jdub27

We could but you're the one throwing around the "outlier" comment in regards to NDSU's rate of passing drug tests. So unless you have a good reason to deflect, let's stay on topic.

How many internal tests were taken and failed? And how do we know there weren't other NDSU players that failed NCAA tests?

With how little coverage some of the NDSU cuts go, there isn't anything public to confirm that. However, I've heard a few different people describe certain decisions that way. Time will tell, possibly.

Along with getting a lot less ink for their cuts, some of them and the methods used were questionable and are going to come back to roost if there isn't an uptick in allocated money in the next biennium or two. I don't think they were or are overall in a much different place financially than you're implying (especially if you exclude women's hockey from the athletic department) but they did take different approaches. One is a more sustainable on long-term. The other is better short-term, but rely on recent trends reversing.

If you only knew..... That won't work, the REA Foundation has control of the arena. The soonest they could pull a move like that is 2030/31. And I hope it doesn't come to that, there is a lot to be said with a private party partner is something like the REA. It just needs to work for both sides.

Her comments were future donations, in the terms of capital projects (think HPC Phase II), though I don't know if that includes REA facility upgrades or not. I'd guess since the REA isn't technically "UND's building" then it would be exempt. It would no effect with UND continuing to use the REA and existing agreements. However it is a really poor future indicator of the future of REA come 2030. The ideal scenario (in my mind) is to extend out the lease/turnover date because both parties are seeing significant benefits and it continues to allow the REA do things that UND can't do as freely since they operate as a public institution. However, if UND feels like they are continuing to get the short end, why would they continue the partnership under the current arrangements and work with someone who is continuously publicly criticizing you?

Who has said that? (Hint - The answer is no one, except you) The HPC is cheaper and a much more logical size for a Friday afternoon scrimmage. How much money would be the right amount to spend on it when the money could be put to much better use within the program? I'd love it if they tried to make it an event again at the Alerus, with tailgating and other activities. However that would require them to either change the dates/timings of their practices or have the Alerus turn away a pretty profitable event with Monster Trucks being in town the weekend of the final practice.

After listening to it and her description of the the relationship with the REA and UND (only about a 15 minute interview), I just can't support her position UND pays significant funds as a usage fee, it isn't free.....or even close. In 2017, the REA got $2.4 million in ticket revenues through the usage agreement, expensed an additional $1.1 million to UND for utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses and also an additional $247K of reimbursement for managing the box office for UND. In return, UND used the REA and got $750K in allocated net income paid back to them. The REA foundation is set up to benefit UND athletics, the "extra" money (that is really just funds leftover after the REA pays expenses and takes their cut for future projects) has nowhere else to go but back to UND. And again, a large portion of that was UND's money to begin with. The usage agreement is set up to be reviewed annually and got a rubber stamp with no changes for over a decade. UND and the athletic department saw a significant cut in their budget, a pain the REA saw none of. Why wouldn't they try to renegotiate one of, if not the, largest line item expense adjusted when it is being paid to a supposed partner. Was it really an anomaly? The articles about how the donation to UNLV was handled seems to contradict that. While I doubt it changes anyone's mind one way or another....it is very interesting to hear the rationale for the feeling of entitlement that KEM feels comes with her family's donation (right, wrong or indifferent). She specifically touches on how donors these days deserve a say but it isn't micromanaging. She also flat out said that there won't be funds going to UND until Kennedy is gone, outside of support in scholarships. So don't look for the Engelstad's name anywhere on Phase II of the HPC....

How many times have you been in the HPC? How many since the new bleachers were installed?

Considering it is a "Spring Wrap-up" and it says all practices are scheduled for the HPC (as no other locations are noted), I think you know the answer. That being said, with the new bleachers installed, it will be a much different and more enjoyable experience to watch practices.

Considering she's the third player to leave the team this season alone, and how many knows over the last 3-4 years you start to maybe the kids aren't the problem...

Yeah, except here's the rub: Those big time programs (many of which have come here in the past, so I guess, so much for that criticism) require a return trip or don't have a desire to fly out to North Dakota, particularly to play a tough UND team. Alternatively, they can save on their end of travel expenses by scheduling other teams that are closer by. On UND's side, in order to help fund the athletic department, they need a certain number of home games, so they have to buy some games against lower level programs that don't require a return game. Some people must get exhausted be faux-worked up over everything.

Two year average is actually $57,500 loss. Take those profit/loss numbers with a grain of salt though. LISTEN Center runs the gaming at the Canad Inn. I'm sure the actual gaming report is available from the AG's website somewhere but it's an overall net contribution.

