President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[RD17]

15 hours ago, dakotadan said:

OUR OPINION: Destination: Summit and Missouri Valley

The Herald apparently is throwing their support behind a move to the Summit/MVFC. I realize this is just an opinion piece but I didn't find it to be very well written. 

This is just more idiocy coming from the Herald. UND is not wanted in the MVFC. How hard is this for people to understand?

Solving this problem is simple: Drop women's hockey and M/W swimming and diving. Invest all available funds in the following sports: M/W Basketball, hockey, football and volleyball.  

[bison73]

5 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: You don't join a conference; you are invited to join. <-- Massive difference. 

Lakes could never get that through his thick head either.

[Shawn-O]

10 hours ago, RD17 said:

This is just more idiocy coming from the Herald. UND is not wanted in the MVFC. How hard is this for people to understand?

Solving this problem is simple: Drop women's hockey and M/W swimming and diving. Invest all available funds in the following sports: M/W Basketball, hockey, football and volleyball.  

Careful, you'll be labeled a mouth-breathing Neanderthal by certain posters.  

[The Sicatoka]

Folks, remember, this is a budget shortfall situation. Dropping sports doesn't guarantee there'll be excess to redistribute. Dropping might just cover the shortfall. 

[RD17]

4 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Folks, remember, this is a budget shortfall situation. Dropping sports doesn't guarantee there'll be excess to redistribute. Dropping might just cover the shortfall. 

Which is why I said "available" funds and not excess.

In hindsight, cutting programs is probably something that should have been addressed years ago when the D-I move was first made, or at the time when UND accepted entry to the Big Sky. Instead, UND plays a lot of sports at a mediocre level. Time to find out if the new president has the cojones to do what needs to be done so that ALL of the high profile sports can be successful. Somehow, I'm doubting that this "committee" will be of much help.

 

[SWSiouxMN]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4113729-und-athletics-committee-wont-consider-d-ii-move

 

[Oxbow6]

49 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4113729-und-athletics-committee-wont-consider-d-ii-move

 

The fact that this ridiculous notion about dropping back to D2 needed to be addressed shows how sidetracked this committee was from the get go. 

[CMSioux]

The committee member that threw that idea out there should have to have her own budget adjusted to DII levels. 

[nodak651]

Jesus Christ it sounds like Danielle Irle didn't even think of this!  Faison is a dumbass.  No wonder President Kennedy is taking over the finances....

From the article:

Committee member Eric Murphy, a professor from UND's School of Medicine and Health Sciences, grilled athletic department officials for listing the men's hockey team's rent in Ralph Engelstad Arena as roughly $2.3 million, while listing the men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball, women's hockey and soccer teams as not paying any rent.

"Why is that?" he asked. "There had to be a reason."

Associate Athletic Director Danielle Irle responded: "I don't know if it was done with any intent. It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality."

 

 

[hky]

1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

The fact that this ridiculous notion about dropping back to D2 needed to be addressed shows how sidetracked this committee was from the get go. 

No kidding.  What a gong show.

[JohnboyND7]

7 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

Jesus Christ it sounds like Danielle Irle didn't even think of this!  Faison is a dumbass.  No wonder President Kennedy is taking over the finances....

From the article:

Committee member Eric Murphy, a professor from UND's School of Medicine and Health Sciences, grilled athletic department officials for listing the men's hockey team's rent in Ralph Engelstad Arena as roughly $2.3 million, while listing the men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball, women's hockey and soccer teams as not paying any rent.

"Why is that?" he asked. "There had to be a reason."

Associate Athletic Director Danielle Irle responded: "I don't know if it was done with any intent. It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality."

 

 

You could maybe make an argument for this lady suggesting that the ladies being patronized. Sexist!

[UNDBIZ]

17 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

Associate Athletic Director Danielle Irle responded: "I don't know if it was done with any intent. It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality."

Just as she liked it, I'm guessing. Gave an easy excuse to cut funding for men's sports.

