Popular Post ericpnelson Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2017 Isn't it mildly preposterous how little we talk about our athletic director in these discussions? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDBIZ Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: It's above them, or Pres. Kennedy would of had WH on the short list a couple months ago. An accountant looking at the numbers would say cut WH. A fund raiser from the alumni office would say keep WH. A new Pres. after being briefed on The Raplh Engelstad Arena and the non-profit corporation running it, said "We're Keeping WH" No. The Title IX fearmongers in the AD say keep WIH. REA would like to have more available dates for concerts and other events that actually bring in revenue. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bang Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said: No. The Title IX fearmongers in the AD say keep WIH. REA would like to have more available dates for concerts and other events that actually bring in revenue. I'd say you probably have a good point. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 37 minutes ago, homer said: But don't save a lot of money by being cut. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. I say cut the sport that is the overwhelming biggest drain on your budget and keep the others that cost a fraction. But that just makes too much sense!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDvince97-01 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 25 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said: A fund raiser from the alumni office would say keep WH. No. No they would not. Why would they say that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said: No. The Title IX fearmongers in the AD say keep WIH. REA would like to have more available dates for concerts and other events that actually bring in revenue. Title IX is part of the equation. Especially when your funding a Div I sport to maximum like the big U's do in MH & WH. This would of also been mentioned in the briefing to Pres. Kennedy. Concerts vs. cutting WH, that's new to the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDvince97-01 Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted February 1, 2017 The Ralph is a for-profit business. Why would they want to host WH games and lose money when they could have much larger events that attract thousands from around the region to come to Grand Forks and ultimately have a large impact on the commerce in town? Grand Forks as a business community would benefit more if we didnt have WH. 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarnWinterSportsEngelstad Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 11 hours ago, UNDvince97-01 said: Because he was given bad information, just like Ed Schafer. So, if Pres. Kennedy was given bad info, he sound have it figured out by now, and then WH will be on the next short list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Real leaders make the tough decisions (even though they might not be the popular ones) and deal with the consequences. Hoping that Kennedy is that leader. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hky Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I doubt very much REA is fighting to keep women's hockey. They could make a lot of money hosting other events. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 4 hours ago, mksioux said: I think you're giving him too much credit. If that was his master plan, he wouldn't (shouldn't) have been so emphatic that he wasn't ever going to re-visit this issue during his tenure. He would (should) have given himself some wiggle room. Now he just looks like a fool. Time will tell. Now he can make cuts and when people complain about it he can refer back to the bull$%!# committee that did absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 An argument could be made that it would actually be safer from a Title IX standpoint to cut women's hockey than any other women's sport. Why? The so-called prong 3, or interests and abilities test. Even at the local level, and certainly at the state level, girls'/womens' hockey is far less popular in terms of participation than soccer, swimming and softball. Probably tennis, also. So by keeping the least popular sport (again, in terms of participation) it seems to me that a school would be opening itself up to a challenge by supporters of objectively more popular sports, arguing that if cuts absolutely had to be made, it should be the objectively least popular (not to mention most expensive) sport that was cut. I have no idea whether this argument would prove compelling, but it's probably a stronger Title IX argument than women's hockey supporters would have if that sport were cut. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Cooper Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Siouxperfan7 said: If I were a betting man, I would guess that WHKY is going to be saved due to the fear of the negative message that sends. Sports I think will be cut will be mens and womens tennis and mens and womens golf. Bringing UND to 16 sports. Men's golf is privately raised for next year, can they still cut them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpnelson Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, DB Cooper said: Men's golf is privately raised for next year, can they still cut them? that's a hell of a question I have myself. I think they are on an endowment now, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 1 minute ago, ericpnelson said: that's a hell of a question I have myself. I think they are on an endowment now, right? I believe they're privately funded for 2 years. Will need to secure an endowment ($2 million?) if they want to continue after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 3 hours ago, UNDvince97-01 said: The Ralph is a for-profit business. Umm, no. