jdub27

Not sure I can agree with that. All teams lose games they shouldn't during the year, it happens. Which of the years do you think they underachieved and lost out when they were clearly the more talented team? They have yet to be upset in the conference tournament, losing to a 1 or 2 seed each year. The women's team, who you claimed to be more consistent, have now been upset two years in a row. This isn't saying I didn't expect them to win any of those years. I think they were on par talent-wise at least one or two of them and had a legit shot at winning, I just don't think they lost to a clearly inferior team in the tournament any of those years.

I think the first one is a fair question. But I think it is also fair to add in that both the nickname issue allowing other schools to say UND may not be eligible for postseason play (even if it was a stretch/lie) and not having a true D1 conference to recruit to until 2011 significantly hurt the MBB. I also think the type of players UND was able to recruit led to a lot of the things brought up in your second question. Is the fact that all of that has finally washed out through the system a coincidence or was it part of the problem? My personal opinion is that MBB was hurt more than any other program by those two issues and that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Big Sky has only been a 16 seed twice in the last decade. 2016: SDSU - 12 and Weber - 15 - Summit 2015: NDSU - 15 and EWU - 13 - Big Sky 2014: NDSU - 12 and Weber - 16 - Summit 2013: SDSU - 13 and Montana - 13 - Push 2012: SDSU - 14 and Montana - 13 - Big Sky 2011: Oakland - 13 and UNC - 15 - Summit 2010: Oakland - 14 and Montana - 14 - Push 2009: NDSU - 14 and Portland State - 13 - Big Sky 2008: ORU - 13 and Portland State - 16 - Summit 2007: ORU - 14 and Weber - 15 - Summit Avg for the Summit: 13.4 Avg for the Big Sky: 14.3 While the Summit has had a slightly better seed in the last decade (less than 1 spot), the respect and attention nationally is a little bit of a stretch. As has been stated a million times, the Summit has had a lot easier route to boosting their RPI strictly based on proximity to higher ranked schools and having a couple extra OOC games to schedule. As I stated earlier in this thread: the Summit has 9 teams and went 4-28 against top 100 teams, however of those games, they played 15 against top 50 RPI teams (0-15). The Big Sky has 12 teams was 3-25 against top 100 teams, however they only played 6 games against top 50 RPI teams (0-6). Games against top 100 teams is almost identical in terms of record and games played, but the difference in games against top 50 programs has a huge effect on RPI.

I have a pretty good feel for how much freedom he had, though to an earlier point, pleasing the masses doesn't always equal a good microbrew. Need to find that happy medium to please the regular crowd and the beer snobs. Brewers usually have the recipes but don't have the rights to the names but it isn't hard to duplicate what what they were already producing. However if what I heard is correct, I'm excited about what Rhombus will be having in the near future.

The owner was the head brewer from Rhombus, so I imagine it will taste a lot like that.

After watching the game Saturday, I think UND looked much better than PSU and way more athletic. While there were non-calls that went both ways, there were at least 3 in PSU's favor (traveling and stepping on the baseline) that led directly to a 3 pointer on that possession and kept them in the game. Unless UND can't hit the broadside of a barn, I think they win this one without too much trouble.

I'm guessing that extra non-conference game part goes away with UND joining and they will go from 16 games to 18 games (playing each team home and away). To your other point, the Summit has 9 teams and went 4-28 against top 100 teams, however of those games, they played 15 against top 50 RPI teams (0-15). The Big Sky has 12 teams was 3-25 against top 100 teams, however they only played 6 games against top 50 RPI teams (0-6). That is a huge difference in scheduling, especially when you take into account there being 3 more teams in the Big Sky and how much RPI is dependent on your opponent, not necessarily whether you win or lose. The problem is that it is significantly harder for the Big Sky to schedule against those top tier teams to "boost" RPI because there are so few of them out west, relatively speaking.

Here are this teams that have already punched their ticket and their current RPI. I'll try to keep it updated as the tournaments continue. UND currently at 172 Jacksonville State (154) Florida Gulf Coast (86) Wichita State (27) Winthrop (70) UNC-Wilmington (26) Iona (91) East Tennessee State (57) Northern Kentucky (89) Mount St. Mary's (152) South Dakota State (155) Gonzaga (10) Updated for games completed through 3/7

The hyperbole is a little strong on this one. Winning a regular season conference championship is on the checklist of every team, regardless of the conference. They have no control over how the other teams are in the conference and some are tougher to obtain than others, but downplaying it comes off as disrespectful towards the accomplishment. Making the tournament is just another item to check off the list. Two of the biggest issues the Big Sky has is they need a couple more non-conference games and more options of stronger teams out west, they would move up at least a handful of spots just by losing more to better teams. #ButRPI

The announcers stated at the beginning of the game Seales wasn't playing due to a family emergency. He was out of town and missed most of practice this week and got back right before the game started so the coaches held him out. Barring an unforeseen change, he'll be in uniform on Saturday. As for the game, Sac controlled the tempo a bit but UND not being able to hit anything allowed them to do that. If UND hits some free throws and a couple open 3 pointers they normally do, the game starts tilting into UND's favor and the tempo speeds up. Game plan wasn't the issue last night, hitting shots was. It is unfortunate Seales wasn't able to play because with the Hi-Lo UND ran quite a bit last night, he would have had more than a few open looks in his spot, right around the free throw line. Overall, it was an off night for UND, playing without their first guy off the bench, and they still had a good chance to win. Regroup and win the #1 seed Saturday.