[Siouxphan27]

1 hour ago, nodak651 said:

Jesus Christ it sounds like Danielle Irle didn't even think of this!  Faison is a dumbass.  No wonder President Kennedy is taking over the finances....

From the article:

Committee member Eric Murphy, a professor from UND's School of Medicine and Health Sciences, grilled athletic department officials for listing the men's hockey team's rent in Ralph Engelstad Arena as roughly $2.3 million, while listing the men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball, women's hockey and soccer teams as not paying any rent.

"Why is that?" he asked. "There had to be a reason."

Associate Athletic Director Danielle Irle responded: "I don't know if it was done with any intent. It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality."

 

 

I'm apparently too dumb to even figure out what her point is. 

[MattC]

8 hours ago, Siouxphan27 said:

I'm apparently too dumb to even figure out what her point is. 

Same here.

[The Sicatoka]

I don't think Ms. Erle knows either. 

If all the costs of REA are associated to MIH, there are no costs associated to MBB, WIH, WBB, WVB, and WSoc. That adds big dollars to the mens side of the balance sheet and nothing to the womens side (who are getting all the benefits with no cost). So yes, as she says, "It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality." But I don't believe she understands what she just said.

She thinks it's a way to force more dollars onto the womens side of the ledger to create balance. Well, if there were more dollars to add, she'd be right. 

But, there are no more dollars. And now this little factoid, discrepancy, dare I say inequity, is in the light of day. 

The solution is clear: The six users of the REA complex must each show a portion of the rent in their cost breakdowns. MIH must no longer carry the load for all; it is not equitable treatment. 

I say the breakdown should be based on space and hours used (training, lockers, practice, game day). WSoc would have the smallest portion, but there would be something. The MIH and WIH portions would be roughly equal and probably much larger than MBB, WBB, and WVB. 

Pure guess by me, but I'd suspect the final breakdown would look something like:

MIH: 35%
WIH: 30%
MBB: 10%
WBB: 10%
WVB: 10%
WSoc: 5%

WSoc is probably still too high, but you see what I'm trying to get at. 

[geaux_sioux]

5 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I don't think Ms. Erle knows either. 

If all the costs of REA are associated to MIH, there are no costs associated to MBB, WIH, WBB, WVB, and WSoc. That adds big dollars to the mens side of the balance sheet and nothing to the womens side. So yes, as she says, "It certainly doesn't do us any favors in gender equality." But I don't believe she understands what she just said.

She thinks it's a way to force more dollars onto the womens side of the ledger to create balance. Well, if there were more dollars to add, she'd be right. 

But, there are no more dollars. And now this little factoid, discrepancy, dare I say inequity, is in the light of day. 

The solution is clear: The six users of the REA complex must each show a portion of the rent in their cost breakdowns. MIH must no longer carry the load for all; it is not equitable treatment. 

I say the breakdown should be based on space and hours used (training, lockers, practice, game day). WSoc would have the smallest portion, but there would be something. The MIH and WIH portions would be roughly equal and probably much larger than MBB, WBB, and WVB. 

Pure guess by me, but I'd suspect the final breakdown would look something like:

MIH: 35%
WIH: 30%
MBB: 10%
WBB: 10%
WVB: 10%
WSoc: 5%

WSoc is probably still too high, but you see what I'm trying to get at. 

Why does MH get 5% more than WH? Are you saying men are 5% better than women? How dare you, I'm sure you only go to womens hockey to objectify how snug their breezers fit. You make me sick.

[BIGSIOUX]

i guess i read her comment as to say " jeez, if we move those expenses to the womens sports, we may be able to justify less womens activities."  

I dont think Ms. Irle is against a positive and efficient athletic dept,  i think she knows her role is to keep in compliance for title nine and womens athletics, i dont think she has advocated for doing anything more than what is necessary to stay in compliance.  Also, Faison is not interested in using the NDSU method in getting compliance w/ Title 9, simply because he doesnt believe it to be the right thing to do, even though it may be technically allowed for now.

