jdub27

If anyone is confused this round of cuts are being handled the way they are, with the input from the IAC and presentations, this article from April gives you your answer. It also says quite a bit about how some of the faculty views athletics. There was no way the administration was going to do it the same way Schafer did it, especially with Kennedy wanting to get off on the right foot with the faculty, many of who already have doubts about him due to not being "academia". That being said, you'd think a group who wanted to be part of the decision making process would at least have a clue on the subject matter, which did not appear to be the case at all.

Considering it gives out ~60 scholarships and has far and away the most participants, of course it is going to have high expenses, that is just simple math. It also actually brings in some revenue unlike the majority of other sports (both on ticket sales and donations). Its tough to say exactly where it falls because some sports aren't being charged the proper expenses.

WS&D offers a max of 14 scholarships. I'm not sure how close "close enough is" (MIH is 18) and the only real way to find out is when you get named in a lawsuit. I also don't know how or if the "facilities" portion would play in to anything but the Hyslop would need some updates if they wanted to do more than just pay lip service to it. I know the facilities themselves have had a few things done but I would guess the locker room/student athlete areas are not where they need to be.

I don't think its really a one or the other answer, but yes, percentiles play a part. I mean there around 50 schools who spend $20 million on football so there is no way that you can even come close to balancing that out on the women's side but if you can show you fund some or all women's sports at the top when compared to peers, than that is where the "tiering" defense or explanation comes in. Facilities play some part as well but there is so much gray area and everything so subjective, that some schools take it too far trying to be in compliance, which is where I believe UND is currently at. And yes, fully agree on your last part. Don't mistake my explanations for defending the decisions being made at UND. I'm just trying to help with some of the explanation because as others have noted, UND isn't doing itself any favors in the transparency department on the reason for some decisions being made. I know that it isn't black and white and there is a lot of subjectivity and I am positive that people may not agree with them or why they were made but at least presenting some of the reasoning would be more helpful than giving no explanations.

Both of them would require around $2 million.

Because this made me laugh, I looked it up. Due to small number of teams, UND would have to be pretty much at the top and would cost roughly $300-400K to get there. Red Ray could definitely provide some home lane advantage. Side note - Vanderbilt spent $700K on women's bowling in 2014!!

I don't believe there is any sort of distinction with FCS and FBS, it is all D1 so they manage to not run into any issues. Also, I don't think UND has any desire to use them as a barometer for compliance. This is my interpretation as well. I think the bigger issue is that UND is low to mid in funding in all of its sports except men's hockey. Because it is an outlier and so high on the men's side, there needs to be proportional offset on the women's side. They have chose to use women's hockey as that offset. They don't have to. Without looking, I would feel pretty comfortable saying that all of their sports are supported in the top 10-15% of D1. Again, UND has one huge outlier in MIH that falls way out of the norm compared to the rest of its sports. Because of the huge difference, there needs to be an offset. Zero disagreements with either of these comments. I'm not sure why it isn't being explained better but really seems to make things worse. Again, the tiering thing is by no means the only thing that is being considered but from what I've been told, it plays a part and is likely the reason women's hockey wasn't even listed as being considered. Don't agree with it and still think their budget can be trimmed with no issues. Tennis would be around $700K more (note that the current budget is around $200K). S&D would be around $850K more.

UND -3.5 (though it is at -120, which is the typical vig for FCS games)

How many of those schools support their men's hockey program at the very top? My guess is not many and it doesn't take a lot to fall to the middle level of support once you factor in the B1G schools and a handful of the NCHC and Hockey East schools. Once you are in the middle, my guess is it is just one big gray area. When you are in the top 10%, it is a lot harder to blend in.

I thought something similar until I started looking into the numbers. Volleyball is the first one I thought of. Back of the napkin example (and again there are a lot more factors than this): Men's hockey is likely in the top 10% of funding, if not higher. That would mean VB would need to be top 30 in spending in D-1. That would require UND to spend around $1.6 million+ on volleyball, which means UND would need to add almost $1 million to its volleyball budget. The only issue is that Volleyball is 12 scholarships and MIH is 18, so you still need to find another (smaller) sport to fund at a higher level to get the proportionality down. If you wanted to do basketball, the WBB budget would likely need to be around $3.8 million, which is an increase of over $2.5 million (and you still might be short a couple scholarships, but maybe close enough at 18 and 15). This makes it clear that it is definitely possible to eliminate women's hockey, but it probably doesn't save the amount of money that everyone (myself included) thinks/hopes it would in the grand scheme of things. And again, this is all separate from the fact that WIH needs to a)have a budget accurately reflects what they are getting and b)looking at taking a little bit of haircut once the accurate numbers are figured.

