President Kennedy Message on Athletics

[UNDBIZ]

10 hours ago, jdub27 said:

The cuts are related to state mandated cuts and a tuition cap that caused a prefixed deficit.

I'm still of the belief the budget is simply a convenient excuse to do something that should've been done 10 years ago.

[UND-1]

2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

I'm still of the belief the budget is simply a convenient excuse to do something that should've been done 10 years ago.

That and the fact that Kelley had to cover athletic department expenses at the end of the fiscal year several times.  Kennedy did not appear to be willing to do that.

[jdub27]

1 minute ago, Oxbow6 said:

It is the issue at hand when the university is trying to decide which programs it should cut IMO.  Right now it's basically throwing crap on a wall and seeing what sticks.  IF this is a true financial issue due to a budget deficit within the athletic department but know one really know the actual budgets of each sport and their P&L realities if find this whole scenario a joke.  Women's hockey is safe but it is easily the biggest suck hole in the athletic department but in actuality we really don't know the true extent of how many dollars are lost operating that program but let's look at softball to save a couple nickels.

I agree with this 100%. However it is a completely different argument than what was trying to be made. The athletic department is claiming all of its expenses, it just isn't allocating them internally the way they should be. That has zero effect on the actual budget issue itself, which is what the FargoU fan was trying to claim.

 

1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

I'm still of the belief the budget is simply a convenient excuse to do something that should've been done 10 years ago.

It finally got to the point where it forced their hand, though it was explored on how to get through it without cutting any sports (because that sucks to do), but someone finally put their foot down and is doing what is best for the long-term.

[The Sicatoka]

10 hours ago, bison73 said:

IMO the bookkeeping shell game caught up with them.

Shell game. You mean where information isn't available and visible and the parts are kept moving to keep observers confused? 

This thread has linked to two years worth of UND Athletics financials available on the internet. Struggle as I may, I'm yet to find the same for NDSU when I look. 

If you have a link to NDSU's numbers I'm interested. 

[The Sicatoka]

I'll say it again: When the move to DI was made, Acting AD Phil Harmeson told a room with 21 coaches in it that about 5 of them would be gone in 5-10 years. 

No one has had the "gusto", (c) Gino Gasparini, to make the tough call since. That reality and a sagging State budget throw this into the lap of President Kennedy. At least the man is a man and dealing with it. 

Personally, make me king for a day, I'd reshape the department ...

[The Sicatoka]

I posted these thoughts on at least two other forums. I'm going to repeat them here. 

Quote

 

By now most of us have seen that hockey, and probably all of athletics, at UAA and UAF is headed for the gallows. 

I say part, a significant part, of the problem is the NCAA's model of "divisions". The NCAA mandates 14 sports if you're DI (FCS) or 16 sports (FBS) or some other numbers for DII or DIII. Basically, the NCAA mandates "n" sports to be sponsored if you want to play at Division "M". 

Instead, wouldn't it be wonderful if the NCAA allowed a school to just play what makes sense for it, and at the level that makes sense for it. I'm over a decade into calling for a "cafeteria plan" for NCAA sports. The Alaska situation has me bringing it up again. 

I say the NCAA should define by sport, not by division, the levels and limits of play (a "cafeteria" plan). 

For example (a hypothetical):
- four tiers of football: 85 max, 65 max, 45 max, and 20 max scholarship
- three tiers of basketball: 14 max, 9 max, 2 max scholarships
- two tiers of hockey: 18 max, 3 max scholarships
and so on. The levels (and maybe even spending caps, what a concept, per level!) could be worked out at the sport level by the sport experts. 

Why do I say this? Say your school wants to play DI mens hockey and DII M/WBB and DIII W bowling and nothing else. So what. Who's that really hurt? Follow the rules for what you're playing and that's that. 

Instead, we have a situation where all the programs at both Alaska schools may well disappear. How does that help student athletes? Worse? We have schools everywhere pouring monies that could go toward academics instead toward required athletic programs that do nothing more than continue to generate even more red ink. 

