Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature

[tnt]

8 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

For some reason when NDSU moved up to D1 they understood that they needed all new offices and locker rooms and other internal football facilities. The football team has only upgraded the lockers in the locker room since the move up. They need a larger coach salary pool and new facilities desperately. It’s not a good look when recruits visit both school in the same weekend and our coaches have to be creative to hide the warts while down south they get to beat their chest about everything. To think that doesn’t affect culture and the type of player we can get on average would be naive.

But at some point, you have to win first to get recruits.  Gino inherited a team from his predecessor and started to win immediately because he instilled a different culture.  You do recall people saying the Ralph was a curse because they thought it made the players soft.   Of course that wasn't true, but you can win if you have the right message and expectation.    

[geaux_sioux]

32 minutes ago, tnt said:

But at some point, you have to win first to get recruits.  Gino inherited a team from his predecessor and started to win immediately because he instilled a different culture.  You do recall people saying the Ralph was a curse because they thought it made the players soft.   Of course that wasn't true, but you can win if you have the right message and expectation.    

We don’t get guys like Toews is the old Ralph. 

Fwiw, I don’t think football has the right coach to put them over the top right now. He improved things but I don’t think he’s got the it factor to take things where we all want them to go.

[geaux_sioux]

34 minutes ago, tnt said:

But at some point, you have to win first to get recruits.  Gino inherited a team from his predecessor and started to win immediately because he instilled a different culture.  You do recall people saying the Ralph was a curse because they thought it made the players soft.   Of course that wasn't true, but you can win if you have the right message and expectation.    

Our curse in the playoffs was that we would get a ton of penalties and BC would skate circles around our defense. We were late to adjust with the evolution of hockey. The 2016 team was a nice hybrid. Same with 2010.

[tnt]

5 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

We don’t get guys like Toews is the old Ralph. 

Fwiw, I don’t think football has the right coach to put them over the top right now. He improved things but I don’t think he’s got the it factor to take things where we all want them to go.

We didn't get guys like that in the old Ralph for the most part, but that is my point, they still won.   I am sure Gino and his staff received nothing starting out, at least nowhere near what Ned Harkness would have made, but they took it to another level anyway, and eventually got guys like James Patrick who was drafted # 9 overall in a period where that was almost unheard of in college hockey.  That Hakstol article that Schlossman refers to on his blog is another example.  Hakstol inherited a team in Sioux City and completely had to remake it, and did so with blood and guts guys.  Great read, for those who have the time.  

[geaux_sioux]

13 minutes ago, tnt said:

We didn't get guys like that in the old Ralph for the most part, but that is my point, they still won.   I am sure Gino and his staff received nothing starting out, at least nowhere near what Ned Harkness would have made, but they took it to another level anyway, and eventually got guys like James Patrick who was drafted # 9 overall in a period where that was almost unheard of in college hockey.  That Hakstol article that Schlossman refers to on his blog is another example.  Hakstol inherited a team in Sioux City and completely had to remake it, and did so with blood and guts guys.  Great read, for those who have the time.  

Hence my second paragraph.

[UND-FB-FAN]

2 hours ago, UND1983 said:

The irony of this is interesting.  Hockey won't even consider going more than five years without renovating their locker rooms and chef's quarters.  But football people are trying to bring to light how dilapidated their 80 year old facilties are, to the point I believe it will be condemned soon, and they are made fun of.  Interesting.  

The blinders are always on for some. All major change comes with some positives and negatives; one just has to hope the positives outweigh the negatives.

 The $100 million gift from Engelstad for the REA was obviously a net positive, but to blatantly ignore the inherent negatives that also came with that is tremendously naive and irresponsible. That’s what I see from most; they try too hard to ignore some of the negative trickle down effects. 

[darell1976]

Just now, UND-FB-FAN said:

The blinders are always on for some. All major decisions have some positives and negatives; one just has to hope the positives outweighs the negatives.

 The $100 million gift from Engelstad for the REA was obviously a net positive, but to blatantly ignore the inherent negatives that also came with that is tremendously naive and irresponsible. That’s what I see from most; they try to hard to ignore some of the negative trickle down effects. 

