jdub27

I'd be wary of anything that isn't the 1883 right now. That may change in time. Plenty of scummy "agents" out there taking 20%+ from players and/or making promises that can't/won't be fulfilled.

Not sure how it works at other schools....but for what it is worth, part of the NIL collective agreements at UND requires players to sign an NDA as to what they are receiving. Violating that voids the contract. Great in theory (and so far in practice, though admittedly new), but remains to be seen the long-term effects. On the football side, where there is obviously a disparity between some players it is not an issue nor is it even discussed. However numbers are likely fairly small compared to the large NCAA schools and numbers out there. Different space and competition than hockey but I who knows what the true numbers out there actually are on that side.

The NCAA is the member schools. And they have lost pretty much every fight in court to slow this down. But the P4 (or P2 even) don't want it. And everyone below them is afraid to rock the boat because at some point, they won't get the crumbs they currently get which sustain their program. Outside collectives will still be allowed. The ruling you're talking about, which still isn't finalized, would allow schools to pay up to $20 million annually in a profit sharing. Below the big-time schools, there really isn't a whole lot of extra revenue to share because anyone below that level is running their athletic department at a deficit. And that is before any Title IX implications and other issues that have already been raised start to come up.

Appreciate you saving us from the normal 4-6 lines this time around!

I'm aware but was just making a point that the AD answers directly to the President. Whether people like it or not, expectations go beyond wins and losses, though there is no argument that is a large part of the equation.

Continously complaining about it anonymously obviously isn't getting you anywhere. Maybe check with his boss on what expectations are and are not being met?

Some are contemplating coming back. Others that have changed their mind have been told their spots are gone. Going to be a handful that probably should have taken a longer to think the decision through.

https://fightinghawks.com/news/2025/3/21/football-nine-fighting-hawks-to-partake-in-unds-pro-day.aspx 9 participants

Agree with it but you still need some guys you are developing because we continue to see that success at the D2 or JuCo level or lack of success at the P4/high mid-major level doesn't translate to being successful where we are. Instead of a crapshoot on 2-4 young guys a year, you're now guessing on 6-8 transfers a year and hoping what you see translates. Mistakes are amplified if you miss an 1-2 guys you expect to have immediate impacts because you're plugging your starting line-up with 2-4 brand new guys a year and hoping the hit and can play together. I don't know what the answer is other than sometimes it will work and other times it won't.

Probably a fair observation, particularly in a few cases. Expectations should be based on support for programs and the coach's ability to sell what they are doing is heading in the right direction. Some extensions could definitely be shorter. Some should probably include a significantly smaller buyout option as a trade-off (looking directly at the football one for that). Starting to think the need to extend coaches earlier because "we don't want to lose players" is falling by the wayside. With the portal, your roster is in constant flux anyway. Not an excuse to extend coaches early anymore. All student-athletes are basically one-year free agents at this point. I'm guessing the giant budget cuts that came through about 8-10 years ago didn't help anything and then take that into Covid where (right or wrong) coaches got more of a leash than they probably deserved. The timing on these contracts coming up isn't a coincidence with some decisions made in 2020 and 2021. A new president who sees the value in athletics is pushing things in the right direction. Armacost is an amazing asset for UND and he understands what athletics can do for the University. If he's OK with the plans being laid out, I'm going to trust his judgment. If he is unhappy, he'll make the necessary change. Don't believe there is any merit to the Title IX investigation other than some people being upset about softball getting a new facility but that's just my take from reading through the complaint and talking to people who are closer to the situation. Similar to the WIH complaint that went absolutely nowhere. If there is merit to it and there are adverse findings, I would change my opinion on it. But filing a complaint doesn't mean there is anything actually to it. Haven't seen any updates on it, so has it even gone anywhere?

Funny that UND was able to at least win one game at the Summit League Championship this year (aka South Dakota State Invitational).

3 of the 4 coaches who left or were let go were hired by the previous AD and I don't think anyone would say expectations were being met with any of them relative to what is being invested into each program. With the recent ramp up in investments/support/facilities over the last 2-3 years, expectations have increased. It is what is is and I assume that is what people want.

Talking strictly as it relates to getting additional funds to student athletes. Easy way to get all those highly rated blue chippers everyone wants. UND is funding FCOA and Alston. They currently can't pay out NIL money (and even if they opt into the settlement, exactly what "profits" would they be sharing). Unfortunately just buying tickets and the donations that are required doesn't cover it anymore. And you're right, donor fatigue is definitely a real thing and part of the issue. Everyone competing for everyone else's dollars. Some of the things going on and dollars being thrown around are beyond anything that makes sense.

Go ahead and tell Armacost he's wasting significant dollars that are helping bridge a gap the fans haven't stepped up to fill yet... And I appreciate you completely avoiding the questions and instead go immediately to personal attacks. Tells me all I need to know.

Just curious what your experience in hiring is? Especially high level positions? And when you're just guessing on small portions of the information on what's going on inside the walls? The pretended expertise in this thread is hilarious.

Regardless of who is picked, this is far from a true statement.

Wash, rinse, repeat. This is the new normal. New roster every 1-2 seasons more or less.

I assume the "what would you do different" is a fairly important piece of the puzzle and he'd really have to sell that. If the answer was nothing, why wouldn't they just keep BB one more year?

Only "finalists" are named after they changed the rule a while back (partially due to the circus that happened when Schweigert was named head football coach). I actually agree with most of this. Recent results have been nowhere near what investments and expectations are. Had 2020 been able to play out, probably a different conversation, but it didn't for reasons outside of anyone's controls. A few devastating losses (5OT game comes to mind) and just missing out on the tournament a few others, but doesn't change that they were in that position to begin with. Still thought he'd have be given his final year to "prove it" for a handful of reasons but also understand that results still are what they are.

The same one's who wanted Hak fired a decade ago and got what they wanted with Berry being let go? Some similarities to Nebraska football and Bo Pelini. Hopefully this works out better than that has.

Could see Z or Siedel in the mix but its tough to argue with the first two. Deng Deng would be fun to see with one of those. Don't think anyone on the OL would be eligible but there would be some candidates there if they were.

Not at all what I said. It has a lot to do with it. But if you're going to hinge the decision on one or two kids, you're fighting a losing battle. A mass exodus is completely different than "losing anyone of significance". If you're going to fault a kid for chasing a bag he can't get here, probably time to look around the stands and in the mirror to figure out why the 1883 collective doesn't have more funds for hockey. While there has been some results below anyone's expectations the last 9 years (weird how you conveniently omit the first year in your "analysis") it is pretty amazing he managed to win the NCHC 4 of the last 6 years and coach of the year 3x during that time frame with his "lack of coaching". This isn't even a "defend Brad Berry" post. This is pointing out the levels that some people feel the need to go to, rewriting history and ignoring plenty of the positives that have occurred in the last decade. There's plenty of legitimate things to take issue while still acknowledging that good things have happened as well.

Entire time coaching or just recent results? If you are going to hinge a coach's employability on the decision making of one or two college age kids, then it is going to be tough to actually take opinions offered seriously.

They have navigated this with some foreign players in other sports. So it is definitely possible to do, just takes a little more legwork.

Didn't know there was a new version. I really like the previous generations of those. I would assume it still has the same streaming capabilities even if you can't download apps? Don't know how long it takes to generate an app for each of those devices?