Who's saying the $1.3 million isn't already going above and beyond? Even if it isn't, they are figuring the cuts without factoring in the following: Any cost savings that will be realized from moving to the Summit/MVFC. There will be some small increases in Champions Club dues that I would guess will add up to at least an additional $250-300K for next year, if not a little more. On top of that, in the first round, they made cuts that went beyond what they needed to, even after revenues exceeded projected budget (mainly due to increase in football tickets). UND is cutting what was reported as the equivalent of their direct state allocations over the biennium. More realistically, assuming the $1.3 million is an annual number, UND is cutting around 18% of their direct institutional support (5.4% of their overall budget).

I think if you look at how much the government spending has grown in the last 6-8 years, it seems like there should be plenty to cut out and still be above levels the state was previously at. When "one-time spending" happens, a chunk of seems to just work its way into the next baseline. I don't think anyone is advocating for cutting highway infrastructure or dysfunctional universities. There is plenty of fat to go around, reevaluating priorities and making some cuts isn't a bad thing. For example - Higher ed had appropriations of $472 million in 2007-2009. The proposed level for 2017-2019 is $650 million. That's an increase of 38% and doesn't take into account increase in tuition revenue from $553 million to $768 million. During that same time frame, FTE's went from 35,585 to 38,089.

So when people say that they think budgets will be cut, what exactly are you suggesting? Less scholarships? Cutting coaching salary/pool for assistants? I'm not saying there aren't ways to trim budgets a little bit but there are a lot of fixed costs that can't really be changed and the two previously mentioned things are the biggest line items for most sports. Travel and equipment are fairly static, you can't do much about them. I just don't see it working if Kennedy truly wants to compete at a high level.

To expand on that: Women's golf was added in 1995, women's tennis in 1997 and women's soccer in 1999. There was an expansion in football scholarships when the D-1 move was done. Men's tennis was added in 2013 after being cut in 1990, though with very minimal support.

Women's Tennis gives out 5 scholarships (out of a maximum of 8). Men's tennis was added due to Big Sky requirements. I don't know if they awarded any scholarships in the last 2 years or not. I can't see any scenario where they move WIH to the Olympic rink, even though the theory behind it makes sense.

I'm not sure how it is currently covered, but there are no facility costs attributed directly to S&D as it sits today (or as of 2015 I guess).

In my mind, it basically comes down to cutting 3 sports or 1. If it is 3, MS&D is gone and then take your pick, 2 out of 3, from WS&D, Soccer and Softball. You effectively eliminate 70-75 opportunities for student athletes depending on the choices. If it is 1, its WIH. You lose 26 opportunities but there is likely a little bit in extra funds to shuffle around, which at least helps offset some of the scholarship portion. The men's side took the brunt of everything last time and there isn't much left to cut there anymore. Can't wait to hear the teeth gnashing about it when it doesn't shake out that way this time around, completely ignoring that little tidbit.

Adults and youth/students.

Attendance for women's hockey was 881.... ....combined for their 3 game playoff series against Ohio State. Ticket prices were $14/$10 for the weekend or $7/$5 per game.

This is going to be your most liked post and I think that's funny.

Maybe Brad is just laying preemptive groundwork for a conspiracy theory even though the IAC is not making any decisions this time around?

That and the recently completed study on tuition waivers that are likely going to lead to change on how those are handled.

I am more amused that "the big plan" is to cut 1.8% of the athletics budget and then sell it to the public as a huge sacrifice because a small line item, not the entire budget, is being "slashed" 40%. Pretty smart strategy assuming the Fargo media doesn't actually follow up on anything (). I'm not sure where you keep getting the "strong position" thing from. NDSU athletics apparently requires around a 10% direct state subsidy allocation and the University itself still has to cut around $22 million dollars, which it apparently is going to do with minimal help from the athletic department, meaning that academics and student support is going to take the brunt of it. What are the "issues" that UND has that people aren't concerned about? There has been plenty of talk on here and very open dialogue by the administration on budget issues and how they are being addressed. The majority here are happy UND is finally looking at right-sizing the athletic department.

It was mainly tongue in cheek, though it definitely presses a few buttons after hearing how NDSU's athletic department is in such a strong position, yet they directly rely on 10% of their budget coming from the State of ND. Again, I would be very interested to see the numbers Kolpack used because college athletics are a giant shell game and he apparently has something that would clarify it a little more. I will however continue to get a kick out of the huge sacrifices NDSU athletics is making by taking a 40% cut that in reality is a whopping 1.8% of their budget. On the flip side, I'm hoping UND is using the cuts as an excuse to make a few changes that could make drastic improvements in their athletic department. Time will tell if they will go with the status quo or make the tough and correct decision.