Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jdub27

Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Might be an easy fix at this point in time for each program, FB and hockey, just to sustain itself on it's own via total revenue generated and donations. Pretty sure the hockey program can make of go if it this way and the FB program would get a huge boost by capturing all their ticket revenue at 100% and whatever other revenue dollars that can be accounted for from that program. Might be too simplistic but maybe it could work.

I am willing to bet that you would have less than 50 percent of the money that the Champions Club brings in if it wasn't for hockey.  The only reason that a lot of people are members is because it is required to get season hockey tickets.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tnt said:

I am willing to bet that you would have less than 50 percent of the money that the Champions Club brings in if it wasn't for hockey.  The only reason that a lot of people are members is because it is required to get season hockey tickets.  

Which has everything to do with with the $110 million gift given to support UND athleticsWithout that gift, hockey isn't sitting anywhere near where it is today.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Ignoring point 3 already. 

If UND is going to be a "hockey" school, then the hockey program is going to have to support other sports. I don't see NDSU taking significant issue with their football team helping support their other sports.

Ahhhhhhhhhh..........so it really isn't then about the loss of the 52% ticket sales the REA is getting from FB? It really comes down to some here want the FB to get what's theirs at 100% then get some of the hockey dollars too.

......and to be honest I'm good with that. Let's just not try to have some of you here mask what you are really asking for. The 52% argument is a smoke screen at this point.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Ignoring point 3 already. 

If UND is going to be a "hockey" school, then the hockey program is going to have to support other sports. I don't see NDSU taking significant issue with their football team helping support their other sports.

The issue is that hockey is pretty maxed out at UND, so increased revenue for the department needs to come from FB, MBB, WBB and VB. Because of the revenue share with the REA, they haven't taken it on the chin to the level the rest of the athletic department has, which has only exacerbated the problem elsewhere. Kind of makes it hard to improve certain programs while they are shouldering the cuts for others while already at a disadvantage. Yes, hockey needs to remain successful because it is a revenue driver, but that doesn't mean they are untouchable and without question.

You say UND is maxed out in hockey but you say it isn't that profitable, but in the same breath you say it needs to support the other programs like NDSU football does. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Ignoring point 3 already. 

 the hockey program is going to have to support other sports. 

They do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Which has everything to do with with the $110 million gift given to support UND athleticsWithout that gift, hockey isn't sitting anywhere near where it is today.

So under your scenario that hockey would playing in the old barn and FB as it currently is at the Al.............................which program today would still be the bigger source of revenue and needing to "help" the other sport programs? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Ahhhhhhhhhh..........so it really isn't then about the loss of the 52% ticket sales the REA is getting from FB? It really comes down to some here want the FB to get what's theirs at 100% then get some of the hockey dollars too.

......and to be honest I'm good with that. Let's just not try to have some of you here mask what you are really asking for. The 52% argument is a smoke screen at this point.

At every University in the country there is one sport that is the "cash cow" for the athletic department and financially supports the other programs.  Nothing new.  Is it wrong for the basketball program at NDSU to benefit off of the money the football program brings in every year?  Some sports are more profitable than others.  The fact that the hockey program brings in more money doesn't entitle them to be the only program that benefits.  UND is lucky to have program that is as profitable as the hockey program.  But that doesn't mean others have to suffer because they are not as profitable.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Which has everything to do with with the $110 million gift given to support UND athleticsWithout that gift, hockey isn't sitting anywhere near where it is today.

If you believe that was Ralph's main purpose in giving the arena, then I can't help you.  Everyone knows that Ralph gave it and set it up as he did to help the hockey program remain at the top, then let it benefit the University through the hockey team staying on top.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tnt said:

If you believe that was Ralph's main purpose in giving the arena, then I can't help you.  Everyone knows that Ralph gave it and set it up as he did to help the hockey program remain at the top, then let it benefit the University through the hockey team staying on top.  

The phrase "for the benefit of UND athletics" is literally the mission statement in the foundation documents for REA.

Yes, the hockey team was always going to benefit from it the most, without question, however not to the point where it's at the expense of other programs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jdub27 said:

It's literally the mission statement of the REA Foundation.

Then what are people complaining about, that it isn't benefiting UND as much as it is hockey.  Go figure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the REA need/take football revenue from the Alerus?  Still wondering that after 52 pages.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

 

 however not to the point where it's at the expense of other programs.

This is your opinion. Guess it depends on how you define "expense"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2018/4/17/unlv-len-jessup-engelstad-family-foundation

Article about the Engelstad Foundation pulling out of their UNLV donation.  KEM with an ironic quote:

“Even with philanthropy," McGarry continued, "it’s a transaction, and both parties have to fulfill their end, and they did not."

Also some other great points in the article regarding the donor/University relationship.  

The main takeaway here should be abundantly clear by now. As universities become increasingly reliant on philanthropy, donors are wielding greater influence. Sometimes, this influence will clearly be for the greater good. Other times, this influence will lead to decisions that may be perceived as unfair, if not self-defeating and arbitrary. 

