tony Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Actually, Kupchella was talking about federally-funded research. Chapman was talking about all research dollars. I couldn't find the latest report, but back in 2000 UND got 80% of the research dollars from the Feds and NDSU got 31%. The national average was 58%. Apparently UND was getting more federal money for research in 2002 too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Actually, Kupchella was talking about federally-funded research. Chapman was talking about all research dollars. I couldn't find the latest report, but back in 2000 UND got 80% of the research dollars from the Feds and NDSU got 31%. The national average was 58%. Apparently UND was getting more federal money for research in 2002 too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I stand corrected. Thanks Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Well, if it's any consolation, the 2000 report showed that NDSU spent $50 million on research to UND's $17 million. Joe Chapman is definitely not the flim-flamming carpetbagger that some UND partisans imply that he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 From Dr. Chapman's address: While many of our previous goals were quantitative, we now seek more qualitative goals, ...Huh? Why the switch in Dr. Chapman's philosophy from hard-target, measurable, quantitative goals to qualitative ones, one's that can't be easily measured with numbers? Has Dr. Chapman gone soft and fluffy? (Kidding.) I don't get it. He seems like such a type-A driver personality (and those normally like "measureables") this doesn't seem to mesh with what he's done up to this point. Meanwhile, Dr. Kupchella, who has always seemed to me to be more of the type-B, the more relaxed "are we going the right direction" leader, who accordingly seemed more 'qualitative' than 'quantitative' in style, rolled these out: - ... we need to consider raising ... to 15,000 or even 16,000 students. - I would like to see us establish an endowment goal of $500 million, and I will be working with the Foundation to set a timeline for this and other ambitious goals. Those are pretty quantitative. Kupchella moved the bar out again. Good for him. But I'm surprised this from Kupchella hasn't gotten more play: Intercollegiate Athletics - I continue to be as proud as I could possibly be of our intercollegiate athletic program. I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 He sounds like a man who wants to know he'll be able to pay the bill before he orders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, the alternative is to move to dI before a school is financially ready, which can result in only adding two football scholarships the first year. Not that any school we know has done that. As I see it, there are a couple of different ways ex-NCC schools have gone about things in their move to dI. Like NDSU or not, I give them credit for the fact that they've not gone halfway in terms of football. Sure, they're not having as much success this year as they would have liked, but at least they've added the maximum number of football scholarships they could so that they'll be able to get to 63 as early as the NCAA allows. SDSU and UNC, on the other hand, have taken baby steps in that SDSU is at just 38 scholarships, and I believe UNC is in the 40's, even with a one-year headstart on NDSU. If UND makes the move, I would certainly hope that it will devote the necessary resources to football immediately. I'm pretty confident that will be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 And we all know how important the government is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Enough sidebar. Back to the original article, here are the closing paragraphs: "Nothing is in a vacuum," Executive Committee Chair Cartwright emphasized. "Regardless of the division we represent ... doing what's best for student-athletes. That should be a prevailing principle as we think about how we might have these discussions." Those discussions may have to occur if the three-division model, which has been a structural fixture for more than three decades, continues to be the best house for the NCAA family. " ... discussions"? Discussions of what? Maybe .... " ... if the three-division model ... continues to be the best house ... "? " ... if the three-division model ... "? If? Sounds like restructuring could be on the mind of the Chair of the Executive Committee (president at Kent State) also. Earlier in this thread I pointed out where it was on the mind of the Chair of the Division I Board of Directors (chancellor at Kansas). Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 re classification will not happen for at least 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 re classification will not happen for at least 5 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is this a gut feeling or is it based on something more substantial. If the latter, would it be possible for you to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Actually, with the BCS/NCAA contract coming to an end after this season, we could see changes very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 re classification will not happen for at least 5 years. The head of the UND Alumni Association seems to disagree with you. Even so, O'Keefe expects to see UND and NDSU together again before the end of the decade. Or are you sure what you overheard wasn't "reclassification takes five years"? Or did you mean "restructuring" by the NCAA? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Actually, with the BCS/NCAA contract coming to an end after this season, we could see changes very soon. Contracts? Like money? You mean money would motivate the NCAA? I thought all they worried about is the well-being of student-athletes. Sayitaintso. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 The best thing for college football would be three or four teams with only one loss this season. If Miami would have lost last night or for them to lose to Virgina. For UVa to lose to Florida St. For USC to lose to anybody, for Oklahoma to lose a conference or conference championship game etc.... You see where I'm going. If multiple teams that are considered stud teams falter atleast once than the BCS will be put the the test and more people not just USC/LSU fans will be pissed off. There needs to be an uprising from many different schools at once. my two cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 The head of the UND Alumni Association seems to disagree with you. Even so, O'Keefe expects to see UND and NDSU together again before the end of the decade. I must have missed where O'Keefe was on a committe for NCAA...and now since he is the official spokes person for the athletic dept guess he would just naturally know that...or maybe he and the Pres of the NCAA had their own meeting?? Actually there wont be re classification the NCAA doesnt believe there is a problem...the NCAA has stated that the institution needs to adjust to the NCAA not the NCAA adjusting to the institutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack100 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Yes, the alternative is to move to dI before a school is financially ready, which can result in only adding two football scholarships the first year. Not that any school we know has done that. As I see it, there are a couple of different ways ex-NCC schools have gone about things in their move to dI. Like NDSU or not, I give them credit for the fact that they've not gone halfway in terms of football. Sure, they're not having as much success this year as they would have liked, but at least they've added the maximum number of football scholarships they could so that they'll be able to get to 63 as early as the NCAA allows. SDSU and UNC, on the other hand, have taken baby steps in that SDSU is at just 38 scholarships, and I believe UNC is in the 40's, even with a one-year headstart on NDSU. If UND makes the move, I would certainly hope that it will devote the necessary resources to football immediately. I'm pretty confident that will be the case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Know your facts before you open your mouth. You talk and talk but do not know what the hell you are talking about. SDSU hasn't increased its football scholarships as quickly for one reason (and it was not poor planning like your university). The courts in South Dakota have come down very hard on Title IX violators. Look at USD , a former women's coach sued USD and won for Title IX violations. Look at USD baseball team - gone because the school either had to add women's sports, women's scholarships, and women's coaches or cut back on men's sports. SDSU needs to get its new women's equestrian team up and running before dramatically raising the football scholarships. That being said, if the Big Sky comes calling sooner rather than later - there is a plan to increase the football scholarships to required 60 right away. By the way, this year your football team would lose to both NDSU and SDSU. Last year UND won the game in Brookings for 2 reasons - 1. SDSU chocked in the final 9 minutes of the game blowing a 21-3 lead and - 2. The back judge called a catch on the final TD when the receiver trapped the ball (and yes the replays did show that the ball hit the ground). And another point - when you guys did win the national championship in 2001 - your 2 best players were from South Dakota. Don't count on getting recruits like these again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-GARY Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Know your facts before you open your mouth. You talk and talk but do not know what the hell you are talking about. SDSU hasn't increased its football scholarships as quickly for one reason (and it was not poor planning like your university). The courts in South Dakota have come down very hard on Title IX violators. Look at USD , a former women's coach sued USD and won for Title IX violations. Look at USD baseball team - gone because the school either had to add women's sports, women's scholarships, and women's coaches or cut back on men's sports. SDSU needs to get its new women's equestrian team up and running before dramatically raising the football scholarships. That being said, if the Big Sky comes calling sooner rather than later - there is a plan to increase the football scholarships to required 60 right away. By the way, this year your football team would lose to both NDSU and SDSU. Last year UND won the game in Brookings for 2 reasons - 1. SDSU chocked in the final 9 minutes of the game blowing a 21-3 lead and - 2. The back judge called a catch on the final TD when the receiver trapped the ball (and yes the replays did show that the ball hit the ground). And another point - when you guys did win the national championship in 2001 - your 2 best players were from South Dakota. Don't count on getting recruits like these again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dude---settle down. When is the last time you finished ahead of UND in football in the NCC? Don't compare UND and SDSU ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Gary...did dognuts get a hold of you he wants to hang with you on sat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 I must have missed where O'Keefe was on a committe for NCAA...and now since he is the official spokes person for the athletic dept guess he would just naturally know that...or maybe he and the Pres of the NCAA had their own meeting?? Actually there wont be re classification the NCAA doesnt believe there is a problem...the NCAA has stated that the institution needs to adjust to the NCAA not the NCAA adjusting to the institutions. O'Keefe with the NCAA? No. But UND's NCAA guy and O'Keefe have told me similar things on this subject. And one would expect UND to keep the head of their fundraising arm, funds being key in this discussion, "in the loop" of what they expect, yes? As far as the NCAA not seeing this as a problem, how do you explain the quotes, from NCAA committee chairs, already pointed out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Sicatoka...just keep writing what you think you know...or better yet what people tell you bits and pieces of the story....keep coming on this site and wanting admiration for what you think you know...but you dont... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 When's the last time you chatted directly with UND's NCAA faculty athletic representative or head of the UND Alumni Association? I will give you this: Most likely, something will change at the NCAA level before it does at the UND level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 would that have been wednesday...oh yes..wednesday..nothing will change with the NCAA...UND's AD who is on the committee has stated that the NCAA believes there is nothing wrong with their way of structuring the NCAA..is that a good enough source for you!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 The AD. The FAR. Two different guys. Two different takes. Not unexpected. But please go back and see what the DI committee people are saying in the article that started this thread. (The UND AD is on DII committees.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 the committee he is on has all divisions on it..D1, D2 D3 I have read the article..and FYI..our alumni feel they are tapped out for funding..so there goes that source of revenue..but you propably knew that since u talk to O'Keefe..the D1 committe doesnt care about restructuring...they just want their own league..ie BCS that is where that comes from...they dont care about the UND..NDSU..SDSU..UNC...or whoever else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 OK, I'm confused. I thought legend334 was talking about a massive NCAA shakeup of the divisional system, but I thought Sicatoka was referring to UND reclassifying as an individual institution (which is what I thought O'Keefe was speculating about in the quote). As to my relatively worthless opinion, I could see UND reclassifying within 5 years; I'd be surprised to see the NCAA scrap the current divisions (though small shakeups, such as actually enforcing attendance limits or adding a II-AA, wouldn't surprise me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend334 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 the NCAA already enforces attendance limits?? there are several D1A teams that are being threatened to move down to 1AA next year because of low attendance at FB...as far as stating UND will move within ten years..that is a tough call...until Pres. Kupchella sees where the money will come from or how UND will fund it as long as he is President I dont see it happening...just my two cents...he was at a D1 school that made the jump and saw first hand the mess it creates. As far as O'Keefe being involved in extra funding and being in the loop..already stated alumni's position.. 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.