North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

[chickod]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

move on if "incontrovertible visual evidence" can't be seen in a reasonable amount of time.

Which is the whole point of replay, right? This has been my point all along. In a LOT of cases there NEVER IS "incontrovertible visual evidence." That's why I say let humans use judgment as long as humans are playing the sport. When androids start playing, then you can use computers to "officiate." Or better yet, just use virtual reality to play every game. In fact, we don't even have to have games. Let's just all put on the glasses and play the games in our minds. That way, our team can always win!

[icehawk]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Once again UND leads the nation in attendance
http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle...CLID=211534861

[icehawk]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Tyson Jost signs with the Avs. Saw that coming a mile away. Avs are in need of help. Lots of help.

[Riz]

Tyson Jost signs with the Avs. Saw that coming a mile away. Avs are in need of help. Lots of help.

They definitely lured him away. Avs need more than Jost to be competitive again.

[The Rube]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Your school can (insert very obscene acts of sexual activity, left to your imagination) after what they did to the women's team. Oh, and for the disappointment for the recruit that LANDED TONIGHT thinking she had a team.

For real, your school is a complete joke.

[D2D]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Your school can (insert very obscene acts of sexual activity, left to your imagination) after what they did to the women's team. Oh, and for the disappointment for the recruit that LANDED TONIGHT thinking she had a team.

For real, your school is a complete joke.

North Dakota has never been a true hockey state. On the men's side they've always relied on imports, mostly Canadians or Minnesotans, because their own high schools were so bad. So their decision to drop women's hockey, while unfortunate, is certainly no surprise. Might as well now change their mascot name to the "Chicken Hawks".

[SteveO]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Another former UND player, Team Canada defenseman Halli Krzyzaniak, posted a lengthy note to Twitter on Wednesday in which she described the school’s actions as “extremely disrespectful.” “I am no longer proud to be a part of UND,” she wrote.

Ouch.

Sun to a shadow
Rose to a thorn,
Ain't no fury
Like a woman's scorn - Prince

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Your school can (insert very obscene acts of sexual activity, left to your imagination) after what they did to the women's team. Oh, and for the disappointment for the recruit that LANDED TONIGHT thinking she had a team.

For real, your school is a complete joke.

North Dakota has never been a true hockey state. On the men's side they've always relied on imports, mostly Canadians or Minnesotans, because their own high schools were so bad. So their decision to drop women's hockey, while unfortunate, is certainly no surprise. Might as well now change their mascot name to the "Chicken Hawks".

First, this is really the wrong thread for your rant. The Men's program had nothing to do with the decision to cut women's hockey. It would be akin to talking about the Minnesota football program's gang rape problems in the hockey thread (since you brought it up though, I guess by your logic, Minnesota should change its name to the "Golden Gang Rapists?"). This should be brought up over in the Women's forum.

Second, the school really had its hands tied behind its back. They were forced by the state legislature to make budget cuts, and needed to cut at least $1.3 million from the athletic budget. The Women's Hockey program costs more per athlete than any other sport. I think most people have an issue with how this news got to the women's hockey team. It was unfortunate and poorly done. However, there was no easy way to announce the decision.

Third, as for the recruit being on campus, she had already committed. Further, what should the school have done? Ceased operating all of its athletic programs until a decision had been made? Organizations need to operate as normal as possible when considering cuts all the way up to point when the decision is made. Consider this hypothetical: An employer is considering eliminating departments within the company and will likely make the decision by Tuesday or Wednesday. People in three different departments are scheduled to go on business trips Sunday night, and will return Thursday night. Should the company: (a) cancel all business trips until the decision is made, effectively stopping the company from operating; or (b) keep business operating as normal until a final decision on which department(s) will be eliminated? Every employer I know would check option b. It has bad optics, but the alternative is worse.

Fourth, you must not follow the North Dakota men's program and/or the North Dakota high school hockey scene much. North Dakota has almost always had a nice presence of local players on the team. Fortunately, the university has also attracted top end talent from across North America (with the occasional European). It has led to tremendous results on the ice.

[SJHovey]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

Your school can (insert very obscene acts of sexual activity, left to your imagination) after what they did to the women's team. Oh, and for the disappointment for the recruit that LANDED TONIGHT thinking she had a team.

For real, your school is a complete joke.

So what exactly is your solution Brent?

If you are upset the story leaked out before the women's team was notified, I agree, that was unfortunate. But I think at least in part that is really not on the University so much as it is on the selfish individual(s) who were given access to the information and elected to spill the beans before University officials could advise the team and coaches and release it to the media officially. That person should be fired.

But, let's ignore that crap for a moment and talk about the decision to actually cut the program. Is that what you are upset about, because if so, I'd really like to hear the solution.

Last I checked the U of M's women's hockey team lost about $1.5 million in 2016, just like North Dakota's, and your team is probably the most successful in women's hockey, in the center of a hockey state. Minnesota has kept it's women's hockey team and other money bleeding teams at the U alive entirely on the back of education. Last I saw, U athletics was running about an $8 million deficit annually, picked up entirely by tuition.

Great. Unfortunately we didn't have that option at UND. We're a school at best 1/5 the size of Minnesota, in a state of 650,000-700,000 people. Furthermore, they were instructed by the Legislature to cut $1.3 million from athletics, not just raise tuition by $1.3 million. We are a University. The primary purpose here is the education of students, not the fielding of athletic teams.