This fact opens up a Pandora's Box of questions, which include: Should a handful of donors have such a disproportionate amount of influence over a state school system? (It's less than ideal.) Would we be having this discussion if the Engelstad Family Foundation was rescinding, say, a $500,000 donation? (It's highly unlikely.) And, perhaps most importantly, is this any way to fund a university? (Fair enough, but what's the alternative?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, petey23 said:

This is your opinion. Guess it depends on how you define "expense"

Correct, it is my opinion. However it is based on that the athletic department saw significant cuts, yet apparently can't renegotiate their annual revenue split contract with their largest partner, who continues to take the same amount of money while providing for only certain programs within the department. There's no arguing that because of this, the football program has shouldered more burden since they don't see a direct benefit from the REA, yet give 52% of their ticket revenue to them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- 100% of football ticket revenue

- higher percentage of all other ticket revenue to UND

- Support UND in its rebranding effort (starting with the request to put the Fighting Hawks logo at mid court at the Betty.)

 

Not asking for the world here.  Just a few minor tweaks to a contract that has remained unchanged for 17 years.  A request that I think is fair and supports the notion that the REA and Engelstad Foundation are to benefit the interests of the University and not the other way around. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

- 100% of football ticket revenue

- higher percentage of all other ticket revenue to UND

- Support UND in its rebranding effort (starting with the request to put the Fighting Hawks logo at mid court at the Betty.)

 

Not asking for the world here.  Just a few minor tweaks to a contract that has remained unchanged for 17 years.  A request that I think is fair and supports the notion that the REA and Engelstad Foundation are to benefit the interests of the University and not the other way around. 

You forgot..........      

- the complete scrubing of any thing still related to the "Fighting Sioux" from the Ralph.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

You forgot..........      

- the complete scrubing of any thing still related to the "Fighting Sioux" from the Ralph.

No one said that.  And no one has ever claimed they want that.  There is a balance of remembering the old name and logo and embracing the new.  Nobody is suggesting that all the fighting Sioux logos go away.  Kind of impossible at the Ralph.  Just a willingness to show the Fighting Hawks at the venues where the teams play.  It's not erasing the past.  And it's not "shoving it down your throats".  We were all Fighting Sioux fans and nobody wants to erase that from our history.  Moving forward is something that we all must do as well.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After over 50+ pages of "discussion" on this issue, I wanted to find out how UND compares with other universities regarding the sports revenues.  Do other schools actually make money  on the  sports they provide?  I was tired of seeing the trashing of donors, other people wanting to tell them how the money is spent, and the biggest joke that the university would be a better steward of that money.  What I found out was not surprising.  There are very few of the universities in the NCAA system that are making money off of sports, which looks like around 20 schools out of the more than 1000 colleges and universities that are part of the NCAA.  Here is a link to the Politifact article to back that up:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/22/jim-moran/moran-says-only-20-colleges-make-profit-sports/

The NCAA pulls in right at $1Billion dollars in revenue and a great deal of that revenue goes to P5 schools.  They do not allocate funding evenly across the board to all schools.  A better picture of the issues with college athletics is in the following Washington Post article which also verifies that very few schools "profit" from athletics.  They spend more money on athletics than they take in from athletics.  These large schools can pull in $125 - 200 million dollars in sports revenue, but spend it as fast as they make it.  That also did not surprise me, as I do not think UND would be any different.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/?utm_term=.7800ce2592cc

You can look further and find out that a large portion of money comes from sales of merchandise.  That obviously varies from school to school.  If you have a program like hockey at UND that drives a big part of merchandise sales.  Ticket sales are not the prominent driver of revenue for any school.  We should be glad to have donors that fund athletics, as that is not the purpose for colleges and universities, but are a benefit to those universities and help to drive the attendance and passion for the school.  There may be some issues with the contract, and contracts can be negotiated, but the university needs to understand the value of donors. Other sports do benefit from the status of hockey at UND by merchandise sales along with keeping donors excited.  A large donor should have more say in how their money is spent.  The Engelstad's have given money beyond athletics to UND, and that should be appreciated.  I know any donations that I make now to the university are going to be very specific, as they have in recent years. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Fighting Hawks logos on the basketball court isn't enough to help UND on their rebranding efforts!

I demand more!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cratter said:

Two Fighting Hawks logos on the basketball court isn't enough to help UND on their rebranding efforts!

I demand more!

When it comes to branding, I think they'd like more than the 1,500 in attendance to see the logo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

When it comes to branding, I think they'd like more than the 1,500 in attendance to see the logo.

Alex......I'll take "Who's fault is it" for $1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Two Fighting Hawks logos on the basketball court isn't enough to help UND on their rebranding efforts!

I demand more!

I demand they not have two words at midcourt instead of a logo.  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to branding, I'd like to see more than zero Fighting Hawks logos on the Alerus turf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cratter said:

When it comes to branding, I'd like to see more than zero on the Alerus turf.

I'm sure Kennedy does too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Alex......I'll take "Who's fault is it" for $1000.

That's Mr. Trebek to you ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...