jdub27

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.

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.