DamStrait
-
Posts
1,688 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by DamStrait
-
-
34 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:
I am not the biggest Schlossman fan in the world, but I agree with this article 100%. I also get hung up on what will happen the next couple of years too much.
What the hell is there not to like about Brad? I can't think of another beat reporter I'd rather have on UND hockey.
-
4
-
-
You mean 'Smallpox Blankets Guy'? Yeah, he seems like a real solid individual.
RWD is also on record as stating that "Sioux" is racist - a real critical thinker, that one..
-
2
-
-
A competent committee chair would have insisted the selections be rationally justified because he will be the one that has to defend them - this would all be borne out it discussion and voting would be a mere formality.
-
He better know why they decided to select who they selected. It's a committee not a awards vote or coaches poll. The point is that criteria is laid out and there is a discussion to determine how to best follow the criteria. If they can't explain why they did what they did either the committee failed or the criteria failed. Either way he has to answer for it.
Look at the ncaa basketball tournament, after the selection there are some pretty hard and fast answers to why a team got in or didn't. I think they do an excellent job of being transparent and open about the selection and the reason for their selections. Fcs football needs to get to that level.
When Wilson first appeared on the selection show, I thought to myself "cementhead" - then he opened his mouth and it was confirmed.
-
This year there are 80 bowl openings. 70 teams have qualified, but with two or one games to go, maybe up to five slots will not be filled. The less prestigious bowls, like the Idaho Potato Bowl may be begging for teams. The NCAA will have to step in to give waivers to five win FBS teams with losing records or winning FCS teams that didn't make the playoffs. Should Faison put a waiver request in?
YES!!!
-
What a bunch of divers the huskies are. Will Anderson and Sullivan get up to speed and make some embellisment calls tonight?
Bubby Mutzko's whining and his team's diving is embarrassing, but there is no incentive to change as it works wonders on the officials. The is why I don't like or respect SCSU the least little bit. Referees must not review games, because if they did, they'd tell Bubby before the game that unless it's a clear cut no doubt penalty on their opposition, the only thing that will be called is embellishment on his team. They stick to that for a couple of games and the diving would be taken care of. Never gonna happen with the incompetent Don Adam in charge of the officials though.
-
1
-
-
Once again demonstrating that popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity - not that further demonstration is necessary.
Dennis claims in his latest bit of uselessness in the Herald that one can complain about the result, but not the process - um yeah, except what was selected met virtually none of the criteria set forth.
It is inconceivable to me that any would consider "Fighting Hawks" to be an improvement upon continuing to go without a nickname - at least that was unique.
-
All tickets have been sold.
-
Really? I just blame the NC$$ for sucking at life.
Bernie Franklin deserves having someone with a bullhorn 3" from his ear screaming "JACKASS!" into it for the rest of his miserable existence.
-
Friday tickets sold - Satuday's pair available for $182 total - PM me if interested. Thanks
-
I think most of us agree this was an unjustified suspension. And most of us probably also agree that it is too bad some of the clean, heavy hitting in the game is being outlawed. And that is interesting discussion for winter meetings and whatever seasonal meetings the heads of officials have. But the real issue on the ground for our guys is how you play smart so those officiating decisions do not increase the chance that they will lose. As fast as this game is played, and with the current enforcement goals of protecting players, that hit will get you the box every single time. Wrong call upon slow motion review? Probably. But the penalty will be called and everybody knows it. And nobody can act surprised that Cags got the dressing room for it either, right or wrong. What counts is not whether the call was justified but how the players adjust to an environment they all know exists. This team is good. They have speed and skill up and down the lineup, great defense, and some snipers. They need to play physical but smart, and that hit, while legit, was not particularly smart IMO.
I see your point, but it really glosses over the most troubling aspect of this bit of officiating - how the hell does he get an ADDITIONAL game based on that video? Call it a penalty live, maybe even a major - fine - but the additional game? Disgraceful. Just one more in the the ever growing litany of reasons that Don Adam should be beaten to a pulp and then fired - he is beyond loathsome.
