the Indoor Track Facility a go. So if I understand this right, NDSU is going to spend all that money on strictly a track facility that has a couple nets for golf and baseball. Really? They aren't going to put turf in it and make it a facility for football, there most important sport? So football doesn't have an Indoor Practice Facility after all of this stuff is built? If I am Craig Bohl I am not happy.
As a UND fan I hope NDSU spends millions and millions of dollars on Track, Wrestling, Baseball, Golf, Softball - those sports are money pits that return minimal to nothing.
It is apparent how lucky we are here. Our facilities were already built for us so the Indoor Facility that is going to be built soon is simply adding on extra's to make everything even better.
Even a 200m track could have turf in the middle a decent area, maybe a 50 yd field with a full endzone and 3/4th the standard width? It would be something, at least.
But nope, the infield will be entirely dedicated to track - so they can have long jump/triple jump runways, 60 yd dash run way, pole vault runway, high jump area and shot put/weight throw area. Completely short sighted.
For a measly $7 million more they could have what I posted above like Youngstown.
I would rank NDSU's needs like this:
1) bball practice facility addition to the BSA - $10 million?
2) BSA arena updates - $4 million
2) indoor 300m track/field house - $12 million
3) new weight room/training room addition to the BSA - $5 million?
So there you go - that's $31 million. Darn shame...
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they can without having the 'nickname law' repealed, they don't have that power. In the (highly) unlikely event that Carlson is correct and there is enough support for the law and it is NOT repealed, I think the SBHE's hands would be tied and we would be legally bound to stay the Fighting Sioux forever unless they again revisited the law and changed it down the road.
But the odds of that scenario playing out now seem almost astronomical to me.
But is that actually true? Does the law physically prohibit the SBoHE from instructing UND to retire the nickname or would it just cause them to be subject to a penalty? What if they just went ahead and did it anyway?
Would Carlson demand that the ND state police arrest the SBoHE and Kelley? Would he demand that the state attorney file a restraining order that would legally stop the school from retiring the nickname?
-
What are the penalties for breaking the state law?
The OP of this thread indicates that the SBoHE has instructed UND to continue planning for the retirement and to complete that planning by the end of this calendar year. Then what? I assume they're hoping that the law will be repealed by Nov.
-
I hesitate to provide this info as I would guess there have been some changes in the renderings since I received them.
It appears to be an extremely impressive facility. Some details:
[*]More than 140,000 sq ft
[*]Full 100 yd FB field with separate 20 yd area working area for linemen
[*]300 yd track with eight 42" lanes
[*]60 ft high with videotaping towers
[*]Two levels of offices, weight rooms, meeting rooms, sports medicine facilities, locker rooms, storage etc. (It is nice to see plenty of storage space after the Betty was built with "none'!)
I suppose $ will determine whether this can all be done a once or if many of the items listed in the last bullet will be completed at a later date. I recommend that they formally launch a fund raising effort when the plans are announced. I think many of us will be willing to assist to complete the building "right" the first time rather than have it be an ongoing project for the next few years.
Folks - it sure appears that this will be an outstanding facility. It will be a tremendous tool for recruiting and for practice/game preparation.
Again - the above details may have been altered since I received my copy of the plans.
Youngstown just built the same exact facility, minus the last bullet, for about $12 million:
With the last bullet added in, $20-25 million sounds right.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the settlement have something in it about selecting a new name after a certain amount of time? I thought the NCAA wouldn't allow just the university name only.
I don't think the NCAA would care if a school has no nickname, but for some reason I also seem to recall that there was something in the settlement saying UND *will* choose and implement a new nickname. Could certainly be wrong though.
-
Didn't you just answer your own question? NDSU isn't going to spend $10 mill + a 300 m track, when they don't have the money yet to refurbish the BSA. IMHO, NDSU is now pushing to get the 200 m track shack addition done now, because they know their program's recruiting will be hurt by UND's 300 m track. UND's track programs up to this time haven't been given much funding, in part because UND's Hyslop facilities was non-competitive. With a new indoor practice facility, that will change.
