UND-FB-FAN

You are again misguided, but I will give you credit for your attempt to make me look bad. My comments have been focused on individuals who are far from fair when it comes to supporting the University of North Dakota at all levels. Not supporting the new nickname and logo seems to be correlated with not supporting football and basketball ... I wonder why? Don't be so naive to think there isn't a large group of "hockey-only" folks out there - that is obviously where many of my comments are directed. Can you validate that everyone I've debated with actually does support UND football and basketball? I'll save you some time: of course not.

Way to create a moving target. I'm only referencing claims implied way earlier. I would hope you're kidding, but unfortunately I doubt the thought-process of many around here (both this forum and region).

How do I really feel? I feel that hockey is not untouchable at UND, which before yesterday, many thought was the case. A false narrative that floated around here was women's hockey could never be touched at UND due to the "hockey culture". That self-entitled attitude apparently rubbed off onto some of the student-athletes as evidenced by social media. Your hyperbole with the whole "UND football only" is way off. I have season tickets for UND men's hockey and enjoy supporting that program; however, I shouldn't be taken to task just for enjoying football and basketball more. That is another area that UND and its "fans" need to improve on: undue criticism.

The point is that the REA was not God's gift from Heaven to Grand Forks due to unparalleled hockey fandom ... UND hockey is in a very fortunate position with that building. Many other big-time hockey universities do not have that luxury. Yet, even with that luxury for UND, the almighty hockey programs of the impeccable hockey town of Grand Forks took a hit. Take note: the lesson is that hockey popularity (and feasibility) is far more fragile than you want it to be, even in Grand Forks and North Dakota.

Yes, this position is far too popular among the uninformed out-criers with their soapboxes. Again, these individuals decided to put no thought into the situation before ruining their personal reputation. UND has terminated administration members, both directly and indirectly; it has been well publicized. Do these vocal individuals, many of whom never attended or graduated from UND or any post-secondary institution for that matter, expect UND to be operated by a bunch of people off the street? C'mon people of Grand Forks and North Dakota - stop embarrassing us.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/19019077/highest-paid-us-employees-dominated-college-football-college-basketball-coaches?sf66823110=1 Sorry, but there were no men's hockey coaches, and certainly no women's hockey coaches, to be found. I guess North Dakota is still leading the nation in moral insight, though, right? That thought process always helps the know-it-all locals sleep at night. Even the "State of Hockey" pays more to a "bouncy ball" coach ... wow, can you believe it? The truth hurts if you're one-sided with the minority.

This is very true, and not coincidentally those are the same folks making the uneducated comments regarding the current situation. Uninformed, localized individuals making uninformed, stereotypical comments .... sad deal.

Yes, you are correct; however, the complacency of the hockey crowd could hurt them some. Basketball has many followers in the region and it certainly could grow rapidly. Same goes for football. Those sports can grow and grow fast in this region. Hockey is already maxed out. In fact, we just witnessed it have to get cut down to a more logical size after yesterday's events. If some alum gave UND men's basketball a $100 million gift then I'm pretty sure things would be a little different in the ol' hockey town of Grand Forks.

"Bouncy ball" will always be more popular than hockey. You should want people to accept facts, not "alternative facts" aka lies. The fact is UND basketball will not always have its season end in a "whipping" and basketball, in general, is a more popular sport than hockey. You obviously don't watch popular sports (I feel sorry for you, in that regard) because UND obviously does have a good chance to win games in the NCAA tournament.. NDSU beat #5 Oklahoma in 2014 and UND was down only 7 points to #2 Arizona with only 7 minutes or so to go in this year's NCAA tournament. It's called March Madness for a reason - check it out or look it up sometime If you want to use facts that favor your hopeless argument, try using Canadian statistics.

I agree. From what I've seen and heard, I think Brad S. could've definitely mediated this issue far better. There are so many people who feel UND made this cut with no class and that's all they see. They do not see or know about the $1.3 million budget reduction goal or, even in some extreme cases, the state's budget shortfall. Furthermore, many of these "out-criers" know very little about the women's hockey program to begin with; they certainly weren't doing anything to try fix the attendance issues. More reporting of facts and figures and less one-sided emotional bias in reporting would've certainly helped the overall perception of the issues facing UND.

Which is upsetting in itself being there are so many folks who feel it is necessary to comment on the situation yet they are so uninformed. Why are so many opposed to research and facts? A little background search would go a long ways in preventing emotionally-charged, subjective criticism. I've seen several comments from people who do not even realize the state's budget shortage, yet they feel it necessary to attack UND's administration. Their source is the "culture of Grand Forks and North Dakota" ... wow, the public education system still has a lot of work to do.

