UNDvince97-01

The peak of potential for WH has come and gone with little financial effect on the program as a whole (Lamoureaux Twins). The biggest indictment is that the REA doesn't even want womens hockey anymore as it will be an eternal black hole and they know it.

This makes a lot of sense, and I would like to think Kennedy is thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, it is my belief that he goes with recommendation of the committee - that's the pulse I'm getting. Given the makeup of the committee, I hope I'm wrong and you are right.

That's the common theme and belief amongst many of our fans, and rightfully so. However, I'm going to predict Studsrud will be MUCH Improved this year...to the point we may all be saying "wow" by midseason if he stays healthy. Big jump from last year on a passing production and efficiency standpoint from Studsrud I think - because of his development and because of his improved weapons. Of course that's assuming we protect him well.

Oh I see. I presumed many in this discussion were privy to the 13-14 FY report link that jdub27 posted earlier this year and in the budget thread that was discussed ad nauseum. Very similar on that side in the 13-14. Guess not.

Not saying I did. Just saying that's where I got my numbers. I'm not sure how that changes anything? It says what we already knew.

That's the 14-15 FY report I used for my numbers earlier.

Good points actually. Glad you brought this up. Now you are talking potential. Supply and demand for a winning program. Here's a look at just a few current trends for UND Football: - Winning percentage: UP - Program perception: UP - Recruiting: UP - Season ticket sales: UP - Overall ticket sales: UP - Potential for hosting playoff game(s): UP - Guarantee payouts from FBS schools: UP 300k in 2014 from SJSU 325k in 2015 from WY 350k in 2016 from BGSU 450k in 2017 from Utah 500k in 2018 from Washington From the 2013-14 and 2014-15 FY numbers... - Summer camp revenues: UP (night and day from 2013 to 2016) 28k in 2013 102k in 2014 (Bubba's 1st year) 2015 and 2016 camp revenue numbers havent been released yet, but all indications are that they will be way above 2014 numbers as participation was at an all-time high. - Rent expense for Alerus: will be DOWN (High Performance Center) 154k in 2013 156k in 2014 (anyone have an idea what we are charged for a gameday at the Alerus?) - Severance payments: DOWN and off the books 47k in 2013 36k in 2014 It appears President Kennedy is attempting to make the following all but imminent: Near term (5-10 yrs) potential for Football travel budget to be slashed in half (approximately 550k in 2014) for football specifically in the MVFC membership. Entire athletic department (minus hockey and football) travel budget with potential to be cut in half in the event of a move to the Summit. Will all that get UND Football into the black? Maybe, maybe not. Hosting playoff games could determine the answer to that question. If we hosted 3 games like we did in 2001 and 2003, with even a 9,000 attendance average, the math starts to add up. We havent even touched on the football program endowment (currently around 1.5 million) and/or annual gifts last year (2015-16) totaling around $400,000. I believe there are approximately 900 living UND Football alums, the biggest representation by far of any athletic alumni base (obviously). Over 120 years of history and tradition. Strength in numbers in terms of ROI. It's apples and oranges (comparing WH and FB financially), and I know a lot of people here are just being the devil's advocate regarding the expense side of UND Football, but I wanted to illustrate the discrepancy between the 2 programs as they stand - and it is large. The cost per student athlete is double for womens hockey and the future potential for both sports are polar opposites. Ill say it again - I didnt want to cut sports then, and I dont want to now. However, we are essentially looking at the 2nd round of cuts in 6 months. I think it's great we have had Olympians from UND because of womens hockey. But outside of that, it simply doesnt offer much return. So finally........ In comparison, what are the future trends, outlook and potential for womens hockey? Is it feasible or justiifable long-term? Return on the investment? Honest questions at a time when we need to make some serious adjustments financially. Sorry for the long post.

Brad's article was mostly on point regarding the committee makeup and biases. But I too was disappointed in the rhetoric of that specific comment. I'm a fan of UND. So therefor I am a fan of all UND sports, yes, even including womens hockey. In competition, I cheer for all UND teams. We have to drop sports, because the state and our president say so. It's unfortunate. Are "football fans" not "hockey" fans? How about "volleyball"? Or "basketball". I am a "fan" of all things UND. So under Brad's premise, the "hockey fans" and "volleyball fans" and "basketball fans" are also calling for womens hockey to be dropped. So are "swimming and diving fans" and "soccer fans". Overall Brad does an excellent job on pretty much all of his stuff. Just think he had a lapse here specifically and maybe even showed his own bias after discussing the many biases of the committee he wrote the article about.

