jdub27

"Commit to an analysis of all implications of a move to FBS" That analysis should be pretty easy: The numbers don't actually work.

We had people saying the secondary market would be outrageous due to the limited supply of tickets. If that's what the demand truly is, why not let UND get a nice cut of it for the exact reasons you stated? If you want to calculate what the cost for season ticket holders is: Champions Club donation of likely $1500 at minimum plus another $160 for tickets for what is hopefully 8 games, all fo the sudden the price being asked for single game tickets doesn't seem so bad. And for those who rolled their money over or asked for a refund, ponying up for a game or two at that price shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Here is the only reason he's been "in contact" (whatever that means) with Cincinnati. Doesn't mean there is mutual interest. https://gobearcats.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/coaches/craig-heatherly/1714

It was a mutual decision, he didn't "get away". A fresh start for both sides was the ideal outcome.

Seems apropos. Actually I think the question is why are they settling on 3,000 rather than 5,000. Want to use lower bowl only?

Frankly, probably makes sense for them if that is what they want to do. I don't see them getting into the Summit anytime soon and with Krabbenhoft out at Sanford, they lost a big chunk of leverage.

Looking at those teams, their budgets and amount of subsidies they already receive, I don't see any way that FBS is actually legitimate. That being side, it is good for their to be another west(ish) coast conference for FCS.

But based on performance the last three years (since Kirk has been in Minnesota) and then taking into account Wentz's injury history, why would the Vikings even remotely consider that and take on a huge cap hit with the dead money they would owe Cousins? Especially when they have plenty of needs to fill. Eagles have even bigger issues. Wentz hasn't even started the expensive extension he signed yet. Though with signing bonuses, his contract for a team that would trade for him would be something like 4 years/$98 million. However they would eat some significant dead cap money while already being over the salary cap. But if they decide to move on from Wentz, it is because they are comfortable with Hurts (or they draft another QB at 11....) so they don't have a need for Cousins at that point.

And there is no problem with that, each person was given a full set of options to do what they want with all money given to UND. Different people have different circumstances. But I sure as hell wouldn't be leading with "go pound sand" when UND offered full refunds for anyone who wanted them and is allowing them to keep their seats for them for next season even if they pull back every dollar they had given to UND for 2020/2021.

Based on what I've been told, a lot of donors were very generous with their donation and quite a few with their ticket money as well. Still scholarships and other bills to pay, so that's a good thing. Not exactly sure what telling "UND to go pound sound" accomplished because if you got tickets, you were only charged for the games that are scheduled to be played (8 vs. 21) on a prorated basis ($160 vs. $420). If you wanted your money back (ticket or donation), you got it back. Not sure how anyone could say anything besides UND was more than fair and willing to work with people and basically give them whatever option they wanted, especially knowing they were going to face some upcoming budget issues. There were plenty of schools who refused to refund part or all of donations and/or ticket purchases.

Considering it is/was completely erroneous, there is no further convseration to be had on it. Not a great look to throw unfounded rumors out about one of the athletic departments biggest donors.

Considering the damage they did to the walls up there last time they visited, surprised they didn't put them out in something like you described.

In no way a fan of Ellison but did EGF quit taking money from St Paul and everyone missed it or....?

Yes, with the distinct difference that it was always a path to FBS and UND was somehow involved. He had a knack for finding obscure bits of info but always just read a bit too much into them. His insight was always interesting to read even if I didn't agree with most of it. I don't even know how that school is still open, let alone supporting athletics.

Might have gotten a real gem in Ihenacho. Can't wait to see this team gel.

Just curious, I assume this does not inlcude UND hockey as Midco doesn't have streaming rights? Or is that included?

LOL. Somehow pointing out exactly where what is normally a very informative thread is headed in hope of stopping it is a bad thing...

The limited edition (with the Stanley Cup-like stopper) originally retailed for $300 (100 proof, aged 2 years). Your second link is the regular rye (94 proof, aged 1 year). The cool Stanley Cup thing vs. a bottle of Mac18 would be a struggle. Here's a decent write-up on them: https://thewhiskeywash.com/reviews/whiskey-review-round-up-belfour-spirits/

Based on what it is, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high. Young, sourced whiskey at a really high price point. That being said, bottle is very cool and has the UND/Eddie Belfour ties which can justify some of the cost for certain people. But if you're looking for legitimately good whiskey/bourbon, you can do better at easily half the price. I'll pick one or two up for a conversation piece.

No. And there is good reason. What are they going to do? Come tow Berry's car while he was gone? Any pulling of donations right now is a threat that won't be able to be carried out for a few months. Maybe there is some blowback then? We'll have to see I guess.

I haven't heard of any issues with various messages on shoes/athletic tape or proclamations of faith during interviews or after games in the past but I'm not sure what the overall discussion has been. I'd venture that "props", such as a flag, go beyond that though. Maybe you can find a few players to take up your cause and see.

Yep. I don't think anyone has said different. The athletic department was aware of what those might be. They were also aware of the blowback of putting a full ban on preventing any expression. I have already stated, I believe they compromised for a one time thing during the first game.

Like I previously stated, plenty of selective outrage due to people's own particular view on what they personally deem to be acceptable or not.

A) Both of these two do plenty off the ice to show this was more than some sort of virtue signaling B) As generality, ".....home of the brave Sioux!" is viewed in a very similar light by many and can also be viewed as "trampling on peoples pride in country and sacrifices made to preserve it" yet there seems to be minimal handwringing over that.

I'm not sure what they were hoping for, but it has definitely generated conversation. Personally, the response is almost exactly in line with what I would have guessed it to be. If it is a one-time thing, I'm glad they did it when/where they did it. This has been something that has been discussed at length within the athletic department and teams. Those in charge were aware of what the potential blowback could/would be. On the other side, the blowback to prohibit them from doing it would caused much, much more significant issues. Reading between the lines, my guess is a compromise was made for them to do it the first game to make the point they wanted to make.