I still don’t get with all the updates and money to throw around at the REA, why do they need football ticket sales? Who is getting paid with that money? New tires for the Zamboni?

[UND-FB-FAN]

7 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

I still don’t get with all the updates and money to throw around at the REA, why do they need football ticket sales? Who is getting paid with that money? New tires for the Zamboni?

UND football certainly could use more money for facilities and coaching salaries, no question. But big wins need to come first to support enthusiasm, and I have doubts that the current coaching staff can deliver on that.

UND football under Bubba has been anything but consistent. Furthermore, only 1 playoff season in 4 seasons is not good enough. It likely will be 1 in 5 (20%) after this season; that’s just not good enough at a hockey dominated University and community, especially when trying to build and enhance support for football. UND needs to build enthusiasm via wins before the financial  changes we all want for football will happen.

[Siouxperman8]

2 hours ago, Cratter said:

Lots of those REA renovations were done with private donations. 

Every dollar spent now saves the university a dollar later.

They have redone the locker rooms twice in about 10 years I believe.  How did spending the money on the first reno save an equal amount later?

[Siouxperman8]

1 hour ago, tnt said:

But at some point, you have to win first to get recruits.  Gino inherited a team from his predecessor and started to win immediately because he instilled a different culture.  You do recall people saying the Ralph was a curse because they thought it made the players soft.   Of course that wasn't true, but you can win if you have the right message and expectation.    

Gino's magic culture must have worn off or there are other factors involved.  Here are the records for his last three years at UND.  Overall first and then conference.

1991–92	North Dakota	17–21–1	12–19–1	t-7th	WCHA First Round
1992–93	North Dakota	12–25–1	11–20–1	8th	WCHA First Round
1993–94	North Dakota	11–23–4	11–17–4	8th	WCHA First Round

[Siouxperman8]

3 hours ago, 90siouxfan said:

I get that, but cutting down others to elevate yourself seems like the immature way to approach the situation.  Maybe Ralph seen this coming and wanted to keep the football buzzards of his meat wagon.  I have no idea the ins and outs of the ticket situation but am fairly certain it is not as simple as a 'we want more" discussion.

You forget what this thread is based on.  UND (not the fb program) asked for a different distribution of the REA income that is generated from a UND team playing in the arena.  It also became clear during the reporting  that REA takes 52% of fb ticket sales which seems crazy to many people. 

UND is asking for a more fair playing field for all of their teams when it comes to financial support.  It is strange to me that their request isn't honored since all of the teams in question (including hockey) are UND teams.

 

[90siouxfan]

5 minutes ago, Siouxperman8 said:

You forget what this thread is based on.  UND (not the fb program) asked for a different distribution of the REA income that is generated from a UND team playing in the arena.  It also became clear during the reporting  that REA takes 52% of fb ticket sales which seems crazy to many people. 

UND is asking for a more fair playing field for all of their teams when it comes to financial support.  It is strange to me that their request isn't honored since all of the teams in question (including hockey) are UND teams.

 

I agree that 52% is eye brow raising, would love to know the reasoning / negotiations that took place for that to occur. That assumes I am sharp enough to understand it all.  lol, 

[darell1976]

2 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

I agree that 52% is eye brow raising, would love to know the reasoning / negotiations that took place for that to occur. That assumes I am sharp enough to understand it all.  lol, 

I don’t think anyone would care if the REA upgrades anything if they weren’t taking the 52%. If they would have gotten rid of that clause in the agreement it would be a much happier fan base.

[UNDBIZ]

Typically, REA returns between $500,000 and $1 million of UND's money to the school each year.  If REA didn't take the $3-400,000 of football revenue, I'd anticipate they would simply return $3-400,000 less to UND each year....

[petey23]

27 minutes ago, Siouxperman8 said:

You forget what this thread is based on.  UND (not the fb program) asked for a different distribution of the REA income that is generated from a UND team playing in the arena.  It also became clear during the reporting  that REA takes 52% of fb ticket sales which seems crazy to many people. 

