UNDvince97-01

Yeah.... I'm really glad our AD ignored the September 15th, 2015 email....thank gawd....good stuff there.... Hope we see more of that in the future from our leaders.

Miller only noted that Baker sat out last year after transferring in and will be eligible this season. I don't think that means Baker is or isn't going to be here next season. Bringing in Kinsey definitely gives me reason to be concerned about Baker.

Oh c'mon.....you really don't?... It's ok to laugh at yourself from time to time. I do it a lot. Off topic: I golfed Golden Eagle on Saturday!

Even you have to see the irony in this comment, no?...

It also should be noted that the 40 mens participants, mens coaching salaries and 5.5 mens scholarship cut were not taken into consideration for the future. So the numbers in the article are obsolete and UND's already excessive Title IX compliance numbers will increase even more next year.

This is your opinion and in no way a fact of any kind. And I respect that. Myself and many others have respectfully tried to tell you that you dont know that for sure. Provide a source for that and I will stand corrected. Truth is, you could inevitably be right with your guess as to what will or will not happen. There's also a possibility you are wrong and that it is offered to UND to get them into the B1G Hockey Conference. Again, as myself and others have stated, if there's nothing to gain financially or otherwise, then by all means stay in the NCHC.

UND does have to follow Title IX. To what extent is the subjective question? Where are we at now for the 3 prong system? Is it more than we need to be regarding compliance? How do we compare to our regional peer institutions and their compliance figures? Some of these complaints and problems exist because we are exceedingly Title IX compliant when we don't have to be. We will be even more compliant than we already are now after cutting 40 more mens participants and 6 mens scholarships. Could we have/should we have cut a womens sport? This false assumption that we cannot cut a certain womens sport because of Title IX is false and borderline fear mongering. We could allocate all or some of their scholarships and/or participants to the other womens sports and still be laughing about our compliance. This is where the beef lies with the athletics department and their Title IX bullies.

Oh cmon, all I'm saying is that I was unsuccessful finding where it says the B1G "would never offer guaranteed affiliate membership to UND". Maybe you can help us out by showing where you found that. I would be more than happy to read it and then admit you were right.

Can you help me understand how you know this to be true?...

Or is ASU the NCHC replacement for UND when they go to B1G hockey?

And I agree. If we get revenue of some sort and the scheduling we would want, this would be the biggest concession for UND hockey fanbase in a quid pro quo scenario. I'd still point to the BTN here, but your point is valid. However, don't sell short the pride of UND hockey fans to travel to those campuses and venues. The interest in that could grow, just as our interest in games with Miami, SCSU and UNO has.

Good point. However, not that long ago UND fans weren't too excited about Miami, UNO or SCSU either. Even Duluth and maybe Denver have escalated over the last few years.

So are you saying that college lacrosse is more popular than college hockey? Again, from a BTN network and revenue sharing standpoint, lacrosse and hockey is apples to oranges, agreed? What ESPN does with their programming is different than what the BTN does with theirs. Plus, BTN is sharing their money with their membership institutions. ESPN, not so much. ESPN has zero bearing on the discussion of whether UND should consider a negotiated affiliate membership with the B1G and their Big Ten Network TV deal. Honest question: does BTN show lacrosse on their network regularly? I really do not know the answer. EDIT: looks like they do.

1. Comparing Lacrosse to Hockey in regards to revenue, TV ratings and "current problems": Not comparable. UND would have impact to B1G hockey that isn't in the same conversation as Johns Hopkins Lacrosse has/had. UND brings so much more to the table from a financial standpoint. 2. What was done in the past will be so in the future: we don't know that. 3. The B1G could make that offer you mentioned: they certainly could, but they could also offer something a lot better. 4. That's when UND tells them to pound sand: if that's what they are offering, as I have said literally from day one, yes I agree. No argument here.

Who said UND NEEDS to go? Under the right negotiated conditions, the B1G could offer alot to UND. If not, then stay NCHC. So how much revenue and TV rating do they bring to the B1G? Is B1G lacrosse having the same problems as B1G hockey? Just because Johns Hopkins Lacrosse doesnt get revenue doesnt mean UND Hockey cant. In terms of impact, it's apples to oranges comparison.

Hey, you used the word "judging".... I just want what's best for UND....for all sports and academics.

Of course you are......no surprise there. Your judging of me by my avatar is comical. Yeah, I hope UND Football gets added to the B1G because of hockey.

I'm saying those percentages include 3 Frozen Fours and national championship by UND in the last 3 years. If you are saying the reason for our success is because we were in the NCHC and not the B1G, then there would be a big debate to be had.

Right, and that's the problem I have....that many don't see the overall benefit to the program and UND.

How are the percentages for the NCHC and B1G if you add UND to the B1G?

For all the people freaking out about the possibility of considering the B1G: Nobody is saying dive in headfirst if an invite is extended. We have a good fallback situation with the NCHC and have good leverage with the B1G if they want us. (I truly believe UND is their hockey fix) Negotiate a small revenue deal and negotiate when the games are played. If you don't like the negotiated options, then say no and stay NCHC. It's simple, really. We would never leave the NCHC unless it benefited us in the short term and long term.

I put them there because they are "natural rivals" on the BSC schedule every year and travel for them would be easiest. Maybe it's a moot point because of flights and them being near Denver anyways.

Geographically speaking, 2 options.... Big Sky North Eastern Washington Idaho Montana Montana State North Dakota Northern Colorado Portland State Big Sky South UC-Davis Cal-Poly Sacramento State Southern Utah Northern Arizona Weber State Idaho State OR Big Sky East North Dakota Montana State Northern Colorado Weber State Southern Utah Northern Arizona Idaho State Big Sky West Eastern Washington Montana Portland State UC-Davis Cal-Poly Sacramento State Idaho There's some merit to both, but the north/south format probably makes the most sense. Would there be some sort of championship game between the 2 division winners? I'm trying to figure out how the scheduling would/could work. If so, there will be an argument to be had regarding the Montana schools - splitting them or putting them together? Some might want them split up in the event of a championship game like the ACC did with Miami and Florida State. I have no idea about the logistics or feasibility of any of this. Just talking out loud and speculating.

I don't think you nor I know that for sure... However, if that were indeed the case, it's a non-starter. We would need to have some small revenue percentage - peanuts for them, compared to what they are taking in and what UND would bring in return.

Dave has been in contact with UND Baseball. I would be willing to bet he will have some sort of financial impact before it's all said and done. How much is the question.