jdub27

To a point, yes. However there are more pressing needs than converting a mile of 3-lane to 4 that currently is plenty adequate. The sales tax passing this fall is a big step in not only catching up but also being able to prepare for growth.

A quick Google search shows he died in 2013 and was 81 at the time. Your ramblings continue to be nonsensical.

They are making 42nd a 4 lane from south of 6th Ave N and to the north it will be a 3 lane to Gateway with construction expected to start this year. I don't see the need to make 17th Ave to 32 Ave 4 lane until that area infills.

Yes, you should. I'm aware of the limits and where the team currently sits. However none of that applies to any specific player, which is what you are throwing against the wall. I'm not even saying you'll end up being wrong but there is no backing to any of those players leaving the team at this point in time.

No worries, reasonable people can do that. I know you have good reason for your thoughts and opinions. Summit, probably. MVFC, no. What exactly was Faison upset about? It needed to be a Summit/MVFC package, which wasn't on the table. Douple was the one who was spurned when UND cancelled their visit. He proved it when he failed to act on UND's baseball affiliation application to the Summit.

You obviously have some insight I don't, but the Big Sky and NCHC happened well before Schafer ever stepped on campus. I know for a fact that while it was publicly stated that there was no interest from the Summit/MVFC, that there still was continuous contact by UND gauging interest and let it be known that they were open to the possibility, again, well before either ever made it to campus. Were the budget cuts that were unattainable without a giant shift the final straws that put the move over the edge? Without a doubt, but that still doesn't happen without previous groundwork laid. Yes, Kennedy was involved, but considering University President's have the final say on conference affiliations, that is no surprise. The timing with some possible upcoming issues with other MVFC schools and more schools leaving the Summit certainly didn't hurt matters either, basically forcing the Summit to make a move and knowing that it couldn't be made without the MVFC's help. The overlap between the two presidents you mentioned and BF was 2 years out of his 9.5+ year tenure. I think he probably stayed in the job 1-2 years too long but with the other turmoil on campus, it would have been even worse to try to bring a new person into that role and handle some of the messes he dealt with. Like I said, he was far from perfect, but to say he didn't do anything good is a stretch.

BF was pretty good at the behind the scenes, nuts-and-bolts, administrative part of the job. He managed to get UND to convince a D1 conference to add UND in which they don't really geographically fit (which saved UND from independence purgatory, and then eventually got UND into closer conferences, one of which kept publicly saying they weren't expanding and had no reason to (other than some begging by the Summit). He also was one of the main drivers behind creating the strongest hockey conference in the nation, which saved the hockey program from being held back by some non-like minded schools in the WCHA. On top of that, he dealt with a whole pile of crap most AD's would never have to dream of (D1 transition, nickname issue, cutting sports). Could he have been a better public face and fundraiser? No doubt. But he managed some tough waters on the administrative side and has left a pretty clean plate for Chaves to step in and do his thing.

Not that rebounding doesn't need some work, because it most definitely does, but when the opposing team misses 19 3-pointers, there is going to be plenty of long rebounds that you're going to give up whether you are in position or not. 7 out of NDSU's 13 offensive boards came off 3 point attempts and another was off a blocked shot. Good win to avenge the earlier loss. Team is playing much better. It's almost like it took a while to mesh and find a solid rotation. Shocking when you're replacing 5 out of your top 8 from last year.

Unless you have something to back up any of those names going anywhere, quit spreading rumors.

I had full faith in Mike and glad to see Chaves is basically giving him the opening to get the experience he wants. Hopefully he takes full advantage of the opportunity as it should only strengthen the athletic department. In return, Chaves is going to make raising money a bit easier.

UND had it compiled in Faison's retirement release * Walter Hempel, Jan. 1-June 30, 1903 * Dr. George J. Sweetland Jr., 1904-08 * Dr. David L. Dunlap, 1908-12 * Charles E. Armstrong, 1912-13 * Fred L. Thompson, 1913-18 * Paul Jones Davis, 1919-28 * Charles A. "Jack" West, 1928-46 * Glenn L. "Red" Jarrett, 1946-58 * Leonard R. "Len" Marti, 1958-76 * Dr. Carl R. Miller, 1976-85 * John F. "Gino" Gasparini, Oct. 4, 1985-June 30, 1990 * Dr. Terry Wanless, Nov. 1, 1990-June 30, 1999 * Roger Thomas, July 1, 1999-Feb. 18, 2005 * Tom Buning, July 1, 2005-2007. * Brian Faison, May 2008-Dec. 31, 2017 * Bill Chaves

16th AD in school history.

You are a year behind on that one, PSU's new AD started 1/1/17. But I'd love to see the link to where they are discussing it. http://www.goviks.com/news/2016/12/5/portland-state-names-valerie-cleary-as-new-director-of-athletics.aspx

Might as well toss some out there, guessing there will a few people making the trip.

