jdub27

Too bad you missed it the first time and instead decided to trot out the old "happy with the status quo" argument, which I suppose is easier than responding with substance.

You specifically stated "per Chaves" there was going to be less emphasis on gameday experience. It should be easy to cite a direct claim like that. I've heard nothing but the opposite from the athletic department and Chaves himself. And again, I specifically stated there is plenty of room for improvement, so other than making things up, I'm not sure how you would come to the conclusion that I'm satisfied with how it is (hint - I'm not). We both agree that there is a lot of potential there. As always, if you don't agree with the most aggressive line of thinking out there, regardless of reality/rationality/reasonableness, you are obviously content, satisfied or happy with the status-quo because there is no middle ground to be had.

Did you bother reading the literal first sentence of what I wrote? It literally stated overall it left a lot to be desired. Just pointed out that they had a last minute decommit from a "big-time" QB recruit we've all been waiting for.

Out of articles for the month, can't read it.* *Not true but would have been pretty funny, they must be giving this one out as a freebie.

The QB recruiting left plenty to be desired, but if Cedric Case doesn't de-commit at the last minute, it is a different story. He committed under Rudolph and de-committed after he was let go, so tough to pin that one on him.

Unless you can show me something where he specifically said that, I'm going to say that is not accurate at all. They work a ton with the Alerus to improve the game-day experience. Still a ton of room for improvement but to imply they emphasizing making it better is BS. As for the committee, it was never meant to be a standing committee. They came up with a bunch of ideas, figured out which ones they could implement and did so. That being said, I'm fine with the argument that it is something that should be considered as a longer-term committee (I'm sure you'd be willing to reach out to Chaves and put your name in the hat?).

Nowhere does it say that UND was the only school to contact him, it just said they emailed him back after he sent out his tape to multiple schools. In fact, the article lists multiple schools that have been in contact with him to at least reach out. Don't let facts get in the way of what you're implying though. But thank you for your continued interest in UND athletics.

Having the UND staff member who helped with that stuff at the Alerus leave their job on August 30th has been a big part to some of the gameday issues that are popping up.

Again, you continue to confuse optimism and enjoyment for satisfaction. I specifically stated not a single person has said things were perfect. No one argues there are plenty of things to improve on. That doesn't mean people can't be optimistic or enjoy what the team has done so far, especially after a big win. Any mention of positivity gets met with a wall of negativity on how the team/coaches/players are lucky, untalented, incapable, etc.

Highest rated stadium =/= Best Looking Stadium The former was your comment. The latter was the title and subject matter of the article you linked to. The title of the thread says it was the ratings of the stadium, which it isn't. They are ranked by looks. So either you were being misleading and leaving out what they were actually ranking or you didn't grasp the concept.

For someone who doesn't have a clue on who is actually making what calls and decisions in regards to philosophy/personnel/play calling/etc before even factoring in player execution as part of the equation, you seem to assign a lot of blame. We get it, you aren't satisfied. Not sure if anything short of what has happened 75 miles south would get you there. You think things could have been done differently, which is easy to do when you have the benefit of hindsight and no proof on how your decision would have played out, good or bad. Even when you are presented with facts that show your observations aren't exactly accurate, you're dismissive of it and continue on with your own narrative. Everyone on this board wants the same thing, for UND to succeed. It is on the staff to evaluate and learn. The fans are allowed to be happy. Trying to enjoy being 3-2 after the opening stretch of games UND just went through isn't a crime, even if there is room for improvement, which I don't think I've seen anyone deny. But continuously spending time ripping on the staff and/or players and ignoring that maybe the teams UND plays aren't half bad seems like a lot of wasted energy. The team and coaches aren't perfect. Mistakes will be made. But there will also be a lot of things that will go right. It's OK to let some of the mistakes go, hope they learn from it and enjoy the things that have went right, especially when the game ends in UND's favor.

It was posted a few hours after the game was over:

Did you even read it or just not understand what it was saying? It rated them strictly on looks from the outside. Nothing more, nothing less.

I feel like there is a different yet somewhat comparable situation where people can't be asked to do something that inconveniences themselves for the betterment of the athletic department but can't quite put my finger on it. Do they really support UND it just their own personal feelings?

You're projecting. You are the one who is continously predicting all this movement. The Summit is more stable now than it has been in a long time with a core of the Dakota schools, Omaha and St. Thomas. Denver isn't going anywhere unless they adjust their sports offerings, which they don't want to do. UMKC and ORU already left and came back and the Roo's aren't intriguing to anyone else.

