Hammersmith

I actually think it includes the Bison-themed talk radio. They have a lunchtime show called "The Insiders" featuring Jeff Culhane and JJ. I guess Cowherd was on after. There will be a second local show starting in a week or two. I think NDSU gets 30% of the ad revenue during The Insiders and the upcoming show, but nothing from stuff like the Cowherd show.

Sorry, thought that was implied. That's actually I better deal than I thought. I thought it was 30% for all Bison programming. Didn't know it was 100% for the games and coach's shows.

The KVLY portion was $1.2M over 3 years, and we've heard the RFM deal includes 30% of the gross advertising. Don't know much more than that or what the Midco portion of the deal is.

The truth is in the middle. The usual suspects* were claiming the game was going to be a bloodbath, but nobody else talked much about it either way. UND1983, you were the only poster to reference the possible weakness of KSU in 2013, and you only did that once. *Hayduke, Darell, redneksioux, - Hayduke had about 90% of those posts, but he really was one of the first to eat crow and sincerely congratulate the Bison after the game (all you have to do is type Kansas into the search bar and go back to mid-2013)

Pretty much. Here is exactly what he wrote back in April: http://www.inforum.com/news/4013620-mcfeely-theres-pain-und-because-its-mess He repeated it almost verbatim last week http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/07/is-schafer-angling-to-do-at-ndsu-what-hes-done-at-und/ Both versions have been completely true. The 2015-17 cut wasn't a major problem, but the 2017-19 cut is. But here's something to note. The 2015-17 budget cut was announced in mid January and the revised budgets were due on Feb 17. The 10% reduction to the 2017-19 budget was announced on May 4. According to Schafer and folks on here, NDSU was just twiddling their thumbs and were caught by surprise. But look carefully at McFeely's latest blog post(the one that restarted this thread): http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/06/13/ndsu-work-group-recommends-cutting-administrators/ So as soon as the 2015-17 cuts were finished, NDSU formed a group to start getting ready for the 2017-19 cuts. Isn't that exactly what they were supposed to do? Make emergency cuts quickly, then sit down and start figuring out the best long-term cuts? Or doesn't that fit an anti-Brescaini/anti-NDSU narrative? The alternative would have been to make hasty long-term cuts. How are hasty cuts better than carefully considered cuts when you have the option to do either? (an option UND didn't have)

So you got nothing. Understood. Everything you've said just goes to show that your original assertion is incorrect. Hagerott was pushing for short term fixes just like McFeely and his sources said. It's too bad your prejudices get in the way of your critical thinking. If you try to extend short term fixes the way you suggested, you create an unstable system. Short term fixes are short term for a reason. Keep open positions unfilled for too long and students suffer. Combine too many positions and faculty are overworked. Continually restrict raises and you can't keep and attract quality faculty & staff. Permanently increasing class sizes hurts the students and makes the university less attractive to student recruits. The guidelines Hagerott wrote and I reworded get you through one year okay, but the interpolations you added would be harmful to a university within a few more years. Before someone starts, there's a difference between cutting jobs by eliminating open positions and actual well thought-out permanent cuts. When you cut jobs by eliminating open positions, you are necessarily restricting your choices to just the departments that happen to have open positions at that time. That's what happened to music therapy. No one really knows if that was the best program to cut. There may well have been other programs on campus that brought less to the university or affected fewer students. But that's not why it was cut. It was cut because it happened to have a significant number of open positions compared to its size. In the long run, that's a bad way to make the choice to drop a program. Schafer cut it because time was of the essence, but that didn't make it the optimal choice. Hagerott's guidelines were meant to avoid those sorts of decisions.

Cute. But crappy reading comprehension, huh? I showed exactly how those guidelines focus on short term fixes. Go on, show us where they encourage major permanent changes(like cutting entire programs). I'll wait.

As I just posted above, the 2017-19 cuts are a completely different animal than the 2015-17 cuts. With an organization as complicated as a university, you don't want to rush major changes if you don't have to. Because of the timeframe of the 2015-17 cuts(directive went out on Jan 14, first budgets due back Feb 1, final version due back Feb 17), presidents didn't have enough time to dig deep with individual departments. That's why short term fixes were the better choice to get through the current biennium. But campuses have over a year to get ready for the 2017-19 cuts. You can bet that every department on every campus is currently working to reduce costs without cutting programs or faculty. Schafer was in a unique position in that he had no choice but to make permanent cuts(all the short term fixes were already used up before he got there) and that he could afford to piss people off because he was going to be gone in a couple months. But you can't argue that he had to make rash choices. Maybe they were the best choices, maybe better choices could have been made if there had been more time available to brainstorm. We'll never know. However, I can guarantee that if Brescaini had used his authority to unilaterally cut programs with minimal campus input(like Schafer did) when there were short term fixes yet available(like there were at NDSU), you guys would be calling for his head for acting like an imperial president.

