President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[homer]

Let's see if the committee has the balls to bring up women's hockey.  The president likely has sports in mind.  Hopefully that is one of them.  

[Nodak78]

2 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

Thanks for posting that Biz. That number is ridiculously high and if Womens hockeys stays that budget needs to be slashed. 

I love hockey, but I have a hard time watching Womens hockey. That hard truth is that it is not exciting and will likely never make any money. 

A couple of years ago as a member of the champions club.  I could watch Women's Hockey for free.  So I took my 2 grandkids to the game.  We left after the 1st period.  It was painfully to watch such a slow game.   I said I would never watch let alone pay to watch Women's Hockey again.

[The Sicatoka]

This is from the GF Herald article about the new Midco deal. Are there any tells in there? Are there any options if say something were eliminated? 

Quote

The contract calls for Midco to televise all home men's hockey games, all home football games, five men's basketball games, five women's basketball games, four women's hockey games and three volleyball matches per year.

 

[Risky]

3 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

This is from the GF Herald article about the new Midco deal. Are there any tells in there? Are there any options if say something were eliminated? 

 

We are televising 5 men's and women's basketball games and 4 women's hockey games.  That ratio seems odd and confirms that UND is not going to drop  women's hockey. 

[Shawn-O]

10 minutes ago, homer said:

Let's see if the committee has the balls to bring up women's hockey.  The president likely has sports in mind.  Hopefully that is one of them.  

University of Minnesota loses over $2M per year on women's hockey, to give you an example.  There's no upside here folks, even with a championship product.  

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/minn/genrel/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/FY15_Financial_Report.pdf

[fightingsioux4life]

9 minutes ago, Risky said:

We are televising 5 men's and women's basketball games and 4 women's hockey games.  That ratio seems odd and confirms that UND is not going to drop  women's hockey. 

I wouldn't read too much into that. Women's hockey has to be under consideration for cutting or else this entire exercise will be a waste of time. At least that is the sense I get from Kennedy's statements.

[cberkas]

5 minutes ago, Shawn-O said:

University of Minnesota loses over $2M per year on women's hockey, to give you an example.  There's no upside here folks, even with a championship product.  

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/minn/genrel/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/FY15_Financial_Report.pdf

Only 3 D1 woman's hockey programs made money two years ago, if I remember right Clarkson and Vermont were two of them.

[Shawn-O]

1 minute ago, cberkas said:

Only 3 D1 woman's hockey programs made money two years ago, if I remember right Clarkson and Vermont were two of them.

By making money you mean the reported revenues less expenditures is some number greater than zero.  Then yes.  Anybody have the UND EADA report?

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/ncaa-membership-financial-reporting-system

[nodakhoops]

32 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

From the Faison Press Conference thread under the Other Sports forum, where much of this has been discussed.

WOW. I knew it was up there but I did not know women's hockey actually costs that much and that was from 2014. If you look at the total revenues Softball and Soccer generate almost as much profit but combine don't even come close to WHockey budget. I don't know how you don't look at a report like that and not give serious consideration to dropping that sport. Based on 2014 numbers you lose 40k in revenue but you cut 1.3 million in costs. You don't need a math degree to figure that out.

Just looking at all of that, if UND dropped 4 sports and got to 15 like Bin mentioned  you would hardly lose any revenue but would cut around 2.5-3 million in costs. Imagine what the remaining programs could do with that extra money.

[CMSioux]

Just thinking out load it seems to be no matter how much we lose it would be tough to cut women's hockey. First of all that's a large number of women's scholarships with Title IV issues, second then the men's hockey team has the Ralph all to themselves with the private chef and all the perks - the feminists would be screaming, they have the facility and it needs to be used more than just for one team and the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

[UNDBIZ]

14 minutes ago, CMSioux said:

Just thinking out load it seems to be no matter how much we lose it would be tough to cut women's hockey. First of all that's a large number of women's scholarships with Title IV issues, second then the men's hockey team has the Ralph all to themselves with the private chef and all the perks - the feminists would be screaming, they have the facility and it needs to be used more than just for one team and the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

There are 2 women's teams playing in a building connected to the Ralph who could be given access to the private chef and all the perks....

[The Sicatoka]

15 minutes ago, CMSioux said:

... the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

Just being the devil's advocate: Green Bay loves football, but UW-Green Bay doesn't sponsor it. 

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

There are 2 women's teams playing in a building connected to the Ralph who could be given access to the private chef and all the perks....

Technically, three. Doesn't soccer have lockers in there also (besides VB and WBB). Then again, about soccer ... 

[Shawn-O]

23 minutes ago, CMSioux said:

Just thinking out load it seems to be no matter how much we lose it would be tough to cut women's hockey. First of all that's a large number of women's scholarships with Title IV issues, second then the men's hockey team has the Ralph all to themselves with the private chef and all the perks - the feminists would be screaming, they have the facility and it needs to be used more than just for one team and the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

I don't know of a single person up there who would be upset by it.  Not one.  I don't see the Title IX hang up either.  UND is far above and beyond compliance as it is.  

