jdub27

Just spitballing but probably pointing out how generous those that have come before them have been to have the facilities and amenities that they were showing them. That UND was a special enough place to alums that they were willing to give back in that way. Or he was telling them they only wants commitments from those who were going to be successful off the field and give that money back to UND. I'm not sure which one is more likely....

Would be nice to get a road W and send the seniors off on a high note. Whatever happens after that is what it is.

You should check out a few other of the sub-forums...

That's what you add to the cay butter mixture. Which itself is butter/sour cream/seasonings.

Sure. It would also be nice if they won all their games. They won the first 3 they played (4 if you count the outdoor game in Omaha) and have lost the last 2. While disappointing, I don't know anyone who still didn't have a great time on the trip it it was ruined by a loss. 3-2 (or 4-2) is a far cry from "start winning these games".

Cay sauce is the Cay butter (mixture of butter/sour cream plus seasonings) mixed with Frank's plus cayenne to the desired heat level. Shark sauce is Cay butter mixed with BBQ sauce with cayenne added for heat. Or at least that is the simplified version of it.

That's fine. Just because it isn't your cup of tea (and that's fine) doesn't mean it still won't be wildly successful for the hockey program. But that's a weird reason to criticize it. Until the idea runs out of steam, they will keep happening.

Based on the amount of people that show up and what they are able to charge for tickets, I'd say people are speaking with their wallets and want the REA and athletic department to continue with them. Not hard to do the math on what they will net top line for this game. Not to mention the UND supporters across the US they are able to get to one spot to connect with.

Which part of I didn't agree with the timing of the extension and I definitely was against the buy-out language that was in it are you struggling to understand? What time frame are you considering "a mess"? The program is clearly in a better spot than when he took it over. There have been ups and downs, but the baseline is a much better spot. Does that mean it is where I want it to be? No. The baseline and results should be more than they are. I don't know how to help you understand that explaining that communicating with decision makers is more effective than anonymously posting the same things over and over (and over and over) again, even if you don't get the results you want every time. And frankly, that's a good thing. You want to see "a mess"? Listening to every person with an opinion and going with their whims would have any athletic department millions in the hole in buyouts and a minimal pool to replace the person everyone wants fired the second there is any adversity. There is a happy medium to that though. Again, just so you understand, I'm not remotely OK with how this season has progressed, but it isn't a snap your fingers and everything is fine situation. And it was compounded with an extension with, at the moment, a prohibitive buyout. That's where we are right now. Can't undo it, so figuring out how to proceed from here, whether its raise funds or figure out a way to improve, is what needs to be solved.

Again, talking about things you have no clue about. Just because some people don't constantly state the same thing over and over again, trying to be louder each time, does not mean they aren't critical. One doesn't need to publicly proclaim everything anonymously to disagree with where things are at. Some choose to actually give input to those who are decision makers and express their disappointment and concerns, but I guess that's not enough. That being said, I've said plenty of times I didn't agree with the timing of extension. If they felt they needed to do it for the looks of continuity, there should have been a significant trade-off in the buyout language. A lot of things I agree with here. Feel pretty confident the extension decision goes all the way to the top, but not the first or last time any athletic department is going to give out an extension that doesn't work out. Also it is why the buyout language is so frustrating. Agreed on Nielson. USD fans were shocked he wasn't let go a few years ago. Not a fan of him, but have to give him credit for turning things around there. Not much on the rest outside of agreeing the road losses to YSU/ISUb were absolutely deflating for the program (internally and externally). Not sure how you go from feeling being top 10 at 5-2 with a decent showing against a top 25 FBS team to being completely derailed the second half of the year. But here we are.

Was just a question as you're the one who made about "anyone who has been around the game". Also feel like you were the one who previously wanted to compare CV's against others (UNDFootball360 guys?) Regardless, do appreciate and respect anyone who spends time coaching high school levels and below as it definitely isn't something you do for money or glory. We agree on more than we don't. How things change and what is realistic in what time frame as things sit today probably isn't one of them because I don't know where the athletic department is going to come up with the money to make an immediate change. Has to come from private donors, because as previously stated, the reaction from the academic side would (rightfully) be some significant backlash. So your (sometimes incorrect) interpretation on people's thoughts on a message board is what is driving the athletic department? Do they somehow have more power than those that have sky high expectations? Why is it only some people who "make things possible"?

Just so I know how serious to take your opinion since you're clearly positioning yourself as an expert who knows more than the current staff and pretty much everyone on this board, have you ever disclosed what level you "have been around football" at? I know you tried calling out some people to compare CV's a while back but don't recall that ever happening. Not even asking because I disagree with your comments, we definitely agree on more than we don't but I'm not going to claim I'm a great football mind. Try to rely on those who have spent more time around the game at a higher level than I could ever imagine to understand nuances.

He didn't leave because Bubba was staying and/or got an extension, he left because UND can't guarantee him head coach in waiting. Officially offering someone a job that isn't open would have caused significant issues given ND public entity hiring laws. It is what it is, but probably worked out better for him and his replacement has proven to be pretty good.

Coming up with buyout money is different than money to upgrade your standing within the athletic world. I don't think the $5MM would be the hurdle if there was an FBS invite. I think all the schools you mentioned would be able to figure that out. It is the sustained cost of upgrading the budget by a decent amount that would be the hurdle for any of the schools you mentioned. Some have publicly stated as much.

They slimmed down the first year he was here because they felt the talent wasn't were it needed to be so they thought they could play a little quicker to offset that. It failed and lasted one season before they worked on bulking them back up. Agree on the D side. DE's need to be bigger. They also were very much in on some guys that would fit the NT position but ended up losing out on them.

4 of the 5 starting OL are 300lbs or more (the other is a 290 So) and 8 of the 12 on the 2-deep are 300 or more (anyone under that mark is a So or Fr and all are 285 or more). Not sure that argument holds water. On the other hand, Beach is the only DL on the roster that is 300lbs or more. Not refusing 300lb DL isn't the problem, however not having any is a different story and one I'd agree with. Hoping the change in direction on the S&C side helps with that issue because it does definitely feel like UND's DE's are undersized.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand why the last extensions was done. That being said, I don't think it should have been two years and if needed to be, then it absolutely should have never been agreed to with the buy-out language that was included. As an economist would say, that "problem" is a sunk cost and can't be changed, so there is not point in wasting time worrying about it. That isn't justifying anything, it is just the reality. The other "problem" is what can be focused on. Conflating that with what's already done doesn't help anything.

Who's sugar coating the current results, particularly the last two weeks? I haven't seen anyone defending it. I acknowledged and agreed with a lot of what you said. The criticism is warranted and valid. I'm also understanding there currently isn't 7 figures lying around right now to make the fix you are advocating for. Unless that shows up somewhere, there won't be an immediate change. Call me crazy, but all the criticisms in the world aren't going to convince a sane person to walk away from well over half a million dollars doing something they are passionate about, barring something completely unforeseen, so that isn't a solution. Find me anyone on here who would make that choice.

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards. I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line. I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics. Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command? Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD). University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics). Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top. He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss. This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures. Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors. I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations.

Why? Their value to any media contact is the late night games. There are already plenty of central and mountain time games to fill the gaps.

Not saying what he will or won't and should or shouldn't do, but Summit schools and Fenton have already "played that game" to certain degrees with the MVFC, MVC and Summit making sure schools there have homes for Olympic sports. And since everything is speculation right now, with Patty V retiring, it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the Summit is eying taking over handling the MVFC. It would definitely help strengthen the brand for the conference and would have minimal effect on the "affiliate members". I know the idea has been discussed before. I'm sure Fargo's appetite to help support the move by choosing twice not to pay to renovate the Fargodome won't go unnoticed when looking at funding options.

I don't have the answer. If I did, I probably by charging a hell of a lot of money as a consultant. The University has been able to put more support into athletics the last few years after actually taking on an unsustainable and broken budget and actually making some hard decisions to get to the spot they are in.