Not that it matters, but she did have a 3 year stint in a few different roles for the San Jose Sharks a while back. I believe it was more so on the guest relations/facilities side but it is at least something related to hockey. Overall, she probably had the widest variety of experience and I have no issue with her being a finalist. In fact, I'm hoping she gave a few examples of some areas she saw potential revenue, I think she had some good ideas that could be tapped into.

Hopping on the bandwagon after Morton didn't even make the finalists?

Without a doubt the correct decision.

That's true but.... ......it would be a train wreck of epic proportions.

Dangerous game to play in the event the top candidate were to pull out for some reason, especially with him not having been on campus yet. I don't doubt that it happens, but I think in this instance there were quite a few other ones to put through if they were trying to make one person stand out (though that happened regardless).

Fair point but I don't think they bother sending one more than they were required (4 vs. 3) if that is what they were after. Regardless, I still think it is pretty obvious in this situation who the best all-around candidate is.

Yes, it would have been nice to see who else applied so we could "judge" the committee's finalists. However the law was literally changed because of the complaints on how the open record laws were diluting the pool of candidates. Qualified people weren't applying because they didn't necessarily want their names revealed if they didn't make the cut or realized that they might be a finalist but felt like they weren't going to get the job or even if they had second thoughts after applying. This gave them the chance to back out before being revealed. I would rather trust a group of well qualified people to make a choice from a stronger pool than reserve the right to criticize them from having to select from a weaker pool. You can't have it both ways. As for the candidates, I have a hard time buying that there was a mandate for diversity. Yes, all the candidates have their own area of strength, but what exactly would be the point of having 3 of the exact same candidates with the same strength, when it can be determined ahead of time which of those 3 is the most qualified in that particular strength? Seems redundant and a waste of finalist spots. If I know A has a better all-around resume and interviewed better than B and C, I don't need to make all 3 finalists to determine that. And it wasn't like they didn't bring in 2 or 3 other sitting D-1 AD's because of it either. After reading the resumes and listening to the candidates speak, it was clear that these 4 were selected as finalists for a reason. This was not a weak group. They beat out other qualified applicants to be selected.

I trust him too and think he's a great guy. His passion for UND is unquestioned and I think someday he could be a great AD. However his current expertise is coaching and fundraising, not running a Division 1 athletic department. Who under him is going to help him learn the actual day to day stuff, because this was his answer to his admitted lack of experience in that area. This is not questioning his leadership ability, however I don't think the pieces are currently in place in the athletics department (particularly with a new vacancy that will be a very important hire) and I'm not confident in his connections to know exactly what is needed at this time. I think finding a way to incorporate him further into the day to day operations could be a huge win/win for everyone. Listening to Chaves talk was completely different than the other 3 candidates. They needed to keep the conversation focused on strengths or points that needed to be referenced back to. Chaves didn't have any of that, he was speaking from a spot of experience. He didn't need to talk up all the successes he's had, they were on his resume with half of them coming while UND was in the same conference as the athletic department he was leading. We have a strong fundraising arm in place and while they need more help from the AD than they were getting, it doesn't need to be spearheaded from that spot, just used when necessary (whether that's a lot or a little, doesn't matter).

After listening to/meeting the candidates, here's my cliff notes: Porter - Fairly well rounded, though mainly within one school. Definitely did his homework and knew what to say to play to some of the crowd. Came off as ambitious but tough to tell if his track record backs up everything he said. Seemed a little rehearsed on a few things but was very informed. Mannausau - Played to his strengths: ties to UND. Focused much of his conversation around that. Had good ideas about how to handle the rest of the stuff, though unproven in that. Slightly concerned about the skill sets of those he said he would lean on to help with his experience shortfalls. Elliott - Wide variety of experience with some proven results in quite a few of them. An outside the box thinker that would bring some good ideas to the table. Didn't seem quite as prepared on some specifics, some of which is to be expected, but could hamper some of her ideas. Chaves - Was able to talk about what he has done instead of hypotheticals but in a way that gives him future flexibility to adapt to UND's needs. Very well-rounded, very personable. Thought he overplayed his affinity for hockey a bit, but likely done because EWU doesn't sponsor it, leaving a little gap in his resume that he wanted to clear up. Verdict: Chaves with a bullet. Not even sure it is that close, which says more about him than it does the other candidates, who were all very good. Second: everyone else with the order determined on what skill set you value. All were quality candidates, all had their strengths and all had their weaknesses. The only way I don't see it being Chaves is if one of the other candidates is able to convince Kennedy that their area of expertise is so important that the deficiencies they have can easily be overcome/overlooked.

All the candidates were good and had strengths. The one today is the front runner.

If the salary difference isn't that big, it is more of a plus in my mind, meaning it is more about the opportunity and not necessarily just a pay raise. The more I read his bio, the more encouraged I am about him.