jdub27

You are closer than you probably thought. Midco is paying NDSU a guaranteed $37,500 total for 3 years to cover the games.

He could of very well just titled it "Stop me if you've heard this one: NDSU president plays by own rules and thinks they he is above the system"

Interesting take considering that the "naysayers" seemed to be right about Chapman, his goals and disregard for the cost to achieve them. Per Bresciani, they were on the brink of collapse when he took over. While the situations aren't the same, there are similarities.

They have a little under 2 years to get to the endowment number. The plan also calls for an endowment that will be required to sustain men's golf for FY 19 and beyond. The University and the UND Alumni Association & Foundation will establish the long-term funding dollar amount for the endowment, which will need to be fully capitalized by June 1, 2018 for men's golf to continue.

No but 2019 is.

UND only has to meet one prong, not all three. Opportunities and interests only matter if that is what you're claiming as your test (and I think we've figured out by now that you can get those survey results to say what you want...)

You could very well be right but I can't see any reason why Title IX will be the reason.

What part of Title IX would prevent WIH from being cut? There are places to reallocate scholarships any cut women's scholarships to and UND is more than compliant in multiple areas.

I don't disagree but on top of (to my knowledge) the Summit having never turning away a possible member, that sort of demand would actually require some sort of vision on their part. They had an easy fix for their baseball issue fall right into their lap when UND asked to be an affiliate member and took no action, not sure why anyone would think they would start making logical decisions now.

Related to this, any idea what the core sports of the Summit are? I'd be surprised if it isn't at least mentioned.

Here's a timeline/explanation of the budget deficit in the athletic department: UND had a projected deficit of $5 million due to the state capping tuition rates after UND had set their budget plus the first round of mandated budget cuts by Dalrymple. Athletics took a ~$2.4 million hit because of that in March/April when their fiscal year was almost over, meaning its pretty tough to impossible to do much at that point. They had some excess revenue that was able to cover a portion of it (~$1 million) but knew the budget cuts could be permanent and there still could be another round Golf and baseball were cut, saving around $720,000/year, but those savings won't be realized until next season Budget deficit ended up being $1.4 million. Simple math shows there would have been about $1 million in surplus funds without the budget cuts (though this is government/college athletics accounting so it would have never shown up that way, there would have likely just been few institutional funds used and the athletic department would have shown to be near break-even, just like it does every year) Athletic department has already made budget adjustments for 2016-17 of over $2,425,000 including decreasing some expenses and increased revenue. Doing the math, that covers the deficit and then puts them $1 million ahead of whatever the "breakeven" number was for 2015-16. That is before adding in FCOA for all sports outside of hockey (which were paid this year) at an additional cost of $600,000 or so. However there is a second round of budget cuts that will affect next year's budget so that "breakeven" number will likely be lower in 2016-2017 and going forward, which is why they are examining things again.

I tend to agree with you. What Kennedy said isn't exactly ground-breaking, it is something that has continued to be explored since UND moved to D-1, but I guess he just made it a little more public. I don't think what they will be looking at definitely are really new options, it is pretty clear there is only three real choices with varying viability: Big Sky in all sports, Summit/MVFC (not available at this time), Summit/Big Sky football affiliate (unknown). The answer continues to be obvious in the second one and third one is probably the only one that hasn't been explored in depth at this point and all hinges on the Big Sky's thoughts on UND being an affiliate. While I can't see the Summit turning down UND since they take everyone, UND isn't as attractive as they once were now that baseball has been dropped and doesn't help their shortage of baseball teams. I wonder if different decisions would have been made if Douple would have actually looked at UND's application to become an affiliate member for baseball instead of ignoring it.

I would guess that the quality of picture coming out of the two isn't the same either. The boards in the Betty have 6mm spacing, which is pretty tight and will make for a very high quality picture. That isn't necessary for roadside billboards.

Considering multiple posters have said multiple times that there have been informal discussions for years, not sure why that's interesting. There isn't much of a conversation though since the MVFC position has always been that they have zero intentions of having an 11 team conference.

I listened to what he said and there is nothing strange about it. The whole conversation was based on conference affiliation and he stated that UND is committed to having football at the level it is at and stating there is basically two conference options for the geography where UND is located, the Big Sky and MVFC. Basically stating that the Summit talk is a non-starter unless there would be a possibility of being a football affiliate to the Big Sky. There was zero comments about funding as it relates to football. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Can you provide a link to where this came from? I can promise you that dropping football is nowhere even close to being on the radar and am very interested what was actually said and in what context because it seems about as dumb as the UND dropping to D-2 stuff I have been hearing from FargoU fans.