IOW, stop new hirings, limit raises, cut travel, and restrict purchases. All short term fixes. Limit raises. Short term. Save money administratively if you can. Not really short or long term. If you can offer a class in a cheaper way, do it. That's a short term fix because you're not dropping a course or major, you're just making it cheaper to deliver. Reduce sections of a course if at all possible. Short term fix. Hold off on building repairs that aren't critical(short term fix) and use reserve funds if available(short term fix). Everything about Hagerott's guidelines point to using short term fixes to get through the 2015-17 biennium cuts. If you think different, you're lying to yourself. Now the 2017-19 budget cuts are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but the campuses have plenty of time to work through those cuts with permanent solutions. But you don't want to hurry with permanent cut choices if you don't have to, which is why Hagerott advised campuses to avoid them with the 4.05% reduction. UND had to, the rest of the system didn't. Don't get mad at the others just because Kelley got UND into a financial situation just as, or almost as, bad as Chapman did at NDSU.

You have proof of that, right? Because I'm sitting here looking at Hagerott's guidelines, and they don't say that at all. Pretty much the opposite. They basically say: "You've got two weeks to make your budget reductions, so make quick and easy cuts to get it done. And then start thinking about deeper and permanent cuts for the next biennium(2017-19) because you've got a year to work on those." That's what every campus but UND did. And UND didn't do it, not because Schafer is some financial and political genius, but because Kelley had already used up all of those quick and easy cuts to shore up the $5.3M shortfall before he left. However, I did come across these little tidbits in the semi-annual budget report from FY16: and So before UND had to deal with the 4.05% cut, it also had to deal with $13.3M in other areas. While NDSU was $3M in the black before the cut. Gee, wonder why the two campuses were able to approach the cut differently? But don't let the facts get in the way of your little circle jerk.

Thank you. And you sling poo* better than anyone I've ever met. I guess we all have our talents. *you know, throw enough against a wall and something eventually sticks

I downloaded the same info a few hours ago myself. I, however, realized that jdub's method was a dumbass way of sorting the data. I sorted the data six other ways that made more sense. Three of those ways(include the two best) put NDSU at 240 (+/- 10). The others fell in the range I mentioned earlier. What jdub did was cherry picking at best, disingenuous at worst, and most likely an example of shallow reasoning. Can you tell me what two important pieces of data jdub ignores that are crucial for a valid comparison?

Okay then, one SiouxSports poster is bad at math and several others are intellectually lazy because they continue to quote the number without checking to see if it's actually valid. Better?

Nah, what that actually shows is that SiouxSports is bad at math. Or at the very least, guilty of cherry picking to an unbelievable degree. NDSU is actually in the 225-271 range out of 346 in the rankings that actually matter(240/346 is the most accurate).

I just want to be sure I'm understanding what you meant. Did you mean the elders were hardworking and the kids are not? Or are you saying the elders didn't want to work but the kids do much better? (I know those are generalities, but still...) I'm not accusing or anything, I'd just like to know your experiences.

Regular athletic scholarships just like fall and spring. It's allowed, but many schools don't offer it because of budget reasons. When asked whether NDSU was going to offer FCOA stipends several months ago, Matt Larson(our AD) said his first priority was fully funding summer school scholarships. It's likely many schools don't have the budget to offer any summer scholarships at all.

DI schools are allowed to give summer aid to non-freshmen. They may choose not to, but it is allowed. There's a bunch more, but those are the basics.

It was a false story, don't worry about it. http://wisconsin.247sports.com/Board/23/Contents/Wisconsin-Compliance-Message-37611736

Try Montana. It looks like they may have actually incorporated in Malta, MT which is in Phillips County. http://mtmemory.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15018coll45/id/254 From 26 August, 1955 The article is at the bottom right corner of the first page.

