jdub27

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.

I was told they weren't going to be able to keep it on there due to the changes that were going to have to be made to support the new boards. They would only be able to pull it off if they could use the same frame, which didn't sound possible. Either they figured out a way to do it or they are just showing it in the rendering to keep people from complaining until it is too late.

There is a reason for that one and it wasn't that he thought taking a significant pay cut to move to Fargo was some sort of promotion. He was making $350K/year at Rutgers, his new salary is likely around 25-35% of that.

That article is 14 months old and I can't find anything confirming or even a passing mention that it has made any headway since then.

And I'm sure sure the 20,000 (!!!) post thread about UND on the MooU board is full of stuff that affects Ndsu...

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this but if I remember correctly, part of the reason it got cut was with how the budget cuts were allocated. While I'm not sure the course was actually profitable each year (though very close to break-even one way or another), when looking at the budgets, it was about a $300K line item that is pretty non-essential to the mission of the University (much more so than housing or dining), especially when the golf teams don't even utilize it. And that number is the annual operating costs and wouldn't include any upgrades or capital needs of the course. Closing it didn't really move the needle one way or another on the profit side, it does make an impact in terms of cutting a percentage of revenues/budgeted funds, which is what the state mandated cuts were based off of. Also, to be clear, only 25% of the land the golf course sat on was gifted to the University, the remaining 75% was purchased. I don't know what land prices were in 1962 and whether it was sold at a discount, but UND paid $300 acre for 75% of the land, with the remainder being given. What's interesting is the current size of the course is only 67.5 acres, much smaller than the original 150 acres.

The appeal was denied on Wednesday before the team left, which is why he didn't travel.

Denver only cares about Denver. They moved into a conference that didn't require them to change their sports offerings. They preferred to move to the West Coast Conference but that would have required them to add sports which would have bloated their athletic budget. The Summit didn't care and Denver wasn't sticking around the WAC with the band of misfits. It is a safe bet that they didn't make a decision in late 2012 to join the Summit because they knew UND going to join it 6 years later and just 2 years after UND announced it was joining the Big Sky. Nov, 2010 - UND accepted into Big Sky July, 2012 - UND officially a Big Sky member ????? - Denver realizes UND isn't going FBS in the Big Sky, but instead joining the Summit and will go FBS with that league Nov, 2012 - Denver accepted in Summit July, 2013 - Denver officially a Summit member January, 2017 - UND accepted into Summit July, 2018 - UND officially a Summit member

Is he part of the same group of guys who wrote a nice big fluff piece about the hiring of a new assistant coach shortly after he was hired and then failed to mention the DUI he got in between getting hired and the article being written which was a span of a few weeks? Or same group who failed to report a player being charged with Disorderly Conduct/Fighting the night of a quarterfinal game and then being allowed to play in the semis and finals? They did manage a quick comment that he was suspended for the season opener this year against Cal Poly but gave zero details on why other than "in house punishment". Yeah, sounds like a group that is all over reporting things like this. Both of the above examples are public record if you don't believe me. You're about 10 years behind on how things are handled. The Fargo media is scared to death to lose access like they were threatened with under Bohl and they've continued on, holding back plenty of stories or doing minimal reporting by just stating it was an "in-house punishment" or "violation of team rules" with no details on why. I'll concede that there are times, that is the most information you are going to get or at least able to go public with, but when your employer has the reports that have the reasons on them and you ignore it, it is intentional.

That's your opinion and nothing more. You don't think it's strange that an internet reporter was the one who "broke" the story shortly before game time when at least one player, who was a starter, didn't even make the trip? The team had been there since Thursday and Forum Communications had multiple reporters there the whole time and just happened not to notice. That's besides hearing that at least one or two reporters flat out knew and chose not to report it.

So players are taking substances that are on the list without pepper paperwork? Interesting angle to take, nothing to see I guess, just a clerical error with multiple players.

The banned stimulant list isn't ambiguous at all actually...

Well then that's changed. I know that early in this current run, there were games against some big time programs turned down for various reasons.