jdub27

From all appearances? I can think of a handful of other explanations that are just as plausible but they won't make as many headlines. If it was as open and shut as you claim, the University wouldn't spend time looking into it. If what you said is actually what happened, then the students who did it deserve whatever punishment they get. If it was a joke between friends gone awry and turned into something it wasn't because of social media, then I would have a different stance on it.

If it performs as well as the old app used to, I'm happy they finally got it done (a year late but I digress).

Indeed. Reading some of the tweets were absolutely baffling. People calling for immediate justice without looking into it, because that doesn't have the possibility of making it worse... The mob mentality is why they actually had to clarify that no student athletes were involved. There were people Twitter-raging that UND hadn't done anything about it last night even though they didn't find out until 10:45pm. No clue if it was as blatantly bad as it may have seemed or if it was friends joking around but it plays terrible to the public and at least one, if not all three, of those students had an incredible lapse in judgement and will face some pretty harsh consequences.

No disagreements. Numbers always amuse me, same things can be used to tell multiple stories and prove opposite points. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. To the point, doubt anyone would disagree that they need to add a few more passes to the 1st down call sheet. Not the home run type, just the safe 4-8 yard variety. And preferably no cross field 10 yard outs!

To be fair, if you are going to take out one big running play, it would be fair to take out the outlier on the pass side, which was the first play of the game. Meaning that after the first play of the game, the 5 passes on first down netted 13 yards, which is a dismal 2.6 yard average (mainly due to 3 of remaining 5 being incomplete). I do think that they need to work in some more play action on first down especially with the tight end leaking to the middle of the field or just out into the flats because I'm pretty sure it will be open. To your point, no reason they shouldn't be well above 50% and the numbers will improve with that and conversely should help stop teams from selling out on the run.

I actually can name quite a few AD's of the Big Sky but I'm not sure exactly why that matters? Your examples are not only dated, but are also not D1 institutions. Kennedy has experience in higher ed and understands business and with budget issues, is something that UND probably needed. Even then, he was still knocked for his lack of experience in some areas. St. Peter has zero experience in college athletics and all the "fun" regulations and rules that go along with it. Could he learn? Sure, but I'm not so sure of his supporting staff while he'd be doing it. Regardless, it's a non-starter, he isn't leaving his current position, especially for a hefty pay cut. I don't disagree that he would be incredibly successful at parts of the job but would be completely out of his element on others. If it is about fundraising, St. Peter would be better suited for a role in the Champions Club or Alumni Association.

Considering you short (and "interesting") posting history, I'm not sure where to begin with how ridiculous most of this is. Faison has a 5 year contract, so that would have to be bought out or he would have to retire. Not ruling either out but I think he's safe for right now. Not exactly sure how he's overmatched in his present position as he isn't the one making the on the field or roster decisions, he actually probably deserves some credit that people are still showing up at Target Field despite the on the field product. Not only would he be taking a health pay cut, he also has zero background in college athletics and as much as I like him, he actually probably would be in over his head running an athletic department.

Direct quote from Faison: "My understanding from the president is that we want to be Division I and be competitive in Division I," Faison said. So it has been made clear that D2 is not an option by multiple people, including the president telling the AD that. Can we put that to bed now?

Paying $1.5 million to leave the conference wouldn't save much though.

This would be excellent to put on the video board before the opposing team kicks a field goal, very similar to what Minnesota has done with the Dramatic Chipmunk.

You have no problem beating Big Sky teams and then give examples of games you lost to back up your point?

Only because the Fargoloaf is made of cement...

I don't know the exact methodology used and maybe it isn't as specific as other schools (and I use that term very loosely), but I believe they are in compliance across the board whether it be officially or not, which is well beyond what they need to be. I'll point out that as previously stated, the third prong is not something that UND relies on nor do they plan on doing so because the methodology can be very flawed and almost impossible to defend, however I believe it to be more of a function of being in compliance with the other prongs than anything.

Your points are all valid and accurate in regards to scholarships but you also need to look at how much money is spent on programs, not just scholarships when factoring this in. This is why the public revelation that all the REA/Betty expenses are being allocated to the MH team is somewhat important as it makes it appear that men's sport have higher expenses than they should. Of course, then you get into Tiering, which is my guess to why women's hockey has the budget it does (offsetting the men's program being in the "top tier" of support). UND is currently in compliance with all 3 prongs of Title IX (hyper-compliance as some would say). These issues were most definitely addressed when looking at what sports would be cut, though one could likely argue that it was done with information that may not have told a completely accurate story.

I actually don't disagree at all. However with the way things are currently reported, I have a feeling more of those hard dollars would likely be taken from the men's side and unfairly so. If reported correctly (and equitably) that isn't necessarily the case. If they are going to make permanent cuts, they need to used data that isn't stacked to benefit one gender like it currently appears to be.

