jdub27

UND swept future conference mate SDSU today at Apollo. They are predicted to finish middle of the pack in the league.

He excluded it for all sports. Makes the numbers look worse obviously. Not sure I agree his method but it is arguable. It's more than likely a combination of "earned" and "unearned" revenue. Things like work study and mandated tuition waivers are included in there as are things like unrestricted funds and unrestricted endowment funds directed by the University. The NCAA report is very useful, however it also has a significant amount of revenues and expenses that are unallocated and is by no means perfect. Wish more schools would make it public...

The number that came out that was needed for the second round of cuts and the hiring of the Title IX consultants/lawyers was a dead giveaway. It just came down to whether they got sufficient answers and they had the guts to do what makes sense financially instead of trying to not rock the boat too much.

Not every open coaching position is open? That is what you are going to go with? It doesn't make sense unless you're trying to say that Jones is interviewing with schools that currently already have a head coach in place or he's going around, knocking on doors, asking other schools if they are firing their coach in the next couple weeks, even though everyone does it immediately after the season, or asking if maybe they'd consider doing it. Both of are incredible stretches and just another example of throwing something out there so you can be a contrarian. Why even bother? There were clear conversations had with Jones before the season and he met and likely passed expectations. Both sides understand this. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy theory. Pretty safe bet that conversations between Jones and Faison have already happened and both parties agree that you don't announce a coach getting a decent size raise immediately after cutting 3 sports, one of which is not letting the news go away. His current contract runs through June 30, so he's not working for free and letting current players and recruits know there is a deal in place and explaining why it hasn't been signed and/or announced isn't going to hurt anything.

To where? Drake would have been the only legitimate option that is or was currently open.

How is this unfortunate? Also, while a large amount of money was invested, it was private donations, not UND investing the money.

This isn't exactly what you asked for but here's the breakdown of Net Cost/Athlete using 2016 numbers: BB – $19,868 MBB – $66,703 WBB – $68,491 FB – $22,432 MG – $20,934 WG – $14,462 MIH – $6,051 WIH – $76,799 Soccer – $19,484 SB – $23,098 MS&D – $12,126 WS&D – $16,833 MT – $14,392 WT – $17,656 MTF – $11,723 WTF – $16,182 VB – $59,501 Still a lot of noise in the numbers but WIH, MBB, WBB and VB all took a hit with the allocation of the REA expenses. MBB and WBB are required everywhere, so those are what they are. I wouldn't be surprised if UND started charging for VB at this point in time, won't be a huge revenue generator but I with the growth in the program, I think people will pay to go watch. I would guess MBB and WBB ticket prices will be going up slightly along with FB and MIH this year too.

Yes. Because Olympians.

Plus they'd need to bring back something on the men's side for Title IX and find a way to cover the money they were moving over to otherworldly sports to be in line with Summit requirements. It's. Not. Happening.

Can't see the source numbers for 2016, but using the aggregate report it looks like just short of $1.2 million for both of them, which I believe is over $900K less than UND.

They don't know or care. That's the sad part, in order to actually fix the budget instead of band-aid it again, something needed to be cut and anyone who has looked at the numbers cannot argue the decision that was made without bringing a whole lot of emotion into play. Their continued advocating for WIH sends the message that the they program they support is more important than the ones that survived (even if they won't come out in say it directly), despite cutting WIH giving many more student-athletes opportunities at UND (this of course doesn't even bring into the compliance part of the issue). Also very conveniently left out is that one is the Strength and Conditioning coach for the WIH team and the other is a Volunteer Assistant Coach for the WIH and a performance specialist at Altru plus they run a hockey camp together. While unfortunate, it does seem relevant that they have a personal financial stake in UND continuing to subsidize women's hockey.

It seems like the main argument for keeping WIH is that UND and the state of North Dakota should be the ones subsidizing various country's Olympic squads to the tune of $2 million per year. UND needs to make sure these numbers are out in front of this argument because if the USA Hockey incident is any indication, it seems logical that misinformation and exclusion of relevant facts is going to be the heart of the campaign. And at the low, low cost of only $8 million every Olympic cycle! Though remember, if you ever make a decision they don't agree with, they will use the platform you helped them build to smear the University!

Why does this keep popping up? The Big Sky does not sponsor swimming and diving but the Summit definitely does.

They review/increase them every 4 years.

So average cost per student athlete somewhere around 1/4 of women's hockey? Not to mention football also brings in Champions Club donations, which aren't included in revenues, and has had more fans in one game than WIH get's in an entire season. Or that football will be increasing ticket prices slightly, which will bring another couple hundred thousand dollars.

With all the interest that has suddenly popped up, literally all it would take is some students to indicate on their surveys that they would like it.....

Agree normally but listened anyway. Thought it was well done and McFeely let him answer and agreed with him on most. Went into details a little bit more on a few things. Worth a few minutes.

I used UND box scores. Not sure why there would be a discrepancy. I don't think anyone is excited women's hockey was dropped because they don't like it, they are happy that the administration finally made a decision based on actual numbers, because if you look at them, it wasn't even close. I attended some games and it is unfortunate it won't be an option for people any more but UND has dug itself enough holes making decisions based on "feelings of others".

Not quite. Averages for the 3 years the twins were here: 2010/2011 - 1,259 2011/2012 - 1,406 2012/2013 - 1,216 Total average - 1,294 WBB's lowest average during and since then was 1,469 (during their transition) and has been consistently a couple hundred higher. MBB's lowest average during and since then was 1,625 and has been consistently a couple hundred higher. UND also charges for tickets for those games.

To add on to your equation, S&D was splitting around 18 scholarships between 54 participants, meaning that the equivalence of 36 fully paid tuitions that were coming from S&D that most likely wouldn't have been here. WIH was at 18 scholarships and 25 participants.

Yet way more people know that UND won the Big Sky in basketball than would know if UND won a women's hockey championship and it isn't even close. So you think it would have been fair to cut 2 or 3 other sports instead of women's hockey? That is what it would have taken (minimum) to reach the same number dollar amount. Why is women's hockey a sacred cow and allowed to lose over $2 million per year to support 25 student-athletes? The budget cuts had to come from somewhere and anyone who takes an objective look at the numbers understands this. The fact that they made the choice that effects the least amount of student athletes should be applauded. Losing S&D was a much bigger loss in terms of ROI and participation and their costs was somewhere between 1/5 and 1/6 that of women's hockey.

Minnesota has an athletic budget of $111 million, that $2 million is 1.8% of their budget. UND has an athletic budget of $24 million (4.5x smaller), that $2 million is over 8.3% of their budget. UND was required to cut $1.3 million of their athletic budget because they have a state subsidy of over 43% to supplement their athletic budget. UM takes a 6% subsidy on their athletic budget. These are not comparable situations.

Their total net cost in 2016 exceeded $2 million. They have to raise that per year.

How many more people will sign it than their total attendance for the entire year? Looks like the line is set at 15,353.5

Should have went even deeper into the numbers but at least they put the total savings of the three programs, it's a start.