jdub27

From the students I talked with, the cops were talking to kids jumping on the beds of tailgates (safety issue), those that appeared to have blatantly "over-served" themselves and anyone managing to cross basic common sense lines. Boiled down to don't act like an idiot and you were fine.

This isn't even close to accurate. Dakota Commercial owns very few properties themselves, and definitely don't own the buildings Bed, Bath and Beyond are in nor the old Golden Corral building. They are by far the largest commercial leasing agent/property manager in town, which is why their sign is in front of a lot of those vacant buildings. They get paid if those buildings have tenants, so this notion that they don't want to rent is a bit ridiculous. Depending on the building, they either have guidelines set by the owner on what kind of terms they are able to negotiate, or like in the case of BB&B, they aren't even involved in the negotiations, they just manage the property for the owners.

And that's your opinion, which is made from a distance. I suggest talking to those who it impacts every day and get their thoughts and feelings on it. The fact that you refuse to believe that there is actually a problem because someone can't put an exact, quantifiable number on it is a bit of an odd take.

I mean, you're basically asking for something that is impossible to calculate and then more or less stating there is no tangible effect because someone can't give you a hard number. The fact that people directly involved (athletic department, student-athletes, etc) state that it is an issue should be proof enough. They are the ones that deal with it.

If you're asking for something concrete, that doesn't exist. Countless hours and who knows how much money has been wasted on what continues to be an on-going issue that some of the "biggest supporters" of the University can't accept. Impossible to quantify the net effect, but the last decade plus, while UND has been twiddling their thumbs trying to figure out who to be and what that should look like, other schools in the area have continued to push and enhance their brand. If you can't see that, than you haven't been paying attention. Then you have that group of people who swears they will never donate any money to UND because of the nickname change. Is that a real faction and does it carry any weight? Yes, but no clue on the impact. But with the amount of threats that were made and continue to show up on social media, maybe there is money and/or tickets being missed out on. While it isn't measurable, it is pretty hard to dispute that there has been an absurd amount of time and resources wasted on something that still causes issues, things that could have been applied on improving UND (fair argument on what good it would have done, but I digress). Time is finite, every hour spent on the nickname issues is an hour not spent on something else.

Talk to anyone who's worked in the athletic department in the last decade and ask what type of general effect the logo has had. Hell, start right at the top and ask the athletic director, who has only been here 2 years, if he thinks the logo and nickname continue to remain an issue. I'm sure he really looks forward to conversations where his goal is to talk about new facilities and how to improve the student athlete experience and instead he ends up talking about a retired nickname or logo and how they should just bring it back or that the new name is garbage or that UND is pushing too hard to market their new identity. Or talk to a student athlete and ask them how they feel about playing in front of their home crowd, yet hear boos when the nickname on their jersey is mentioned or especially the reactions that show up on social media any time a hawk logo is shown or the nickname is mentioned. The majority of these student-athletes don't have a tie to UND prior to coming here. They don't understand the absurd identity crisis that a subsection of fans go through yet they keep hearing things like "Sioux Forever" and have people telling them the logo they are wearing will never be accepted. I'm sure that goes over well.

Again, it's a little more complicated than just pulling it into a parking spot. What is the clearance on the entrance and then the roof on the first floor? Based on the picture below, would the stacks be able to make it into the ramp and if they can, how close to the roof/second level floor are they? What kind of mess does that make? Again, these were all things that were looked into last year. No one wanted to cancel the event.

My guess is they weren't going to burn one of Schuster's 4 games when it was already decided. Save them in case you really need them, like what UND could have been able to with Studsrud his true freshman year when he had to play the last 4 games out of necessity.

Thanks for the info. I assume those are released with the rest of the unused tickets Thursday of game week. If people are going to complain about the REA releasing tickets that haven't been claimed that close to game time, then they are complaining just to complain.

Running an industrial fryer of that size is a little more complicated than just "putting it in the parking garage", particularly in an indoor or covered setting and when you're talking about finding room for thousands of people. They looked at moving it last year and determined there wasn't an option that would work on short notice. Last year was the first time in the history of the event and no one was happy about it. They made sure to have a much stronger contingency plan in place so they wouldn't have to cancel for a second year in a row.

They can't sell student tickets that are already purchased, regardless of whether they are used or not, so how exactly are they going make more money on this? Any tickets that are sold in the student section, which I'm not sure is even accurate because it is a general admission section and all seats sold to the general public are reserved, wouldn't be sold until a few days before game day and students will have had plenty of time to claim what they want. That being said, they need to come up with a way to fix this, because it is unfair. You should have to right to transfer or sell your ticket to another person, assuming that person can fulfill the requirements of that ticket (student ticket, kid's ticket, etc).

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).