UND is asking for a more fair playing field for all of their teams when it comes to financial support.  It is strange to me that their request isn't honored since all of the teams in question (including hockey) are UND teams.

 

What should it be? 48%, 45%?

Obviously when the deal was made it was a benefit to all the sports programs at UND or else we had an incompetent Athletic Director who got ran over by Blais?

Maybe it does need to be re-configured but the point is there had to be a reason to make the arrangement in the first place that would be a net benefit to football and other programs or there would be no reason for it to even come up.

[petey23]

20 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

I don’t think anyone would care if the REA upgrades anything if they weren’t taking the 52%. If they would have gotten rid of that clause in the agreement it would be a much happier fan base.

 

24 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

I agree that 52% is eye brow raising, would love to know the reasoning / negotiations that took place for that to occur. That assumes I am sharp enough to understand it all.  lol, 

Don't let that stop you. most everyone else in this thread doesn't let their lack of knowledge of the inner workings of the agreement stop them from pontificating.

[Cratter]

1 hour ago, Siouxperman8 said:

  How did spending the money on the first reno save an equal amount later?

I was referring to the scoreboard. As the locker rooms was private money. Things need to be updated and upgraded over time. You can argue how much. The university will own the arena and now they won't need to upgrade things as much at the Ralph had REA kept it the same as it was in 2001.

Just like how much UND upkept the old Ralph (Ralph Engelatad had to give money to UND even back then to upgrade it), Hyslop, and Memorial Stadium. I've seen a history at UND about upkeeping their athletic facilities that doesn't paint the prettiest picture.

[Cratter]

The low tide helped UND cut the fat of women's hockey and other sports.

If $400,000 a year is taken by the REA (the 52% that pays for the Betty), that would go directly back to football, how much directly goes to football now with the millions of saving a year by cutting those sports?

UND athletics facility wise is one of the tops in its class. It's like debating if we want new leather seats for the Lambo, Bentley, or Corvette.

[UNDBIZ]

2 minutes ago, Cratter said:

The low tide helped UND cut the fat of women's hockey and other sports.

If $400,000 a year is taken by the REA (the 52% that pays for the Betty), that would go directly back to football, how much directly goes to football now with the millions of saving a year by cutting those sports?

I'd guess the University simply spends less on sports than it would if those programs hadn't been cut.

[southpaw]

17 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

...and I have doubts that the current coaching staff can deliver on that.

Please, tell us more

[UND-FB-FAN]

23 minutes ago, southpaw said:

Please, tell us more

26-24 (52%) in 5 seasons isn’t exactly exhilarating.

Can’t imagine your average fan would get too excited about that. 

[Oxbow6]

29 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

26-24 (52%) in 5 seasons isn’t exactly exhilarating.

Can’t imagine your average fan would get too excited about that. 

Your average fan won't pay to watch an average FB team with all the other entertainment options available nowadays.

[Irish]

3 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

26-24 (52%) in 5 seasons isn’t exactly exhilarating.

Can’t imagine your average fan would get too excited about that. 

And this is after 6 years of Muss.  Every time the fans get fired up  like last week it seems like we are treated to a cruel joke.  I think the fan support would be great if the team ever shows us something.  

[nodak651]

From the Herald link I posted..

"At the end of each year, REA funds a capital reserve fund for extraordinary repairs, maintenance, and building enhancements as well as an operating reserve fund to cover unanticipated operating expenses, and then allocates the balance of its annual net income to UND athletics. The entities aim to make an annual minimum deposit of $500,000, which is also consistent with previous usage agreements."

Are the current of prior usage agreements publicly available?  I'd be curious if there is verbiage on what the expected/acceptable reserve fund balance is, and how that number is determined.  Is there a formula?  Is there a cap on the reserve fund balance?  Or are there no rules, and the Ralph can hold as much money as they see fit?  Does the Ralph discuss potential building enhancements with UND, and do they even have to (this is related to the Betty floor design, but I'm talking about the budgeting decisions)?  I find it hard to believe that some of these factors wouldn't be expressed in the contract. 

Does anyone have insight into this?

[jdub27]

You can get a general idea on what the balance of the reserve fund is by looking at the tax returns.