jdub27

Exactly. The quote that simple dan put out there isn't something Danny is stating to anyone. I have no doubt he told the kid something along those lines that an opportunity like that could be out there with an open QB competition both this year and then next after Nate and Zim graduate, but not a chance he's risking his first shot at OC by promising a starting role to a kid who isn't on campus.

NDSU made their offer on Thursday at their in-home visit and asked him to not publicly announce it, which he didn't. He announced every other offer and PWO opportunity but didn't say a word about his NDSU offer when he got it. Makes it pretty hard to pretend that it isn't a very likely scenario (for the record, it actually happened but we can still talk in hypotheticals). Seems like one of two things (or a combination of them): 1) NDSU was still deciding what to do with the QB from Florida that had just visited and told him an offer might be coming (confirmed by the kid). He also had other offers, so another QB announcing an offer from NDSU could throw a wrench into keeping him on the line, holding out and waiting. 2)They knew UND had offered him and weren't sure which was he was leaning. If the his offer never gets made public, plausible deniability that UND beat them out on him or at least can claim it was never anything more than the previous PWO.

If it means only 4 home games in a season, I'm absolutely against it. Already disappointed they aren't taking advantage of the 12th game this year to buy an additional home game or set it up for good home game in the next few years by traveling.

I recall at least one in that time frame, though it was for snow, not temp.

Can't continue coaching at a school when your current contract is up. His 2 year deal that "kept" him from Iowa was through the 2018 season/early 2019 offseason. Not hard to read between the lines on why he moved on. But hey, he managed to be the best recruiter on back to back 13th best recruiting classes in the B1G the last two years.

So Rutgers bumped up his salary to $325K/$350K to keep him (roughly the same money Polasek got at Iowa) but you want us to believe he "voluntarily" took something like a 75% pay cut to come to NDSU?

Kid managed to go from an FCS PWO to a B1G PWO, before getting a different FCS school to offer him a scholarship late in the process. It forced his top choice to offer him a full ride after they were set on giving him nothing. Worked out well for the kid. As for UND, they have one or other two they have had their eyes on they can move on to.

Strange that NDSU didn't contact him again until mid-January, like a week after the dead period was over. You'd think they would be a little more urgent to get back to their "#2 choice" after knowing for multiple weeks they lost their #1 choice...

For multiple entities. Add in USA Today's college finance site, the UND/NDUS financials and the athletic departments AUP report and you have a pretty good start.

Just want to point out separately that this point is completely inaccurate. UND paid an additional $247K to the REA outside of the 52% of ticket revenue for other things such as ticketing. And neither of those figures include an additional $1.1 million paid for "utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses".

I don't think the SHAC is much better than the BESC, especially considering the amount of money put into renovating it. The bowl seating is nice, but the seats are cramped and somehow very far from the court. The additional practice gym that has been floated would be a nice addition for all 3 programs that utilize the BESC. Guessing the outstanding loans need to be paid off first, only ~2 years remaining on those.

Here's my big hang-up. These numbers only go back to 2005, which pre-dates the origination of the usage agreement, but does tie-in closely with when the BESC was built and slightly pre-dates the move to D1, so we'll call it is close enough. Ticket sales have went from $3,156,300 in 2005 to $4,551,261 in 2017. So instead of seeing a $1.4 million boost to their budget, the athletic department has seen 48% of that ($670K) and with the REA has seen the remainder ($725K increase) over the 13 years. In 2005, the REA got $1.64 million from UND just on ticket sales. In 2017, they received $2.37 million. Costs have went up, and with that, it makes sense for the REA to not stay at the flat $1.64 million they got in 2005, but what is the reasoning behind a 44% ($725K from 2005 to 2017) increase over the last 13 years ? What has changed and/or what is the need for REA need to continue to eat into the extra revenues from ticket growth? This is the exact reason why the usage agreement should have actually been negotiated every year instead of left alone and it's absolutely crazy that REA board had the reaction they did when someone suggested actually renegotiating it. For reference, if the usage agreement would have been a flat amount (using 2005 as a starting point), UND would have paid the REA $21.3 million over the last 13 years. In reality, they have paid $26.1 million, an additional $4.8 million. That works out to an average of $368K/year for the athletic department (much less in the early years, significantly now in the later years). Again, I'm not saying the amount the REA has gotten over the last 13 years shouldn't have increased, I just don't understand why has risen the amount it has. Taking a look at the reserve accounts in various entities gives you a pretty good idea that they have gotten more then enough funds from the arrangement (again something that is needed, but the level and amount starts to become questionable). Not to mention with women's hockey being cut, UND is actually using the REA less, meaning expenses are lower and the REA has more availability for outside revenues. On top of all of the ticket revenue paid under the usage agreement, UND still pays a significant amount for other things at the REA as well. They paid an $247K to the REA outside of the 52% of ticket revenue for ticketing/other services and then an additional $1.1 million paid for "utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses". So when you try to lump those into what UND is "getting" for the 52% of the ticket revenue, you're actually including things UND is paying for separately. This still doesn't explain why football revenue is tied into the REA usage agreement outside of it was done that way almost 20 years ago when revenues were significantly less so it may have been needed, but there's an additional $1.4 million of ticket revenue flowing in now.

