UND-FB-FAN

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 The Engelstads are heavily biased towards a niche sport and a outdated nickname and therein lies the problem.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.

I don't plan to change it nor do I plan for it to change otherwise; however, I do expect it to continue drowning UND in division I due to a division II mindset. No one around UND (particularly the "fans") can even comprehend change. The overly-conservative division II mindset is still at-large. The athletic arrangement at UND, including the REA inc. revenue sharing agreement, is not conducive to overall DI success. It's not the hockey program I specifically blame; rather, it's the emphasis on the REA and Engelstad family - including the current revenue sharing agreement that is appropriately under the microscope today. It doesn't have to be a "B1G model"; NDSU's model also works far better than UND's. Montana does real well. South Dakota State and South Dakota are both doing relatively well.

You're quite good at providing unfounded criticism. It would be neat, however, if you could actually explain such criticism. It's easy to throw rocks but not all that easy to withstand the retaliation. Your views of UND athletics and, in general, successful college athletics are most certainly outdated and distorted.

BB playing in the Alerus Center just screams hatred towards hockey, doesn't it? Wow, you need to get a grip. Now, if you specifically want to talk about collegiate hockey, you likely know the direction I'll go. What I said in regards to BB was not that, though. Instead, it focused on the idea of more space/seating with the Alerus Center. Nevertheless, I know of several Big 10 schools and a successful school in Fargo, ND, whose models completely support the notion that DI hockey is of merely minimal importance to a overall successful athletic department (Hint: football #1, basketball #2 always). UND's overall athletic department at the DI level has not been successful with their unique ignorant format; recent cutting of athletic programs probably is #1 as to support of this.

Go play in the parking structure? The Alerus Center could potentially accommodate basketball. Other options could certainly also be in the discussion. The "parking structure" is not being considered, sir.

I'd be perfectly fine watching the BB teams in the Alerus Center. In fact, I'd actually prefer it. More space and it would give UND even more of an opportunity to call the Alerus Center home. Actually, it could have a reciprocal effect and even improve UND football gamedays. Alerus Center - Home of UND Football AND Basketball - I like the sound of that.

REA is run by a bunch of schmucks who care far more about their personal image and opinions than the actual University and its student. Per the article, McGarry says it isn't about the nickname/logo, but I really suspect a lot of this is; and of course the revenue sharing/contract re-negotiations mentioned by @jdub27. Bottomline: IT IS JUST A LOGO/NICKNAME! The success of the student-athletes (wins, losses, GPA, graduation rate, etc.) is far more important than the logo that the "fans" wear on the front of their shirt. So, just as one could argue placing "The Fighting Hawk" on center court doesn't increase graduation rates or wins, one could also argue that the REA explicitly not allowing it is even more biased and emotionally-based than the mindset of those requesting the logo. Furthermore, if the student-athletes voted and ended up wanting the logo on center court, then it should be done. Simple as that. The REA should have no say in such a student-athlete driven decision. The REA is obviously a beautiful world-class facility, but by entering into this agreement nearly two decades ago, UND made a pact that would NOT be entirely in their favor.

There's no question this is true. UND football has been relatively strapped for cash during DI era and that continues to be the case. At the very best, UND football will be #2 on campus in Grand Forks (whereas most successful DI college football programs in the country are #1 on campus, such as NDSU), and considering the current state budget situation, UND football likely won't be reaching ideal funding anytime soon. The coaching salary pool remains limited despite what I would call modest improvements over the past 5 years (potentially contributing to the lack of what some would call necessary new hires) and the lack of a HPC phase II is also very troubling.

No to Muss (which I realize is a joke) ... But the checkbook does need to open up and UND football needs to reach outside when necessary (i.e. hire in some new blood when things don't get done with Minot State grads, etc).

There's always room for improvement.

The recent GF/UND football mindset is to be ecstatic with 75 percent capacity attendance. When UND is consistently hosting 11k+ on every gameday in the impeccable Alerus Center, then I'll be satisfied. Hopefully the Alerus Center isn't "too big for what the fanbase supports" ...

Oh stop it. I always have supported and will continue to support UND football. These have always been my thoughts about the Alerus Center. Compared to the pertinent regional rivals (NDSU, SDSU), the Alerus Center arguably has some deficiencies as a DI college football facility. With that said, it also has some very nice features (e.g., connected hotel/restaurants, indoor climate control, concourse size, "catwalk", new HD screens, etc.).

