jdub27

If Minnesota is focusing their revenue share NIL on basketball (and football) and whatever offsetting women's sports, not going to be a whole lot left for hockey. So that's a positive for UND.

I'm well aware of it and its been mentioned multiple times in here, clearing stating that the entire project was not covered by a single donor. What I don't know is the final breakdown. The loan was approved for up to $2 million. However I never saw the final numbers, if they took the whole amount or if they had raised additional funds outside the lead donor. I am also not positive the entire $2.5MM quoted was just from the lead donor as I had heard it was a lower amount and there were others interested in pledging funds, but it is very possible they upped their donation and were the only sizable private donation.

Do you have a breakdown on the actual figures between what was donated (lead donor and other donors), the final amount of the loan from the city and the total cost?

The good news is, whoever it is will get some competitive NIL money to work with instead of being in the bottom of the B1G barrel.

Seems like a pretty straight-forward synopsis. And I agree, I don't think UND has ever patted themselves on the back for the project, giving all the credit to the donors as they do in pretty much every situation I can think of, but there has been a plan for a new softball field in the master plan for years. A donor approached UND and asked what it would take to move that timeline up. The answer was money and they convinced the donor to become the lead donor (and while it was a significant amount, it was nowhere near almost "the whole thing"). A donor provided an opportunity. The Alumni Association and Athletic Department did what they needed to do to make it a reality given the constraints that came with the donation (still needing to find funding for around half of the project and accelerate the timeline to get it done). Plenty of kudos for everyone, including the City who helped bridge the gap with a loan to finalize the funding.

Are you sure about that? No doubt they gave a generous gift, but what was their input and what was the total cost? Not sure why there is insistence on underplaying coming up with sources for a huge chunk of funding and also getting a project done on an accelerated timeline? Not to mention sell the vision and convince someone to become the lead donor. Again, there is room for giving credit to more than just one person/group. Not sure the need to try to spin everything into a negative.

It was an incredible gift and spurred the change to move forward. I also believe there was significant funds that still needed to be raised (well over half, depending on what you include in the cost) and UND had to do a hell of a lot behind the scenes to get the remainder of the money to get it done to meet the donors deadline, including bringing the city in on it. It is OK to give credit to multiple people/groups for getting something done. This wasn't a REA deal where everything was covered. EDIT: Now seeing conflicting info on what was from the lead donor and what the total cost was. Regardless, generous gift, great job by UND to capitalize on it and get it complete.

I don't think there was any argument that facilities were well below where they should be. Pretty sure financial support was more than adequate though. However the lead gift for the new facility, while incredibly generous, still left a lot of work to do for the athletic department/alumni association to get done. And to raise the the remainder of funds to get it done in the timeframe necessary to keep the lead gift and actually pulling off the construction goes well beyond the scope of the coach.

Seems to me that there was a guy who did that for over a decade and plenty of people were trying to run him out of town and were very pleased when he left...

Does he requirements of living within a certain radius that Fargo falls into but Grand Forks is just outside of? Heard rumblings that has cost us at least one player that went there.

He turned it down last year for one more run and still might come out of it with more money given some potential suitors being tossed around. Bummer for UND but for good for Treysen. Unfortunate reality of low major basketball.

Asking where a very specific claim was stated is all those things? We're fine with making up stances and quotes of others with no basis in reality? You're above that nonsense. If the claim was actually accurate, the pressure put on to make a change with football wouldn't have made a difference. Enough people did what they felt they needed to in order to make the work and budget challenges worth the squeeze.

More strawman arguments? Or is that quote somewhere next to the other alleged similar quotes? Regardless of who hired him, the current president has currently endorsed him and gave him an extension after working with him for multiple years.

Interesting take. Don't agree based on money and resources but I'm willing to hear more.

That's tends to happen when the President of the University publicly decries athletics, halts fundraising and shows zero support for the student athletes. Its gotten even worse over the last few years.

Was a helluva guy and one of a kind. Had just moved back to Fargo and was excited to get season tickets and attend more UND events in person instead of from afar. Will be missed by many.

Home/away alternating weekends the whole season.

Some pieces are there. Depth and putting it together consistently together continue to be a work in process.

All 4 wanted in at various points in time....

This is kind of why I think coaches actually coaching into the last year of their contract might become something we so more of. By no means will it be the norm, but possibly something we see more of. The trick will be that if you make a move at the end of the season, it will need to be done quickly. Even if you make a move during their contract, the portal window opens up for players even if it is closed for the rest of the teams.

The school board isn't drawing the lines, consultants are. And they are doing a terrible job.

That's why it should be a 5-10 year plan. There's going to be more people in support of that, over time, than the absurd boundary redrawings they keep releasing.

There isn't a good way to do it and it's a lot more complicated than wishing it to be so. The real solution is to come up withh a plan for south end high school in the next 5-10 years.

No dog in the fight but it didn't look like the defenseman ever touched the crease and the goalie went into him to try to clear him. But maybe there was a different view? Didn't hear why they didn't call the too many skaters penalty though.