I mean, if that is truly the case, why would UND's budgets and coaching salaries be at or below their peers? Where is all of this "money saved" going? Again, I'm not arguing the majority of the benefits provided by the REA, I'm arguing that I don't think the arrangement is being maximized anywhere near its full capabilities to benefit the athletic department as a whole. The amount of money and control of decision making that is taken out of the hands of the athletic department is higher than it should be. One that is supposed to be negotiated annually yet remains largely unchanged despite enormous changes within UND. And we all saw the reaction when someone dared to question said contract.

Again, what relevance does it have in terms of buying coaches out of their current contract? Jones earned his current contract by doing the only thing he could have to get it. The average, mixed bag results before that don't have much bearing.

I think the point is why is the football ticket revenue even a part of the conversation if the REA is generating all of this extra revenue. It isn't that people are ungrateful, it is that there are a lot of gray areas where it looks like a lot of other programs are slighted even more than it seems necessary and the REA seems to hold a little more sway than it should considering it's purpose is for the benefit of UND athletics as a whole. There are multiple instances where they seem to operate in a manner that doesn't exactly line up with that mission statement, such as something as trivial as the design of the BESC court where the REA completely ignored the athletic departments wishes.

Who's arguing the bolded and what is the actual relevance to how long they've been there? The point, which you apparently missed, is NDSU isn't shelling out money to get rid of coaches either.

NDSU has a dumpster fire for a WBB program that they have known about for a couple years now, yet continue to let burn because the coach still has 2 seasons remaining on her contract. They are also letting their MBB coach finish out the last year of his contract (unless he pulls out a miracle) before replacing him. This is right off the heels of them publicly announcing their VB was not going to be renewed before the season even started, though she subsequently left on her own so maybe it worked outside of absolutely killing that recruiting cycle. So don't try to pretend that UND is on some island with how they handle coach's contract and ending them early when that's far from reality.

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with this, but if armchair AD's literally had their way, UND would be on the hook for around $2.8 million (ballpark) in severance pay alone if every coach people wanted fired was let go at the end of this school year: $280K for MBB (2 years remaining) $170K for WBB (1 year remaining, though not positive) $645K for football (3 years remaining) $1.7 million for hockey (4 years remaining) The actual answer is a little more complicated than firing everyone.

Well, kind of but not really. It wasn't a donation like the REA (or scoreboard, or locker rooms, etc), the Ralph took out a loan for the construction of the BESC, which will be paid off in 2020, however it is the ticket revenue that is collected paying the loan back. That's why there wasn't much of an argument previously on the allocation of WBB, MBB and VB tickets along with hockey, it actually made sense. Still haven't figured out the the football tie-in though.

The first part, no one is going to argue with, at least logically. The second part is definitely up for debate. There's a reason the usage agreement is supposed to be revisited and updated annually. It was originally done when UND was D2 in everything but hockey and scholarship/operating expenses for other sports were significantly lower (along with ticket sales). There has been significant changes within the athletic department yet minimal changes in the usage agreement. It was fair of Kennedy to question whether or not the current arrangement is benefiting UND's athletic department to its fullest extent, which is the stated purpose of the REA/related entities.

Those endowments also pay out absurd amounts of money every year, not "keep all the extra money in reserve and not donate anything to UND if they so pleased", which was what my comment was referring to. Since the usage agreement is approved annually, I imagine it's in both parties best interests if the payments back to UND remain at or above the $500K target. There are more open dates at the REA now, should give them some opportunity to diversify their revenue stream so it isn't so reliant on UND athletics. Appears the hockey team is putting the funds to good use.....

Considering the usage agreement requires them to donate money, no, they couldn't keep everything and put it in reserves. And since it is a non-profit for sole purpose of benefiting UND athletics, as it's mission statement reads, just accruing assets on its balance sheet instead of disbursing them would eventually lead to some issues with their non-profit status. They don't have free reign to accumulate a war chest and hold it on their balance sheet.

Serious question, how much was Entz running the defense and how much input did Klieman still have? My understanding was that Klieman's involvement was still pretty significant which is why some of the ndsu folks have some concern about the hire and subsequent DC hire.

An OL coach who was going to be fired, a DC who was demoted from a position coach to ST/asst position coach after 1 year at UNI and a recruiting coordinator who was 3-30 as a head coach at an NAIA school. Lot's of rocks to be thrown around about new hires I guess. Ask your new WR coach what he thinks of UND's new WR coach and then check with your former OC what he thinks of UND's new OL coach. Guessing the comments won't be what you want them to be. Young guys with lots to prove. But I guess the positive is, they don't have bad track records either.

The money for the scoreboard is not coming from UND's athletic budget. but for comparison: The cost of the scoreboard is the equivalent of the cost of 2-3 years of WIH expenses at UND. The ad revenue generated by the scoreboard will be more than than WIH did through ticket sales and other revenue sources. Obviously takes the student-athlete opportunities out of play but just puts things into perspective for the people complaining.