Two of the three teams you mentioned already have left the league and came back because their other options were worse than the Summit. And you continue to insist that teams that are hundreds of miles further away than those three want into the Summit so.....¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Disagree. If needed, the NCAA would grant a waiver just like they did when Omaha was transitioning. There would be a plan to get back in compliance, that's all they care about. Why would the Summit sponsor a sport no existing members have and have no reason to start? I mean they aren't going to sponsor FBS football in the current landscape either but you supposedly where done talking about that when your self-imposed deadline of July 1 passed but we all knew that wasn't happening either.

Ralph's stated goal when building the arena was that the students were to get the best seats in the arena, which is why they were put at center ice. Not sure that can of worms will be opened.

Boltman got moved to WR for a reason, and it wasn't because an abundance of talent in the QB room. His athleticism makes him perfect to come in and run the "Brockstar" formation because the defense has to respect that he was a QB and can throw the ball but he doesn't have the accuracy to play QB regularly. Freund is making the call on who's starting. He was a QB, he's in practice every day watching, he knows what he needs from the QB position to win. They went with Kett because that's who they thought gave them the best chance to win after 2 weeks of prepping for EWU. A bit surprised they didn't throw Schuster in at some point during the second half at EWU but he will get another shot, possibly even this week, just not sure if he's quite where he needs to be quite yet despite his 2nd half showing against SHSU, which was incredibly impressive. Exactly

It's much more likely the WAC adds football, but at an FCS level. I could see some schools moving to the WAC for football in that scenario. However it remains incredibly unlikely that the WAC resurrects as an FBS G5 conference. There isn't the support or financial backing from enough schools in the west to make it viable.

You don't have a clue what explanations I've been give or what my reactions to them have been, but thanks for the call out anyway. I'll clue you in: In no shape or form has it been 100% acceptance/agreement, which is why I have offered opinions and suggestions that I think can help to make things better, even if it is small things. Does it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not, but at least I can say I'm putting effort in instead of just complaining about it. And as with everything in life, there are some things that either take time or will be very hard to change, whether you want to accept it or not. But actually hearing about those things straight from those who's job it is to make things work and what steps they are trying to make it happen makes a big difference one perceives things. So again, while you continue to pontificate on here that you "refuse to accept" how things are and how they need to change, you actually mean it so much that you won't take the time to contact the AD yourself with comments or suggestions with a simple e-mail. What conviction...

I'm hoping you finally took the time to contact him yourself since your silence was defeaning the other day when you skipped answering my question.

Total athletic "revenues"

This doesn't count all school/state funds (which is a separate shell game), only direct, allocated student fees, shown as a percentage of total athletic "revenues": UND - 12.6% NDSU - 5.3% SDSU - 10.4% USD - 15.3% NDSU has been pushing for a few years to increase their student fees and keep getting shot down by the student government. The last time was due to incredibly poor planning by the athletic department during their presentation, assuming they were going to get a rubber stamp. It ended with the students actually giving up some seats and reducing fees slightly, which made sense for both parties, students had few seats, which they weren't using all of most game anyway and the athletic department got more seats to sell and the money they were looking for in the first place. The athletic department can now also sell unused student tickets the few days before game day.

Prelim schedule, likely 1-2 more updates (additions/subtractions) Non-Conf vs. Crown College (D3) @Gonzaga @Valparaiso @Milwaukee @Minnesota vs. North Central (D3) @FGCU @Georgia Southern - FGCU tournament @Campbell - FGCU tournament @Montana @Eastern Washington vs. Seattle vs. Northland College (D3) @Nebraska Conference @Denver vs. IPWF (Sunday) vs. Omaha (Wednesday) @ORU @SDSU @NDSU (Saturday) vs. Denver (Thursday) vs. WIU (Saturday) @IPFU vs. ORU (Thursday) vs. USD (Saturday) @WIU vs. SDSU (Wednesday) vs. NDSU (Saturday) @Omaha @USD Non-conference away games seem to be slightly higher profile this season Overall, home schedule is similar to last year. 5 non-conference homes games with two being D1 games. Woof. Seattle fell through, Campbell is a tournament game. My mistake on the second one, thought something seemed off about it. Some of the adjustments that were alluded to must have been to the Summit/Big Sky challenge as UND should hosting one and traveling to another. If UND hosts one like they are supposed to, that would have put them at 3 home D1 games. Assuming that will be made up in the next year or two. NDSU and USD home games on Saturdays this year, that will be good for attendance.