I get where you're coming from, but incentives to develop aren't the same as giving away money the city already has to spend elsewhere. The Town Square re-development has been in the pipeline and was going to happen. The tax incentives do no harm the city's tax revenues over the short term and improve them over the long-term, as developer still pays original tax value of the land before it was developed. Would any of the projects that have been done or are in process moved forward without the tax incentives? Maybe? I'd guess on a different scale and timeline. In the long run, it's usually better for the city's tax roll rather than holding out hope and waiting that a development happens without any incentive. How long have some of those lots sat open already? Encouraging more use during both the day and evening is one of the stated goals. The ability to leave the restrooms more available was another, which they are unable to currently do because of the poor placement of them was another. I see the benefits of both setups but creating a more open, inviting space makes sense in general. If the main argument against it is because of a handful of paid events, I think there are solutions to solve that.

It's been doing continuously better over the years and has taken a large step forward with Spectra taking over as the management company.

The concerts are something they are taking into account, however one of the biggest complaints has been lack of access/safety that is caused by the large cement planters that surround almost the whole park. They are trying to come up with a way to open it up more. Depending on what the final design looks like, something like temporary fencing or removable bollards will be incorporated to continue to allow concerts. Making sure the farmer's market continues without issue is another big issue they are taking into account.

Not quite, Clemson took responsibly and acknowledged the substance, NDSU called their player a liar and passed on the blame.

Especially if Richman just finished signing his extension.

You can see his athleticism when he's out there, absolutely off the charts, but needs to work on defense and overall court awareness. Just needs more time to grow into the college game but could be a huge difference maker if he develops.

Was a fun trip this past season, I plan on going again. True, big time football.

To your point, they finished in the exact same spot in the Pairwise that they had in previous years and made the tournament during the streak, the chips just didn't fall in their favor last year, yet somehow we need to jump off a ledge. Not to mention #14 in the Pairwise had made the tournament every year since 2008. No one is excited about it, but to pretend they hadn't been in the same spot before and got a bounce or two go their way to get into the tournament is just putting your head in the sand.

I think both sides are a fair point on the salary portion. It's obvious she's been in this (similar) line of work for an extended period of time, so her major isn't all that relevant at this point, considering her experience, and it appears by all accounts that she does an excellent job, so I'm not all that worked up over that portion. It is probably just as fair to ask why a University President need a $185K/year attorney to be their Chief of Staff when the NDUS has a whole team of legal counsel. Before he was hired, that position did not exist at NDSU, it was created for this specific individual when they realigned legal counsels. Until we know what the actual job duties of each are, tough to make a comparison on the salary portion one way or another. However, I won't argue that the idea of paying for her travel up to $25K/year is just poor judgement. I understand the explanation they tried to use but they needed to take a step back on that one and see how it looks. Tough to sell the idea on a Chief of Staff who's only present a limited portion of the time.

No doubt the optics on this are less than great and it feeds perfectly into those that don't care for MK. Also, I'm not sure how that job functions and if doing it remotely is realistic, though it seems like someone who's working on site would be more effective, but as always, some of this is a little more nuanced than the knee jerk reactions. NDSU hired a Chief of Staff a few years ago, which was in the news as the individual that was hired there was previously on staff at NDSU as legal counsel. The state moved all legal counsel under the NDUS, so he was out of a job. Instead of applying for a job in Bismarck, NDSU hired him as chief of staff. His salary is about $183K/year and is in line with the average/median salaries stated by UND. While the individual at NDSU is an attorney, I don't know if that job actually requires a JD nor do I do know if the UND and NDSU jobs have similar duties but they do share titles and have a pretty significant difference in salaries.

From the article: This isn't the 247Sports "star" rating formula, or Rivals.com. It's only based on scholarship offers. If you held at least three FCS offers? You added bonus points to your school's ranking. But no matter what? If you signed with your school, you helped in the ranking below in our formula. We consider all D-1 scholarship offers of the 2,500 or so FCS signees ... P5 offers? FBS offers? FCS? How many? And if you signed with your favorite school? The offers are "tiered" and you helped the "score" because we gave credence to quantity AND quality. Once again, everybody who signed with an FCS school helped their school's rating in the formula. I mean, how can you give much credence to that. Not a chance they knew every kid's offers and how many of them were even committable? Also, some kids shut down their recruitment after they commit there and other offers they get (or would have got) are never made public. As previously stated, fine piece for conversation, but pretty short on actual relevance due to the shadiness of recruiting in general and here's a prime example of how accurate this kind of thing is: