jdub27

Apparently UND needs to start asking for more direct state appropriations since NDSU gets 60% more.

Looks to be working perfectly. The news tonight stated ndsu was cutting 40% from their athletic budget and 10% from academics. I never said they had to be 1:1, I pointed out what the numbers were and where they rank in the entire NCAA. I don't care what a couple surveys say, I'm not sure how you can look at those numbers and not see a huge disparity. There is a reason very few schools use only the third prong of compliance.

I will give them credit, by stating "appropriated general fund support for athletics is being “slashed” by 40 percent", it really sounds like athletics is making huge sacrifices when in reality, 1.8% of their overall budget is being trimmed.

I get all that, I'm just confused why they are so terrible at actually laying it out and why NDSU is receiving a significantly higher percentage if they are in such great financial shape.

NDSU is in the bottom 10 of the entire NCAA in opportunities for Men vs. Women, having over 2 males for every female participating in athletics (adjusted for unduplicated numbers). On a scholarship basis, for every $1 spent on a women's scholarships, they spend around $1.60 on men's scholarships, again worst ratios in the entire NCAA.

Well this new article makes it even more confusing. They are cutting $400,000 but somehow they are counting it once in each year to get to $800K. So just we're straight with the facts that are out there Per the USA Today numbers which come directing from NDSU's NCAA report, NDSU receives $6.6 million in direct institutional support. Per Jeff Kolpack, NDSU receives $2.1 million in direct state appropriations. It is easy to assume that this is per year because every other single number in the article is a yearly figure. First article today has Bresciani quoted as saying NDSU athletic's state appropriated general funds will be cut 40%. Newest article today says the $800K is actually $400K/year for two years, even though it states the following: "The $2.1 million the athletic department gets from the state represents just one revenue stream in this year's $22.03 million overall athletic budget." Why do they keep stating the $2.1 million is a biennial number when comparing it with the athletic budget that is an annual number? Final question: UND is targeting $1.3 million as their cut, which per Jeff Kolpack, is the equivalent of their entire state appropriated funds. If NDSU is in such a great financial position as we are always told by visitors to this board, why are they receiving over 60% more in direct state appropriated funds?

Those numbers don't add up at all if the 40% number that was announced today is correct. But that isn't much of a surprise either.

What is the source on this number? If Kolpack's numbers are right, then UND is eliminating all state general appropriation on the athletics side.

This year, WIH averaged 900 and VB averaged 1,100. VB also didn't have NDSU at home, which in the past has drawn twice their average.

Majority of it is money they raised from putting on camps. The balance is listed as miscellaneous funds. They also have to cover the expenses of the camps, which is listed in their expenses.

What isn't there to believe? The NCAA report shows that Women's Ice Hockey generated revenues of $29,239 and Women's S&D generated $36,194. There is more to revenues than just ticket sales. #NotMyNumbers

People didn't show up when they had two of the best women's hockey players in the world. Sure, its a good alternative, but not at a real cost of around $2 million per year on UND's dime. I guess those people could always watch high school hockey, which is pretty close to the same skill level. Unfortunately Title IX cares about athlete opportunities. There is just as much if not more participation at the youth levels in those other sports, meaning they fit in better with the community (which is part of Title IX). Its really splitting hairs to say that it generates more fan interest. Cutting 1/4 of the athletic department to save 1 sport that basically quit charging for tickets because they were losing money on workers taking tickets doesn't scream fan interest.

Softball generates $3,000 less revenue the WIH and but costs $800,000 less while offering almost the same amount of student athlete opportunities. Men's golf is more or less not the athletic departments responsibility plus the cost of the golf programs is minimal compared to the other. The only program that costs less is Men's Tennis.

This isn't about liking one sport or another. No one wants to cut sports. However people want to be competitive in the sports UND sponsors. Spreading the budget thin across too many sports leads to not excelling in the things you do and that was before the budget was required to be slashed. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves. Total net cost, net cost per student athlete, etc. One program sticks out way above the others. When trying to find $1.3 million requires either cutting 3-4 programs and 100+ student athlete opportunities or cutting 1 program and 25 opportunities, it should be a simple choice and it has nothing to do with what people like, it is making the common sense business decision.

We also knew this wasn't going to come up again. Your list might be right but it's incorrect to state that everything on there is 100% safe. The situation is different this time with a much larger and specific number that has to be addressed. They've already shown that the change in circumstances has changed some lines of thinking.

The administration also said this wouldn't be revisited again. And yet here we are and with a number that could basically be solved by cutting one program.

That makes a little more sense. I honestly don't know which sports would go, but it would likely be on the men's side if WIH is gone. S&D is about the only realistic choice left because cutting Tennis doesn't even move the needle. Your skepticism on golf is the exact reason they won't go down to 16 immediately, they need to leave a buffer for that scenario.

Unless you include WIH in the 4 you're cutting, you aren't going free up much for more resources to reinvest. Also, if you plan on going right down to 16, you are counting on Men's Golf to hit its fundraising goals or be willing to bring them back into the fold if they don't.

Interesting to see how that plays out if there is anything to it. Unless there is something in the paperwork that specifies UND has promised to come into the conference with X sports, than I can't see how the Summit could enforce it if UND drops it before they join. Men's golf is the most interesting to me since it is technically of the athletic department's budget, yet they would be on the hook for $150K if the team wasn't able to hit their fundraising goals.

Reminder that FCS requires sponsoring 14 sports, however I don't ever see any of the Dakota schools going below 16.

I get where you are going with it now. If the financials were presented properly, this would make sense, though there would still be backlash and you still have the base cost of over $1.4 million. As they are currently done, it would actually make the cost of their program go up on paper because you wouldn't be able to bury their facility cost under MIH.

Of course college athletics is a giant shell game but I'm not sure what you're trying to argue? On paper, the WIH program shows a net cost of $1.4 million but those numbers don't include any facility costs, which is why the cost of the program is actually higher. The entire cost for the REA/BESC (over $2 million) is attributed to MIH, there are no costs attributed to MBB, WBB, VB, WIH or soccer.

The financials that break out each sport separately that are sent to the NCAA for reporting purposes have $0 listed for facility expenses attributed to women's ice hockey. That's why everyone states that the cost of the program is actually higher than reported.

He's shooting 53% from the field this year.

That pizza/pasta bar was a hidden gem.