UND1983 Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 To sum up Brad's interview on KFAN: 8 Olympians, Top 10 program (out of 37), once came really close to a Frozen Four. Rinse, repeat. Quote
Big Green Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, geaux_sioux said: That's the point. I'm interested to know what an acceptable number for attendance number would be Quote
geaux_sioux Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 Just now, Big Green said: I'm interested to know what an acceptable number for attendance number would be How much does the lower bowl hold? Quote
Big Green Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said: How much does the lower bowl hold? About 6500 I would guess. So over twice as much as the team with the highest attendance. I guess we should have dropped our men's hockey team in the early 90's 3-4k a game wouldn't cut it with you. Quote
geaux_sioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, Big Green said: About 6500 I would guess. So over twice as much as the team with the highest attendance. I guess we should have dropped our men's hockey team in the early 90's 3-4k a game wouldn't cut it with you. So I guess being the gold standard for womens hockey was never the goal? Quote
MafiaMan Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 There have been more posts in the womens hockey forum in the past 24 hours than in the past year. 2 Quote
MadScout03 Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, MafiaMan said: There have been more posts in the womens hockey forum in the past 24 hours than in the past year. I think you're on to something... Quote
Popular Post MafiaMan Posted March 31, 2017 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2017 PROBLEM: We have a $2 million operating loss every year. SOME FOLKS' SOLUTION: THROW MORE MONEY AT IT AND IT'LL EVENTUALLY WORK! 5 Quote
geaux_sioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, MafiaMan said: PROBLEM: We have a $2 million operating loss every year. SOME FOLKS' SOLUTION: THROW MORE MONEY AT IT AND IT'LL EVENTUALLY WORK! 3 Quote
Big Green Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said: So I guess being the gold standard for womens hockey was never the goal? Unfortunately I don't think it was. Coach should have been given bonuses based on attendance and winning. Don't think he did much to try and build the program Quote
CMSioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 I always thought it was strange that they couldn't find enough quality recruits in the US so they had to go to Europe and recruit which must have added to the budget issues. I suppose part of the reason was one of the coaches was from Europe (was it Finland?). 2 Quote
geaux_sioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, Big Green said: Unfortunately I don't think it was. Coach should have been given bonuses based on attendance and winning. Don't think he did much to try and build the program If they were giving "bonuses" based on attendance Idalski would have been paying in from day 1. 2 Quote
UND-FB-FAN Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours ago, Oxbow6 said: You seriously did type the bolded part.......yup you did. Do you own a mirror? If so take a look! You rip on everyone on this site that enjoys hockey much more than FB and/or BB but still goes to games and supports those other two sports. Not to mention ripping those who have not puckered up to the new nickname and/or logo as you feel they should even though they are great supporters of the university and it's teams. Am I missing anything? #hypocrite BTW you have to running out of -1 on me too. You are again misguided, but I will give you credit for your attempt to make me look bad. My comments have been focused on individuals who are far from fair when it comes to supporting the University of North Dakota at all levels. Not supporting the new nickname and logo seems to be correlated with not supporting football and basketball ... I wonder why? Don't be so naive to think there isn't a large group of "hockey-only" folks out there - that is obviously where many of my comments are directed. Can you validate that everyone I've debated with actually does support UND football and basketball? I'll save you some time: of course not. 2 1 Quote
teamsioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said: If they were giving "bonuses" based on attendance Idalski would have been paying in from day 1. Especially "paid" attendance. Quote
siouxweet Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 With all these Olympians shouldn't have the ROI been better than just one NCAA tournament appearance in 15 years, 1 Quote
WiSioux Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 5 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said: http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/19019077/highest-paid-us-employees-dominated-college-football-college-basketball-coaches?sf66823110=1 Sorry, but there were no men's hockey coaches, and certainly no women's hockey coaches, to be found. I guess North Dakota is still leading the nation in moral insight, though, right? That thought process always helps the know-it-all locals sleep at night. Even the "State of Hockey" pays more to a "bouncy ball" coach ... wow, can you believe it? The truth hurts if you're one-sided with the minority. So you're saying our athletic budget still has plenty of room to get out of control again? Yay 2 Quote
Big Green Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, teamsioux said: Especially "paid" attendance. What % if the attendance is paid? None paying attendancecosts virtually nothing. But many purchase food and drink Quote
UND-FB-FAN Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Big Green said: Basketball has had a lot longer to build their fan base. Duration of existence is really independent of the issue. Women's basketball is just more popular than women's hockey and there are far more factors involved with that than just the duration of a program's existence. Quote
Big Green Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said: Duration of existence is really independent of the issue. Women's basketball is just more popular than women's hockey and there are far more factors involved with that than just the duration of a program's existence. Kind of agree, but und is a little diffrerent. How many hockey teams out draw there mbb team? At one point women's bb attendance was less then women's hockey attendance now. Women bb started winning and fans would come for the women's bb game and leave before the mens game. if done right attendance would have grown. 1 1 Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 25 minutes ago, Big Green said: What % if the attendance is paid? None paying attendancecosts virtually nothing. But many purchase food and drink please define "many"....10...20....4? Quote
UNDBIZ Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, Big Green said: Kind of agree, but und is a little diffrerent. How many hockey teams out draw there mbb team? At one point women's bb attendance was less then women's hockey attendance now. Women bb started winning and fans would come for the women's bb game and leave before the mens game. if done right attendance would have grown. How much more right could UND have done it than a $2 million per year loss? And attendance was dropping. Quote
Irish Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 6 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said: The point is that the REA was not God's gift from Heaven to Grand Forks due to unparalleled hockey fandom ... UND hockey is in a very fortunate position with that building. Many other big-time hockey universities do not have that luxury. Yet, even with that luxury for UND, the almighty hockey programs of the impeccable hockey town of Grand Forks took a hit. Take note: the lesson is that hockey popularity (and feasibility) is far more fragile than you want it to be, even in Grand Forks and North Dakota. If women played a version of football (flag for example) you can bet that the support across the country would be about the same as for women's hockey. Quote
Big Green Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: please define "many"....10...20....4? Doesn't mater. As attendance has grown for footbal I have never heard anyone say yeah but many of those are students and they get in for free Quote
UND1983 Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, Big Green said: Kind of agree, but und is a little diffrerent. How many hockey teams out draw there mbb team? At one point women's bb attendance was less then women's hockey attendance now. Women bb started winning and fans would come for the women's bb game and leave before the mens game. if done right attendance would have grown. When was WH attendance better than WBB...for a couple years of the transition? Quote
UND1983 Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Big Green said: Doesn't mater. As attendance has grown for footbal I have never heard anyone say yeah but many of those are students and they get in for free Because if somebody said that it wouldn't be true. The uptick in fans is all paying general crowd. The students have the same pattern/numbers every year. Quote
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.