Yeah but obviously the investment would be well worth it. NDSU can't practice in the Fargodome anytime they please. That's hardly the case, in fact I don't think the Fargodome likes having to cater to NDSU on the days they aren't playing games there. NDSU could really use a dedicated indoor field. The baseball, softball and soccer teams would benefit as well.
Seems very short-sighted.
I read a post either here or on bisonville saying that the arena upgrades to the BSA are only going to be 3-4 million of the overall 28 million improvement. So other than the arena upgrades, new bball practice facility and new weight room/training facility - I'd like to see the money go toward expanding the indoor track building from 200m to 300m and putting a field in the middle. Just makes too much sense. The other updates can wait or be cancelled.
-
Indoor tracks aren't just 300m or 200m. Most are 200m, and that is considered the standard for NCAA qualifying times. However, there are flat 200m tracks, banked 200m tracks, undersized tracks (sometimes 180 yd) and oversize tracks. Oversize tracks can be 230m, 300m, 307m (as in the Dempsey Indoor facility at the University of Washington), 330m, even 400m. You can see a comparison of NCAA qualifying times for various indoor track configurations here.
As to "why" tracks are 200m instead of 300m, the answer is probably a combination of cost of the structure and traditional indoor building purposes. An indoor facility with a 300m track will be more expensive than one with a 200m track, and it will require a significantly larger footprint. Indoor football practice facilities are a modern invention compared to indoor hard surface courts for basketball and volleyball. As such, most existing indoor tracks are 200m. Older ones, like the track at Hyslop, are even shorter. A typical flat 200m track, like the one at the BSA, can still fit multiple practice basketball courts in the infield when aligned with the goals along the straightaways, and a competition basketball floor in the middle aligned with the goals facing the curves. Telescoping bleachers can be used then to extend the seating areas up to the edges of the competition court, like they are in the BSA and like they were in Hyslop. An indoor football practice facility with a football field and a track needs a 300m track to make the "field" wide and long enough to effectively practice plays. A 300m sized facility can also be used for baseball, softball and soccer, but usually not for basketball and volleyball. Also, many parts of the country don't need indoor facilities for football, soccer, baseball and softball, adding to the rarity of indoor 300m tracks. However, everyone needs indoor facilities for basketball.
You can find a decent discussion of the merits of 200m flat vs 200m banked vs oversized tracks here.
Thanks, great post. It just seems to me that if you have a football team and don't already have a dedicated indoor field, then building a 300m indoor track is such a no-brainer. You can put a full 100yd football field in the infield of a 300m track and have the facility double as an indoor football field.
I sort've agree with the last poster in the discussion you linked to, does indoor track really matter? I know the NCAA allows schools to count indoor track as a separate sport from outdoor track towards the required number of sports and I know there are separate championships awarded for indoor track. But how legitimate can the sport be if there's not even a standardized competition format.
What is the appeal of indoor track for runners? Every other sport has a single competition season (fall, winter or spring) and the rest of the year is spent training for the next competition season. Why do runners need to have competitions in the winter as well as the spring? Not to mention, some track runners also compete on the cross country team in the fall - which is also allowed to count as a separate sport. Seems kinda ridiculous.
-
Maybe I'm just crazy, but the timing of this lawsuit seems suspicious. Like - why wasn't this done as soon as the law was signed? It reads like if the NCAA won't budge then an excuse will be needed to get rid of the law quickly and without a fight. Just the threat of the lawsuit might be enough.
Kelley can say something like "We gave it our best shot and the NCAA won't budge. Now the school is threatened by a lawsuit! The law must be overturned and UND must be allowed to retire the nickname!"
-
Congrats, this is going to be a great facility.
It's really too bad that NDSU can't build the indoor track building with a 300m track instead of a 200m track, but that would probably take the cost from 5 million to 10-15 million. Not in the cards. Anyone know why indoor tracks are 200m instead of 300m anyway?
-
Because most of the green jobs that Obumble is trying to ram down our throats are basically job killers and too expensive... I personally think that Wind Farms are eye sores...
No, I meant that I want to harvest domestic fossil fuel sources (shale natural gas). If we've got them, we might as well use them before they become obsolete. Energy independence is key.
I'm just asking for oversight/regulation of the natural gas harvesting from the shale by an authority that is not driven by profit motives. Left to their own oversight, you know that natural gas companies are driven only by maximizing profit - meaning that they will continue to use known destructive methods like fracking.