I say the schools know what is sustainable in their markets. Let them play and support what works for them. 

(And before you bring up Title IX, that's Federal law, not the NCAA. Each school would work that out internally ensuring equity.)

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

Here's where I'll be ripped to shreds by some of you: 

Quote

 

... "sports" that are something you can go and play with your roommate on a Saturday afternoon should not be NCAA sports and thus subsidized by schools (and ultimately taxpayers). 

So go play tennis, go golf, take a swim, or a jog or sprint in the park. 

I believe NCAA sports should be true team sports e.g. BB, FB, Hockey, VB, soccer. 

 

Bowling should not be an NCAA sport for that matter. 

[fightingsioux4life]

19 hours ago, supersioux said:

So are you prediciting championship programs across the board?  In what year 2017, 2018?  Women's hockey has been funded at a championship level...how's that working?

Again I'm all for funding teams at a level they can compete...I just believe it can be done without cutting sports.  I would argue that with FCOA, UND is funded better than most...shouldn't that result in championships?

The point is that without FCOA, you can kiss any championships goodbye. What chance would Bubba or Brewster or Jones have recruiting in this area against teams with FCOA if UND doesn't fund FCOA? Next to nothing. The merits of FCOA are a separate topic; what matters is that it is here and we need to do it or be mediocre across the board permanently.

[supersioux]

46 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The point is that without FCOA, you can kiss any championships goodbye. What chance would Bubba or Brewster or Jones have recruiting in this area against teams with FCOA if UND doesn't fund FCOA? Next to nothing. The merits of FCOA are a separate topic; what matters is that it is here and we need to do it or be mediocre across the board permanently.

So UND is the only team in the Big Sky that can win a championship, huh.  Should be a clean sweep in FB and both basketballs in a year or so.  

Championships come from great coaches, the right culture, the right leadership not from nicier weight rooms, lounges, more SID's, etc.

[fightingsioux4life]

6 minutes ago, supersioux said:

So UND is the only team in the Big Sky that can win a championship, huh.  Should be a clean sweep in FB and both basketballs in a year or so.  

Championships come from great coaches, the right culture, the right leadership not from nicier weight rooms, lounges, more SID's, etc.

You are missing the point. If we are recruiting against schools with FCOA and don't fund FCOA ourselves, we are screwed. The rules have changed and we need to keep up with them.

[AJS]

14 minutes ago, supersioux said:

So UND is the only team in the Big Sky that can win a championship, huh.  Should be a clean sweep in FB and both basketballs in a year or so.  

Championships come from great coaches, the right culture, the right leadership not from nicier weight rooms, lounges, more SID's, etc.

Do you really not understand the point?

[planet2county]

All sports should be looked at in regards to the budget.  If it is about national championships, there are only 3 current sports that have a realistic chance to attain them.

What was the impact of NDSU's run in basketball?  I am talking in regards to financials?  How about the runs SDSU and USD made in the WBB tournaments?  What is the financial impact?  What  is the trend regarding Montana Grizzly basketball attendance?  How many sports do Wyoming and Idaho offer?  How is that working for them?  How many lacrosse programs have revenues exceed expenses?

At much as I like sports,  I have a hard time seeing justifications for expensive lounge areas and other ancillary services for athletes.

With the cost of education, I have no problem with students attending for the sole purpose to see if they won a tuition drawing.  To me that is a better reason than to make decision to attend events on whether booze is served or not.

[fightingsioux4life]

8 minutes ago, planet2county said:

All sports should be looked at in regards to the budget.  If it is about national championships, there are only 3 current sports that have a realistic chance to attain them.

What was the impact of NDSU's run in basketball?  I am talking in regards to financials?  How about the runs SDSU and USD made in the WBB tournaments?  What is the financial impact?  What  is the trend regarding Montana Grizzly basketball attendance?  How many sports do Wyoming and Idaho offer?  How is that working for them?  How many lacrosse programs have revenues exceed expenses?

