jdub27

Yeah, that's not culture. That's expectations. And I'm not sure I'm pinning that at the football team level either. Regardless, if that was truly the case, then they are wasting a lot of time and effort in the investments currently being made in the program. The reasons for plenty (though not all) of those decisions have been hashed over time and time again and are much easier to criticize (or agree with) given hindsight. Plenty, though again not all, were at least justifiable at the time to anyone who's willing to be objective (which is a big ask for some people). Go ahead and save the "accepting mediocrity" bit, that's been beaten to death as well.

I'm genuinely curious on what specifically are the "culture" issues that need to change? DeBoer and Bubba spent 4 years together at SIU. I doubt they have all that much different of philosophies on culture.

I actually appreciate the insight so don't take my comments as a shot at you. Assuming the whole thing is just a bit at this point, but this is even funnier to think about. Where are the planning on doing that? EGF? Crookston?

I really hope this is accurate and that's what they are focusing on. Actually pretty funny if true. It does emphasizes a huge need for UND to get off to a solid start and drain that emotion in the first quarter.

Some pretty big things in that announcement. I also noticed it doesn't say "still actively fundraising" under the Phase II portion, so that's likely a good sign that its finally a "go". Would bring the softball program on campus for first time in program history Addition of practice court to the Betty Re-imagined endzone seating for basketball and volleyball games Ray Richards ideas I've seen are pretty cool as well

Good luck trying to get into a spot in Grand Forks. But I agree, that's a big difference.

If you beat security/parking lot attendants out there, who's going to stop you?

Why so late?? Not sure the last time they did it, but this is definitely something that has been done before.

Prior? Yes. Right now? Juries out a bit I think.

Just curious if you have any actual proof of this or it is all your anecdotal evidence? Because from what I've seen, which is just my anecdotal experience, is the opposite of this. Obviously they haven't pulled in any $100 million donors, but name more than a couple schools who have ever done that. And I wouldn't say that just because they haven't pulled in any 8 figure donations doesn't mean that it isn't a priority. Those things takes years to cultivate and there was quite a few relationships that needed repairing for various reasons. I mean, they managed to figure out a creative way to get Memorial Village done. They are incredibly close to Phase 2 of the HPC. Those aren't small tasks coming off the back-end of the $300 million Spirit campaign.

UND received $10 million from Altru in 2012, which was the same amount that NDSU received from Sanford in 2010. Doesn't mean there isn't a future opportunity, but that wasn't a coincidence.

Despite what is the common knowledge, people would be pretty surprised at some of the donations that have been made to other programs. However, those typically aren't announced publicly (and aren't of the $100 million variety) so there is a perception of that. Terrible, their president was trying to move them down to D3. EWU to UND isn't a lateral move unless you're talking about both being D1/FCS. EWU is directional commuter school that is an afterthought in their market due to proximity of P5 schools and has an $18MM budget. I would think we could agree that UND is slightly different than that. And directly to your question, that was one of the things that I know he was asked by multiple people. Haha, point taken (and knowing some people on a few of those committees, glad I'm not them). Out of the 5 finalists, 2 of them stuck out as head and shoulders above the others (for the portions of things I sat through). One of them had D1 AD experience, the other had significant ties to UND. I don't know who made the final call, but they actually brought in someone from the outside. Starting to think it maybe it doesn't matter where people come from....

Do they really have football success? Prior to this year: Kansas has 3 winning seasons in the last 25 and none since 2008. Their record is 94-201 the last 25 seasons. UNC has 13 winnings seasons of the last out of 25 but that's only if you don't count the games the had to forfeit in 2 of their winning seasons. Not excluding that, they are 155-153 or 139-153 if you take out those forfeits. Duke has 5 in the the last 25 seasons and has a record of 96-203 in that time frame. Kentucky has 4 in the the last 25 seasons and is 140-164 in that time frame. Bubba is at 5 of 8 and only one of those (3-8 in 2017) is what I would call a disaster of a season. His record in his first 8 seasons is 47-40 which is a better winning percentage than any of the schools you used as an example of having "FB success" have had the last quarter of a century.

