jdub27

Correct. I missed a slightly important word there...Edited to fix it.

You're by far in the minority on that opinion, at least in the Grand Forks community. The overwhelming majority of people who've interacted with him either personally or professionally or both have nothing exemplary but reviews of him and the job he's doing.

Name names or quit with the garbage. This has been ongoing for over 2 years. If someone wanted the info out, they had plenty of time. Instead, regardless of intentions, they left a giant mess out in the open that UND now has to deal with. If the following are answered, it would clear pretty much everything up: Why did Nodak, LLC trademark "NODAK" and what were the intentions with the trademark? What is the ownerships of Nodak, LLC? We know who the registered agent is, but that doesn't necessarily equate to ownership. Why was it registered 6 months after the creation of the Nodak jerseys and if it was just going to be turned over anyway, why did it take over 2 years? And not that it actually matters that much, but who covered the costs for the trademark? I don't think it was a significant amount of money, but it was at least a few hundred dollars between registering the entity and the trademark filing.

Roof deck!!

That's what happens when you let stuff drag out for 15 months. Clean your messes up quicker.

More than I expected as a response. But the substance is in line.

Curious why don't you lay out what actually happened for everyone since you seem to have all the inside details? Plenty of people know big parts of the story (and for an extended period of time), but your tune is slightly different. I'd really like to be educated.

That would imply that adidas is printing jerseys and not checking the wordmarks they are putting on them.

If that's the o/u line, I'll be happy to put mortgage on the over.

Considering discussions have been ongoing for quite a while, you're going to go bust.

Every time the Bucknell AD opens his mouth, he makes it worse. Would be interesting to see if Tom has requested an interview with Larsen. The Montana AD has given his thoughts, so clearly they aren't barred from talking about what happened.

If you think something someone says on a message board has any bearing on what the staff and players actually think, it says a lot about your common sense and intelligence.

Yes. And a couple hundred game from charitable gaming wouldn't be all that bad, other than the optics.

Worth noting that the NCAA still made more money off of Montana than they would have on UND. However, anyone who's still questioning the athletic department's willingness is just flat out wrong at this point. They put up more guaranteed money than anyone in the first round.

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?