Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, jdub27 said:

Based on what? The non-answer you got over on bisonville? The staff buyouts, which actually was in the paper a few weeks ago, is the only thing that has been publicly mentioned and that was done before Burgum's additional cuts came out.

I heard they stopped providing toilet paper to save cash. 

Posted
8 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Based on what? The non-answer you got over on bisonville ? The staff buyouts, which actually was in the paper a few weeks ago, is the only thing that has been publicly mentioned and that was done before Burgum's additional cuts came out.

Who relies on the general fund more?

Posted
32 minutes ago, bison73 said:

Who relies on the general fund more?

UND offers more sports, particularly non-revenue women sports and to provide those opportunities to student-athletes, they use a higher percentage of school and student fees than NDSU, who are laughable in their men:women ratio, one of the 10 lowest in the nation. And UND's percentage of subsidies ranks is less than 2/3's of other D-1 schools.

Now can you answer my question that you ignored? What are you basing your answer on that NDSU is further ahead of this than people think?

  • Upvote 3
Posted
1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

...

Now can you answer my question that you ignored? What are you basing your answer on that NDSU is further ahead of this than people think?

<crickets>. :D

Posted
On 2/1/2017 at 5:02 PM, jdub27 said:

UND offers more sports, particularly non-revenue women sports and to provide those opportunities to student-athletes, they use a higher percentage of school and student fees than NDSU, who are laughable in their men:women ratio, one of the 10 lowest in the nation. And UND's percentage of subsidies ranks is less than 2/3's of other D-1 schools.

Now can you answer my question that you ignored? What are you basing your answer on that NDSU is further ahead of this than people think?

Its based on some here who think NDSU has no plan what so ever. Zero.  Really?

Talking to some at NDSU you will have attrition, retirements, early buy outs, possible hiring freeze etc etc.  That in itself qualifies as as further ahead than what some here think.

Plus DB asked sometime back for all depts to submitt plans for cuts on numerous percentage levels. Again that certainly qualifies as further ahead than what some of you think.

Posted
1 hour ago, bison73 said:

Its based on some here who think NDSU has no plan what so ever. Zero.  Really?

Talking to some at NDSU you will have attrition, retirements, early buy outs, possible hiring freeze etc etc.  That in itself qualifies as as further ahead than what some here think.

Plus DB asked sometime back for all depts to submitt plans for cuts on numerous percentage levels. Again that certainly qualifies as further ahead than what some of you think.

All that was already in the paper to handle the initial cuts. You aren't bringing anything new up. And none of it addresses athletics. 

Posted
2 hours ago, jdub27 said:

All that was already in the paper to handle the initial cuts. You aren't bringing anything new up. And none of it addresses athletics. 

On the athletic side TM has fully funded all scholarships and FCOA for all sports so that will not be effected. Since you have more sports and rely on more money from the general fund its more likely the cuts are going to effect your athletics as opposed to ours. Even though your sports arent fully funded.

Posted
On 1/31/2017 at 5:22 PM, UNDBIZ said:

The "20% chop" is a 6.9% chop at UND and a 12.2% chop at NDSU, thanks to Schafer's foresight. 

You used Schaffer and foresight in the same sentence.  I pray to God that guy never touches anything at ndsu.  You can have him.

  • Downvote 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Herd said:

You used Schaffer and foresight in the same sentence.  I pray to God that guy never touches anything at ndsu.  You can have him.

Whats wrong with the former Governor?  He sleep with your wife or?

Posted
2 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Fixed it for you.

This is my read, too. It's common practice in the world of high-profile academic hiring to receive a courtesy tip from "someone in the know" that you are not among the top 2-3 choices.... thus allowing one, if they choose, to bow out gracefully and return to their campus with a limited amount of egg on their face for trying to leave (and not making the final cut). I recall this happening to Kupchella once during in his days as UND prez when he was on a list for the president's job at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

It won't be long before Dr. B is named to another shortlist and the process will start anew. 

  • Upvote 3
Posted
6 hours ago, jdub27 said:

I mean, it totally would have made sense to turn down a job that offered almost a 50% raise at a larger university that also isn't dealing with huge budget cuts, but people wrote him nice e-mails and that is clearly what changed his mind.

Yes, not to hard to read this one

Posted

http://www.inforum.com/sports/4215212-ndsu-believes-reduction-state-funding-will-not-adversely-affect-athletics

In other words, no sports will be cut.

 

"That's off the table, 100 percent," said athletic director Matt Larsen.

