jdub27

Given the support and compliments from teammates, including those at the same position as him, looks like a situation where he's headed somewhere else to get more playing time. Best of luck to him.

I really think you need to rank 1-24 so that the 1st round matchups more clear as well and not regionalized. It wouldn't cause all that much more uproar than seeding 1-16. And why should the 16 seed get to play the worst team in the field just because they are a bus ride away and team #9 have to play a team that just missed being ranked for the same reason?

You're right, they have some rudimentary estimates on the sheet showing Projected Gross Receipts and Projected Budgeted Expenses. However, that still doesn't change that they have always went with the higher minimum guarantee since they know they will get that. Maybe someday they would deviate from that in the event that some school low-balled their bid and had a higher possible revenue projection? But that would be as egregious as leaving $87,000 on the table for a bid that was 1/3 of the opposing bid. Not you, but I've seen multiple NDSU fans claim "you shouldn't be able to buy home games". That kind of decision-making would be taking it even a step further.

Fully aware. However, that's why teams typically leave no doubt when they put their bid in. And again, there is no historical examples of them actually doing the math themselves. They have always taken the highest guaranteed bid. Again, I don't disagree, but that's also why teams don't (or shouldn't) shortchange their bid. I don't remember the exact formula, but I don't think the upside of low-balling your own bid is all that great, particularly since, you know, they had only gone by bids in the past. This we agree on. It's very obvious what happened. A deal was made to have a 4th east coast team seeded, so that it was even 4/4 instead of 5/3 in favor of the western conferences. The trade-off was that they would ignore the sacrosanct precedent of "high bid wins" if needed for the team who got the short of that stick (Weber). Between the chair of the committee basically admitting that and that they do take possible revenue into account when deciding the field, they managed to make an absolutely mockery of the process. And again, I don't think you'll find many people who say Weber didn't host to bid if the criteria was who had a better resume, but the fact of the matter is that it never has been and was ignored for the Montana game (who conveniently likely had to host as I'm not even sure SEMO put in a bid due to some facilities renovations). You can't change the rules mid-game. And now you've opened up the can of worms where no one actually knows what criteria the committee will use to select home teams. How much of a difference is too much to overlook between differing bids and resumes? Why bother putting in a strong bid if you feel like you're going to be one of the last teams in and just have it ignored anyway?

Your forgetting the $150-200,000 (estimating) in revenue that didn't come in that was going to fund the majority of that bid.

Wouldn't be shocked if Montana's was quite a bit higher than UND's, possibly even double. Attendance was 13,390. Tickets were $35 each (student tickets were only $5). Assume they sold 12,500 at $35, that's $437,500. Take out $150,000 for expenses (guessing at this point) and they could bid just under $300,000 with no sweat. They have the ability to put out a big number and make sure they are hosting. Obviously that continues to carry weight with the committee....

Based on what info? Not saying it is imminent, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a change or two on the assistant front. Also, while they aren't going to go away from the 3-4, that doesn't mean it won't schematically have some adjustments to it.

Literally the most positive thing you've ever said about them. There are plenty of other comments where you've described them as anything but average.

LB's had plenty of changes to make tackles the last few weeks. Missing the starters and having dinged up guys forced to play more snaps than they should wasn't good. Need to keep building depth.

Yet Bubba and his staff will a roster riddled with D2 players and terrible scheme to the playoffs? I mean, not everything is duckies and bunnies, but you can't rail on absolutely everything being broken (athletic department, coaching staff, players, scheme, etc). Somehow they are getting "OK" results. That doesn't happen when nothing is good and everything is bad.

What position would you look to give a guy who's been a grad assistant for 2 years and spent the rest of his career as an LB coach? Are we talking DC or HC? How do you think Stig changed from an average coach for a few decades to whatever you'd consider him now? Do you really think Entz is a great head coach? Or was he born on 3rd base with the program he took over?

In what role? About day to day operations? Absolutely not. Input on staff hires? Minimal at best, short of clearing them. Keep your hands clean, otherwise you make it an issue when there are issues.

They literally did this exact thing last year with SIU/USD going into NDSU. I do appreciate trying to figure out what they did and who knows what they were actually thinking (and not thinking). I don't think anyone is necessarily upset with the match-up against Weber (though an easier draw would obviously be preferable), that is just the nature of fewer western teams and regionalization being mandated. I think the majority of the venom is that they openly went against the standard that has been applied since forever (highest bid hosts, full stop). And then tried to justify while also handing Montana a home game and ignoring the same reasoning. They should just admit how the process played out and they deviated from every precedent prior to this year. Quite changing the rules without explaining that is what you're doing. On top of that, UND AD/athletic department ends up getting thrown under the bus by everyone under the sun because it looks like they cheaped out when they absolutely didn't.

That's not how yo utake a guy down if you think the play isn't over....

Eh I disagree with the first part but agree with the second part. That usually gets called and there was at least one flag thrown on it. That being said, if they would have called the one later where NDSU's left tackle looked like he was in some sort of acting class, reacting like a sniper took him out, after getting bumped into after a play, I probably would have a stronger opinion.

From comments in the Montana AD's interview, sounds like it was down to Montana and Chattanooga for the last spot.

Probably would have if they would have bothered to put a bid in. This was negotiated before the matchup was even set. Regionalization isn't about spreading games out, its about reducing travel costs and making them bus rides if possible.

Regionalization (one of the rules they did follow) is why our game funnels into Montana St. Since they didn't get the 8 seed, and bye/home game, they were effectively the 9 seed and were handed a home game. Weird how they aren't traveling to SEMO then. Since you know, performance and all that.

Someone tell Dom there is no 9 seed. It is in the manual that the committee was supposed to follow. There are only 8. And I'd be curious what "close enough" means in his book.

I was surprised when I heard it as well. Then upset because the committee had zero plan in disclosing it but word started leaking out yesterday. UND will have zero recourse and basically was hung out to dry by their conference representative, who conveniently won't communicate with anyone on the matter.

None of that logic was used. You are giving them way too much credit. They appeased the east coast reps by giving HC the #8 seed and tried to make up for it by guaranteeing Weber a home game despite a lower bid, something that has never been done.

Agreed. Get it out in the open. Maybe it didn't happen, but I find it a bit odd that UND's AD went on the radio this morning and say he thinks it did. That is a pretty bold thing to throw out there on a hunch given that the committee is made up of his peers.

Washington St.

No, the MVFC does not kick in any money. And that was something that hadn't been done before. If the committee decides to award a home game to a team regardless of bid, then how exactly would you propose to combat that? Earning a seed is the obvious answer but that isn't going to happen every year (or be awarded even if deserved I guess). If UND puts out a bid that beats everyone (outside of Montana) and still doesn't get selected, what can they actually do? Absolutely get the frustration. But if what everyone is reading between the lines on is close to accurate, there is some real BS going on with the committee.

Nicholls got a bunch of money from the conference that they previous hadn't and their bid was significantly beyond what they would historically bid. That was bad luck. UND's bid was more than competitive. Despite that, everyone understands the importance of a home game. Which is why UND likely had the 2nd highest bid this time around. The problem is "other criteria" is out of anyone's hands when its a group of AD's making a room and have no one to answer. Guidelines are tossed out the window. Like what if the committee didn't want to have 5 western teams seeded (MVFC/Big Sky) but decided that to offset that, they'd just make sure the team who probably deserved to be seeded got a home game in the first round?