At much as I like sports,  I have a hard time seeing justifications for expensive lounge areas and other ancillary services for athletes.

With the cost of education, I have no problem with students attending for the sole purpose to see if they won a tuition drawing.  To me that is a better reason than to make decision to attend events on whether booze is served or not.

So you want UND athletics to be run like high school? You can have excellent student-athletes and success on the field/court/ice. It isn't a zero sum game.

[Tangolou]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Here's where I'll be ripped to shreds by some of you: 

Bowling should not be an NCAA sport for that matter. 

Swimming is not a sport, swimming is a way to keep from drowning...

[planet2county]

I do not know about that.  Some Texas high school football teams may have a bigger budget than UND.  Now whether you think that is good or not, that is up to each individual.  

I just don't know if if the projected financial upside to some legacy sports is as high as some think and needs to be examined.

 

[planet2county]

I remember when the U of Minnesota had separate departments for men's and women's athletics.  The argument for merging is that it would enhance the football program.  Sometimes things do not work like we expect them to.  The new football stadium was the next big thing to push Gopher football to the top.   I guess now it is going to be the new practice facility.

 

 For info purposes,  I remember the boathouse ordeal at the U of M.  The estimated cost was 4.6 million.

 

 

 

[zonadub]

In light of the budget shortfall currently being addressed, would Pres Kennedy turn down an offer from the new WAC to become FBS? Would he be more of the Montana mindset and say no or not yet, or would he be of the New Mexico State mindset and go FBS at the first opportunity (which would not happen without the Montanas and Idaho)?

Another question to ponder is what would happen if the MWC lost two schools to the Big 12 (extremely unlikely) and the Montanas got the opportunity to move up on their own. That would give Idaho an out and possibly make the Summit the real best option.

Or... What if Missouri State leaves the MVC and an opening in the MVC comes up for NDSU and NDSU left the Summit?

Or... What if moves by Youngstown and/or Missouri State opened in a spot in the MVFC and the Summit for UND? Is that a slam-dunk for some of you?

as stated before, I like UND in the Big Sky, but what I think doesn't have any bearing on what happens at the decision making level. Just curious what those of you who are better connected think could happen under these 'way-out' scenarios.

 

The last question I have is not really related to these, but it is related to the objective of being competitive in the sports that UND continues... If UND is going to keep the women's hockey team, is the current coaching staff the right fit to take UND to the championship? Is the current men's bb staff the right one to get UND to the dance? As someone else said earlier, can women's bb get competitive with the current staff like they were under Coach Roebuck? It feels like the hockey and football pieces are in place, but what about the other teams UND fields? Most of these questions seems to fit with the stated goal of Pres Kennedy, but will require reallocating the resources that are being 'saved' by the reductions that are being discussed. And finally, is Faison the right person to head up an athletic department that fulfills these goals?

[SWSiouxMN]

1 hour ago, zonadub said:

In light of the budget shortfall currently being addressed, would Pres Kennedy turn down an offer from the new WAC to become FBS? Would he be more of the Montana mindset and say no or not yet, or would he be of the New Mexico State mindset and go FBS at the first opportunity (which would not happen without the Montanas and Idaho)?

Another question to ponder is what would happen if the MWC lost two schools to the Big 12 (extremely unlikely) and the Montanas got the opportunity to move up on their own. That would give Idaho an out and possibly make the Summit the real best option.

Or... What if Missouri State leaves the MVC and an opening in the MVC comes up for NDSU and NDSU left the Summit?

Or... What if moves by Youngstown and/or Missouri State opened in a spot in the MVFC and the Summit for UND? Is that a slam-dunk for some of you?

as stated before, I like UND in the Big Sky, but what I think doesn't have any bearing on what happens at the decision making level. Just curious what those of you who are better connected think could happen under these 'way-out' scenarios.

