jdub27

Post on Montana State's message board seems to indicate that John Walker, cornerback grad transfer student out of U of Colorado, wasn't able to transfer into their grad program and appears to be headed to UND instead. His twitter would seem to verify that is the case.

As already stated, they do the final tailgate event indoors. It has been that way for at least 4-5 years, if not longer. When renewing my tailgating spots, I talked with them about these exact things. They are aware and continue to try to figure out ways to fix it and make tailgating improve overall. I volunteered my suggestions and they weren't things that hadn't been thought of. The main thing is for the team to continue to its forward progression to get more people out there. As for loosening the rules, I'm not sure what they could do different. We've had zero issues with anything we've done and the rules are quite lenient. Incentives are interesting but I'm not sure what you would be able to do outside of some sort of "attendance" type thing for being there by a certain time and actually using your spots to tailgate instead of park.

Probably steal those from Texas as well?

June, 2007

The med school is a different scenario than what is being discussed with deferred maintenance and facilities not being cared for (something both UND and NDSU are guilty of). The med school was replaced because it continued to become more and more inadequate to try to use a hospital built in 1952 as a med school building, not because it was a deteriorating facility.

They are adding additional computers. They already have the movie stuff and it really doesn't take up much room. Books aren't going away, but the trend is away from them. The amount of physical books you need on hand is decreasing (and this is from someone who prefers an actual book over reading electronically). With technology and inter-library loans, you also shouldn't need to have all books available on hand. People may have to wait a few days to get their books, but that is nothing new.

I don't think anyone disputes the issues with the current library, particularly the ADA issues. Something clearly needs to be done to address that. My overall opinion on the matter comes from people I've talked to about what is proposed and those in favor have done what I feel is a poor job selling on their vision, mainly because they can't decide exactly what they want and more specifically where. I have no issues with the thought of "If you are going to build it, build it right" but that doesn't mean it needs to be extravagant or over the top, especially considering it is being funded by taxpayers. Here's the breakdown of what is being proposed: Entry & Marketplace - 3,300 SF Customer Service - 800 SF Meeting Rooms / Collaboration Labs - 4,300 SF Adult’s Library - 14,000 SF Teen’s Library - 2,100 SF Children’s Library - 5,900 SF Administration & Staff - 3,300 SF Mech/Elec Utility - 10,800 SF All of that adds up to 44,500 SF, leaving another 13,500 for bathrooms and I'm not sure what else. Here is a rough breakdown of what the current library has: Public Service Area -18,928 SF Children's Area - 1,400 SF Library Office Space - 676 SF Meeting Room & Story Room - 1,275 SF Grand Forks Room - 150 SF Board Room - 676 SF Mail order & interlibrary loan area - 1,416 SF Electronic Library - 1,772 SF Cataloging, processing, & overdues - 312 SF Those total 26,605, leaving an additional 10,810 square feet not listed

But you yourself stated that the library's mission has changed so how can you use the comparison of population as reasoning for an increase when we aren't talking about providing the same services the original library was intended? Also, the use of County numbers isn't all that inaccurate considering that is the "market" the library serves.

I've never stated the library isn't used, I don't think that has really been an argument that has come up any time in the last few years. And I'd agree that the people using it aren't necessarily using it for traditional library uses, but if the new library is focused on online and electronic resources, as you stated and I agree with, there should be less room required for physical books. So why the need for over 50% more space? I also agree on the parking issue, which is why the downtown option doesn't make much sense. The proposes solution has been some underground parking but I can't imagine that would be real cheap, especially with the proximity to the Red River. Just for comparison, Fargo's library that was built in 2009 was just under 53,000 square feet.

The REA paid the majority if not all of the cost to have them installed. Advertising dollars would be split between the REA and UND per their pre-existing agreement.

While I agree with you, it becomes confusing why they are proposing a 58,000 square feet facility, which is over 50% bigger than the currently one.

"Made" as in that was their revenue from the postseason, not their net profit.

Goes back to my comment that they have mismanaged it from the start. The first time it when to a vote, they wanted $21 million with no real plan to speak of. They've done their best to fix that since then, but they continue to be very guarded in a lot of details and costs, not to mention they still can't agree on a site.

Cratter is correct, there would need to be a referendum to fund it. The newest idea is to put both the referendum and location to a vote. The first question is a Yes/No on whether it should be built. The second question is whether it should be at midtown (in front of the Grand Cities Mall) or downtown, with the caveat being that you only get to vote on the second question if you voted Yes on the first one. I see there being some issues in shutting those against the library out on the location decision if it did get the needed support. My observation is that I'm not sure the library and library board could have mismanaged this thing whole thing more from the start if they tried. It has been one constant misstep after another and they've ruined any goodwill and/or trust they have built up to the point that even though there is probably a need for a new structure, no one really trusts their recommendations.

