Big A HG

WHOA WHOA WHOA....where did I ever say that "novelty sales alone are enough to fund non hockey sports"???????? That's so absurd.

Just the salary of the staff needed to run a.... -hockey, basketball, and volleyball complex capable of hosting both events and practices (includes management, security, hourly workers, maintenance, etc.) -ticket office open daily to handle tickets for all athletics -retail merchandise store ....while only asking for $375k in return is a GREAT return on investment for UND. This doesn't include anything beyond just employee salaries and wages that UND gets out of the deal.

I'm not sure there's a better way for this to work, but here's how it currently works: - REA takes 52% of football ticket revenue. Based on what I've read in this thread, lately that equates to about $375k per year. - REA asks for nothing else from the university. This football ticket revenue is just UND's way of paying for use of the arena each year. - Because REA is using a percentage of football ticket revenue and not asking for a flat fee, REA is doing UND good because UND isn't hand-cuffed to a defined amount that they may not be able to pay. The more successful that football is, the more goes to REA. The less successful football is at generating money, the less goes to REA. If the contract said that UND is required to pay $375k each and every year while REA takes 0% of football ticket revenue....but football fans don't show up....where does UND pull the extra money from if the program is already strapped for cash? CLIFFNOTES: REA gets 52% of football ticket revenue. UND gets use of an arena for hockey, basketball, and volleyball events and practices. UND doesn't have to manage ticket sales as REA is also handling that. REA uses the money generated to keep the arena in tip-top shape and puts some money away for projects and unanticipated expenses each year. REA sells merchandise for UND (likely the top grossing UND merchandise retailer). REA then gives back all additional revenue to UND after they pay for upkeep and put a little away in savings for things like this. Sounds like UND and ALL of the athletic programs make out quite well thanks to REA on a $375k or so annual expense.

I never said it would be screwed. But, the landscape of our entire athletics department and its facilities would look quite different....and all-in-all, not for the better.

I think you're being reasonable in your response, but still are failing to see the point. The key here isn't about the money REA is generating. It's about how much UND has and is saving by having REA available to them. Money saved for the university doesn't equate to money coming from REA's pockets.

You fail to understand that UND has extra money for athletics programs outside of hockey because it didn't have to spend money building or renovating an old arena. The amount of money REA collects is small potatoes compared to the trickle down effect of expenses UND hasn't had to spend money on. With that said, REA isn't free to run or operate. What if REA has calculated that the enhancements they are making allow for additional ad space for increased revenue that pays for itself in the long run? How about the increase in ticket revenue (which leads to merch sales, concessions sales, etc.) that allows REA to put more money back in UND's pockets at the end of each year? Your logic about me carrying the weight of UND athletics is the most mind-boggling yet, as again, you fail to see the point....I'm not the one complaining about how others spend their money. If you don't like the situation the football team is in, do something about it. There are more football alums than there are hockey alums.

So the logical conclusion is that the older and more decrepit our facilities are, the more successful our teams would be....got it.

So many ungrateful people on here that fail to see the snowball effect of having use of REA. Not only that, REA will be UND's and UND's alone once the 30 years is up. Because REA exists, UND has never had to replace the old [original] Ralph Engelstad Arena, which would have been a necessity by now. Had UND been able to hang on for an additional ten years or so from the time it was replaced, they likely would have built something similar to what Duluth has in Amsoil Arena, which was built in 2010 for $80M. UMD only paid for 12% of the arena. The majority of the rest was paid for by the state and through taxes. Would you rather have REA or Amsoil Arena? Had UND done the same deal, they'd be on the hook for $9.6M....that's a lot of $375k football ticket revenue seasons. With that said. The arena, being a gift (albeit not entirely free) has saved UND many millions, kept many people living in Grand Forks after the flood, allowed 12k fans to enjoy games all winter long, and give people with ties to UND something to be proud of no matter where in the globe they are. Not to mention, what about all the revenue hockey generates for all sports through the sale of merchandise? The amount of revenue REA generated in that department funds all athletic programs. The football ticket revenue is a small price to pay for all of the additional money the arena has earned on top of the money it has saved the University. But, apparently we should say thanks for nothing to the Engelstads....then maybe all of our rich football alums will step up to the plate and donate their share to carry the weight of UND athletics.

Pfft....I share a birthday with the best current NHL player and best current MLB player.

To me it's about building a brand. When a recruit walks in and sees the banners up there, it looks like one historic family of tradition. It all feels connected. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to explain it how I think it. I don't hate the idea of period correct logos, I just prefer the way it's been. On a side note, I also wish that the team would come up with a jersey design that can stand the test of time and never be changed outside of tweaking it as necessary.

I like your optimism of worrying about the next banner...might be a few years before it's an issue.

I prefer the continuity of using one logo, especially when it's as nice as the BB logo.

Very possible...hence why I said "if they so choose". The point is, ads are nothing new to hockey. Money generates reinvestment opportunities to continue growing. Having the Ralph is like a middle or lower-class person winning a Ferrari. Just because you have a Ferrari doesn't mean you can afford to own it or drive it. The Ralph (like the Ferrari) has much higher operating costs than your average hockey arena would. UND (rightly or wrongly) treats their players as good or better than just about any other program in the country...from equipment to travel to you name it. Or, for all we know, they won't use the display space where you see Coca-Cola for ads at all. In the end it's just a render of another upgrade to keep REA first-class thanks to the support of the Engelstads and the fans that support the team and arena by going to games and events.

Because making money to support the program and arena is so terrible. I mean for gosh-sakes, it's hard enough watching with all those ads on the boards, the ice, the incessant chatter from Darin Looker about all of the other businesses that support UND hockey, etc. Back to reality...the old one didn't have any permanently displayed ads, but displayed other ads throughout the course of the night...which means they have to stop showing game content to show ads. With the new system, they'll be able to display ads without interrupting relevant game content on the primary screens...if they so choose.

UND w/ 4 goals on 6 shots? DOT line must be playing against Frazee again.

Yes, there are a multitude of things you can attribute to the slow decline in attendance. Certainly team play is another of them. I could go on, but I'd rather not get too off-track from jerseys.

Jokes aside, I do think NCHC.tv has had some impact on going to games in person.

I won't hold it against you.

The people watching on TV complained they couldn't see them easy enough, which is why they switched. I'm with you though, they looked nicer.

Sadly, we should be rooting for Minnesota at this point since we played them.

You literally asked "Which program is sliding faster?"

FWIW, I don't think BC has won an out-of-conference game since before UND played them at MSG in December of 2016. That's not an exaggeration.

I completely understand the Canisius storyline. We all do. The point of my original comment was in reference to what we needed to do to make the tourney after getting swept by Canisius. It's like someone walking up to people having a conversation, hears one sentence, and starts adding input that makes no sense to what's being discussed. There are 8 million different outcomes to the games remaining (waiting for WaPo fact check on real number), but the general idea of sweeping at home and splitting on the road would likely put us inside the bubble. I understand that we have home weekends against some very tough teams and Omaha was a not very good road team. And yes, we should have swept Canisius.

With no other game results factored in, sweeping SCSU would put us 15th.

We've only swept them twice in Omaha since they aligned with us in the WCHA/NCHC. One of those was capped off with the outdoor game. The other was two years ago when Omaha never showed up and we scored like 16 goals on the weekend. Even our championship team split in Omaha. Road conference games are never a given, and Omaha has been mostly splitsville for us.