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

[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/umn-athletics-budget-shortfall-is-among-biggest-in-big-ten/

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2015/12/athletics-revenue-profits-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.

 

[SJHovey]

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.

That comment was drawn from my reading of the links that I provided, which suggested that the $7-8 million dollar athletic department deficits were funded through the general budget of the University, not that athletics were "entirely" funded through the general budget. Obviously the school generates significant athletic revenue.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

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

In more relevant news to this thread, Tucker Poolman is expected to sign with Winnipeg tonight. That makes three early departures thus far (Boeser, Jost, and T. Poolman), with Poganski rumored to be leaving early as well. Fortunately, Cam Johnson announced he will return for next season, so North Dakota should be strong defensively.

 

[icehawk]

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

There is a women's hockey forum here. Take your complaints there. Unfortunate what happened but it has nothing to do with the men's team.

 

[Arafel]

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

UND released a press release that Poolman signed with Winnipeg.

 

[Riz]

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

In more relevant news to this thread, Tucker Poolman is expected to sign with Winnipeg tonight. That makes three early departures thus far (Boeser, Jost, and T. Poolman), with Poganski rumored to be leaving early as well. Fortunately, Cam Johnson announced he will return for next season, so North Dakota should be strong defensively.

His numbers really dropped from one of the best goalies in the country to average in the NCHC. NO DAK did lose some big talent after the national championship run but I thought he was going to be one of the best goalies in the country and a Richter finalist again this year.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

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

His numbers really dropped from one of the best goalies in the country to average in the NCHC. NO DAK did lose some big talent after the national championship run but I thought he was going to be one of the best goalies in the country and a Richter finalist again this year.

He had a very porous and young d-corps in front of him this season, after having one of the best blue line groups in the last decade of college hockey in front of him last season. North Dakota's defensive group should be significantly improved next season, so I think Cam will have much better numbers next season than this season...although probably not quite as good as his 2015-2016 campaign.

 

[SJHovey]

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

He had a very porous and young d-corps in front of him this season, after having one of the best blue line groups in the last decade of college hockey in front of him last season. North Dakota's defensive group should be significantly improved next season, so I think Cam will have much better numbers next season than this season...although probably not quite as good as his 2015-2016 campaign.

I think that's part of it, and like you I have high hopes for our returning blue line group.

But I'm not willing to give Cam a complete pass. Last year he faced 23.88 shots per game. This year it was 24.46. Most of the time you expect to only see an extra goal scored with about 10 or 11 extra shots per game, but Cam gave up 35 more goals this year than he did last year, having played only 3 more games and facing only an extra half shot per game.

He simply wasn't as good this year, or maybe to be more accurate, I'm not positive he is as good as he was last year. I think the real Cam Johnson probably lies somewhere in between the two seasons, maybe a .915 or .920 goaltender. If we see the top end of that range, we'll probably be ok. If it's closer to the bottom end, or like we saw this year, the team is going to struggle a bit. I really hope we get to see Tomek, or someone else, push him a little with some competition. I think Cam's a competitor, and I believe he has it in him to rise to that challenge, which will really help the team.

 

[MplsSioux]

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

In more relevant news to this thread, Tucker Poolman is expected to sign with Winnipeg tonight. That makes three early departures thus far (Boeser, Jost, and T. Poolman), with Poganski rumored to be leaving early as well. Fortunately, Cam Johnson announced he will return for next season, so North Dakota should be strong defensively.

Schloss thinks Poganski looks to be staying now, would be huge

I think that's part of it, and like you I have high hopes for our returning blue line group.

But I'm not willing to give Cam a complete pass. Last year he faced 23.88 shots per game. This year it was 24.46. Most of the time you expect to only see an extra goal scored with about 10 or 11 extra shots per game, but Cam gave up 35 more goals this year than he did last year, having played only 3 more games and facing only an extra half shot per game.

He simply wasn't as good this year, or maybe to be more accurate, I'm not positive he is as good as he was last year. I think the real Cam Johnson probably lies somewhere in between the two seasons, maybe a .915 or .920 goaltender. If we see the top end of that range, we'll probably be ok. If it's closer to the bottom end, or like we saw this year, the team is going to struggle a bit. I really hope we get to see Tomek, or someone else, push him a little with some competition. I think Cam's a competitor, and I believe he has it in him to rise to that challenge, which will really help the team.

I'll take a .915-.920 goalie every day of the week. Agreed on the dmen having promise for this next year.

 

[SJHovey]

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

I'll take a .915-.920 goalie every day of the week.

Used to I would. Not anymore.

Save % of Frozen Four goaltenders in last five seasons:

2017
.929
.928
.923
.919

2016

.935
.935 *
.924
.922

2015

.939
.930 *
.929
.927

2014

.932
.929 *
.926
.919

2013

.952
.933
.919 *
.914

* Denotes championship winner.

 

[burd]

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

Used to I would. Not anymore.

Save % of Frozen Four goaltenders in last five seasons:

2017
.929
.928
.923
.919

2016

.935
.935 *
.924
.922

2015

.939
.930 *
.929
.927

2014

.932
.929 *
.926
.919

2013

.952
.933
.919 *
.914

* Denotes championship winner.

Very interesting, Hovey. Those career stats?

 

[SJHovey]

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

Very interesting, Hovey. Those career stats?

For that season only.

 

[burd]

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

For that season only.

Makes sense--920-935 is awfully high for career.

But those numbers are enlightening. We've all known that you don't win the FF without good D, but all four teams consistently have tenders playing at an elite level.

Who was at .952 in '13?

 

[SJHovey]

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

Makes sense--920-935 is awfully high for career.

But those numbers are enlightening. We've all known that you don't win the FF without good D, but all four teams consistently have tenders playing at an elite level.

Who was at .952 in '13?

Hellebuyck from Mass-Lowell.

It makes a huge difference. If Johnson posts the same percentage this year as he did last year, our opponents score 29 less goals against us. That's over 37 games. That makes a major difference.

Even the difference between .920 and .935 is big (14 goals based upon the shots faced by Cam last year.)

In my opinion, .920 is the base unless you have a really, really strong team in front of you.

 

[bothman]

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.

Last I checked, UND has some fairly wealthy alums playing in the NHL.

 

[icehawk]

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

Pogs and Gersich returning
http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/4246168-gersich-poganski-set-return-next-season