So UND should just sponsor men's and women's hockey and football? - Now that is laughable! UND's men's basketball program did win the Big Sky Conference and they participated in the NCAA tournament which was viewed by 1.4 million people. So, your standards are flawed, because women's hockey wouldn't even draw 10% of that viewership even if they were a national championship team. Heck, even UND's men's hockey has difficulty reaching viewing numbers like that. If you tell someone that UND tightly played the University of Arizona's top 5 men's basketball team, and that UND is the alma mater of NBA great Phil Jackson, you would have a positive conversation with said person outside of the area. If you want to work odds and be fair, @Old Time Hockey, that "outside of the area person" probably wouldn't want to talk hockey and would rather talk football and basketball (based on national interest levels). Also, Bemidji, St. Cloud, and Duluth are Division II programs that require less program-wide funding. That one is not hard. - EDIT: Also, Title IX compliance consideration.

With no women's hockey? HA! Doesn't seem that way. The University of North Dakota is a public research university that happens to be the State of North Dakota's flagship university. It is not a "hockey school", or whatever ignorant-labeling you can come up with.

You realize in this day and age, with social media, that leaks are nearly inevitable and there will always be second guessing, right? I understand this process is going to be very difficult for many people, especially those directly involved, but a single recruit is not worth the millions of dollars lost each year by UND's women's ice hockey program. Sorry, but it is the cold, hard truth.

You should maybe reconsider which bars you are going to then. You may have been outside of the country, but UND just had four conference championship teams this season. Women's hockey was not one of them. National championships are hard to come by. Your argument is flawed in that many top programs around the country should apparently be "laughed at". Should the Oregon Ducks cut football? Should Gonzaga cut their basketball programs? No national championships to speak of with those examples. Your standards are a bit off.

Compassion is important, but so is being fiscally responsible. Well, since you feel it was completely classless, would you care to provide any alternatives as to how it should have been done? It's pretty easy to criticize when you don't have to be the one coming up with solutions.

Those semantics are horseshit. That labeling and status needs to be adjusted. It takes away from UND's other championship-level programs, including the ones that have relatively the most national following. Most importantly, it gives people the incredibly false idea that UND and the State of North Dakota should sponsor hockey even if it loses millions and is played in an empty arena. Obviously not true with men's hockey but couldn't be more the case with women's hockey.

It's unbelievable how hypocritical people are with this entire situation. Never mind the obvious financial sense the cut makes, but the attendance numbers for women's hockey were atrocious. The fallout we are seeing is what happens when you label UND a "hockey school" - people think UND and the State of North Dakota should sponsor women's hockey even if no one shows up to watch it and it loses millions just because "UND is a hockey school" ..... ridiculous From a semantics standpoint, I oppose the "hockey school" labeling because it takes away from the many other championship-level athletic programs at UND, not to mention the sports at UND that also have relatively high national following. Men's hockey is the biggest program at UND, but that doesn't mean financial sense should be blatantly ignored for hockey programs in general ... good grief people. Football and basketball are the most popular sports in the country and there's no reason living in North Dakota or Minnesota should force you to move away from that obvious trend.

I hope Zimmerman doesn't have to see the field in 2017, but if he does, it will be key that he is ready to go. Like usual, many factors at play in his hopeful success if he does play in 2017 (God forbid). If the offensive line can improve, and with UND's stable of runners (Santiago, Oliveira, Johannesson, Gordon), UND could maybe grind-out a win with Zimmerman not having to air the ball out much.

Spot on. 1+ (I'm out of positive votes - HA)

Then how would you characterize women's and men's basketball national championship odds? Relatively speaking, UND football is not a long shot. Hockey produces respectable odds but one must consider relatively less competition.

They all lose money, but in terms of revenue and attendance, they perform far better than women's hockey. Even men's hockey has a net loss.

You're in the minority. Would even 5,000 people watch a hypothetical UND women's hockey national title? Doubtful based on popularity and following. 1.4 million (1,400,000, not 5,000) did just care about a game UND men's basketball was playing in and tuned in. Is the majority wrong? Doesn't matter because the majority breeds $. In contrast, the minority - which includes women's hockey in general - loses $.

I disagree. If NDSU, Montana, and Montana State can win a national championship, why can't UND? Tremendous expense in sports not even sponsored by the aforementioned schools is one major reason for UND's shortage in football; now, after this cut, UND can actually make practical progress. Hockey is niche and UND's and North Dakota's budget do not allow for it, particularly in the case of a non-attended hockey program which was UND women's hockey. UND football is not a long shot. Women's hockey with its 800 total followers was the long shot. The right decision was made today.

The numbers tell the story of this cut. It is entirely jusitified and necessary. Still, there will be anti-empricial data folks trying to paint a different picture in arguing that the financial/attendance common sense should've been ignored (well, it's already happening).