UND-FB-FAN

They're fine. Salaries and HPC phase II desperately needed. Without those two things, UND is not a top school within both the MVFC and Summit.

Football and basketball need more support. That is simply the way it is. It isn't an excuse when facts and figures show UND football & basketball coaches are underpaid and the coach offices, locker room and meeting room facilities are less than adequate (especially for football). If those things weren't the case and attendance was still horrible, then your attendance argument would perhaps work. But until football and basketball have adequate level funding and facilities we don't know what they can actually be within Grand Forks as DI programs. They've never had that opportunity since the REA came on board during the DII era and revenue redistribution was not addressed during the DI transition.

They aren't if UND continues to be labeled a " hockey school". You can't have it both ways; that is, label UND a "hockey school" but yet expect football and basketball to entirely carry their own weight. That double standard is ridiculous as it tears UND apart, as evidenced by some of the responses on this board. Despite what people may think, I have no problem with UND emphasizing hockey; but, it should be perfectly acceptable then for hockey to support to a certain degree the other programs. If you want to be the bell cow sport, then embrace it. Look around the country and see how it is done. This idea that UND hockey is a separate entity from every other sport is horrible and needs to stop.

Impossible for the University of North Dakota to make that happen though, right? It would have to be from an outside donor apparently. No way the available funds internally could be renegotiated and redistributed, right? Some people have really strange views on how collegiate athletics work; the extraordinarily rare gift of the REA has really skewed people's ability to understand this.

D1jv run? You realize UND plays at the same level, right? You are really showing your true colors towards "other" UND athletics; it's impossible for attitudes like this to ever actually help UND athletics.

The entire point of negotiations ... can you prove that the Englestads don't pocket some of the revenue that truthfully belongs to UND via their student-athletes? Don't worry, your precious hockey is maxed out and a 50/50 split (hell even a 75/25 split) won't sink the mighty UND hockey program.

Why do you want to isolate all the programs as separate entities and not just embrace the entire UND athletic department? It's too bad there are "fans" of UND that clearly associate with only a single program and not several. So what if UND hockey were to help out other programs; it ultimately would move the entire athletic department forward. It's amazing how UND hockey fans subconsciously represent the very mindset that inherently exists with the REA agreement: protect UND hockey at all costs, even if it comes at the expense of other UND programs.

UND hockey and the REA are in a tremendous position because they have an actual revenue stream; that's great. Many major DI programs (including hockey, football, and basketball) around the country, despite their size, are often turning net losses. It's the reality of collegiate athletics. Therefore, the overall goal here is not to make UND football and basketball revenue sources; rather, it is just to enhance them with some of the fortunate revenue generated via the REA.

"... particularly for the sports that most other universities emphasize." Tennis never falls into that category.

Although this post makes perfect sense, it is missing the overall issue of equality and mutual benefit within the entire athletic department, particularly for the sports that most other universities emphasize. The UND-REA revenue sharing agreement is outdated; that's all. The terms of the agreement need to be renegotiated for the present DI landscape. No one here is trying to say the REA or the UND hockey program is the primary problem; actually, its part of the solution. The budget crisis cannot be entirely explained by UND misspending; that is shortsighted. Very few people, if anyone, are advocating the hockey program or the REA is a bad thing. It's the way it is presently utilized in the context of the overall athletic department that is to be debated. My previous post again applies.

Please don't hyper-focus. Ironically, that's part of the issue at hand. The comments I made were in relation to this overall issue, not just the post I quoted.

That wasn't the point and it isn't the point. Bolstering hockey while isolating the other programs does not equate to a healthy athletic department as a whole. That is the overall concern here. The logo is simply a component of the overall issue. Yes, the Ralph Engelstad Arena is a tremendous venue. The hockey program is a top national program. But, the concern is still there that the University of North Dakota lacks in its other programs considering it's division one status and *potential* revenue redistribution opportunities.

Those sound like the top two objectives to me. Chaves knows what is going on and is competent. He definitely is an improvement over Faison in this early going. Ralston is awkward 24/7

You're missing the point. The overall relationship, or the lack thereof, between the University of North Dakota and the Ralph Engelstad Foundation is the issue. The logo just happens to be one of the stages by which it's set. The University of North Dakota represents the ideals of more than just those directly associated with the Betty Engelstad Sioux Center and Ralph Englestad Arena. If folks feel the REA makes or breaks the University of North Dakota, then I would really question those folks' values and principles.

There you go again, criticizing someone because they don't believe in your extraordinarily biased views. You are tremendously one-sided in your thoughts (REA, Fighting Sioux, hockey priority) and, quite frankly, self-centered in regards to the desires of the actual UND students and student-athletes. You are exemplifying a trend that shows major deficiencies in your reasoning rather than everyone else's.

My thought for today is can UND beat a quality team on the road this season? It's incredibly important for both team's confidence and the FCS playoff committee rankings. Washington, Sam Houston State, and I would even say Idaho are the three games that fall into that category in my opinion. UND needs to win at least one of those three road games to be a playoff team; the Idaho game would obviously be the favorite at this point. Assumption is that an average to above average team should be able to win most if not all home games; cueing Alerus Center home-field advantage ...