Any athletes on the team that compare to former Seawolf Will Tye? Not every day you see a tight end returning punts. That guy was a dude.

Scheels has it. Looks good.

It's not wearing a headdress.

They have a bigger basketball budget for a handful of reasons, one of which is they have higher attendance. I wouldn't exactly say that are much more successful, they have basically had 1 or 2 more D-1 home games/year than UND has. It is an absolute truth that Fargo is both cheaper and easier to get to than Grand Forks. Not hugely, but still it is. Flights in and out of GFK typically cost more and flying into FAR and then bussing for an hour each way isn't the most appealing things to coaches (and since you brought it up, that bus ride is in the winter with what can be questionable weather). Definitely things that can be overcome, but it just adds another hurdle. I don't disagree, I'm just trying to think of ideas that might actually work instead of paying teams more money and creating a bigger deficit. Will it work? Probably not, but NDSU doesn't exactly have the easiest time getting teams up here either and if they see a positive benefit for themselves, it might be seen as an acceptable situation for 1 or 2 teams a year. Again, don't disagree. Just pointing out the highest profile team since Kansas came to the REA was in town and 2,300 people showed up. To that point, there is little incentive to spend the money to get all these extra home games when all it does is further create a hole in the budget, not that the coaching staff wouldn't love to play more games at home. If the team improves, causing attendance and cash flow to improve, you will likely see more D-1 home games because they will have the flexibility to get them. But again, it remains tough because teams flat out aren't excited to come here (or Fargo) because it the travel you pay for if it is a home/home is more expensive than a lot of other options or the guarantee you are getting doesn't make it much of a winning proposition.

I'll take this bet.

Viverito admitted that the nine-team MVFC only became interested in South Dakota after realizing the school could be added by itself to bring the conference to 10 teams. “As early as August, we had some serious conversations about expansion looking at a 12-team format,” Viverito said. “The thought was that North Dakota, South Dakota and Southern Utah would all be looking for homes.” But when it became clear that Southern Utah was more interested in the Big Sky, Viverito said the MVFC’s university presidents soured on the idea of expansion. (On Monday, Southern Utah and North Dakota announced they were joining in the Big Sky). “There was no support about abandoning an optimum nine-team league in favor of an 11-team model, which has challenges,” Viverito said. “The 10-team model, on the other hand, was one we were willing to consider.”

Explain what away? That they also have 3 non D-1 games on their schedule? That they previously paid to be part of a marketing-type group that helped mid-majors get some games scheduled (doesn't exist anymore so it isn't an option)? That it costs less to get a team into Fargo than it does Grand Forks? That they have a bigger basketball budget than UND does, not to mention higher attendance, making it easier to incentive teams? That they had to overpay to get a mediocre team to open their brand new arena because that was the best they could get and its still nowhere near the quality of a team they wanted? Teams don't want to travel to North Dakota because it is long travel for little money or they can get home/home games with closer schools so their end of travel is cheaper. UND signed a 3-1 to get UNI to come here and a whopping 2,300 fans showed up to see a team that had knocked off #1 UNC the week before and was receiving votes in the polls. How much money do you propose UND pays teams to come up here and then don't get enough fans to cover the bill? I think (if they haven't) UND should try to see if there is a way to partner with NDSU to get a team or two up here every year and have the visiting team play Thursday/Saturday games and split the costs some way. <---That's trying to come up with a solution to the problem instead of just complaining about it.

I don't think anyone, including every single person in the athletic department, disagree that it would be nice to have more D-1 schools here but you can't just snap your fingers and make it happen. As already stated, the SD schools aren't all that open at this time for home/homes so what exactly do you propose? UND had to give UNI a 3-1 to get them here and even then that was basically a favor from Coach Jacobson. Giving USD or SDSU anything other than a home/home would not be received well. As for comparing it to football, talk about comparing apples and oranges. You can't be serious trying to compare the two? That is absolutely ridiculous on about 10 different levels. Look at any D1 basketball schedule in the nation, including P5 schools. UNC plays something called Fuilford. Duke plays Virginia State and Augustana (SD). They all have non-D1 schools on there. At least one if not two of these games are usually exhibition(which of course aren't allowed in football), give a cheap home game and give coaches a chance to look at a lot of different things. The other ones are a cost/benefit on going on the road for a money away game (which may be a breakeven scenario at best) or giving your fans and players a home game, even if it is against a lower level opponent.

It would make for a couple more quality home games but they wouldn't replace those games as they are cheap home games and a good warm-up for the team. Even the P5 schools play non-D1 games. UofM played Crookston and SW Minnesota St last year.