jdub27

Yes.

Very impressive to see the growth in both in-person and online/hybrid. UND was ahead of the game and it is paying dividends not to mention the significant investments that have been and continue to be made to campus.

Do you know all of these to be facts? Or just assumptions?

Both are required skills of an AD. Being in engineering project management, you should also understand there is budget constraints that limit the scope of projects/people you can get done or hire. Still curious on what the WBB coach's contract looks like. Ignoring he had been here the previous year, his credentials were not out of something they would have been looking for. It was either going to be someone who had shown success at a lower level as a head coach or an assistant from a higher level who had minimal head coaching experience. Would be interesting to know the details of the contract only to see if it was a short-term "prove it" deal while they dealt with MH and FB (and I suppose VB) or if it was closer to a standard deal. How the opening came about wasn't ideal either and maybe there was hope to salvage some pieces, to help short and long term. Don't know. Guessing that other things seem to be taken care of, WBB is under full scrutiny as it should be.

I don't think coaching has been ignored by any stretch and unfortunately some of the hires haven't worked out. But I'm not sure if you've looked at the recent facilities that have been put up in the last 5ish years but have been promised for decades. Doesn't happen by itself. Figure out a basketball/volleyball practice facility to allow the Betty to be renovated and there isn't a whole lot left on that wishlist.

No one is fudging numbers when there isn't a guideline on how to report them. Each individual school does it their own way. Some try to make it more accurate by digging into expenses, others lump it into a giant bucket and call it good. My point on the facilities expense was it is an outlier when looking at the MBB budget for the Dakota 4 schools. Does UND really spend more because they report their MBB facilities expense while the other 3 schools run it through general university or athletic department line items instead of tying it to a specific sport? Take that one simple outlier out and you get a better comparison. If schools made there EADA source report more accessible, you could start comparing things a little more close, but it is still going to be pretty vague. For example, the most recent EADA report NDSU has publicly listed was published in March, 2024 for the calendar year ending on 6/30/23, SDSU doesn't list one and USD has their most recent one available but it is only the summary, not the actual report.

Coaches have their own end of season meeting with the AD. I believe the AD does talk to members of the team, though which ones and how it is done I'm not sure. Whether or not it was the right hire (valid reasons for both sides of the decision), I think the other sports are all in a spot where WBB will be focused on. Don't know the details of the coach's current contract but barring something completely out of bounds, he will likely get next year and possibly the year after to fix things (part of which he was involved in, part of which he inherited).

Easier to run through part of it through the operating budget when they are school owned and used for things that can be considered academic. Other parts aren't allocated directly to sports, they are in the general athletics budget. Not sure what you're trying to get at but the whole basis of this thread is off and has went further off the rails with people not having a clue how athletic budgets work but still trying to compare apples to baseball bats.

That capital portion was covered and they were amazing gifts and great assets for the benefit of UND. However that doesn't cover operations, maintenance and upgrades that need to be funded. It is also why I think it would be a bad idea for the REA/Betty to be turned over to UND (assuming they can come to terms on a more favorable operating agreement).

In the time or two I've heard the new coach speak about his expectations, he's made it clear he is looking for area kids that can compete. I doubt he's just saying that because it sounds good. He seems to know how to build a winner. Guessing it might take a while to build the local profile back up and also build some Midwest connections, but there is probably a good opportunity to play early at UND which could be helpful. Would still expect to see players from outside the area. Looks like FDU had a few players from Italy on their roster last year. Don't know what that area of the country is like for volleyball but guessing there is a lot of competition with the amount of schools out east.

What did he lie about? Read the usage agreement, UND isn't paying "nearly zero" for the athletic complexes. And they shouldn't, things don't magically run on no money. Again, it is all selective and creative accounting with no hard and fast guidelines, which is why it is tough to make a true comparison on things. Thanks for providing the info, I was guessing you had it. I haven't dug into numbers for a while but as you stated, there is a huge deviation in how different schools report different things. I like the work that Matt Brown does but he's also very clear on that point that the numbers are nowhere near perfect, but it is also the closest you can get to actually seeing anything (which is still a long ways from actually understanding what is going on since there is a lot of latitude in how things are counted and assigned). For the record, that one adjustment does put UND slightly behind NDSU and at the bottom. There would be a ton of adjustments to make in order to get a true comparison between the Dakota 4 schools. This was just a simple and obvious one with UND have an outlier expense the other 3 likely don't show as I would guess the other 3 assign their operating costs for the facilities they own to the general athletic budget instead of splitting it out by sport since they are multi-sport facilities. UND has a usage agreement with a 3rd party operator and a little bit more clear way to assign those expenses to specific sports (assuming they adjusted from how I think they did it a decade or so ago).

UND doesn't own the venue it plays in, unlike the other 3 Dakota schools. I don't have the most recent numbers, but guessing just removing that and UND falls to the bottom of the 4 or very near it once you look at Facilities Expenses. Also, these numbers are shaky at best for comparison's sake as each school can report as they see fit. Some schools break more stuff out and tie it to individual sport, some just bunch a lot of that stuff together.

Even if he doesn't fill up the stat sheet, he's a big body and gives Guga some rest, who seems to struggle when he has to play extended minutes. I think his return makes a difference though tough to say if it will be enough.

Prices were pretty much the same last weekend between the two. Not always the case but I was surprised. Not that long ago, GF was regularly cheaper than Fargo for a few months. One of the stations in Harwood pretty much drove down the whole areas prices for a few weeks earlier this winter. Not sure where they are sitting this week in comparison.

Can't imagine ISU would be in a hurry to trade the MVC for MAC basketball.