jdub27

Well the news has definitely given some FargoU fans a sense of self-importance on message boards and Twitter, so I guess they have that going for them? The entertainment from teeth-gnashing, excuse making and revisionist history of them is an added bonus in this whole thing.

UND did ask in 2010 and the MVFC said they weren't taking two teams, which is why UND took the Big Sky offer to protect football. They had not commented one way or the other on only taking one team and ended up making some compromises with the eastern teams to do so. UND also stayed in touch and inquired more than once between then and mid-2016 and were told they weren't looking at expansion. I'll trust my sources that I can promise you are much closer to the situation than you are on this one.

No, it wouldn't have. The MVFC was on record that adding one in 2010 was palatable but two wasn't happening. That was the same stance they held both publicly and privately until just a few months ago. UND had inquired more than once and nothing changed until very recently. Also begs the question to what changed but I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

Plenty of dumb comments to go around as expected. UND joining the Summit further increases is stability, giving five solid core members (Dakota teams plus UNO) plus a sixth (Denver) who seems content because they are in a conference that has minimal required sports, allowing them to sponsor what they want, unlike the MVC who was going to require them to adjust what they sponsor. It also will shift the balance in the MVFC, giving the Summit a majority.

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Pretending otherwise is just as dumb as what you are mocking.

Schlossman indicated he didn't see baseball coming back and I would have to agree with him. Summit had its chance to stabilize its baseball situation when UND applied to be an affiliate member. Why the Summit turned them down at that point, I'll never understand. Ship has sailed.

Look at the formula. Quality of schedule has much more to do with your RPI rating than your own quality of play.

Like I said, there are different levels and the one's I'm referring to are beyond the that. But it isn't, for the most part, a budget issue, it is something completely separate, so I'll leave it at that.

Part of the college experience is still learning to be an adult right? Hiding from things you don't agree with in a safe space is not learning how to properly manage stress. That seems to becoming a bigger and bigger issue as people don't know how to actually work through issues, they just demonize everything they don't agree with because they weren't taught how to properly deal with differences. Granted there are multiple different "levels" of this and something to provide a short, relaxing distraction from finals week is much different than a true safe space on campus where you get to hide from different opinions than your own.

RPI is a better measure of how well you can schedule since your own win-loss counts for only around 25% of it. That being said, top to bottom, the Summit is deeper but both conferences are and will be one bid conferences for the foreseeable future. I'm neutral on the move overall. Both conferences have their advantages and disadvantages. However I've stated since UND joined the Big Sky that UND had never had to choose between the Big Sky and the Summit/MVFC because there had never been a MVFC option. With it being presented and state budget cuts, it was just a matter of time.

This was the missing piece and finally resolved:

What year to the WAC?

That's because more than just the athletic department is facing budget cuts from the state. We are talking about fixing the athletic budget, not what the University is doing to try to fix budget issues in other areas, a large portion which is from administrative bloat (which is a problem at Universities across the country). Would or would not dropping women's hockey be a huge step in right-sizing UND's athletic department and it's budget?

I see your Strength of Schedule is now just a few notches above Penn State's as well. Good job!

Things change. Burgum is proposing to add an additional 5% cut to the what was originally considered the "worst case scenario" of 15% cuts. While I understand what he was trying to do (make it a non-issue once it was decided), he shouldn't have painted himself into a corner like he did. Making the decision to refuse to look at it again which will only let the problem continuously hamper UND and the athletic department going forward is a far worse choice than him having to go back on his statement under the cover of additional cuts that make their "non-action plan" unsustainable.

No, the solution is to cut the women's sport that is over a $2 million drain on an athletics department that needs to do some serious budget re-alignment. It might not solve every problem, but it would sure get pretty close on the budget issue. I liked baseball (and golf), yet I didn't throw a fit when those were cut because it was part of something that needed to be done. Why should men's sports be the only one's on the chopping block, the women's side of athletics are already over-represented by Title IX measurements. In 2015, women's hockey had $21,377 in ticket sales and brought in total revenues of $29,239 and had total operating expenses of $1,492,827 despite being charged a total of $0 for facilties because the entire amount of over $2.2 million was categorized under the men's hockey team. UND spent almost $1.5 million for ~20 girls to play hockey. Before you deflect, I attend some women's hockey game, it can be a nice way to kill some time on a weekend afternoon, but for the amount of money it is costing UND, I'm having a hard time coming up with a reasonable justification that it should remain. Since you're so against cutting women's hockey, what is your grand plan to fix UND's athletic budget because the state money isn't coming back anytime soon.

He should have never said that this was going to be done once and never revisited. He painted himself in a corner and will rightfully get roasted for it. That being said, he has a second chance to do what should have been done the first time and fix the problem.

Has already verballed to Fresno State and had an offer from San Diego State, would be a huge get for UND. UND has been on him for a while, so that can't hurt. Rousemiller is just an absolute beast, would love to get a commitment from him.

He's got the physical skillset and talent to be one of UND's all time greats. However he still has a long ways to go on the mental side, playing within himself and the game and following the game plan instead of going rogue. The last few games have been very encouraging steps in the right direction on that front and the results are showing.

I'm actually surprised he has admitted UND has 8 National Championships since in his mind, they are literally a brand new team because they changed nicknames.

Lesson learned after that little Holy Cross incident?

I think the bigger difference would be the possibility of playing them twice in one year because you would guess that the conference would make sure that game is on the schedule every year. Maybe they make an exception in what would likely be the first year UND would possibly be playing a MVFC schedule. All hypotheticals at this point I guess.

It did have this passage: Everything from this summer seemed to indicate that the recommended 10% cuts would include the ~4% cuts from last year and then add in the extra 5% Dalrymple mentioned to get to 15% (which again, was being prepared for). But I suppose if you say "it isn't clear" and go with the bigger number, that has a much more dramatic effect, even if you really do know. Also, I'm not sure where they get the possible 5% tuition increase from however as Dalrymple's address clearly says 2.5%.

From a Forum article so it very well could be wrong. Looking back at a couple articles, I'm leaning towards your interpretation being correct, not the Forum's, which seemed fairly high when I read though it but my fault for assuming they were correct. The bigger issue I meant to point out with the quote is the additional 5% cuts recommended by Burgum, which are going to be a stretch because it seemed that 15% was more or less thought of as a worst case scenario. Here is the actual wording from Dalrymple's Budget Address (which again, doesn't include Burgum's additional 5% cut):

While I agree that would be the simple solution, I also think that NDSU would have a legitimate beef losing a cheap OOC game. Something would (is) likely being figured out with the discussions before UND would be formally invited to join. Due to cost, UND obviously wouldn't want to be seen as the ones "walking away" from the game. Without seeing the contract, it could be possible that there is some sort of clause in it that addressed the possibility of the two being in the same conference. Yes, was announced when the games were announced and there was rightful anger about it then as well. Another one of the crazy thing GT threw in while moving the goalposts again, thinking the offer wasn't going to be accepted. He (and most others) underestimated Bubba's determination to play the game again.