The planned agenda for last night's meeting was for the committee to get a detailed cost breakdown of the different athletic teams and go over them. The fact that the disparity in cost allocations of the REA was noticed and mentioned is actually a pretty interesting development. If they do a true allocation, instead of understating the cost of some sports by some significant dollars ($500K+), I would argue it actually was pretty productive. One of the big issues in UND staying Title IX compliant is having comparable money spent on men's and women's athletics. With how the REA/Betty costs are allocated, that the men's side is being "overcharged" by probably a $1 million+. That being said, there is something to where spending on individual sports ranks compared to other institutions. Meaning that the men's hockey team is in the upper tier of spending, so there needs to be some sort of comparison on the women's side, which I would guess at this point is women's hockey. The wording in the regulations is very vague and confusing (big surprise) but it is part of what needs to be looked at and adhered to when figuring this out.

Before anyone gets ahead of themselves on this, as stated in the article, this promotion was paid for by private donations.

You couldn't come up with any responses yourself so you literally had to copy and paste my post word for word over there to go get some new talking points. And you want people to take you serious and have a meaningful discussion? Wow. As for your copy and paste answer which is pointless to discuss with you since they aren't your thoughts, some valid points that I've previously conceded mixed with some opinions I don't agree with. I'll point out that the vice-chair of the SBoHE is a very well known supporter of NDSU. His silence in most of this should be deafening.

You're right, I'm not sure how I mixed that up. That does make sense on why that Murray State would be coming to Brookings though. The bracketbuster games were a good deal for the Dakota teams. I had asked a similar question a few years back on why the teams hadn't played and I don't recall if there was a good answer. I don't know if the previous staffs couldn't figure something out but I'm surprised that with Smith at USD, they haven't played yet.

SDSU gets a nice bump this year from the Sanford Pentagon putting up money to host a tournament in Brookings and Nagy agreeing to bring his new team to Brookings Murray State returning a bracketbuster game from a few years back. I don't know how frequently the Pentagon will host games for SDSU, but it is a nice deal for them, even if it is an hour away. I'm not so sure Nagy's team will be frequenting Brookings, but maybe they will be able to get a few 2-1 or 3-1's in the future. Either way, good connection to have. It is very likely UND will end up with 2 non-conference DI teams for a total of 11 D-1 home games, which would be exactly the same amount that NDSU has.

No, it is not my opinion why. They were clear, with examples, on why he didn't have his contract renewed: Communication breakdown, research needs improvement, lack of teamwork and lack of compliance with state technology law. Pretty laughable to claim the reasons "are only a big deal if you want them to be" when they caused him to not get his contract renewed yet. That seems like a pretty big deal to me, but of course I'm just spinning my own narrative. Can you point out where in the communication that exposes the supposed witch hunt? So far it was the chairwoman of the board using the term "improvement plan" instead of a different phrase, when previous interviews stated they were going to work with him on improving the above mentioned issues, which may not be officially an improvement plan, but sounds pretty close to one. And let's not forget that that reason that said press release had to come out was because of the NDSU media-rights debacle and DB's subsequent handling of it. Can you also point "who" it is that wants DB gone? First it was the UND controlled legislature, but we've already proven that doesn't exist. Then it was western legislators, but NDSU has ties to around 25% of the total legislature, yet they sit there silent while NDSU is being supposedly railroaded? Is it the SBoHE that has 4 of 8 members with NDSU ties? Because if that is the case, then maybe you should read between the lines to see that he isn't doing his job the way he should be. As for getting into a legal mess, that is a pretty big stretch since all they have to do is let him finish out the school year and he's done. If whoever "they" are want him gone, there is no legal requirement for his contract to be renewed, so it is pretty simple. They don't need to harass him to leave or get into any sort of legal issues.

It is not an opinion that DB has a history of making poor decisions and judgement calls. It is not an opinion that his boss and the SBoHE (half of which has NDSU ties) agrees with this and have not yet renewed his contract because of it. It is not an opinion that multiple NDSU presidents have a problematic history of working with the NDUS system and chancellor because they don't work well with others despite being part of the University System. What is an opinion, with no proven factual information, is that somehow all of this is "people out to get NDSU" despite NDSU having strong representation in the groups that are being accused of it.

So someone is forcing Bresciani to make poor decisions and use bad judgement? It is really hard to to buy all the conspiracy theory stuff when every time there is a supposed witch hunt against NDSU, something comes out of it. But I'm sure you'll ignore all the those things and instead put the blame for it on the people who call him out on it since that is standard operating procedure. Zero responsibility for issues that have become the norm coming from the NDSU president's office.

I believe it is in front of the benches.

She used the words "improvement plan" when she should have phrased it differently. There is zero arguing that there were issues that were laid out on the table to be addressed and that is what she was referring to. It was stated in June that "the board would like to see “some work done” between Bresciani and board members. This includes setting metrics for the university president in areas of communication, teamwork and collaboration, as well as furthering research efforts for NDSU and IT compliance with state law". She, under pressure from the media frenzy created by NDSU's brilliant media policies and subsequent stumbles explaining and retracting them, felt the need to release a statement immediately. Argue her poor wording all you want, but she was not incorrect in pointing out that what appeared to be happening was another example of something that had already been noted as a deficiency. Reading what was released, it appears that only two people had issues with any of the wording and one of them was the sole SBoHE rep with any ties to UND , but I suppose that probably doesn't go along with all the conspiracy theories that UND is pulling strings to knock down NDSU. However none of the above has anything to do with DB's prior actions (that led to his contract not being renewed yet) or his handling of the media debacle.