Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Big Sky Athlete Stipends


nodak651

Recommended Posts

Article on cost of attendance in the paper today. Faison said UND is paying full cost for 18 men's hockey and 18 women's sports scholarship. Im guessing 13 are going to WBB since I'm assuming it brings in the most money of the women's sports. Smart move to do that.

He also said UND isn't looking beyond that because other Big Sky teams aren't. I think He should ask Bubba, Jones, Brew, Pyror, etc who they recruit against more theBig Sky or NDSU, Sdsu, Usd, Omaha, etc. If those schools do it for football and basketball UND needs to.

 

I think women's hockey will get full cost of attendance scholarships. Faison will wait for a Big Sky school or NDSU to make their move on full cost of attendance scholarships in football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and volleyball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only the NCAA that has this obsession of this concept of what an "amateur" is. And they make up their own rules for it as they go along. 

 

This shoots their CHL hockey players are professionals theory to bits, because now the NCAA is doing the same thing that they accuse the CHL of doing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women's hockey sucks here. No atmosphere. Loses money

Give some to women's volleyball for a leg up and women's basketball got a leg up

Don't put anymore in to that hockey program

 

Wow! We should tie you to the net and let the woman's team take slap shots at you.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does UND need to wait for other schools in WBB? The whole reason UND is doing MHockey is because they bring in the most money. Well WBB does that on the women's side. Their are very very few schools that will do it for women's hockey and women's hockey in particular is a very very niche sport. Not many schools even play it. Plus if the other Dakota school do this for any men's sport WBB will be the first they do it for, we might as well beat them to it.

Women's basketball is the 3rd biggest sport in college athletics and UND is a very strong mid major program that draws really good. They should be the first program they do full costs for on the woman's side, and it's not even close in my mind. You can give the remaining 6 spots to woman's hockey but I might even consider volleyball before that.

Bigger thought Faison might be having on women's hockey might be if UND dropped that program they could probably fund every sport the cost of attendance. Won't happen but I'm sure that thought has crossed his mind when he looks at numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women's hockey sucks here. No atmosphere. Loses money

Give some to women's volleyball for a leg up and women's basketball got a leg up

Don't put anymore in to that hockey program

 

Women's hockey sucks everywhere, the amount of money your school wastes on it astounds me. Men's hockey I get, cash cow and can bring some great exposure. You should stick that money into WBB or VB if you want a better return on it. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind dropping women's hockey

Free up a lot of $$& and bubba would benefit from that money loser

 

I would never advocate UND do that, but there is no question it loses ALOT of money and UND could get a much better return on it's $$ elsewhere. 

 

Didn't want to turn it into a WBB vs. Whockey debate as I enjoy both and was more concerned about UND doing it for FB and MBB should other area schools do it. I figured WBB getting first priority was a no brainer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many men's hockey players are on the team? 18 doesn't sound right, that is 4 lines and 3 d pairs. I know there are more than that. Let me ask it this way, how many players are on full rides?

18 is the number UND is looking to fund for men's hockey and an equivalent number on the women's side (yet to be determined which sports). Hockey is not a headcount sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does UND need to wait for other schools in WBB? The whole reason UND is doing MHockey is because they bring in the most money. Well WBB does that on the women's side. Their are very very few schools that will do it for women's hockey and women's hockey in particular is a very very niche sport. Not many schools even play it. Plus if the other Dakota school do this for any men's sport WBB will be the first they do it for, we might as well beat them to it.

Women's basketball is the 3rd biggest sport in college athletics and UND is a very strong mid major program that draws really good. They should be the first program they do full costs for on the woman's side, and it's not even close in my mind. You can give the remaining 6 spots to woman's hockey but I might even consider volleyball before that.

Bigger thought Faison might be having on women's hockey might be if UND dropped that program they could probably fund every sport the cost of attendance. Won't happen but I'm sure that thought has crossed his mind when he looks at numbers.

The reason that UND will do full cost of attendance in Men's Hockey is because the competition is going to do it.  The Big Ten schools will do it, and so will other hockey programs.  UND needs to do it so that they can maintain their position in college hockey.  Then they have to do something similar to maintain their Title IX status.  I'm sure that UND will hesitate spending those dollars on Big Sky sports because that will cause problems at other schools and within the conference.  It is easier to do it in women's hockey or in swimming, sports that aren't covered by the Big Sky.  The Big Ten schools will probably also do it in women's hockey, so UND would again be keeping up with the competition in that sport.

 

For those that keep talking about eliminating women's hockey and spending the dollars on football or any other men's sport, that can't happen because of Title IX.  UND could possibly cut women's hockey only if they then add a different women's sport and a similar number of scholarships, etc., or cut men's sports totaling a similar number of scholarships, etc.  Even then it could cause a problem.  Part of Title IX calls for supplying sports that are of interest to the student body, and hockey fits that requirement better than anything that could replace it.  But cutting women's sports and spending those dollars on men's sports would result in a lawsuit against UND.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many men's hockey players are on the team?  18 doesn't sound right, that is 4 lines and 3 d pairs. I know there are more than that.  Let me ask it this way, how many players are on full rides?