[Siouxperman8]

Eliminating women's hockey would save a ton of money but I am betting against that happening. 

[UNDBIZ]

5 minutes ago, Siouxperman8 said:

Eliminating women's hockey would save a ton of money but I am betting against that happening. 

Agreed.  I'd have a lot of respect for Kennedy if it did though.

[GeauxSioux]

42 minutes ago, CMSioux said:

Just thinking out load it seems to be no matter how much we lose it would be tough to cut women's hockey. First of all that's a large number of women's scholarships with Title IV issues, second then the men's hockey team has the Ralph all to themselves with the private chef and all the perks - the feminists would be screaming, they have the facility and it needs to be used more than just for one team and the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

How do the big time FBS schools like Alabama handle this situation? Looking at the Alabama website they have about 3 more sports than men's sports. And I'm sure there are a lot more perks/better facilities for the football than there is for anything else at Alabama.

If women's hockey was scrapped at UND, the women would still have two more sports than the men, 10-8. If cutting women's hockey is saving money above and beyond the shortfall, money (scholarships) could be reallocated to other women's sports, such as soccer or softball.

If UND is really trying to get a handle on the athletic budget, cutting a little bit of the fat here and there isn't going to do it.  Women's hockey is the most obvious choice for a serious cut. 

[The Sicatoka]

I get the impression that Kennedy is going to do this and do it once.

Given that, stop thinking in terms of "$1.4 million"; think in terms of long-term vision and sustainability and success. 

[The Sicatoka]

Not that long ago, I had a chance meeting with Phil Harmeson (yes, I know some of you just broke out in hives). We chatted peripherally about this. Schafer was still acting and beginning to talk about budgets at UND. 

He said when he was Acting AD and the DI transition moves were in motion he called a meeting of the entire Athletic Department. He claimed to me that at that time he told the 21 sports in the room that 21 sports was a DII model and not sustainable in a DI world. He claims to have told them back then to look around the room and in five years about five sports won't be in that same meeting. Well ... 

[homer]

1 hour ago, CMSioux said:

Just thinking out load it seems to be no matter how much we lose it would be tough to cut women's hockey. First of all that's a large number of women's scholarships with Title IV issues, second then the men's hockey team has the Ralph all to themselves with the private chef and all the perks - the feminists would be screaming, they have the facility and it needs to be used more than just for one team and the local outcry would be enormous based on Grand Forks being a hockey town. 

The hockey town doesn't support women's hockey.  There may be an outcry but not many weekend afternoons would be ruined because of it.  If done properly, laying out facts, it would be tough to argue the decision.  

[The Sicatoka]

8 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I get the impression that Kennedy is going to do this and do it once.

Given that, stop thinking in terms of "$1.4 million"; think in terms of long-term vision and sustainability and success. 

I just re-read Kennedy's letter looking for something else, but this just really struck me:

"... I intend to determine this fall the sports that will be sponsored, and this will be definitive for my period of service at UND." 

Like I said above, he's going to do this and do it once. I won't be surprised if he goes past what he needs to be make sure this is "definitive for (his) period of service at UND". 

[The Sicatoka]

6 minutes ago, homer said:

If done properly, laying out facts, it would be tough to argue the decision.  

Lay out the facts and the associated dollars (aka red ink) and most people will get pretty pragmatic. 

[UND-1]

11 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Lay out the facts and the associated dollars (aka red ink) and most people will get pretty pragmatic. 

Let's hope the Kennedy is given the actual facts when it comes to Title IX and sport requirements, prongs, etc as they relate to UND's campus.  I was told that Ed wasn't exactly given the facts as far as Title IX is concerned, which directly affected his decision at the time.

[Benny Baker]

6 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Let's hope the Kennedy is given the actual facts when it comes to Title IX and sport requirements, prongs, etc as they relate to UND's campus.  I was told that Ed wasn't exactly given the facts as far as Title IX is concerned, which directly affected his decision at the time.

In response, I would like to say, "no way could a university's administration be this incompetent by making uninformed decisions."  But then again, we are taking about the folks at Twamley in this instance.  So I guess it does not surprise me if this is true.

[GeauxSioux]

3 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Instead of impressions or interpretations I like to go to the source. Here's what Kennedy has tasked the IAC with, to be complete by November 1. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sites/default/files/KennedylettertoIAC.pdf

So, given that, here's what stands out to me:

• He specifically mentions NLI day on November 9. What sport(s) sign on that day? That may be a "tell" in itself.
• He wants the cost of each program and the attendance. I see a former Fortune 100 CFO doing a cost/benefit analysis right there. 
• He has a hard end date - do this by November 1. Do it, do it, done. What a concept.

NLI dates