UNDvince97-01

So way back when, you were saying womens athletic expenses were being hidden on the mens athletic expense side to avoid being hyper-compliant for Title IX? Can you show me where that was? I don't seem to remember that, but I certainly could have missed it. Or do you have your information mixed up again?

Thanks, Kirk...

I guess that depends on the marshmallow... (barf)

Love the call to go for 2. Wouldnt have it any other way. You are on the road against an FBS opponent. If you have the opportunity to win the game after coming back from way down, then you take it. Bubba made the right call in my eyes. If he had the same opportunity tomorrow, I think he'd do the same thing. I also hope he would.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The books have been cooked for quite some time. They have hidden womens expenses buried all over the place and most of them are being put on the mens side in order to not be labeled as "hyper-compliant". It's as obvious as ever that we indeed are exactly that - "hyper-compliant". It will only become more obvious as we move along here...

Relax. Ugly first half - almost expected. Can we play a full game first before we jump off the ledge please? Love all the passion though.

"Lets be all-inclusive and hear everyone's voice (including those who are not fit to make decisions on the matter of athletics)....but I will make the final decision(s)." Not really sure what to think of it all.

Game.Day.

From UND website: "The REA Hockey Academy will now be running North Dakota Hockey camps. Dates are now set." REA Hockey Academy is in charge of the camps. Not UND.

Based on participation numbers from the last 2 summer camps, you can expect revenues for 2016 to be double that of the 2014 numbers. 2015 should be much higher as well, but this summer(2016) was a banner year from a camp participation standpoint. Incredible job by this staff. Return and potential - over 400 high school kids visiting campus and seeing UND firsthand, all while bringing in revenue. Now that's marketing your product and your University.

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...