I believe that they can give out a total of 18 scholarship equivalents, but they can split those scholarships between as many players as they want.  Most years they have 25 or 26 players on the roster, but that can vary.  Some are walk-ons.  Most get some scholarship dollars.  Only part of the team gets full scholarships.  I'm not sure how the "full cost" portion will be distributed, and UND may not have determined that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 is the number UND is looking to fund for men's hockey and an equivalent number on the women's side (yet to be determined which sports). Hockey is not a headcount sport.

That is what I was getting at, I thought there were more than 18 players on the team, but not everyone will get the cost of attendance.  From what I read, the reason for other sports is because their leagues are not participating, NCHC looks like it is full in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women's hockey sucks everywhere, the amount of money your school wastes on it astounds me. Men's hockey I get, cash cow and can bring some great exposure. You should stick that money into WBB or VB if you want a better return on it.

Title IX requires us to have women's hockey, I can't see UND keeping it if they didn't have Title IX. If a men's sport (baseball) were to get cut maybe they could cut women's hockey as well unless the percentage between mens and women's sports aren't close to equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title IX requires us to have women's hockey, I can't see UND keeping it if they didn't have Title IX. If a men's sport (baseball) were to get cut maybe they could cut women's hockey as well unless the percentage between mens and women's sports aren't close to equal.

 

Doesn't UND use the proportion prong of Title IX? I think you could figure out a way around it if you wanted but it may require as you say cutting a men's sport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments can't be made for/against COA based on if other Big Sky teams are/aren't providing it. Hasn't the Admin learned that wait and see isn't the best option for the program. If the idiots in power can't figure a way to pay FB and MBB athletes, then WBB and whatever else to satisfy Title IX, why are we D1? They need to do their jobs and raise money so that UND leads the way, instead of falls behind. Im tired of Hockey AD not seeing the big picture, and moving the potential money making programs ahead. I don't care what other Big Sky teams are doing. Nor do I care of NDSU doesn't pay. Figure a way to get the athletes some extra money, and lead for once.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments can't be made for/against COA based on if other Big Sky teams are/aren't providing it. Hasn't the Admin learned that wait and see isn't the best option for the program. If the idiots in power can't figure a way to pay FB and MBB athletes, then WBB and whatever else to satisfy Title IX, why are we D1? They need to do their jobs and raise money so that UND leads the way, instead of falls behind. Im tired of Hockey AD not seeing the big picture, and moving the potential money making programs ahead. I don't care what other Big Sky teams are doing. Nor do I care of NDSU doesn't pay. Figure a way to get the athletes some extra money, and lead for once.

I've seen stories where the Montana schools and Idaho State have said they weren't going to give out stipends and felt it wasn't needed in the Sky.   I agree with this, no one can afford a big time increase like this.   I'm in favor of giving to the hockey programs (both M and W) since hockey is our big sport here and men's hockey is the one that brings in the revenue.  

 

I'd say we are looking at about something close to $250,000 just for football, and a like number for other women's sports.    No way can we afford this right now, so sit tight and see what happens.   The other Sky schools holding back should be a huge red flag to wait.    IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen stories where the Montana schools and Idaho State have said they weren't going to give out stipends and felt it wasn't needed in the Sky.   I agree with this, no one can afford a big time increase like this.   I'm in favor of giving to the hockey programs (both M and W) since hockey is our big sport here and men's hockey is the one that brings in the revenue.  

 

I'd say we are looking at about something close to $250,000 just for football, and a like number for other women's sports.    No way can we afford this right now, so sit tight and see what happens.   The other Sky schools holding back should be a huge red flag to wait.    IMO

The problem with this stance is that FB is the main reason we moved all our sports up in the first place.  If we throw FB overboard along with MBB and WBB, then what was the point of moving up in the first place?  So we can have the "Division I" label after our name?  FB, MBB and WBB will become permanent also-rans if this policy is implemented and maintained.  And don't think the Montana schools are going to stick with their no stipends policy forever, as FB is their bread and butter and they can't afford not to fund stipends for that program.

 

We pay our President and Athletic Director to solve problems like these, not to "stand pat" on everything.  Which is what we have done for seemingly years and years.  There has to be a way to raise the money for this.  UND alumni and boosters have always come through for us in the past and I don't see that ever changing.  Cripes, the Alumni Association raised $300+ million for an endowment, surely there are proud alumni with deep pockets who would step up to the plate and deliver for us on this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe a good idea would be to get out in front of it and set the tone/market rate. It's inevitable and stipends are entirely overdue. No one ostensibly has the backbone to jump in but everyone knows It's here.

That's what I am thinking.  Of course, Kelley and Faison don't exactly have a track record of being out in front of issues like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...