So if the Alerus Center had greater capacity, then there would be greater attendance? SDSU has early season attendances greater than UND's capacity; that is all I was trying to say. I obviously recongize the late season collapse in attendance. Remember, this whole discussion was largely based on outdoor football in this region; in the fall, it appears SDSU does just fine outdoors.

First half of the season attendance is well over 10,000 with some games over 15,000 for SDSU; that's more than UND. The 2016 UND playoff game was poorly attended with all things considered (9-2, first DI playoff game INDOORS) and UND choked. A lot of confirmation bias here. Bottom line is UND's attendance with their indoor situation has been nothing to write home about. The Alerus Center just does not allow for a consistently good atmosphere. It provides a climate controlled environment which, I agree with everyone, is very important for UND. After that, though, many aspects could be improved. The lack of endzone seating is part of that.

The Fargodome provides a way better atmosphere than the Alerus Center due to the seating arrangement (and wins, obviously).

UND's "indoor attendance" has been nothing to brag about compared to SDSU's recent attendance. All in all, the little town of Brookings has had very good recent outdoor attendance relative to UND (only exception being home playoff games which SDSU typically win). This is a common misconception that people around UND believe.

I don't like the Alerus Center orientation/set-up. It is all that is available though, and all things considered, it is not that bad. I just think the overly-enclosed feel with no endzone seating is "blah". The building does no favors for the gameday atmosphere (only exceptions are huge games that get everyone excited regardless: 2001 semifinal, 2016 playoffs). Everyone on here is scared of the weather, obviously. But on a nice Saturday in September, nothing beats outdoor football. Also, a team from down south coming to play in GF during December would be a major advantage for UND. If the 1 in 1,000,000 chance ever happened and UND somehow received a new improved indoor stadium, then yes, that would be even better, but that's not going to happen. New indoor stadium > renovated outdoor Memorial Stadium > Alerus Center > current Memorial Stadium

A renovated Memorial Stadium with a positive game day planning situation could potentially be better. Long ways from that happening though.

Senior Bowl situation was definitely the last straw ...

I agree that this part of the country does have good offensive linemen; problem is there aren't enough for all programs. Obviously only so many are high-end DI players. UND has lost too many offensive linemen "with potential" for me to think that it is just bad luck. UND has failed to find good players and develop them. NDSU, on the other hand, has taken backyard 9 man players and turned them into all-conference linemen.

Offensive line play is an issue around the country, hence the large scale changes in offensive style of play that takes pressure off the play up front (up-tempo spread option offenses). The programs that still run a downhill physical style of play need good offensive linemen, but those programs are becoming more and more scarce. Some of the few remaining include Alabama, Wisconsin, and Michigan. At the FCS level, NDSU is really one of the only programs that comes to mind, and they do it so well no one can counter it.

Quantity does not always equate to quality. To dismiss the QB position as an important top 3 position for UND is ignorant to what that position means to all levels of football. It is often labeled the most important position in sports for a reason. Just because UND has 3 (4 in the fall) quarterbacks on roster, that does not guarantee one of them will be an outstanding performer. Ketteringham put up numbers at Sacramento State but lost the vast majority of the games. There is no guarentee Rudolph's system or UND's personnel will allow Ketteringham's play to transfer from Sac State to UND. Lastly, UND won't win anything over 6 games this season if they only have a "decent juco" starting. UND's only chance at a winning record in 2018 is Ketteringham performing at a high level. He looks the part physically but his performance during the spring game was less than stellar. Have to hope he, his offensive teammates, and Rudolph's system all progress from now to the fall. Offensive line is always an important position group. I mentioned the offensive line as a top 3 group of concern for UND (2 of the 3 groups we mentioned are the same: OL, DB). The problem is it is difficult to develop mauler type linemen in this day and age of football. UND's offensive linemen (at least the ones on roster right now) are not going to develop into all-conference type performers this season. They will be average at best. In fact, average would be an improvement from what they showed at the spring game. The pressure is on Rudolph and the offensive staff to implement an offensive system that does not rely on tremendous push up front each and every play. Anybody can coordinate offense when the offensive line dominates; UND's offensive line will not be doing anything close to dominating this season.