The same guy that suggested the Summit become an FBS conference. Seriously. http://csnbbs.com/thread-738562-post-12086735.html#pid12086735 http://csnbbs.com/thread-737363.html CSNBBS is proof of infinite monkeys + infinite typewriters = Shakespeare. It's a good board, but it's many times more active than SS and they absolutely love rumors. They'll have at least a dozen or two going on at any given time. Law of probability says at least some of them will end up correct. The trick is figuring out which handful are true. The trap is in only believing the ones you want to believe.

But that's a terrible way to look at it, and one I think that would get you into real Title IX problems. It's way more than just a dollar amount on a form. If you take away women's hockey, let's look at what the men's hockey team would get that would have to be matched. Don't they have their own weight room in the REA with specialized equipment? You'd have to build a separate weight room for whatever women's team you elevate. MIH has it's own facility that they don't have to share with anyone else? Gotta give one to the corresponding women's team. Seriously, check out the link below and first read the section on tiered programs on pages 52-53 of the manual(pg. 31 of the pdf). Then go back and read the 'V. Treatment' section from pages 25-53(16-30). It's okay to mostly focus on the key questions sections. While reading those sections, keep asking yourself what does men's hockey currently get that would have to be replicated in another women's program if women's hockey were to be cut? It becomes quickly clear that keeping women's hockey solves a host of potential problems. Nothing else comes close. http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4268-equity-and-title-ix-in-intercollegiate-athletics-a-practical-guide-for-colleges-and-universities-2012.aspx

It wouldn't help all that much. It's one of the hidden aspects of the proportionality prong of the Title IX test. You guys have basically sorted your sports into three tiers. In the "elite" tier, you have men's hockey and women's hockey. In the "solid" tier, you have football, men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball and women's soccer. In the "weak" tier, you have everything else. If you take away women's hockey, you take away the only balance to men's hockey in the elite tier. To stay in compliance with Title IX, you can't just spread the money to the other sports, you have to elevate another women's program with about the same number of participants up to elite status to counterbalance men's hockey. You can't really do it in WBB; you don't have the resources to compete with schools like UConn or Tenn. VB or WSoc would be a stretch because of participation numbers and you don't have the resources to elevate both. WSoc is also a non-starter since you would have to look at building facilities for soccer to match the REA for hockey. You'd also have to invest in VB facilities if you went that route, but probably not as much as for soccer. Welcome to the downsides of the proportionality prong. Realistically, women's hockey is your only choice. You don't have to invest anything into new facilities since they're shared with men's hockey. And since the size of the women's hockey community is so much smaller than VB or WSoc, getting to elite levels of coaching pay isn't quite as hard. It would be interesting to see what the VB and WSoc coaches from the DI top-15 in each sport are paid, because that is what you'd have to plan for.

Also, it wouldn't change the overall look all that much. NDSU would get another green column. UND would get a nice swath of green in hockey, but that would be counterbalanced with two new red stripes in tennis and S&D. Without looking at the data to confirm, I'm pretty sure I remember UND finishing at or near the bottom in those two sports; both men's and women's.

You know, I'm not completely sure about that. I also thought the Big Sky was significantly stronger than the Summit in T&F, but I looked at some numbers last night and now have my doubts. I'm no expert at T&F, but I do know that comparing times between two meets alone(say two conference championships) is not a great indicator. There are just too many variables to normalize out. But I think it might be fair to compare the number of NCAA prelim qualifiers from each school/conference, and those just came out for 2015. On the surface, the Big Sky still looks stronger, at least in men's. MOT&F: BSC 34 qualifiers, SL 20; WOT&F: BSC 35, SL 30. But the Big Sky has far more schools competing in T&F than the Summit. What if you look at the average? MOT&F: BSC 2.83/school, SL 3.33/school; WOT&F: BSC 2.92/school, SL 3.75/school. What about the actual numbers of qualifiers per school? Three Big Sky schools placed 10 or more M+W. NAU and Sac St at 12, and EWU at 10. The top two Summit schools are even higher. USD has 14 qualifiers and NDSU has a whopping 23. Granted this is a snapshot, but it roughly appears that the Big Sky and Summit in T&F is not totally unlike the MVFC and Big Sky in football, only reversed. The Summit has a couple dominant programs and a bunch of weak ones, while the Big Sky is much more balanced with many strong teams. Again, this is just a quick and dirty look at a snapshot of data, but it was enough to make me start questioning my previous assumptions.

That's not what homer asked for. He asked for sports in common, so that's what I did. And least that's what I thought he was asking for. I could do the others if you want, but probably not 'till sometime tomorrow.