2024 Non-UND FCS Thread

[forksandspoons]

55 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences your interested in though to at least have conversations. 

Maybe Armacost has connections with Mountain West folks due to his time at Air Force?
 

Chaves needs to be the one making a strong case to Armacost… 

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, forksandspoons said:

Maybe Armacost has connections with Mountain West folks due to his time at Air Force?
 

Chaves needs to be the one making a strong case to Armacost… 

Chaves is part of the problem.

[jdub27]

24 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Chaves is part of the problem.

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top.
He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss.
This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures.

Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

[fightingsioux4life]

26 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top.
He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss.
This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures.

Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

So Armacost is running the athletic department through Chaves? I thought Presidents delegated these things.

[The Sicatoka]

Armacost is aware of "the picture", as is Chaves. 

No further comment. 

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, fightingsioux4life said:

So Armacost is running the athletic department through Chaves? I thought Presidents delegated these things.

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command?
Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD).
University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics).

Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command?
Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD).
University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics).

Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

I guess I was thinking about all AD functions, not just conference realignment.

I agree with you on this.

[UND-FB-FAN]

6 hours ago, jdub27 said:

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations. 

I would argue we will have to agree to disagree. You’re gullible to lip service and friendliness. Results speak louder than words in my opinion, and I hold that in higher regard when forming opinions on UND and it’s leadership. 

[jdub27]

3 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

I would argue we will have to agree to disagree. You’re gullible to lip service and friendliness. Results speak louder than words in my opinion, and I hold that in higher regard when forming opinions on UND and it’s leadership. 

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

[fightingsioux4life]

33 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

The results (or in this case, lack thereof) speak for themselves. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

[UND-FB-FAN]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

I just read a bunch of distraction text here. Sure, those are good things (facilities, Alston funds, etc), but results should be of priority. Results, as in head to head competition results, are the basis here. It shouldn’t be win at all costs, as sustainability is critical, but the University of North Dakota football program has only had sustainability in mediocrity, at this point, and that is where my criticism lies.

[GoodGood]

Some prefer to look at Massey ratings instead of playoff wins 

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The results (or in this case, lack thereof) speak for themselves. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

Who's sugar coating the current results, particularly the last two weeks? I haven't seen anyone defending it. 

21 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

I just read a bunch of distraction text here. Sure, those are good things (facilities, Alston funds, etc), but results should be of priority. Results, as in head to head competition results, are the basis here. It shouldn’t be win at all costs, as sustainability is critical, but the University of North Dakota football program has only had sustainability in mediocrity, at this point, and that is where my criticism lies.

I acknowledged and agreed with a lot of what you said. The criticism is warranted and valid. I'm also understanding there currently isn't 7 figures lying around right now to make the fix you are advocating for. Unless that shows up somewhere, there won't be an immediate change. Call me crazy, but all the criticisms in the world aren't going to convince a sane person to walk away from well over half a million dollars doing something they are passionate about, barring something completely unforeseen, so that isn't a solution. Find me anyone on here who would make that choice. 

[UND Football Fan]

12 minutes ago, GoodGood said:

Some prefer to look at Massey ratings instead of playoff wins 

We maybe the UNI of the Massey ratings. 

[NDRA]

I think the genius, that decided a coach with a .500 winning percentage was right guy to lead the program into the future, he should be the one to cover the Xtra cash needed

[UND Football Fan]

When Bubba left Duluth they won Natty, hopefully history repeats when or if he does step down. 

[UND-FB-FAN]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

Who's sugar coating the current results, particularly the last two weeks? I haven't seen anyone defending it. 

I acknowledged and agreed with a lot of what you said. The criticism is warranted and valid. I'm also understanding there currently isn't 7 figures lying around right now to make the fix you are advocating for. Unless that shows up somewhere, there won't be an immediate change. Call me crazy, but all the criticisms in the world aren't going to convince a sane person to walk away from well over half a million dollars doing something they are passionate about, barring something completely unforeseen, so that isn't a solution. Find me anyone on here who would make that choice. 

So why were these unwarranted head coach extensions put into place? You’re using a problem (buy out cost) to justify a problem (unwarranted extensions-need a different HC); you realize that, right?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

If UND can fund new multimillion dollar facilities, they can campaign to acquire buy out funds for an unwarranted extension and an ineffective coaching staff. 

[Shawn-O]

9 hours ago, jdub27 said:

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations. 

Kupchella really screwed us on this one.  Worse than Faison hiring Kyle, I’d argue.  

[The Sicatoka]

Classic AD speak: 

 

[The Sicatoka]

More classic AD speak: 

https://sports.yahoo.com/und-determined-aligned-dakota-schools-003200587.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bS5zaW91eHNwb3J0cy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABi0OsSZzoj52ZcvTxiqn1_qk-8JMfNuk7Ua0AShXCMfC9Yf9IESBMRc7xzlw50RGaFmqDoPXwWd4avm5x9lbtZ6OqzmK1XQhxyEVdbOu6KgSkppzNrnFTxcdRXJDEt4kWD4erP6fxjrb1yKMUT5ku69KxPTAPFimcRDpzRrYACu 

[jdub27]

14 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

So why were these unwarranted head coach extensions put into place? You’re using a problem (buy out cost) to justify a problem (unwarranted extensions-need a different HC); you realize that, right?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

If UND can fund new multimillion dollar facilities, they can campaign to acquire buy out funds for an unwarranted extension and an ineffective coaching staff. 

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand why the last extensions was done. That being said, I don't think it should have been two years and if needed to be, then it absolutely should have never been agreed to with the buy-out language that was included.

As an economist would say, that "problem" is a sunk cost and can't be changed, so there is not point in wasting time worrying about it. That isn't justifying anything, it is just the reality. 
The other "problem" is what can be focused on. Conflating that with what's already done doesn't help anything.

[The Sicatoka]

6 minutes ago, HoopsFan03 said:

Chaves could throw a dog off a bridge and you’d defend him. 

If the bridge was on fire and it'd save the dog, I would. 

[GoodGood]

36 minutes ago, HoopsFan03 said:

The dog dies. Just like the UND football program under Bubba

Hoopston I wasn’t sure where you were going with that metaphor but that was beautiful 

[geaux_sioux]

On 11/8/2024 at 12:04 PM, GoodGood said:

Hoopston I wasn’t sure where you were going with that metaphor but that was beautiful 

What a saga

[geaux_sioux]

Hoopspeare