The Sicatoka

Let's read Kelley's exact words: Much ado about nothing folks. He tipped his hand in his wording. He'll "further review all the feedback received" and work with his consultants (and his retirement party planner Dr. Eric Longie) and they'll help him verify as he's already said," ... it is in the best interest of the University to have a new nickname ... " Or, he'll call the NCAA and have them be the bad guy in this with a "no nickname doesn't meet the intent of the settlement; name or naughty list" letter.

Don't forget that the settlement agreement was signed not by any UND official but by the duly elected and sworn Attorney General of the State of ND.

Please remember that UND was precluded from picking a name by state law until just seven months ago. The NCAA would be foolish to hammer UND during that period. As soon as it ended, the process to a nickname restarted. Given that, you have as much proof they wouldn't crash down on UND in the future as I do that they would. PS - If folks didn't like my signature comment about Marco Hunt, they really won't like this quote of Aquinas.

Don't kid yourself: KG had the same concern.

They'd come down for continuing to foster an environment where the old nickname is a viable option. Subtle, yes, but real.

I'm saying when the legal angles were exhausted, rather than stomping and saying "no nickname!" it should've been, "we people invested in this athletic department demand a new nickname and we pick it now." Instead, it is as you say, an underwhelming process. The "no nickname" crowd was suckered by Kelley. The longer he could draw this out he knew he could get his outcome by attrition.

The "old name or nothing" mindset was in place in January 2012 based on looking at old threads. I think the yelping would've been about the same.

That's not "reported". That's an opinion piece by Brad. Tom Miller did an opinion piece (other opinion) as well.

Agree. Initially I just went for iramurphy's post; I'm going back to page 1 on it and re-reading. I love being right. I hate being right.

Too many did nothing. Too many did not enough. "We are where we are and we all should accept responsibility for where we are and quit blaming others. ... We who wanted the name didn't do enough to keep the name over the last 50 years." -- iramurphy

Way too soon? The statewide vote was June of 2012. We were under a legislated "cooling off period" until January 2015. Three years is not enough?

They were engaged, but that is a different 'they', not the 'they' bemoaning the current circumstance. Today's twitter-azzi, where were they in 2000-2006, when a real difference could be made?

There will be a void filled by "Green and White" or "Big Green" or some other less than flattering space filler. The SFAL said as much.

Touche.

Deal with the original cause, and never have to deal with secondary effects.

My definition of early is on or about August 5, 2005. And honestly, that should maybe say December of 2000. Who was engaged and trying to fight the fight? Why, a man many here disparaged. (I might need to create one of those "Miss me yet?" memes with his image.)

Really? You really believe that the university can control how media refers to UND? The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader has already shown you to be incorrect.

Again, were you paying attention to the charter and commission of that committee? http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3801860-undnorth-dakota-out-committee-forwards-5-nicknames-public-vote

Trademarked by UrbanDictionary.com already.

I just read some of the 140 character responses to the statement by @UNDSID yesterday: "We need more cooling off time!" Really? Since the 2012 statewide vote, or since the 2011 settlement agreement, or since the 2005 NCAA policy? Apparently you weren't paying attention. "The committee was a sham!" The committee was commissioned with a task published on UND.edu. Did you not read what that was? Apparently you weren't paying attention. This is reaching the point of people who get upset after the tax increase or rate increase hits their wallet ... after they were sent the information about the assessment district or rate increase hearings that they just ignored and assumed someone else would take care. Welcome to Civics 101: Get engaged early or don't complain about the outcome.

I love folks that huff and puff and bluster on social media, but when you ask them what tangible actions have they taken you get nothing in response.

Those two statements contradict each other: - Title IX is supposed to eliminate discrimination (be anti discriminatory). That's its selling point. - Yet, you call it 'ridiculous'. Why mention its selling point if it's ridiculous?

Like I said elsewhere, about a decade behind.

If it comes back (which it won't) it doesn't get a bye to the final round.