jdub27

Coming up with buyout money is different than money to upgrade your standing within the athletic world. I don't think the $5MM would be the hurdle if there was an FBS invite. I think all the schools you mentioned would be able to figure that out. It is the sustained cost of upgrading the budget by a decent amount that would be the hurdle for any of the schools you mentioned. Some have publicly stated as much.

They slimmed down the first year he was here because they felt the talent wasn't were it needed to be so they thought they could play a little quicker to offset that. It failed and lasted one season before they worked on bulking them back up. Agree on the D side. DE's need to be bigger. They also were very much in on some guys that would fit the NT position but ended up losing out on them.

4 of the 5 starting OL are 300lbs or more (the other is a 290 So) and 8 of the 12 on the 2-deep are 300 or more (anyone under that mark is a So or Fr and all are 285 or more). Not sure that argument holds water. On the other hand, Beach is the only DL on the roster that is 300lbs or more. Not refusing 300lb DL isn't the problem, however not having any is a different story and one I'd agree with. Hoping the change in direction on the S&C side helps with that issue because it does definitely feel like UND's DE's are undersized.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand why the last extensions was done. That being said, I don't think it should have been two years and if needed to be, then it absolutely should have never been agreed to with the buy-out language that was included. As an economist would say, that "problem" is a sunk cost and can't be changed, so there is not point in wasting time worrying about it. That isn't justifying anything, it is just the reality. The other "problem" is what can be focused on. Conflating that with what's already done doesn't help anything.

Who's sugar coating the current results, particularly the last two weeks? I haven't seen anyone defending it. I acknowledged and agreed with a lot of what you said. The criticism is warranted and valid. I'm also understanding there currently isn't 7 figures lying around right now to make the fix you are advocating for. Unless that shows up somewhere, there won't be an immediate change. Call me crazy, but all the criticisms in the world aren't going to convince a sane person to walk away from well over half a million dollars doing something they are passionate about, barring something completely unforeseen, so that isn't a solution. Find me anyone on here who would make that choice.

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards. I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line. I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics. Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command? Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD). University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics). Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top. He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss. This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures. Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors. I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations.

Why? Their value to any media contact is the late night games. There are already plenty of central and mountain time games to fill the gaps.

Not saying what he will or won't and should or shouldn't do, but Summit schools and Fenton have already "played that game" to certain degrees with the MVFC, MVC and Summit making sure schools there have homes for Olympic sports. And since everything is speculation right now, with Patty V retiring, it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the Summit is eying taking over handling the MVFC. It would definitely help strengthen the brand for the conference and would have minimal effect on the "affiliate members". I know the idea has been discussed before. I'm sure Fargo's appetite to help support the move by choosing twice not to pay to renovate the Fargodome won't go unnoticed when looking at funding options.

I don't have the answer. If I did, I probably by charging a hell of a lot of money as a consultant. The University has been able to put more support into athletics the last few years after actually taking on an unsustainable and broken budget and actually making some hard decisions to get to the spot they are in.

The University as a whole is in one of the strongest positions it has ever been in. That needs to continue to work its way into the athletic on-field performance. Don't think you can say the former about any other research institution in the state.

Arguing against strawmen is a different category I guess.

Either you trust the staff (coordinators, position coaches) feels they are putting the players that give the team the best chance to win or you don't. Personally I'd prefer they ignore pedigree, recruiting rankings, where players are from and scholarship status and instead focus on who is actually performing and executing the best in practice and during games.

They must have had some sort of plan with two DL in front of him, must have thought they would need to clear out more bodies than normal? But when the DE's get around the corners as fast as they did while Q is looking where to go, it is a bit of a calculated risk that almost blew up. Assuming there was a reason they went away from the tried and true that pretty much works every time but no clue what that might be.

Something, something, ESPN2, something, something, probably millions of viewers...

It was stated by Tom Miller in the article he wrote about it. 2 year extension in 2022.

There was around 50.

You don't think a change in S&C coach is a significant change in trying to find ways for improvement and something specifically that isn't "placing all the weight of their decisions on the new facilities"?

I thought the team looked ready to go against ISU. Despite the first play, where the defensive guys were in the exact right position and then being down 7 points after 2 plays, they played tough the whole game. Comparative scoring is what it is, but UND played them tougher on the scoreboard than Arkansas State (significantly), Houston and Baylor. They are up to the #9 team in the country at this point. No explanation for the NDSU game. We needed to start fast, didn't and everything unraveled from the opening kickoff. Still settled in a little and had a chance to get back in it and then literally fumbled that away on the first play of the 2nd half.

Good take. Also, getting a chance to compete for the job as a RFr is more than he would get most places. I think people are forgetting that he's been on campus for less than 18 months, not a whole lot of QB's who are seeing the field at that age. Also guessing the staff has set very clear expectations with him on what he needs to work on and that the QB is the same as any other position. Show you can do it better than the guy in front of you when the lights aren't on and you'll get your fair shot.

Glad you're such an insider for the Ag tech. That doesn't change that the official reason is that he injured his shoulder against Missouri State. Plenty of articles out there outlining it and stating exactly that, including the Forum, KVRR and NDSU's own page. Considering after a few weeks, they had packages installed for him, it seems pretty likely that was the actual case. He was an effective runner and did well in those packages after his shoulder healed up a bit. Weird that they would hold him out of practice when he wasn't hurt, just benched though?

That and he hurt his shoulder, which was the official reason he was pulled. Never got his job back.

NDSU didn't pull their injured starting QB up multiple scores in Carbondale this weekend against a team that didn't threaten to score much (3 points and less than 200 yards of offense) until there was 3:36 left in the game.