- Popular Post
UND-FB-FAN
-
Posts
10,858 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
100
Posts posted by UND-FB-FAN
-
-
40 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
The ethical and logical flaws in your presumptive and innacurate conclusions, due to your psychotic fixation of percieved injustice, viewed through such a narrow objective lens..... are truly astounding.
How you can possibly be a functioning adult is either an impressive string of luck or the result of exemplary multi-tier support systems that enable continued survival.
14 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:I agree Hockey is no bigger than the University as a whole.
But make no mistake...
Kennedy CAN NOT win a fight he picks with Hockey. He doesnt have the capital, the staying power or the standing to be successful. He needs to find a better approach.
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.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
32 minutes ago, Csonked Out said:she is the same person that pulled a $14 million gift to her alma matter because they forced out the president in March that she wanted. She seems like she tries to control things on a university level with the foundation gifts and endowment funds.
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.
-
2
-
3
-
8 hours ago, Frozen4sioux said:
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.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
Again you think this magic money generated not from other programs should br paid out to other programs???.
Thats welfare. UND football cant stand on its own without welfare? Where does the money come from when nobody pays into the kitty?
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
LOL... wow what color is your sky?
A fiasco... wow, delusional.
So locker room being paid for with private money is evil slum lording but...
Mascot paid for with private money is "how dare you have an opinion on how private money is spent"?
Hypocritical at best but blatantly ignorant. Either way the jealousy is just sad ....and its ugly.
Pay scales are dictated by the markets of the levels of play of teams. No vast conspiracy to keep the people from NOT being paid....
Raise some money, go get Phil Jackson or some other alum to donate a huge pile of money and pay up, CREATE a world of advantage .... dont cry because you dont "GET."
Pretty sure it was just reported that REA was about to "plow" $800k into a new roof for the Betty. Did basketball generate $800k last year? Let alone a profit.... I wonder where those funds came from.... hmmmmmm.
p.s. It wasn't football.
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.
-
57 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
Thats not an insult. How possibly could it be?... That is just the true and rightful levels of success that could possibly be achieved.
Will football ever compete in top of sport division, no.
Will basketball ever in our wildest dreams compete past the first weekend of the tourney, no.
Its not insultung, its just the truth.
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.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, jdub27 said:
The Fargodome was paid for by city sales tax and NDSU just rents the facility, the agreement would be similar to what UND has with the Alerus Center. Doubtful there is a revenue split on tickets, though there might be something in terms of suites or concessions but it will still not be comparable to UND/REA
It's night and day difference. NDSU capitalizes big-time on that agreement relative to UND-REA.
-
15 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
NDSU, SDSU, USD and Montana?... Shoot for the moon all-star.
But theres no reason that UND can't achieve such mediocre heights as you aspire to.
WITH the current REA situation.
I guarantee you, without the revenue the UND athletics DOES receive from REA, there would be a much more dire budgetary crisis in the athletic department. D1.... that would be a pipe dream, even at the D1jv level.
THE REA situation does not cost UND athletics money. If you cant understand that I dont know how you get through the day.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
Big 10?... are you insane? If you even for a second think that UND can or even SHOULD be modeled after the B1G model of athletic programs you are fishing for a life of dissapointment.
Football will NEVER be the #1 sport at UND, just live with that instead of holding onto the desperate hate filled jealousy. Football will not benefit by the demise of Hockey as you so pathetically exude.
Football can benefit by the success of the Hockey program... not its relegation.
and by the way the only chance in h e double hockey sticks of getting close to the B1G.... is in..... prepare yourself...
Hockey.
Attitudes like this guy is the root of fan base division. Embrace who we are, a hockey school. With a growing football program that can hope to succed on a smaller stage at some point.
It is what it is. Deal with it or dont but you can't change it.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Frozen4sioux said:
Wow it didnt take long for someone to top the previous dumbest most idiotic post of the year from earlier today but.... you just went out and achieved didn't you.
congrats.
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.
-
13 hours ago, siouxfan512 said:
You'll say anything to throw a little hate towards anything relating to hockey, won't you?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:
Go ahead and make that threat. Go play in the parking structure.
I'm sure the response by the REA to that pathetic threat from Kennedy?......
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.
-
Just now, jdub27 said:
Threatening to pull the basketball team is interesting. I've heard a long term plan involving that but it requures significant capital that could be better spent elsewhere at the moment.
I doubt the logo on the court has anything to do with this.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, gfhockey said:
Basketball coaches wanted logo on the court. Rea said no.
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.
-
2
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TRex said:
It's not just about the people you hire, it's more about the program
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).
-
5 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:
Are you talking about being happy that it improved from 50% capacity? Of course there's still greater improvement needed. You've turned into one of the biggest Debbie Downers on this board.
There's always room for improvement.
-
24 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:
That’s not the Grand Forks mindset though.
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" ...
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, bincitysioux said:
You don't seem to like much at all about UND football lately......................
The Alerus is an excellent facility for the level of football that North Dakota plays at.
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.).
-
38 minutes ago, UND1983 said:
Poorly attended? The place only seats 12,000+ and there was over 10,000 there.
Poorly attended is an SDSU playoff game.
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.
-
11 hours ago, jdub27 said:
It's a common misconception that there is a significant drop in attendance as the season goes on? Or that they drew 5600 for a playoff game, less than half of what was at their season opener on a Thursday against Duquesne, another game that was an easy win? Or that the regular season finale against UNI drew 5,000 less than the season opener. Yeah, those are "misconceptions"....
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.
-
10 hours ago, Sioux94 said:
5600 for a playoff game is sad. What did we draw for our playoff game for Richmond....8,500 - 9,000 and some people were going ballistic about how pathetic our fan base is.
To me outdoor football in the fall when the weather is nice is literally the best thing in the world. Even so, I think we need to be inside when it comes to the big picture, but yes we need to improve that experience. Nobody is telling NDSU they need to start playing outdoors.
The Fargodome provides a way better atmosphere than the Alerus Center due to the seating arrangement (and wins, obviously).
-
1 hour ago, jdub27 said:
Look down the road to SDSU and set how their attendance trends as the season goes on to see exactly why UND needs to continue playing indoors.
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
Frybread
in Football
Posted
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.