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 8 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said: Umm, no. They are registered as a non-profit, but that does not mean they don't try to make a profit. It gives them tax advantages that allows them to further help UND, which is what the whole point of the REA. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBB75 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 All one has to do is look at the women's hockey thread to see how popular it is. Last post January 3rd. Before that, December 18th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2 hours ago, UND92,96 said: An argument could be made that it would actually be safer from a Title IX standpoint to cut women's hockey than any other women's sport. Why? The so-called prong 3, or interests and abilities test. Even at the local level, and certainly at the state level, girls'/womens' hockey is far less popular in terms of participation than soccer, swimming and softball. Probably tennis, also. So by keeping the least popular sport (again, in terms of participation) it seems to me that a school would be opening itself up to a challenge by supporters of objectively more popular sports, arguing that if cuts absolutely had to be made, it should be the objectively least popular (not to mention most expensive) sport that was cut. I have no idea whether this argument would prove compelling, but it's probably a stronger Title IX argument than women's hockey supporters would have if that sport were cut. So get rid of the least popular and most expensive sport with the least risk of Title IX compliance issues? Wait, that makes way too much sense!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Not lobbying for Women's Hockey in anyway (I think it should be the first to go) but.... the 3rd prong of Title IX deals with equal treatment... It states for facilities... Quote a) Locker Rooms, Practice and Competitive Facilities looks at the quality, maintenance and availability of the facilities provided for practice and competitive events; the exclusivity of use of the facilities; the preparation of facilities for games and practices; and the availability, exclusivity and quality of locker and team rooms. A school is obligated to ensure that the overall benefits and treatments of the female and male programs are comparable. Under Title IX, budgets for men’s and women’s teams do not have to be equal, but the bottom line is that the benefits provided must be equal. Facilities are one benefit that must be equally provided to the men’s and women’s programs Being REA provides a word-class facility for the men's program w/ state-of-the-art locker room, training rooms, team lounges, meeting rooms, weight rooms, etc. etc. Does eliminating women's hockey mean there is are no women's programs with access to "comparable facilities"??? Is that a reason that women's hockey hasn't been discussed as a possible cut at this point? Just asking a question... If any Title IX "experts" can provide info on this??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, Westside said: Not lobbying for Women's Hockey in anyway (I think it should be the first to go) but.... the 3rd prong of Title IX deals with equal treatment... It states for facilities... Being REA provides a word-class facility for the men's program w/ state-of-the-art locker room, training rooms, team lounges, meeting rooms, weight rooms, etc. etc. Does eliminating women's hockey mean there is are no women's programs with access to "comparable facilities"??? Is that a reason that women's hockey hasn't been discussed as a possible cut at this point? Just asking a question... If any Title IX "experts" can provide info on this??? Not an expert, but there are other teams that can be given access to those facilities if it's necessary to satisfy Title IX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Women's soccer team 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Soccer, Volleyball, and Women's basketball all have access to some pretty amazing facilities 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiSioux Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, bincitysioux said: Soccer, Volleyball, and Women's basketball all have access to some pretty amazing facilities Soccer plays on a front lawn.... At halftime they huddle under a tree. Are there actually any seats for spectators or do you have to bring your own chair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 On 1/31/2017 at 4:33 PM, crb1 said: I feel bad for the sports teams but this is also what us staff have to go through yet again. We lost lots of good people last go around and people were trying to be positive and do more with less only to be told we are going to be cut even deeper now. If we thought the last round was bad just wait until this round. I have never seen anything like it, they plan to buyout as many faculty and staff as they can and then let go a bunch of others. Drop programs, eliminate grad teaching positions. It is really not good, the buzz word is do much much more with less. Moral is at an all time low. Things were looking somewhat doable with Dalrympl's budget proposal but Burgrums is taking it even farther. I agree we should run a lean Univeristy but we already got there the last budget cuts. I know a lot of people that are seriously considering going elsewhere and moving away from the state. Is this what they want, a brain drain from the state? This is only for higher education. What about the others areas of the state they plan to cut. Notice that all of the added layer of upper level administrators seem to be safe from cuts - pathetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.