Bison06

UND has a women's hockey program? Weird I can't find it anywhere on the UND sports site.

Again agree to disagree. Attendance falling, i.e. an individual fan pulling their financial support, clearly has an effect on the Athletic Department's decision making in my mind and can bring about real change. Losing the "casual fan" is a problem for any athletic team, college or pro.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel the only true power the average fan has is to allocate their finances elsewhere to show the powers that be they are dissatisfied. You're right that the threat of pulling significant funding would also send a clear message, but your average fan doesn't have that leverage the way a large donor would.

My posts on this topic are not specifically about UND's current situation. If you read back, just speaking generally in response to another poster talking about "real fans" will continue to attend even if the team isn't fairing well.

Or there is the novel idea of actually reading the my posts and responding to them based on their content.

You're assuming that only one person is acting as I'm suggesting. If UND were to see a drop in season tickets by a significant amount, you honestly don't think the AD would call a meeting and maybe even call some of those former season ticket holders to ask why they didn't renew?

If NDSU takes a step back and consistently starts missing the playoffs, I would fully expect the fan base to "speak up" and show their dissatisfaction by not attending games and removing their financial support. The NDSU decision makers would then have to decide to keep the status quo and accept their new financial reality or make the necessary changes. Either way, the fans being "fair weather" in my opinion is a good thing. Don't send a message that what the team is currently doing is ok with you if it isn't ok with you.

So when attendance drops the front office doesn't take that as a sign that their fan base is unhappy and make changes?

I find it hilarious how critical you all are of bisonville about dissenting opinions. Pot meet kettle. You all are just so welcoming. If I changed my name to anything that didn't have Bison in it, nothing about my comment was either inflammatory nor referenced me being a Bison fan. You just feel like being an a-hole I guess.

How so? Improve the product and I'm back. Clearly, my thought process isn't unique. Why do you think attendance is higher during winning seasons than losing seasons? People pull their support in general when a team is losing and increase their support when a team is winning. as an example, my friends and I already have plans to go to a timbwrwolves game this year because of all the excitement with the offseason moves. Never would have considered that in the past 10 years.

Absolutely, jumping ship on UND this early would be a mistake. It is fair, however, to have it shift lower on your priority list though if it was already going to be a hassle to get there as the above poster is doing. It loses its luster a bit after a loss like that for a fan who has to drive quite a ways to make the game.

I've always thought of it the opposite way. When a team isn't performing in a way that pleases you, the only way to truly create change is to not support them financially. It makes a bit more sense at the pro level than at the college level, but I think it still holds mostly true. I'm a huge Minnesota professional sports fan, but I haven't been to a twins or timberwolves game in years because I don't want to send the message that the way they are playing or making personnel decisions is worthy of my dollar. Put a competitive product on the field and I'll spend some money to come to your stadium. Free market economics at its best. By supporting a team that is underperforming, you are in a way allowing it to continue. As I said, makes a bit more sense at the pro level.

NDSU ran it more than UND does now when Ryan smith was on the team.

It was a major staple of NDSU's offense during their run. Ohio state also runs it pretty consistently.

...ok?

The problem with message boards is grey area or nuanced opinions aren't understood or even seen. If an opinion doesn't fall in the company line perfectly, it's viewed as dissenting and opposing. My opinion was never that MSU was great, nor was it that UND wouldn't be successful against them. I simply stated that MSU looked good against a fully funded SEC defense...impressive given MSU's status as a doormat in the MVFC. Many here somehow took offense to that opinion for some odd reason. UND impressed yesterday.

I do, don't you?

Why? Missouri state DID look impressive last week. UND shut them down this week. I think UND shutout a formidable offensive attack today, don't you? If the Missouri state offense isn't very good, then what about today's UND defensive performance is good?

I'm right here. Which would you like to believe, that UND has an incredible defense that shutdown an offense that looked impressive against an SEC team last week or that UND just shutout a crappy offense? I think it's the first one, but you're welcome to choose to believe that it's the latter if you like.

What are you even talking about? Are you thinking of Carson Palmer? And also USC and Stanford are both known to run Pro style offenses. In fact, Stanford is the epitome of a pro style college offense.

One of the greatest offensive minds in the NFL is wrong? If you say so.

https://amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000472366/article/bruce-arians-criticizes-colleges-spread-offenses?networkId=4595&site=.news&zone=story&zoneUrl=url%3Dstory&zoneKeys=s1%3Dstory&env=&pageKeyValues=prtnr%3Daround-the-league%3Bteam%3Darz%3Bconf%3Dnfc%3Bdvsn%3Dncw%3Bplyr%3Dcolin_kaepernick&p.ct=Around the NFL&p.adsm=false&p.tcm=%23fff&p.bgc1m=%230964bf&p.bgc2m=%23053a74&sr=amp Don't take my word for it. Sorry for the long link.

Of course there are some that can make the transition, but the fact that there are so few college spread offense QB's that you can find with Goff being a huge question mark at this point shows that they are the "exception that proves the rule". Watch the NFL draft and analysts talk about QBs and they always put a negative mark next to spread offense QB's as "let's see if they are able to call plays in the huddle and make the necessary reads themselves without the OC doing it for them from the sideline"

I agree with you that no huddle spread isn't about dumbing down the offense, but it could be said that it does take away the "reading of the defense" from the QB and puts it in the hands of the play caller. Which in a way is "dumbing it down" for the QB. This is why you see so few "spread Qb's" make it in the NFL where all of that responsibility gets put on the QB.