Women's hockey is protected because they offset the funding of the men's hockey team. The level the men's hockey team is funded to ranks very high related to other schools that offer it. Because of the "tiering" portion of Title IX, there needs to be a women's sport that is funded at a similar level related to other institutions (see below). As bad as it is, women's hockey participation/scholarship number is very close to the men's team so the offset is just one sport instead of multiple and is unfortunately probably the least worst option. When you start looking at the funding that would be required to put other women's sports in the top tier to offset hockey, the dollar amounts become staggering when looking at what some of the P5 schools spend on women's programs. In women's hockey, there isn't a ton of huge schools that are dumping money in and it is easier for UND to be towards the top tier. That being said, not allocating any expenses of the REA to women's hockey severely understates the funding they receive and is a complete joke. That needs to be fixed and then the budget for the program re-evaluated to see if there are room for some cost cutting because there is zero doubt in my mind that the WIH budget is too high.

That is at least a fair assumption instead of just saying UND would probably be on the road. Last year, WIU either didn't bid or got outbid by non-scholarship Dayton, to play in front of 997 fans (not a typo). Hard to say about SDSU. They've been outbid by Montana, Montana State and NAU the last three years for first round games. They did host EIU in 2012, but I'm not sure that says much.

Based on what?

Assuming those losses are quality of course... Because 7-4 with an FBS win and a win over a seeded team on the road would seem better than 6-5, but I guess that's just one person's opinion. And that's not even getting into other 7-4 teams resume... Hope the team wins out and is not a concern. The narrative about UND's schedule is already being thrown around.

Disagree on your first point, there have been way more empty seats than that at multiple games this year already if not every one (not sure about the homecoming one). Fully agree on your second point, hoping it comes to fruition.

I get your point but when talking about attendance, completely different. Season ticket holder numbers are counted whether the people show up or not. At this point, UND is counting on single game tickets to drive attendance, which need to be sold to be counted. That being said, they pass 10,000 with no problem. Homecoming and the team is on a roll. Weather should be a little chilly right away but decent within a few hours of kickoff.

I enjoy Coach Stevens quite a bit but anything less than 8-0 would have been disappointing considering the opponents were Crookston, Mayville, Minot State, Valley City, Jamestown and Mary. Hopefully it gives the team some confidence heading into the winter and carries over against D-1 competition in the spring.

This is the kind of QB running that we've been waiting for. Keaton had the ability but they hadn't shown it. It's absolutely killing Sacramento.

And UND would face immediate sanctions if they used any of it, so there is that. Releasing throwback merchandise to general public to keep trademarks active is nowhere in the same neighborhood as the athletic department issuing only gear with the current name and logo.

What else would it have on it? It seems pretty logical that all be apparel would have the new logo and use the new wordmarks. The interlocking ND is being retired, the Sioux logo is long gone. You don't release a complete new full brand package and then continue to use old ones. And equally not surprised there are people who don't like change. It is what it is.

How? Was cheering for the Sioux disrespectful to the Flickertail nickname? Was wearing the geometric logo disrespectful to the Blackhawks logo? Was the Brien logo disrespectful to the geometric? Is it Sioux or Fighting Sioux it's disrespectful to since it has been both? Just curious where your arbitrary line in the sand is drawn this time because only you would think that one can't respect and remember the past without being stuck there.

Austin Dussold would like a word with you.

I counter with "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I have no issue guaranteeing that with what is on the table right now, the Summit has at least a 1,000x better chance of happening than any sort of WAC conference. UND has openly stated that it has had conversations with the Summit. There is absolutely zero tying UND to any sort of WAC conference and the only thing that exists out there is Idaho's last ditch efforts to remain FBS and no one having any desire to join them.

UND can cut S&D and softball regardless of whether they are in the Summit or Big Sky and still meet all eligibility requirements. A fourth team, such as men's tennis, can easily be cut with very little issues if UND moved to the Summit since the Big Sky doesn't require it. Women's soccer could be cut if they stay in the Big Sky, though those participation numbers will likely keep it around. Pretty easy process of elimination to see what is on the chopping block and can be done before any conference affiliation is finalized.