jdub27

UND has a woman head coach until June 30 and depending on the timeline and hire, they may not be without a woman head coach at any point. If a woman is hired to replace Martinson and starts July 1 or sooner, then the whole premise of the article is completely bogus. Instead, the Herald threw it out there a month ahead of time talking about a hypothetical.

Again, until UND hires its new golf coach, I don't think this merits is a story (and even then it is a stretch). Depending on the hiring time line, UND may not even go without having a female head coach, as Martinson is filling out the end of her contract which expires June 30. All this article did was basically all but guaranteed the most qualified female candidate will get the job. That person may have been the most qualified person overall, but why write this article to make it seem like there will be bias in the hiring. Another simple fact the Herald could have added was was the amount of females that are currently paid assistant coaches/operations. On the women's side, there are 14 assistants employed (not counting open soccer assistant coach who was a male) and 8 of those positions are filled by females (should be noted that men's and women's tennis and track share coaching staffs). WBB: 3 of 4 (counting director of ops) WGolf: 0 of 1 Soccer: 1 of 1 (currently 1 open position, was previously held by a male) Softball: 2 of 2 (volunteer assistant is male) WTennis: 0 of 1 (shared staff with men's team) WT&F/CC: 0 of 3 (shared staff with men's team) WVB: 2 of 2

Unless there is some sort of agenda to push, I don't see why this whole thing is newsworthy until UND actually hires its new women's golf coach. If the best candidate is a male, then yes, it might be newsworthy. But if they hire a female (which this article has made all but a foregone conclusion), then I don't get what the point of him writing the article was unless its something they've been sitting on and figured they finally had a window to publish it and needed to make sure they got it in before the new hire is made.

The whole point of his article was one big comparison to Division 1 schools. Why be lazy and not show where UND's peers are at to add some context since he took the time to write the article? He looked through all the schools, so it isn't like he didn't have the data. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but it seems like there is always information omitted that would add context in the Herald's article lately. And for whatever reason, that information that is omitted seems to shed positive light towards the UND side of whatever point they are trying to make. I'm not saying they are intentionally biased, but it doesn't exactly do them any favors when there is a perceived axe to grind against UND/Kennedy/the athletic department.

Montana was 3-5 in conference play in 2016...

Just dropping a hint to those fine people who buy ink by the barrels and have been known to lurk around these parts....

Fair points and I agree on most, but how much of Mussman's issues were because of lack of funding? His ability to put an experienced staff together was pretty hamstrung and overall, the move was made without the proper resources allocated and the problem compounded itself. On top of that, he likely stayed in his job as long as he did because of a cost issue (extended him on the cheap and then didn't want to buy him out).

Some yes but at least in regards to the the usage agreements, some of the changes would eventually come out through UND's financial statements (or much sooner if someone wanted to do a FOIA request......). Regardless, I'm sure there was a variety of topics covered and it's nice to see that everyone has "made nice" for now. Hopefully KEM's scheduled interview with Chris Berg next week doesn't rock the boat.

In come cases, isn't it the actual NDSU Foundation who bought up all the lots and is doing the building?

Looks like a good spot for a new library.

Unfortunately I think this might become the norm as it is inline with their strange conference scheduling from previous years.. And I would expect it won't be the only other sport where people aren't happy with the new scheduling pattern, but we'll see on that one.

Legacy of her nature? She chairs her family Foundation (and pulls salary well into the six figures for doing so). Continuous spirit of philanthropic donation? Recent tax returns and dealings with UNLV might show you're taking a few liberties on that. I'm also going to assume you don't work in the business world if you think that was a "shameful display of ungratefullness" nor do you have any understanding of how a relationship like UND and the REA works. MK also went out of his way in every single communication released through FOIA to explain how grateful and thankful UND was for the gifts. However, apparently standing up for what he perceived as wrongs against UND and working to fix them was just a step too far in his capacity running the actual University. Good on him for doing what it takes to make an important donor happy but I don't doubt he got what he felt was important out of the deal.

Not a huge fan of the conference set-up. Mainly Friday/Sunday games with a Wednesday, Tuesday and a Thursday scattered in. Last year every conference game was Thursday or Saturday except for a Friday night game against MSU before heading to UM the next day.

How exactly would the REA have an increased responsibility in managing a larger portion of the athletics budget? Currently they have zero responsibility outside of taking 52% of all ticket revenue as "rent", charging UND $247K for ticket office expenses and another $1.1 million in utilities, maintenance staff, phone service, all of which they used with minimal checks and balances to keep the REA running. I'm still confused why KEM feels the need to give out details of these meetings and negotiations to the press and on top of that is also scheduled to give an on camera interview within the next few days. Seems like there is a need to control the narrative when a simple "no comment" would be more than sufficient.

MK was a successful businessman and elected politician before venturing into academia, I think he's handled more than a few of similar situations with "investors" or "donors". I'm thinking he knew what he needed out of the meeting and walked away just fine with how it went.

Incredibly happy that someone who has professional aspirations and is also willing to stand up for UND when needed is running the university. You can have your status quo, they are a big part of what put UND square in line with some of the issues MK is trying to clean up. About time there is some forward thinking going on, even if it can be uncomfortable at times. There will be (and have been) hiccups, but it's unfortunate that some people can't see the big picture.

It's not a private entity, it's a non-profit, set up for the sole purpose of benefiting the public entity and on top of that, derives the majority of their income from the public entity (but still demands the same share of revenue while the public entity is seeing significant cuts). It's not as black and white as you want to make it seem. The REA can't "take their ball and go home" in any shape or form outside of future donations. While possibly significant, that is their only play at this point. I'm not defending some of the decision UND has made, particularly in regards to spending, but the concern about their being no checks and balances on how the REA spends some funds seems legitimate, particularly when the decisions directly impact. Isn't a big part of this whole argument UND trying to fix it's cash flow and become less of a train wreck? If the REA can't figure out a compromise, it's going to be a mess for everyone with no winners. The ideal situation is to have the contract extended and allow the current system to remain in place beyond the 30 year deadline. However if UND (rightly) feels like the REA isn't operating like they should, then it will be UND taking their ball and going home.

Well minus UND having to make huge cuts under state orders while the a member of the REA board throws a fit when they are asked to do the same by renegotiating an annually renewable contract....

Can't complain about the location or rink on this one, need to find something....

Since they usually play it as the Hall of Fame game to use the exemption status, I don't think they'd change the format.

How does selling that land for development play into this?

The "consensus" picked the nickname which is terribly bland and led to the logo. But everyone needed a voice...

Tough to do since UND isn't a member until 2020. I'm thinking with how easy it is to cut out chunks of turf, they should look at removing the Big Sky logos and selling some more ad space for the next two years. Just make a big jigsaw puzzle out of the whole thing.

The REA has given back nowhere near $2.3 million each year, that figure is how much UND has paid the REA as part of the revenue share agreement. It also does not include the $247K UND paid in box office fees or the $1.1 million in utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses. UND received $750K back last year after sending around $3.7 million to the REA. As to your other question, my guess is that football ticket revenue going to the REA is between $250-300K.