 

The last question I have is not really related to these, but it is related to the objective of being competitive in the sports that UND continues... If UND is going to keep the women's hockey team, is the current coaching staff the right fit to take UND to the championship? Is the current men's bb staff the right one to get UND to the dance? As someone else said earlier, can women's bb get competitive with the current staff like they were under Coach Roebuck? It feels like the hockey and football pieces are in place, but what about the other teams UND fields? Most of these questions seems to fit with the stated goal of Pres Kennedy, but will require reallocating the resources that are being 'saved' by the reductions that are being discussed. And finally, is Faison the right person to head up an athletic department that fulfills these goals?

Well I have no connections what so ever, but I'll take a crack at the questions.  IMO I feel that there needs to be changes to the Women's Hockey and Men's bball staff if they do not make the NCAAs.  I think Brew can be that coach for the women's team (did win the league once, should have made the NCAAs last year). I think Pryor for VB is close to a breakthrough.

Faison needs to be replaced ASAP.  He might have some some good things but after this budget crisis this might be a time to get flesh blood across the board in the Hyslop

Think the only way UND joins the MVFC is they go to 12 or YSU/Mo state leaves.  Summit is more in play because adding UND gets them to an even 10 and brings the I-29 schools together. Plus conference tournament in Sioux Falls (I'm down with that!)  I don't see NDSU leaving the Summit unless they get a dream offer for all sports (MWC).

Zero chance a MWC schools gets poached, but if Montanas leave it hurts the Big Sky and would make the Summit a better option, Idaho still has no where to go and could you imagine the anger from Moscow, Idaho if the Montanas got picked over them to go to the MWC, or NDSU? 

Moving FBS?  Only thing I will say is conference realignments have shown some strange things.... so who knows

[Goon]

5 hours ago, zonadub said:

UND is going to keep the women's hockey team, is the current coaching staff the right fit to take UND to the championship? 

 

Fixed your post. 

[Oxbow6]

You think Kennedy would except a deal to keep all sports if boosters also funded 5 more VP positions along with Mitchell in the area of Diversity and Inclusion?

 

Simple question................

[talksalot83]

On 10/12/2016 at 11:06 AM, UNDvince97-01 said:

There's a lot to both.

To the first point about the potential of womens hockey:  It is my opinion that has already been proven.  We have since ceased ticketing for home games for womens hockey.  I think that speaks volumes about the general program interest and financial potential.  The peak has come and gone.

To the 2nd point:  No you will ever read or see anyone from REA publicly state that on the record.  But it's true.  Just have to take it at face value I guess.  From a business standpoint, there is no incentive for the REA to house, staff and administer that program.  It is a black hole for them - and that is fact.

Again, womens hockey expense is north of 2 million on an annual basis (everyone can just ignore the "cooked books" number of 1.4 like myself and others here have always said).

The fear-mongering fallacy of Title IX compliance being the sole purpose and reason why we cannot cut womens hockey obviously has won out.  Congrats to Daniella Irle and Sue Jeno.

It could have (fact) and should have (opinion) been cut, but it wasn't. 

UND is still ticketing and charging admission for women's hockey. Just thought I'd clear that up. 

[Redneksioux]

1 hour ago, talksalot83 said:

UND is still ticketing and charging admission for women's hockey. Just thought I'd clear that up. 

I had heard the cost of printing the tickets and employing ticket scanners exceeded the profits of ticket sales. Is there no business sense at UND?

[talksalot83]

Just now, Redneksioux said:

I had heard the cost of printing the tickets and employing ticket scanners exceeded the profits of ticket sales. Is there no business sense at UND?

I went to the game on Saturday and had to buy a ticket. I specifically asked about ticketing and they said they have not heard anything about not ticketing. 

[SWSiouxMN]

So was there a meeting today or is that tomorrow.

[SWSiouxMN]

Hey Sic, what is the over/under on dumb decisions/suggestions again?  We have one on the table