-
There is more oil that you can shake a stick at on land in the USA. The problem is with refineries as well. We don't have enough of them.
What's wrong with harvesting those domestic sources in a responsible way that doesn't damage the land?
-
Sad to see a group of Sioux (and even Bison) fans so uneducated about the topic of anthropogenic climate change
Man's burning of previously sequestered carbon is the sole reason for the 40%+ rise from pre-industrial levels of CO2 to the current levels. Prior to man's activities, CO2 was "traded" between the atmosphere, earth and oceans in a natural cycle. Now, all of these reservoirs are accumulating carbon that had long ago been put in the ground.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapor is a feedback based on temperature, not a primary forcing.
Global cooling was never a mainstay scientific theory. It was always dwarfed in scientific publications by theories about warming. The first writings about CO2-induced warming were well over 100 years ago. The "cooling" scare came about because of two separate issues colliding: the PDO/AMO cycle resulting in several cold winters in the US, and the confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles in the ice core record which showed that we were close to being "due" in the interglacial cycle. As usual, the media in their infinite quest for ratings, chose to focus on the disaster ice age scenario. Never trust the media to faithfully report on science, they always leave out the relevant caveats and go with the most ridiculous, dire scenarios. That goes for AGW too.
I don't know if the sine waves you are talking about are the 11-year solar cycles, the PDO/AMO ocean cycles, or the ice ages, but the most relevant one at the moment is the PDO/AMO because it is on the decadal scale. There does seem to be a sine wave aspect to the global temperatures over the past century. There are theories about whether this is all ocean-related, or may also have to do with aerosols, especially in the post-WWII era. Either way, if there is a true sine wave, it is superimposed upon a long term rising trend. If this is the case, and what we've seen over the past decade is the downturn in the sine wave countered by the rising trend (resulting in a generally flat period of global temps), then we should be looking for a rising temperature regime to begin again later this decade or in the 2020s, with a very sharp upward trend especially in the 2030s and 2040s. Things that could change this would be a very, very deep solar min, or a resumption of higher solar activity. Solar energy, measured by irradiance, cosmic rays, and other variables, has been flat or in decline for 3 to 5 decades, and is unlikely to have played much of a role in the later 20th century warming.
Just for clarification - I do have an AtSci degree, but not in climatology. My job does not depend one way or the other on this matter. I do not subscribe to the Al Gore catastrophic theory, and I think many to most on the "warming" side are sick and tired of him. I am saddened that this became a political issue, and both sides are to blame for that. Reagan may have been a great leader, but one of his greatest missteps was the demonization of people looking out for the environment. I am for a combination of energy sources in the US, with a movement more towards nuclear for power generation and nat gas for power and transportation. Common sense solar, wind, and geothermal combined with a smart grid should also play a role.
Why try to convince those who don't want to be convinced? Why try to be intellectual with those who are anti-intellectual?
-
1
-
2
-
-
Thanks sprig for the insights.
I think petro-chemical companies know they have about 50 years max to earn as much profit as they can muster before fusion and battery-electric devices completely nullify demand for their products. Hence the urgency to develop and harvest domestic sources as quickly as possible, seemingly without regard to damaging effects of their harvesting methods.
Facilities Master Plan
in Community
Posted
Google maps says it's 0.7 miles from Wilkerson to the REA, 0.7 miles to Memorial and 1.3 miles to Alerus.
To me the Alerus looks to have a perfect set-up for tailgating. Lots of parking lots all around the stadium, the same concept that the Vikings want to build in Arden Hills - parking and tailgating right at the stadium. On the other hand, where would people park and tailgate at Memorial? Just looking at google maps - there really don't seem to be many options right next to the stadium. I see lots to the northwest, which is now a parking ramp correct?, a lot to the north - which is slated to become another parking ramp and a track/soccer stadium, a lot to the east - which is slated to become the indoor practice facility, and a practice field to the south which is going to stay the same.
I don't know if the practice field is going to get turf, but either way I'm sure they're not going to want people tailgating on that.
Doesn't seem like Alerus is really that bad of a location.