jdub27

Yep, that's why Wentz, Frazier, Morlock, etc were still in the game well into the 4th.... Drive charts don't lie.

I said for reference, not comparison. And no I can't tell you nor can you tell me. Maybe more, maybe less. But I can without certainty guarantee the average sale price would be around half (because it is).

Average price on the 200+ tickets sold on just one secondary site is over $160. Lowest sold price was for a standing room ticket was $83 before any fees. A large portion of those are standing room only or reserved seats that are not in season ticket holder areas (higher rows of the end zone sections). There is another 40 remaining for sale. For reference, there are around 400 tickets listed for sale for the final two home games for NDSU, so apparently a lot less NDSU fans want to use their tickets to go to those games than this one?

Which ones were using dining hall funds to fund athletics though?

My understanding is the final number was much closer to $600K than $1 million if it even broke the former once everything is sorted out. There were plenty of comp tickets and cheap tickets sold the last week or two that didn't move the needle much for either side. Impressive showing regardless and everyone came out happy. Regardless, my point is the isn't a bunch of extra revenue for everyone to come out happy a second time by paying a G5 a significantly larger guarantee as I don't think there is a legitimate name that will move the needle enough to allow for the increased ticket prices needed to keep all sides happy. The same game with another subpar opponent won't draw nearly as well.

That number is significantly higher than what I've heard, have any sources to back that up? I also think you overestimated the average cost of tickets but whatever. I don't think there is room to increase them without a big name opponent. And there were plenty of tickets sold for under $40.

That doesn't answer the question on how the economics work unless you are insinuating NDSU is the one that takes the lower pay. But I can't see them risking playing the game late in the year especially with the uncertainty of playoffs and they aren't going to want to battle either, so your last scenario doesn't hold water.

How do the economics for that actually work? Unless they significantly raise ticket prices, NDSU is fine with a much smaller guarantee or Target Field takes on a much larger risk and ends up with a smaller payout, the money isn't there. Target Field paid Butler's $185K guarantee. Any FBS team will cost 3-4x that which is basically all of NDSU's take home if not more. There are only a handful of G5 teams that would move the needle enough to command a significant price increase, but those are going to come with an even higher guarantee. Not sure I buy it.

Just needs a little spit shine...

Holy hyperbole...

Freshman were down by around 150 which is something to pay attention to, but it is very encouraging to see the transfer and grad students up. Need to continue to keep those retainage numbers up.

Very much depends on which method of accounting you use. Specifically how you allocate Champions Club memberships and REA usage expenses/ticket revenue as per the REA usage agreement. The numbers can say whatever is convenient for the person putting them together.

Because it is two separate points and both can be true? They started on 3rd with their ability to be a cash cow over the last 18 years (again, that was the point of the original comment I responded to). Their history prior to that proves the point. and their ability generate the cash that they currently do does not happen without that gift. Trying to knock other programs because they don't provide as much revenue is an unfair comparison given the incredible advantage men's hockey has been given to generate that revenue. No denying that for the majority of those years, their on ice success has helped drive that, but again, without the REA, it is a different story. There is no reason their should be multiple down years given the advantages UND has in the hockey world so their success, outside of national championships, shouldn't be a surprise. They have the resources to be in the hunt 90-95% of the time, which they have done. The rebuttal was that they "started at home plate and hit a frickin home run. 7 national titles before their $100+ million gift." I didn't set the measurement at national titles and there is no arguing that 7 titles in 55 years playing in the Winter Sports building and the old REA is impressive. However 1 title in 18 years playing in one of the nicest arenas in the world is disappointing when you are strictly talking national championships. I was one who was supportive of Hak because he always had UND in a position to get one and given the nature of the NCAA tournament, I'll take his results and that chance every day.

While I actually agree with you, I was specifically pointing at national titles since that was the measure you originally used. 1 in the last 18 years given the resources, is disappointing, especially since they "started at home plate and hit a frickin home run. 7 national titles before their $100+ million gift." The gift allowed them to become a cash cow (the original point) but didn't exactly accelerate national championships (apparently your point).

My reference was specifically to them being a cash cow, which what the defense of them being criticized was about. They were nowhere near that until the gift and nothing shows they would have been. Their success before the gift is why I specifically said the analogy wasn't an exact match as it did a disservice to their history but applicable in their ability to generate cash. That being said, what advantage haven't they had in the last 18 seasons? If they were hitting home runs with 7 national championships pulling themselves up by the but straps before the gift, how would you describe results since then? For the record, whatever about Brad's tweet. I get the sentiment and it wouldn't have mattered if it waited a few days but Brad needs things to write about and the Herald has had excellent coverage of football the last few weeks. The team needs to win (that goes for football and hockey).

I'd say being born on third and thinking you hit a triple is a hell of a thing but that takes a bit much from the hockey team. They were the team that was set up to succeed being given every advantage there is. Take away their $100+ million gift and things are significantly different. They weren't the cash cow until the new arena showed up.

Really? Can you point me to the guideline on what the max amount to spend on football is? There is more to spending than scholarships, though there are definitely are teams not offering the full 63. How many other teams have an outside performance coach providing supplements to players?

Because you can't outspend 95% of the other teams in the subdivision? I mean, isn't that the excuse why NDSU fell back to the pack in D2?

UND's fiscal year end is 6/30. But I believe that the usage agreement date lines up with the turnover date. Surprised they locked in the agreement for an additional 10 years. 5 years, with a 5 year option would seem more reasonable. Will be interesting to see if there is any tweaks that were done.

I'm think I'm more interested to watch Freund go after the inexperienced secondary replacing 2 of the 4 starters with two starting corners that are 5'11" against UND's tall WR's. Good experience at the FS spot should help cover some of that up a bit but should be something UND will attack, assuming the OL can protect 3 step drops.

On the other hand, they took 24th ranked Iowa State (who finished 8-5) to the wire last year 27-24 in the final week of the season, including having a 24-20 as late as the final minute of the 3rd quarter.

Pretty impressive considering we were told donors had no interest in giving money to UND while Kennedy was the president. Must have been a lot of donations the last 15 days of June..... Good work by the Alumni Association.

Should be easy enough to link the comments then. I'd be interested to see what these self-proclaimed "message board lawyers" have to say. When making an assertion that contradicts the actual official manual of the NCAA, you think it would be simple enough to back up your claim and actually give a little bit more credibility to your theories.

Probably worth mentioning that at the end of June, UND picked up a commitment from a different running back out of Minnesota that was the was the exact same size as this kid. No inside info on this one but not sure how hard UND was still in pursuit of a running back of the exact same size/skill set.

Please provide a source for this. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the NCAA manual, in its incredible length, does not make this distinction.