Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213141516171819
Results 361 to 364 of 364

Thread: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

  1. #361
    Kichizapi Chetan
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Engelstad Arena
    Posts
    11,423

    Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    Actually I found a Grand Forks Herald article written 2 and-a-half weeks later in which it was reported that NDSU would only face a $400 thousand/year budget shortfall due to the state funding cuts. The article also states that no sports would be cut to balance NDSU's $22 million athletic budget. That is far different from UND's response of cutting over $2 million and 3 sports from their $26 million budget.
    Key detail:
    NDSU was already running a very lean, 16 sport, budget. (As a side note, you should take a peek into their Title IX standing. They're one of the few using "Third Prong" rather than "First Prong" for equity.) And I stand by my prior statements that there's more to come on NDSU's budgets soon enough. It'll come about May 15, after NDSU finals week and the students are gone. It's their standard MO and the Fargo media gives them a pass.

    In these moves, UND went down to 16 sports, like NDSU. (Well, 17, but men's golf is all but dead.)

    The two (NDSU and UND) budgets align fairly well now. And yet they don't look anything alike in how they report. If you dig up NDSU's FY16 NCAA budget reporting you'll see that they apply required "donations" to the sport that season tickets were bought for. Their individual sports look less red; their unallocated line item is very small.

    And there's a detail you must also consider: Notice they all stop and/or hold firm at 16 sponsored sports. That's the number for DI FBS. That's the dream for most Midwest schools that play football (see: UxDs, xDSUs, Montana, Montana State, et al) right now at FCS. Now, clearly, they'll never be 'bama or Clemson, but, they could well play at the SunBelt or MAC level given the right circumstance. And, that right circumstance just may be forming up as the motion continues in Midwest conference alignments*. And before you say FBS is more expensive, actually no, it's not. Any sort of conference bowl game alignment (even MAC and Belt have those) is a better payday than the FCS playoffs.


    *It looks like the MVC is poaching the OVC and the Horizon for teams. This will probably affect the Summit as the Horizon will probably look there for new members.
    Last edited by The Sicatoka; Yesterday at 08:08 PM.
    The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved.

    North Dakota Hockey:

  2. #362
    Kichizapi Chetan
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Engelstad Arena
    Posts
    11,423

    Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

    A few more thoughts now that you've brought in NDSU: It's a $400k cut per year they face. That's still 20% of the $2 million of state funds subsidizing their programs. On, as you say, a $22 million budget.

    Meanwhile, UND has to cut $1.3 million (20%). It would logically follow UND is using $6.5 million to subsidize their $26 million budget.

    Now as you've noted UND cut out more than the $1.3M. Using FY16 and cutting baseball, M/W S&D, and WIH, they nominally cut out $4M. And it's $4 million less of state monies into athletics.

    So NDSU was using $2M and UND about $6.5M by these calcs. But now UND has cut out about $4M of subsidized play to be more like NDSU.
    The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved.

    North Dakota Hockey:

  3. #363
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    The Rafters of Schottenstein Center
    Posts
    5,508

    Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

    Quote Originally Posted by The Sicatoka View Post
    I didn't; however, it was brought up so I responded.
    I honestly don't care who "started it." There was an extended exchange involving multiple posters, of varying viewpoints, that seemed to treat "fewest scholarships lost" as the ultimate, determinative factor. I simply disagree with putting so much weight on that one variable.

    The relevant factor, the factor, is that the state is cutting 20+% from budgets and the state mandates balanced budgets.
    Which is a financial disaster, no question about it. We differ on whether one specific program should have been cut. I specifically disagree with the position (not necessarily yours) that UND had "no choice" but to cut Women's Hockey. But no matter what decisions were made, clearly there was going to be real pain and innocent victims.

    UND made a choice. They went with core sports (that just won Big Sky Championships this year in FB, MBB, WBB, and VB). They went with lower cost per athlete sports. They went with sports that have more local following and game attendance*. Was it the right choice? Time will answer that. Right now the numbers say it was.


    *Yeah, I said it. UND draws more for a weeknight volleyball match than a Friday night WIH game.
    Actually time won't tell. Assuming the decision is permanent, we'll never know what Women's Hockey at UND might have achieved. My belief is that there was a lot of upside potential there. My guess is that a single national title would have done wonders for attendance. For me, current attendance is just another variable that should be treated as relevant but not dispositive.

    Maybe you'll find this next point conciliatory; maybe you won't. But here goes. No doubt that competing for Big Sky titles is important to the players and fans involved, and should be. Still, for better or worse, such titles are a matter a regional significance only. But let's assume that the UND decision makers really took a careful look, and made a conscious, eyes wide open decision that competing for Big Sky titles was more important than anything Women's Hockey might achieve. If that's really the case, they had every right to make the decision they did. It's up to UND to determine the core mission and core objectives of its Athletics program.

    What I would ask is that we stop pretending that the decision to cut Women's Hockey at UND was about saving a handful of scholarships; or about current Volleyball attendance. It was a major, long-term policy decision -- which our sport lost.

  4. #364
    Kichizapi Chetan
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Engelstad Arena
    Posts
    11,423

    Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey

    Undeniably UND made a long term policy decision.

    The leadership decided that goals of making the NCAA M/W BB tournaments and the NCAA WVB tournament were higher priority and more valuable. They appear to be in full pursuit of continued NCAA FCS playoff appearances with a championship end goal which is again believed to be more valuable. They have the experience of making all those NCAA tournaments (save WBB) to base their analyses on. That's what Big Sky (and soon Summit) titles get you: NCAA tournament entry. And into NCAA DI tournaments with much larger and broader exposure. Thus, clearly, UND's leadership and the college women's hockey world have beliefs that do not align at this time.

    A follow-up on NDSU. The ND Legislature went "sine die" late last week. Final numbers are out. It's an 18% cut for NDSU. But, as the Fargo Forum says, " ... no details on impact yet". Indeed, but wait for it. However, NDSU will not go below 16 sponsored sports. That I will bet on (and I'm cheap; I don't bet).
    http://www.inforum.com/news/4258637-...ils-impact-yet

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •