jdub27

You mean things like the former editor writing an opinion piece on how the SBoHE has a big decision on the fate of Kennedy and how they might not renew his contract only to watch them do so unanimously a week later? I guess I didn't manage a good-sized business for a Fortune 500 company for over 30 years, but seems like he was just a bit off his mark on that one...

Do you have a source for that? The news report of it directly contradicts that, including a comment from KEM.

You're dead on with your first two sentences and then off the rails after that. The ticket revenue is a completely separate line item than the box office services provided by the REA. UND paid an additional $247K to the REA outside of the 52% of ticket revenue for those other services provided. And neither of those include an additional $1.1 million paid for "utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses". I'm not sure what's so hard to comprehend some of this: The ticket revenue UND pays to the REA is the equivalent of "rent" for use of the REA/BESC. UND also makes separate payments for other services and expenses. Regardless of whether its all a shell game of some sort (with minimal oversight on one side the equation), the football team has nothing to do with the REA yet, 52% of their ticket revenues are directed towards "rent" for a building they don't use (again, a separate fee is paid for ticket services). When the original agreement was made, ticket revenues were significantly lower than they are today. On top of that, the athletic department has had to deal with significant budget cuts, yet the REA has managed to keep the same amount of revenue flowing in to them from UND, meaning that athletic department has had to cut extra from other areas to make up for not being able to do across the board cuts.

Kennedy just received a positive job review from his bosses, his job was never in danger despite what Mike Jacobs or those who happen to disagree with him might think. What exactly is it that you've been 100% right about? Definitely not your spelling.

The family does not own the building, a non-profit does. That nonprofit is setup specifically to benefit UND athletics.

None of that explains why football ticket revenue is going to the REA to support the building that the cash cow plays in.

The ticket revenue is completely separate from what UND pays the REA to handle ticket sales, which was $247K last year. It is also separate from the additional $1.1 million UND paid in "utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses". I don't think there's an issue with UND paying the REA to handle ticket sales. I don't think there's an issue with some ticket revenue (MIH, MBB, WBB and VB) going to the REA as it basically is equivalent to "rent", which has helped pay for the building of the Betty, and updates/maintenance to the REA/BESC (though the extra $1.1 million on top of 52% of ticket revenue is a bit curious). But why football ticket revenue continues to be included in the whole equation is beyond me. On top of that, UND is now using the REA less with WIH being cut, meaning the REA has more capacity to bring in outside events and their operation expense is less overall as there are 16-20 less events they have to staff for each year.

Nowhere did I say I felt sorry for her or even that I've agreed with some of her actions or comments. I specifically said that type of dialogue is not helpful, because it isn't. Continuing to push a narrative with unnecessary negative comments that do nothing but increase a divide (real or perceived) between either UND and a donor or within the athletic department does nothing to help UND in the long run.

Regardless of what "side" you are on, this type of commentary does absolutely nothing to help the situation.

The state is the one who requested the initial 30 year setup, not Ralph. He would have turned it over much sooner without that request.

I'd question the GF Herald being "one of Grand Forks' bigger enterprises" as well but it is written subjectively enough that I'm sure there is a way to argue it.

Who didn't see that coming....

Here's the links for UND's photos from the playoff games, the lettering was black: WMU UM

Pretty sure the athletic department was required to take cuts above and beyond what some other departments were, which is defensible. Before the first round of budget cuts they had to trim back their budget (institutional fund usage) and then shared in the pain the next two rounds as well.

It is a shell game. The REA can hold back whatever they want/need to for reserves and "expenses" (while billing UND directly for others) with no checks and balances, which is one of the reasons they have a very significant reserve. However this is also the reason they have been able to do some of the updates they have, which is obviously good for the REA (and occasionally the BESC) along with the UND teams that play their but not great for the rest of the athletic department. It has been an advantage to UND as they likely wouldn't have been able to do some of the updates and don't have to worry about state oversight, however on the flip side, they are basically at the REA's whim on how much money they get back at the end of each year. The theory behind changing the agreement takes a bit more of that uncertainty out of the equation, particularly since ticket revenue has increased significantly from when the original usage agreement started and UND is only seeing 48% of that benefit come into their pockets. Side note - I wonder if the original agreement had the REA taking 52% of all ticket revenues even though men's hockey would have been the only team using the facilities at the time or that was something that changed when WIH was started and the BESC was built.

I guess if UND were to lose (they shouldn't), they should just reinstate it as a club sport and call it good. There are other schools nearby who use that reasoning to "effectively accommodate student interests and abilities" and it seems to work.

Kelowna, British Columbia Brandon, Manitoba Eden Prairie, MN Lakeville, MN Winnipeg, Manitoba Orivesi, Finland Mankato, MN Strathmore, Alberta Penticon, British Columbia Excelsior, MN St. Louis, MN Just want to point out where the people filing the lawsuit against the NDUS (or basically the state of North Dakota) reside, trying to force them to subsidize $2 million plus dollars per year so 25 girls not from North Dakota can play hockey. Ironically enough, there was actually 1 player from ND on the team at the time and she's not listed in the lawsuit even though she was a freshman at the time the program was cut.

Based on what? He's stating UND wasn't in compliance with Title IX becuase they aren't meeting one of the prongs. They are only required to meet one and they already meet two. UND hired a firm who specializes specifically in TItle IX before they made any moves. I'm going to go with the firm who specializes in that over an activist lawyer who's expertise is employement/labor law. Read up on the guy, he seems like a real treat. Or check his Twitter bio, where he claims to be a "Radical Oakland activist, enemy of capital, civil rights lawyer and grandfather of three." Or him defending his client who was beating someone with a bike lock by completely ignoring video evidence.

If you really want to talk equality and money at the same time, take a look at net cost per student athlete. Oh, and make sure the football team gets credit for their Champions Club donations that aren't included in the numbers you are quoting. Hell, the football team was already subsidizing women's hockey with 52% of their ticket revenues going to cover rent at the REA which is alot more than the WIH was contributing.

Women's tennis literally costs 10% of what WIH did. Tennis probably draws more fan per dollar invested, so I guess there is that.

Nothing in the last 15 years back that statement up. The community supports men's hockey and it wasn't for the lack of funding for the women's team. Volleyball had more fans/attendance and ticket revenue than WIH. Wishing it to happen doesn't make it so.

The article has also been updated to include the former Olympians. I wish I was making that up.

If their goal is to reinstate the program, they are suing the NDUS and their basis is failure to determine the athletic interests and abilities of women students and women athletes, then their lawyer needs to quit mentioning UND since that isn't the prong they use to remain compliant (which they are per the OCR report), it's the other D1 school in the state.

The first half of this sure reads like the way a different NDUS school measures their Title IX compliance, not UND. Anyone know the particular reason this was filed against NDUS instead of UND? Is it because UND showed that they, as an individual institution, were in compliance? I mean they were literally cleared by the group that is charge of Title IX compliance, so there has to be something different here. And the article is very clear in stating NDUS not UND.

Has he graduated? Can he grad transfer before he does? Did the examples you keep mentioning graduate before they announced their intentions? Best of luck to Geno. Wish he could have finished his career at UND but he wasn't willing to commit to his senior season here and the staff needs to focus on players that want to commit to be on the team.