Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

The article talks about how partisan the committee members are going to be based on what sport they support.

Ironically, it's very much like how the Herald reporters slant their articles based on what sport(s) they are obviously supporting.   In this case, Schlossman went out of his way to defend Women's Hockey.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Posted
1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said:

Yeah, I've always thought the people getting paid $250,000 per year were paid that much to make decisions and should take the heat/praise that goes with those decisions. 

Not like they are going to get the same criticism anyways

uses committee: Why can't you make the decision on your own, you are being paid $$$$ to do so

makes decision on own:  Why didn't you use a committee and not act like a dictator.

Posted
1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said:

Yeah, I've always thought the people getting paid $250,000 per year were paid that much to make decisions and should take the heat/praise that goes with those decisions. 

Not like they are going to get the same criticism anyways

uses committee: Why can't you make the decision on your own, you are being paid $$$$ to do so

makes decision on own:  Why didn't you use a committee and not act like a dictator.

Posted
3 hours ago, homer said:

I haven't read anyone say that all the resources from women's hockey should get dumped into football.  

You also must not have read the article because even Schlossman didn't say that.

Quote

 Lowell will certainly be hearing from the chorus of football fans ... because they feel women's hockey's big budget is what's holding the football and basketball programs back.

But look at this... I just had to go back a few pages and a few people were advocating moving the WH budget to the football or basketball programs:

On 8/25/2016 at 8:08 AM, UNDBIZ said:

Just cutting women's hockey would get us well past the $1.4 million.  We'd be able to properly invest in M&W BB then.

 

On 8/25/2016 at 11:25 AM, nodakhoops said:

Imagine what the remaining programs could do with that extra money.

 

On 8/25/2016 at 3:26 PM, nodakhoops said:

If this is the case drop Whcky, and give WBB a fat budget with good amenities.

 

On 8/25/2016 at 4:26 PM, geaux_sioux said:

Cut womens hockey. Boost both basketballs and volleyball. 

 

On 8/25/2016 at 9:46 PM, geaux_sioux said:

Cut them all and get legitimately serious about the remaining sports.

 

 

Posted
23 minutes ago, southpaw said:

You also must not have read the article because even Schlossman didn't say that.

But look at this... I just had to go back a few pages and a few people were advocating moving the WH budget to the football or basketball programs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly was he implying by "women's hockey holding football back"?

Certainly not by taking players, facilities or fans.  He could have only been implying $$$.   

Posted
24 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

WHockey isn't holding football back. Football held itself back by hiring the wrong coach and letting him run the program into the ground. Whockey is holding the basketballs and volleyball back. 

If whockey is holding back volleyball and basketball.

Mhockey is holding back football and basketball.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Cratter said:

If whockey is holding back volleyball and basketball.

Mhockey is holding back football and basketball.

You believe that?  

Posted
16 minutes ago, homer said:

You believe that?  

Just sort of pointing out the logic and how right schlossman was about his article. 

If it wasn't for this sport (football), this sport (basketball) would be bigger.

You'd be lying to yourself if you didnt think UND football would be way larger if UND didn't have hockey. (Just as NDSU basketball would be way larger if they didn't sponsor football).

Interesting watching people's justifications.

The National Championship for Womens Hockey is aired on CBS. Has a UND sport ever been televised nationally over the air?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Just sort of pointing out the logic and how right schlossman was about his article. 

If it wasn't for this sport (football), this sport (basketball) would be bigger.

You'd be lying to yourself if you didnt think UND football would be way larger if UND didn't have hockey. (Just as NDSU basketball would be way larger if they didn't sponsor football).

Interesting watching people's justifications to justify there opinions.

It's undeniable that on paper UND athletics should be stronger in the majority of the lower sports if they consolidated their effort/resources into 15-16 entities instead of 19.  

Posted
28 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Just sort of pointing out the logic and how right schlossman was about his article. 

If it wasn't for this sport (football), this sport (basketball) would be bigger.

You'd be lying to yourself if you didnt think UND football would be way larger if UND didn't have hockey.

So UND should cut either football or Men's Hockey? :)

Posted

Brad's article was mostly on point regarding the committee makeup and biases.  But I too was disappointed in the rhetoric of that specific comment.

I'm a fan of UND.  So therefor I am a fan of all UND sports, yes, even including womens hockey.  In competition, I cheer for all UND teams. 

We have to drop sports, because the state and our president say so.  It's unfortunate.

Are "football fans" not "hockey" fans?  How about "volleyball"?  Or "basketball".

I am a "fan" of all things UND.  So under Brad's premise, the "hockey fans" and "volleyball fans" and "basketball fans" are also calling for womens hockey to be dropped.  So are "swimming and diving fans" and "soccer fans".

Overall Brad does an excellent job on pretty much all of his stuff.

Just think he had a lapse here specifically and maybe even showed his own bias after discussing the many biases of the committee he wrote the article about.

 

  • Upvote 4
Posted
1 hour ago, UNDvince97-01 said:

Brad's article was mostly on point regarding the committee makeup and biases.  But I too was disappointed in the rhetoric of that specific comment.

I'm a fan of UND.  So therefor I am a fan of all UND sports, yes, even including womens hockey.  In competition, I cheer for all UND teams. 

We have to drop sports, because the state and our president say so.  It's unfortunate.

Are "football fans" not "hockey" fans?  How about "volleyball"?  Or "basketball".

I am a "fan" of all things UND.  So under Brad's premise, the "hockey fans" and "volleyball fans" and "basketball fans" are also calling for womens hockey to be dropped.  So are "swimming and diving fans" and "soccer fans".

Overall Brad does an excellent job on pretty much all of his stuff.

Just think he had a lapse here specifically and maybe even showed his own bias after discussing the many biases of the committee he wrote the article about.

 

I don't really see any bias in the article.  Yes, he supports hockey as that's what he covers the most.  However, are any of his statements untrue?  The big paragraph is actually pretty factual.  There's no doubt some of this will happen if it isn't already:

Quote

Lowell will certainly be hearing from the chorus of football fans who have been urging for the elimination of women's hockey because they feel women's hockey's big budget is what's holding the football and basketball programs back.

There already are people saying WHockey holds basketball and volleyball back.  There's probably more saying it's still holding football back too.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

According to Brad, UND is supposed to keep losing 1.5 million per year for the next 20 years or so until Women's hockey becomes popular.  They can then start charging money for tickets and only lose 1.4 million.  

All this during a time of a huge budget crisis.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

According to Brad, UND is supposed to keep losing 1.5 million per year for the next 20 years or so until Women's hockey becomes popular.  They can then start charging money for tickets and only lose 1.4 million.  

All this during a time of a huge budget crisis.

But UND football is allowed to lose even more until they bring in more than 10,000 fans a game?  Maybe at that point, season tickets will sell for more than $90.

  • Upvote 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, southpaw said:

But UND football is allowed to lose even more until they bring in more than 10,000 fans a game?  Maybe at that point, season tickets will sell for more than $90.

The problem is their budget is 1.5 million.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, southpaw said:

But UND football is allowed to lose even more until they bring in more than 10,000 fans a game?  Maybe at that point, season tickets will sell for more than $90.

Hmm how do I put this..... UND women's hockey as a top 5 program drew jack !@#$ while UND football in the worst stretch in 30 years with a lame duck coach still out drew the women's hockey team 8 fold at least. Oh, and the football tickets actually cost money, so there's that. Football will be in the black soon. Women's hockey will always be in the red.

  • Upvote 3

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...