As someone who sat through a portion of the interviews with all of the finalists, I'd disagree on that.

"On Campus Full Time" is an interesting one. I would assume there is a large number of students who take at least one or two online class along with all of their in-person classes. Haven't looked through the numbers yet this year to see how that's broken out.

The comment was made by the consultant however it did not disqualify the name. Other than the reasons people had voting for Fighting Hawks, there were also quite a few that had issues with the Roughrider nickname because Red River is already using it. I think that was probably the biggest issue that people had with what I felt was the best choice and was frankly a no-brainer given the other choices.

No disagreement at all. So you heard what you wanted to hear. I'm also guessing that yes, if you took the time to have an actual conversation instead of interpreting things over the airwaves, you would get a better explanation. Because you can ask follow-up questions and request for them to go more in-depth. It's Conversing 101. I get some sort of strange enjoyment when once out of every 20 tries, you finally hit on a topic that gets people riled up and get to sit back and keep stirring the pot.

Hopefully positive. But they aren't going to (can't) make a change after 1 game. Some of that inventory is sold. If they get less interest than anticipated for the season, I'd absolutely expect another change. They are literally trying new things and working on ways to generate new revenue. They've shifted (between seasons) as they've seen what has (has not!) worked. This is literally what people, in general, have been asking for. Is every idea going to work year 1? Or year 2? Absolutely not. But at least they are trying. The visiting media thing is interesting and probably at least partially goes back some to covid stuff. I would be curious what visiting media is using it and how much room they need. If accurate, other than maybe MooU, I can't see a need for more than a small portion of the catwalk that would need to be blocked off for them. Definitely not half or all of one side.

And I was wondering if the usual suspects would find a way to get all worked up and shout into the abyss without actually doing anything about it or working to find out actual details on their own. Guess we both delivered! The logistics of year 2 are different than year 1, so it did evolve. And I explained exactly why they aren't changing it mid-year, they've already sold some of the inventory. Doing that would be an actual crock of $hit.

Are you dizzy from talking yourself in a circle? No one is being forced to sit there. If they want to, they literally can pay to do it. Which is what you're advocating for right? Consumers speaking with their wallet? If no one buys the product as is, they will make changes! I'm not sure where this "arrogance" BS comes from either. The lengths people go to be offended is really something. The Athletic Department literally went on the radio to discuss it. If you want further clarification, their contact info is literally posted for all to see. And for the record, I've already stated they need to make some adjustments. There was a demand, they looked at ways to give those that really wanted it a chance to have it. Not sure that being mad any revenue generation is a great idea. I used to be one of the people on the catwalk. However change it likely isn't happening midseason when some of the product people are demanding for free (or use with purchase of a different ticket) is already sold.

Colorado in 2024 (of course, shocker they are somehow a bottom 10 FBS team right now) Oregon rescheduled game in 2028

Wouldn't be shocked if this moves to 15 games in a row.... • North Dakota has either had the lead or a chance to take the lead in the fourth quarter in each of its last 14 games.

There's no way there would be room in the south end zone for that, its already a huge bottleneck. But you might be able to do something in the north endzone, its typically a little less crowded down there and it might even be wider. Its not over the opposing team but something is better than nothing. I doubt they are going to make a change right in the middle of the season, but if the idea doesn't work, I hope they don't double down. They've tried multiple different things, I feel like they will keep working to find a good solution.

Based on his stats through 3 or 4 games this year, that's not too far off. Either he's really fallen off or his O-Line leaves a lot to be desired. Oh well I guess. Also, a bit odd he still isn't listed on their roster. https://athletics.lincolnuca.edu/team/lu-oaklanders/roster/

He definitely looks the part physically. Can't speak to the rest though. Pretty sure it has to do with the scheduling blocks they do for X amount of years each time. There are a couple goofy ones like that in there for a few different teams. Obviously try to avoid it but it happens. Will probably happen again once Wichita St Murray State is added.