The Sicatoka

The anonymous member of the FCS selection committee:

As far as "cost us sending the band and cheer team", what would a home FCS playoff guarantee cost UND by comparison? Disclaimer: The odds of this happening are very, very, very small. However, I'd love to see the FBS short a few teams and be stuck in a position of looking at putting a 5-7 Nebraska or a 5-7 Texas in a bowl. <-- Welcome to a "everyone gets a participant trophy" world.

I wonder if we could get Twitter to sponsor and rebrand a bowl game for one year. Welcome to the "#QualityLosses" Bowl sponsored by Twitter.

Wayne Nelson's tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/waynenelsongf/status/668893499220082688

I would have really struggled with this notion, except one of the Herald guys Tweeted on this notion just a while ago. If they are willing to put it out there it has more to it than I took it for. So, who should we be cheering for and against this weekend?

Same goes for UNH and SHSU.

Mentioning that, hawks don't say "caw-caw". That's crow-speak. (I bring this up based on a GFHerald story on Friday's hockey game and a couple posts here.) Hawks screech.

I like this list (and associated article): SimpleMemorableTimelessVersatileAppropriatehttp://justcreative.com/2009/07/27/what-makes-a-good-logo/

geaux: My advice is not worry about how it looks on a 1920x1080 full HDMI screen and more about how it'll look shrunk to fit on the front of a ball cap. If it is too complex it'll manufacture terribly and look even worse.

My first notion: the simple, yet complex. The old Milwaukee Brewers glove logo. Or was it an "M", a "B", and a baseball? See that and other simple yet complex ideas here: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/sports-logos-hidden-images-milwaukee-brewers

Welcome to the reality of "Fighting Hawks". It is what it is. I believe in truth and truth is conformity of mind to reality. Fighting Hawks is here and real. So, in the spirit of truth and reality, we have to go with it. And now we need a logo. OK, I get that some folks are rolling out their personal designs. Have at it. Here I'd like the conversation to focus on "What makes a great sports logo". The Capt. Obvious answer is a great team and winning tradition. Undoubtedly. The next is "the old logo". Sure, but in today's world that's not an option. (See above: truth.) So, moving beyond that, what else is there? I have some ideas of mine and others stolen from websites. I'd like to hear everyone's ideas on the concepts behind logos and not so much logo samples.

Honest opinion? Too busy. How do you put that logo on a ball cap? The Brien logo was tough enough. And it's trying too hard to be something we are no longer.

Let me say this up front: The following is intended in NO WAY to demean any of the outgoing seniors. But, when I look at what UND is graduating out, the losses are not devastating. Yes, 3 OL and an all-time great LB. Yes, some contributors that are very solid and we felt when they got hurt during the season. But not a class of 22 starters or former starters, 13 contributors. That tells me a great deal of a 7-4 season (that was two quarters short of 9-2) was non-seniors. Young men, next man up, time to step up. PS - The NCAA doesn't think you're worthy. How's that taste? Savor it all summer ... and beyond. (Spit it back at them about 14 months from now.)

I see a "C" on a jersey. (Yeah, yeah, that's a hockey thing; but, you get my point.)

Take a peek at New Hampshire's 2015 resume. Best win was at home v. Richmond and an FBS loss. It is enough to make a fellow paranoid.

It was more like 10:28 am CT, but yeah.

That really stings.

I'll ask it again: Is this "6-5 team in" move a first step in taking a 24 team field up to 32 teams? They could pull in UND, EWU, NAU, and some of the "8+ win total but weak conference" teams to fill out the bracket.

I just went and looked at New Hampshire's 7-4: http://caasports.com/schedule.aspx?schedule=1889 Best win: Richmond (at UNH). Between UNH and EIU (and WIU to some extent), I'm just shaking my head.

There have been games where Santiago is 100+ after six carries.

FIFY.

We lose a lot off the offensive front. That is priority #1. I don't care how good a QB/RB is: the offensive line makes the offense. Even average receivers look like Jerry Rice when the defense has to over-commit to stopping the run. Next, shore up the defensive front. Then take a long, hard look at the secondary.

Take a look at the bracket, honestly: They regioinalized and bus-tripped the F'Hawks out of it. I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm agreeing with BisonDan: they DII'd it.

But Dan, it's here in FCS now.

So the criteria is beat 3 playoff teams? So 3-8 would be good enough? Or would the 8 have to be "good losses" (whatever that is). The claim had long been "7 wins" to be considered. That changed somehow this year. That's the explanation I think many are seeking.