The whole "bring him in" mentality is wrong from the start. I know it's been beaten to death on here, but Rudolph has to play Santiago more in the slot this year or at least in 2 back packages. The good college offensive coaches are innovative. It's almost appears Bubba and Rudolph take pride in being plain and vanilla and don't want to even think outside of the box. Plain ol' offensive football won't work, I'm afraid, when you have mediocre at best offensive line play. To top it off, it hurts even more when you DO HAVE all-american backfield talent. Another imporatant consideration is that Rudolph may just be a poor in-game playcaller; I'm sure he has the ability to draw these things up but they stay locked up and uncalled during games for some reason. He's the kind of coordinator that calls an inside zone or draw when the going gets tough. No reason why Santiago and Oliviera can't both be on the field 5 to 10 plays a game. This is the time of the year when Rudolph should he developing this stuff.

There you go again, perfectly representing said impulsive public opinion. You again try to personally insult me with some asinine survival of the fittest scenario in hope your unfounded points somehow stick. But, shortly thereafter, you again show your true hypocritical colors by claiming all that matters is capital and the untouchable hockey program. Those very points (capital - REA inc.; hockey vs entire university) are the very matters that need alteration. I agree with your comment that the approach Kennedy used obviously could've been different; however, his intentions I yet support as of now.

Bingo, and hence, we have a pattern that supports my thoughts that this UND-REA inc. agreement has essentially sold the betterment of UND athletics as a whole into the hands of the Engelstads (and therefore nothing happens unless it's for hockey). Even if UND wanted to provide more funds to football and/or basketball, they wouldn't be able to due to the Engelstads. This gets brought up to McGarry by Kennedy and apparently she, as her history suggests, goes berserk and tries to use the impulsive North Dakota public opinion of Kennedy to aid her.

You just don't get it. And that's fine, because there's no point arguing with someone who can't comprehend the financial logic. You simply refute everything I say with the same redundant narrative and then conclude with criticism of UND football/basketball and my education. That is not impressive by any standard, especially to people with collegiate athletics competence. Your definition of "welfare" innately places you in a philosophical position against UND football and basketball. I disagree with it. I think more of the revenue that hockey generates - for at least a trial of a few years - should be used to invest in UND football and basketball. Investment basics 101. If UND football and basketball can grow in success, they themselves will have greater revenue opportunities. You, however, are obviously against that due to your bias towards UND hockey. You can't see that individually and that's fine I guess. I just believe UND hockey could use a few year break from all of its generated revenue so that UND football and basketball could benefit from the investment. UND hockey already has the nicest facilities in all of collegiate hockey. Unfortunately, the REA inc. agreement with UND prevents hockey's status from completely benefiting other sports.

The Engelstads essentially purchased UND athletics and you fail to realize it (or at least youre content with it). Football and basketball could finance far more on their own if they were initially funded in such a way to have competitive standards relative to their peers (principally coaching salaries and facilities - afterthoughts for the hockey program due to protection from the REA inc.). Also, it's not welfare when the hockey student-athletes play for the University of North Dakota, not the Fighting Sioux Engelstad Fund. UND, not the REA foundation, should control financing decisions, hands down.

While the millions of extra revenue that the REA holds - that could benefit UND football or other non-hockey sports - will again find its way toward the hockey program and not football and basketball coaching salaries/HPC phase II. The REA inc. pockets far more than it should for hockey and not UND athletics as a whole.

Top of sport division is your metric? That doesn't work when the sport you are using as your comparison is niche and has relatively minimal following compared to the other top collegiate sports. You do realize the "none top of sport" football program south of Grand Forks draws more to a single game than any UND hockey game has, right? Or that football program that you called "mediocre" earlier in Montana draws over 20,000 a game to watch "none top of sport" football. Heck, even the tiny town of Brookings draws more to SDSU football games then UND hockey does. Bottomline is the discrepancy in national popularity between football and hockey is so great that your single "top of sport" metric is meaningless; other than to make those heavily biased towards hockey (like yourself) satisfied with UND's direction. As for your earlier post about how this entire UND-REA agreement is detrimental to the other sports: well, the REA gets the majority of the revenue. There is no way to ensure that revenue goes to non-hockey UND sports that need the funding. Much of it goes towards the REA which benefits hockey (and very little benefits basketball and volleyball via the Betty per minimal upgrades). Much of the revenue that the Englestad Foundation does donate back to UND goes to UND hockey too via coaches salary, hockey scholarships, travel costs, etc. The current arrangement obviously is heavily biased towards UND hockey. The other sports would be better serviced if UND could directly obtain more of the ticket sales revenue than they currently do; hence, here we are back to the UND/REA agreement. The issue of having the Engelstads control much of the revenue of UND sports rather than UND being able to allocate all of their revenue is the principal issue. This is the University of North Dakota we're talking about. I certainly did not graduate from Engelstad University. No matter how generous we want to perceive the $100M gift, the Englestad family still did NOT purchase all of UND athletics. The revenue sharing could at least be 50/50. The Engelstads are heavily biased towards a niche sport and a outdated nickname and therein lies the problem.

It's night and day difference. NDSU capitalizes big-time on that agreement relative to UND-REA.

False. There are both primary and secondary repercussions of the REA agreement that do in fact cost the other programs. You really are trying to spin your agenda. Yes, the REA does dramatically impact the UND hockey program, but the other programs are minimally affected (certainly not impacted at the level you suggest). Also, you're saying UND *can* reach "mediocre heights" with the current arrangement? Well, that certainly doesn't mean they will. Actually, the odds are far from their favor given the current situation. It is less than ideal for the non-hockey student-athletes of the University of North Dakota.