[Shawn-O]

So they spent the bulk of the meeting discussing the cost allocation method of REA operating expenses.  How productive.  

[UNDBIZ]

6 minutes ago, Shawn-O said:

So they spent the bulk of the meeting discussing the cost allocation method of REA operating expenses.  How productive.  

Is that what the minutes show or was that the only thing Schloss cared to write about? 

Edit: from the article: 

The bulk of Monday's meeting was spent looking at spreadsheets of the athletic department's revenues and expenses.

 

[The Sicatoka]

29 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

Why does MH get 5% more than WH? Are you saying men are 5% better than women? How dare you, I'm sure you only go to womens hockey to objectify how snug their breezers fit. You make me sick.

Like I said, pure guess. The 5%? More home games and using the upper deck for them.

[jdub27]

3 minutes ago, Shawn-O said:

So they spent the bulk of the meeting discussing the cost allocation method of REA operating expenses.  How productive.  

The planned agenda for last night's meeting was for the committee to get a detailed cost breakdown of the different athletic teams and go over them. The fact that the disparity in cost allocations of the REA was noticed and mentioned is actually a pretty interesting development. If they do a true allocation, instead of understating the cost of some sports by some significant dollars ($500K+), I would argue it actually was pretty productive. One of the big issues in UND staying Title IX compliant is having comparable money spent on men's and women's athletics. With how the REA/Betty costs are allocated, that the men's side is being "overcharged" by probably a $1 million+.

That being said, there is something to where spending on individual sports ranks compared to other institutions. Meaning that the men's hockey team is in the upper tier of spending, so there needs to be some sort of comparison on the women's side, which I would guess at this point is women's hockey. The wording in the regulations is very vague and confusing (big surprise) but it is part of what needs to be looked at and adhered to when figuring this out.

[geaux_sioux]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Like I said, pure guess. The 5%? More home games and using the upper deck for them.

So you creep from the upper deck with your binoculars?

[UNDBIZ]

My take on REA expenses: 

MIH: 45%
WIH: 39.5% (less staff required) 
MBB: 5% (bball court doesn't cost much to freeze, nor are the staff attempting to host concerts in the Betty) 
WBB: 5%
WVB: 5%
WSoc: 0.5% ($12,000 for a locker room seems like plenty)

[Shawn-O]

18 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

The planned agenda for last night's meeting was for the committee to get a detailed cost breakdown of the different athletic teams and go over them. The fact that the disparity in cost allocations of the REA was noticed and mentioned is actually a pretty interesting development. If they do a true allocation, instead of understating the cost of some sports by some significant dollars ($500K+), I would argue it actually was pretty productive. One of the big issues in UND staying Title IX compliant is having comparable money spent on men's and women's athletics. With how the REA/Betty costs are allocated, that the men's side is being "overcharged" by probably a $1 million+.

That being said, there is something to where spending on individual sports ranks compared to other institutions. Meaning that the men's hockey team is in the upper tier of spending, so there needs to be some sort of comparison on the women's side, which I would guess at this point is women's hockey. The wording in the regulations is very vague and confusing (big surprise) but it is part of what needs to be looked at and adhered to when figuring this out.

I see what you mean on the compliance side, and I don't know the nuances of Title IX so there could be relevance there.  As far as the $1.4M problem, I guess I'd rather they focus on hard dollars.  In fairness, maybe it's just what Schlossman chose to report.  

[jdub27]

3 minutes ago, Shawn-O said:

I see what you mean on the compliance side, and I don't know the nuances of Title IX so there could be relevance there.  As far as the $1.4M problem, I guess I'd rather they focus on hard dollars.  In fairness, maybe it's just what Schlossman chose to report.  

I actually don't disagree at all. However with the way things are currently reported, I have a feeling more of those hard dollars would likely be taken from the men's side and unfairly so. If reported correctly (and equitably) that isn't necessarily the case. If they are going to make permanent cuts, they need to used data that isn't stacked to benefit one gender like it currently appears to be.