Revenues, season ticket sales, fan interest, endowments, annual fundraising, ROI after graduation in terms of giving etc. Strength in numbers. What's the potential for UND Football? What's the return? Will it get better? Time will tell. What's the potential for UND womens hockey? What's the return? Will it get better? Don't we already know that answer?

It should also be noted that the last time around (just this spring) Faison was advised to make deeper cuts all at once so that it wouldnt have to be revisited down the road in the near future like they thought might be imminent. Faison ignored the advice from multiple entities on campus and caved in to the pressure of his female delegation, which he has always let run the show. Fast forward only 6 months or so, and now Faison must (and I have to believe Schaefer) have remorse for not doing it right the first time. Back in the meat grinder. Faison continues to lean on people to make decisions for him that have an alternate agenda of what is best for athletics and the University of North Dakota. So the idea was that Schaefer would clean up the nickname and budget mess before Kennedy arrived with a clean slate....Faison listened to his female delegation, Schaefer listened to Faison. And here we are....and Kennedy is dealing with it....again. It should have all been done the right way last spring. One time. One press conference. Poor judgment, vision and leadership.

Potential post of the year ^^^^^ And so many facts.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding by most people regarding Title IX because quite frankly it has been sold as such. UND does not have to meet every single prong and criteria for compliance - they have chosen to. They could easily drop womens hockey and meet 2 of the 3 prong criteria at minimum. There would be no issues.

Agreed. At minimum you should see plenty of Mason Bennett on 3rd down in nickel packages.

People also need to understand that Title IX is not an issue when discussing dropping womens hockey. You can drop womens hockey and still be Title IX compliant. There are many ways to make that happen. That is a well-engineered fallacy that has been driven home and presented as fact by people who have an agenda. EDIT: I mentioned two of them previously in a post in this thread. Schaefer fell for it, lets see if Kennedy does again.

I see our resident Title IX bully SWA and Sue Jeno are on the IAC committee... So there's that...

Amazing what two different people can hear when words are spoken from the same mouth... I heard Faison say in the interview that Larsen told him ndsu was dropping their FCOA commitment because of budget cuts and that a drop down to D2 was all but imminent, so I guess we disagree in what we heard from Faison's interview. In fact, I also personally heard that from a very reliable source from within ndsu. As long as we're at it, did Faison say he supports Trump or Hillary in that interview? Sorry, I stopped listening.

Patty V of the MVFC has been very and consistently outspoken that she has no vision or leadership qualities for the MVFC and is not looking for teams. She also has stated she will continue to be reactive rather than proactive in the tumultuous climate and landscape that currently is college football. She has no interest in securing the long term future of what currently is the MVFC with a geographical core of the Dakota schools. So, the 100% opposite of Doug Fullerton.

Lots of discussion here on Stony Brook's defense. Remember now, Stony Brook's defense is no good. That has been discussed ad nauseum on here since we played them in 2014 when they finished with the following finishes while playing in the CAA: - 3rd nationally in total defense - 4th nationally in scoring defense - 8th nationally in passing defense - 15th nationally in rushing defense They didn't get any respect by some on here then, so I can't imagine they will get any now.

So.....Tom "Torch and Pitchfork" Miller is at it again, huh? I guess I disagree with the notion that this was handled properly by our new President or should be overlooked. Not a great start to say the least. He should know better. He's a politician and he's had a bird's eye view of everything that has transpired over the last 6 months at UND and at the Cow College to the south. Cannot understand how he thought that was an effective way to communicate such a hot button issue. A red flag right out of the gate? I guess I'm shocked and disappointed by his judgment more than anything, given the timing and topic. Just hold a press conference and do it the right way the first time so questions can be answered. Horrible start and even worse optics. But I know others here disagree with that assertion. Hopefully Kennedy learns from this PR mistake and we can all move on to bigger and better things for him and UND. Oh, and the Twitter communication was......let's say.....not presidential.

Are we sure we still have a CFO of athletics?

"Bob Johnson". Submit that to The Onion. Cant even take that seriously. What a waste of ink.

At least you left your political view and bias out of this post... Port's tact and how he conveys his message is typically an issue. However, the factual info he has provided here and in the past on other topics is not, regardless of who is being called out on the floor.

Just another net gain for coverage of UND Football that makes me excited about this season. All outlets (TV, Paper, Radio, UND, blogs, websites) are upping the ante this year and the excitement is building. Compare the excitement and additional coverage to just 3-4 years ago. Giddy.

No. Absolutely not.

Drama drum? You are very versatile and limber, have to give you that. First it was terrible, then you got info and you could see their angle more and now that the policy has been overturned it's.....??? Let me know when you get the talking points by text...