It seems that FargoU fans are the ones spending their time trying to make them important.

Are half of BV's posts still just a group of guys who monitor this board and then copy and paste things over there? Also thought it was funny they their smack board to the public because of some of the gems that were posted in there.

It's fine in the Twin Cities as long as UND makes it. Otherwise it will be the pretty similar to what the WCHA and B1G tournaments looked like.

You mean you can't take him at his word?? May 1: Since then May 9: Bradford's Philadelphia happy face is good news for former Bison quarterback Wentz May 12: Former Bison star Hansen can attest the feeling of the big NFL pay day as Wentz signs May 13: Scheels upgrades Wentz's Bison jersey, prominently displays his No. 11 Eagles jersey May 17: A Wentz in Goff's hometown wonders if she's related to former NDSU star

I would guess around $400k if not a bit more. Last available net numbers are from 2013 and that was about $378K. Both their total gross handle (before prizes/taxes/expenses) and the gross proceeds (before expenses) up about 10% from the 2013 numbers, safe assumption that the net would be up a little bit from that as well. So around 10-11% of the Team makers total contribution to NDSU.

That is correct, I should have specified that 16 relates specifically to forward looking opportunities and keeping that dream alive. Dropping below 16 absolutely kills that.

As for Wayne's last comment: Since the transition and up to right now, the Big Sky is literally the only conference option that provides what UND requires. There has been no other acceptable options offered up without leaving football to hang out to dry making those choices a non-starter. Until that changes, his last question is an absolute moot point.

Typical Caillou, touching on a couple things that would actually provide some insight but failing to go into them because it might be uncomfortable for him or NDSU and he doesn't want to lose his privileges again. States that an increase outside funding will be necessary as they expect state funding to stay flat (but not decrease?). Then mentions that part of that plan was the doubling of student fees that was rejected but doesn't have any quotes or answers on how they will go forward bridging that $1.5 million gap. All that plus some more fluff to basically take a shot at UND stating that NDSU won't be dropping any sports like they did. Of course he fails to mention the actual reason that NDSU won't be dropping any sports: they can't. They are at the D-1 minimum, which is a pretty important factor in why it isn't on the table and won't be done regardless of budget situation. I will say it is impressive that their football success has basically allowed Teammakers to cover almost all scholarships NDSU offers. They don't have their AUP report publicly available so it is tough to see if their sports are fully funded on scholarships. Safe bet they are on the women's side, guessing they aren't quite on the men's side.

Typical Caillou, touching on a couple things that would actually provide some insight but failing to go into them because it might be uncomfortable for him or NDSU and he doesn't want to lose his privileges again. States that an increase outside funding will be necessary as they expect state funding to stay flat (but not decrease?). Then mentions that part of that plan was the doubling of student fees that was rejected but doesn't have any quotes or answers on how they will go forward bridging that $1.5 million gap. Also takes a shot at UND stating how NDSU won't be dropping any sports and then fails to mention that NDSU is in a position where they are unable to a sport because they are at the bare minimum for D-1 requirements, which is a pretty important reason that you wouldn't want to drop a sport regardless of budget situation. Impressive that their football success has basically allowed Teammakers to cover almost all scholarships NDSU offers. They don't have their AUP report publicly available so it is tough to see if their sports are maxed out on scholarships. Safe bet they are on the women's side, guessing they aren't quite on the men's side.

Even as someone who is a fan of the Big Sky and not particularly fond of the Summit/MVFC leadership, I have no problem stating that this has a better chance of happening than UND moving up to FBS and/or joining the WAC and it probably isn't all that close. The only thing that would change that would be a seismic shift by the P5 causing mass chaos among conferences. If that happens, all bets are off, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see the 4 Dakota schools reunited somewhere under those circumstances. However, the P5 currently seem to be fine with having their cake and eating it too.

Having spent a little time helping a former professor with on of his entrepreneur classes, from what I saw, it is actually a more a well-rounded business degree than a specific business degree. My perception was that it goes a little more in-depth on all aspects of business (finance, marketing, management, etc) than one of those specific degrees would. I don't know what the specific "Entrepreneur" classes teach, but my feeling was that the people that came through it had a good understanding of all portions of running a business instead of what amounts to a specific "department" within that business. Music Therapy was cut for a handful of reasons, one of them being the staff turnover continued to cause a ton of issues and the demand for the major wasn't very big. That being said, there are some other programs I would have personally much rather seen cut but I don't know the difference in financial impact those would have made compared to what was done.