But we're all ears. If someone has a great idea, throw it out there. I'm sure there are other schools that would love to hear it.

[SteveO]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

According to the NCAA Membership Financial Reporting System filed by the University of Minnesota on Jan. 26, 2017, the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 (UNAUDITED) indicated the athletic program had an aggregate fiscal surplus of $2,832,455. Tuition support has very little to do with balancing the athletic budget (Direct Institutional Support was $975,000).

Major revenue streams are:

Ticket Sales ($23,889,905)
Media Rights ($22,379,338),
Contributions ($15,250,676),
Other Operating Revenue ($12,830,602),
Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorships ($10,422,398),
Conference Distributions (Non Media and Non Bowl) ($8,120,939),
Indirect Institutional Support ($6,080,984),
Program, Novelty, Parking and Concession Sales ($5,896,361),
NCAA Distributions ($5,030,884),
Bowl Revenues ($1,232,720),
Athletics Restricted Endowment and Investments Income ($1,084,472),


Total Operating Revenues - $113,506,279
Total Operating Expenses - $110,673,824
Excess (Deficiencies) of Revenues Over (Under) Expense - $2,832,455

[Drew S.]

So what exactly is your solution Brent?

If you are upset the story leaked out before the women's team was notified, I agree, that was unfortunate. But I think at least in part that is really not on the University so much as it is on the selfish individual(s) who were given access to the information and elected to spill the beans before University officials could advise the team and coaches and release it to the media officially. That person should be fired.

But, let's ignore that crap for a moment and talk about the decision to actually cut the program. Is that what you are upset about, because if so, I'd really like to hear the solution.

Last I checked the U of M's women's hockey team lost about $1.5 million in 2016, just like North Dakota's, and your team is probably the most successful in women's hockey, in the center of a hockey state. Minnesota has kept it's women's hockey team and other money bleeding teams at the U alive entirely on the back of education. Last I saw, U athletics was running about an $8 million deficit annually, picked up entirely by tuition.

Great. Unfortunately we didn't have that option at UND. We're a school at best 1/5 the size of Minnesota, in a state of 650,000-700,000 people. Furthermore, they were instructed by the Legislature to cut $1.3 million from athletics, not just raise tuition by $1.3 million. We are a University. The primary purpose here is the education of students, not the fielding of athletic teams.

But we're all ears. If someone has a great idea, throw it out there. I'm sure there are other schools that would love to hear it.

I'm as big of sports fan as there is but realize education and the overall student body should come before sports. It's sad how many people don't feel this way.

[SJHovey]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

According to the NCAA Membership Financial Reporting System filed by the University of Minnesota on Jan. 26, 2017, the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 (UNAUDITED) indicated the athletic program had an aggregate fiscal surplus of $2,832,455. Tuition support has very little to do with balancing the athletic budget (Direct Institutional Support was $975,000).

Major revenue streams are:

Ticket Sales ($23,889,905)
Media Rights ($22,379,338),
Contributions ($15,250,676),
Other Operating Revenue ($12,830,602),
Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorships ($10,422,398),
Conference Distributions (Non Media and Non Bowl) ($8,120,939),
Indirect Institutional Support ($6,080,984),
Program, Novelty, Parking and Concession Sales ($5,896,361),
NCAA Distributions ($5,030,884),
Bowl Revenues ($1,232,720),
Athletics Restricted Endowment and Investments Income ($1,084,472),


Total Operating Revenues - $113,506,279
Total Operating Expenses - $110,673,824
Excess (Deficiencies) of Revenues Over (Under) Expense - $2,832,455

I'm not going to pretend I have any inside information on athletics at the U of M, but there have certainly been plenty of stories in recent years, such as the links below. Whether you want to call it straight up funding, subsidies, "direct institutional support", "indirect institutional support" or whatever, athletics is being paid for not just by revenue generated by the athletic department, but from money that comes from tuition or other non-athletic department sources.

http://www.twincities.com/2015/11/15...st-in-big-ten/

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2015/...ofits-stagnant

[SteveO]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

No, those categories are not related to tuition and fees structures. Moreover, to assume the athletics dept. is supported "entirely" by tuition is not correct. The most prominent sources under Indirect Institutional Support are typically the value of facilities and services provided by the institution yet not charged. Direct Institutional Support are commonly tuition waivers and state appropriations (FYR 2016 < 1%).

[SJHovey]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

No, those categories are not related to tuition and fees structures. Moreover, to assume the athletics dept. is supported "entirely" by tuition is not correct. The most prominent sources under Indirect Institutional Support are typically the value of facilities and services provided by the institution yet not charged. Direct Institutional Support are commonly tuition waivers and state appropriations (FYR 2016 < 1%).

I don't think I wrote "entirely."

[SteveO]

Re: North Dakota '16 - '17 Season Thread - Let's Do It Again

That's how I understood the following statement, "Last I saw, U athletics was running about an $8 million deficit annually, picked up entirely by tuition".

In an era of dwindling state appropriations, generated revenue sources have become the strategic focus of most athletics depts. since they are most variable. In other words, the pressure to become self-sustainable as a dept. has shifted greater attention to revenue generating strategies such as sponsorship, donor relations, ticket sales, and media coverage, which is the current interest of the U of M administration.