Also off the table is any cut to the student-athlete experience, Larsen said. That would mean no reduction in scholarships and each sport maintaining the necessary resources to win a championship.

Posted
25 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

http://www.inforum.com/sports/4215212-ndsu-believes-reduction-state-funding-will-not-adversely-affect-athletics

In other words, no sports will be cut

"That's off the table, 100 percent," said athletic director Matt Larsen.

Also off the table is any cut to the student-athlete experience, Larsen said. That would mean no reduction in scholarships and each sport maintaining the necessary resources to win a championship.

Why should we cut any sports? All scholarships are fully funded by Team makers.

 

I think I posted this with in the last two weeks?

 

Posted

I have no clue where Caillou gets his numbers (but I know where he got his education!!). Per USA Today, in 2015, NDSU got $6.6 million from direct institutional support out of their $22.3 million budget (29.4%). UND got $7.3 million of direct institutional support out of their $24.3 million budget (30.2%). So pretty close on that front. This doesn't include student fees, which UND relies heavier on and was approved by UND students in a vote. NDSU students rejected NDSU's athletic department to raise theirs last year, mostly due to how bad they botched their presentations. Because travel and equipment and stuff...

Using 2015 numbers (most recent available) and rough calculations, if the state funding is going to be cut around 20%, that means that UND and NDSU will have to come up with ways to shore up around $1.46 million and $1.32 million respectively for the athletic departments to take on their fair share of budget reductions. UND is doing what it needs to do and looking at cutting sports, mainly because they sponsor too many for their size at the D-1 level and can't possibly make them all competitive (and finally doing what they should have done a decade ago). NDSU obviously can't cut any sports if it wants to keep any hope at all for a move up or (at least the illusion of one) since the FBS requires 16, which NDSU currently sponsors, while FCS requires 14. NDSU's fundraising is up around $300K, which, assuming no other rising costs, still leaves around $1 million of what they hypothetically need, but that doesn't include any funding any of the FCOA. Maybe the Teammakers donations don't account for those funds but reading their releases, I have a hard time seeing how they wouldn't. Per the Forum article, apparently their budget for this year is slated to be less than it was in 2015, so it is possible they had done some reductions already to cover some of it but somehow the rest of the plan seems to be not hiring two positions that previously didn't even exist and that is going to bridge the shortfall. I am really confused on where the Forum got their data from, which actually make UND look better than they are. But looking at what is publicly available and seems to be more accurate, I guess I'm not following the numbers and have no clue how they make any sense but I'm sure now that the Forum did their "duty" and said there won't be any issues, it won't be brought up or questioned again.

  • Upvote 2
Posted
56 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I have no clue where Caillou gets his numbers (but I know where he got his education!!). Per USA Today, in 2015, NDSU got $6.6 million from direct institutional support out of their $22.3 million budget (29.4%). UND got $7.3 million of direct institutional support out of their $24.3 million budget (30.2%). So pretty close on that front. This doesn't include student fees, which UND relies heavier on and was approved by UND students in a vote. NDSU students rejected NDSU's athletic department to raise theirs last year, mostly due to how bad they botched their presentations. Because travel and equipment and stuff...

Using 2015 numbers (most recent available) and rough calculations, if the state funding is going to be cut around 20%, that means that UND and NDSU will have to come up with ways to shore up around $1.46 million and $1.32 million respectively for the athletic departments to take on their fair share of budget reductions. UND is doing what it needs to do and looking at cutting sports, mainly because they sponsor too many for their size at the D-1 level and can't possibly make them all competitive (and finally doing what they should have done a decade ago). NDSU obviously can't cut any sports if it wants to keep any hope at all for a move up or (at least the illusion of one) since the FBS requires 16, which NDSU currently sponsors, while FCS requires 14. NDSU's fundraising is up around $300K, which, assuming no other rising costs, still leaves around $1 million of what they hypothetically need, but that doesn't include any funding any of the FCOA. Maybe the Teammakers donations don't account for those funds but reading their releases, I have a hard time seeing how they wouldn't. Per the Forum article, apparently their budget for this year is slated to be less than it was in 2015, so it is possible they had done some reductions already to cover some of it but somehow the rest of the plan seems to be not hiring two positions that previously didn't even exist and that is going to bridge the shortfall. I am really confused on where the Forum got their data from, which actually make UND look better than they are. But looking at what is publicly available and seems to be more accurate, I guess I'm not following the numbers and have no clue how they make any sense but I'm sure now that the Forum did their "duty" and said there won't be any issues, it won't be brought up or questioned again.

FCOA is fully funded as well.  I thought that was in the article.

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...