-
1
-
-
South club lounge (end Sioux shoot at twice)
· 2 seats each night;
· children admitted with adult;
· "bar stool" (end of row) seating;
· bench side of the ice - great seats;
· 2 free "adult" beverages per person (before drop of the puck);
· includes use of parking pass;
· in-seat drink service;
· free pre-packaged popcorn, chips, etc. and canned pop throughout the game (while it lasts - usually something left at the end of the game, I believe);
· another 2 standing room "seats" available (since the bar stool seats are the top row, all four in your party can be in immediate proximity of one another);
· $344 total for both seats, both nights.
NOTE - The Ralph is charging $40 ($25 youth) on Friday and $45 ($30 youth) on Saturday for GA tickets for this series - which may be sold out. I believe the Ralph charges $15 over an adult GA ticket for a SRO ticket (which have always been available inmy experience) - if you want one or more of these as well, it will be in addition to the $344 listed above, at cost. If you already have GA ticket,you can use that in order to gain admittance to the club as a "guest" (SRO) - one guest allowed per regular club seat, so you save at least $15 per SRO that way.
PM me if interested. Thanks
-
yes almost a minute on I heart radio
If you have a DVR, you can pause the video until the audio catches up.
-
Are you watching the game at the same time and the problem is the audio is behind?
-
Explain to me how the large portion (allegedly) of the "no nickname" crowd that also supports bringing back the Fighting Sioux nickname despite the very well known consequences of it can say their motivations are 100% in the best interest of the University of North Dakota.
I don't know, I'm not one of them. Why don't you ask those that are?
-
I see the continuing support for keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname as relentless, and believe that going without a nickname is just a continuation of that effort. I think that both can harm the University. The University is important to me so I continue to do what I can to protect it. So yeah, I'm going to be relentless during this process.
I think it's possible for others to care just as much for the university as you do and favor having no nickname - but that's just me.
-
The majority doesn't always have all of the information, and aren't always paying attention to the entire issue. Not all of the majority may have the best interests of the institution at the top of the list. That's why you hire (elect) people to run the government. That's why you hire people to run institutions like UND.That's why this wasn't a completely democratic process. They brought in a committee of people that represented the major stakeholders in the University. That committee decided that going without a nickname was not best for the University. I agree with them. The committee studied the issue for many hours, much longer than a lot of people that weren't part of the committee. The committee members were much better informed than the majority of people.
I believe that too many of the people that are supporting going forward without a nickname are doing so based on emotion, not facts. They are doing so based on what they want, not what is best for the University. They are still too attached to the old nickname, whether they still believe the name can come back or not. I also find it interesting that they think they know better than the 1,100 other NCAA members that have nicknames. There are reasons that nicknames were chosen or developed at every NCAA school in the country other than Hollins University, a small women's only school. Decisions like this need to be made based on facts, not emotions.
You are nothing if not relentless - unconvincingly so, but relentless nonetheless.
-
I agree that you can't draw definite conclusions from the reactions on social media. In the post I mentioned social media I was using his own arguments against the poster. He has talked about all of the support for no nickname on social media, yet tried to say that only a small part of the people that want to go without a nickname are doing it to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname alive. So I pointed out that most of the people on social media that are trying to keep the no nickname option are also posting Fighting Sioux Forever or something else about keeping the Fighting Sioux name.
I base my opinion that less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND want to go with no nickname on the total information I have available to me. I base it on what I've seen and heard from all sources. It is my opinion. From all of my experience and reading, a strong majority of the public are ready to move on from this whole nickname debate. One of the problems with keeping it in a vote is that the vote right now would be 6 ways. No nickname could possibly get a plurality under these conditions, which would help keep it alive. Besides, elections are like sporting events, the best option (or team) doesn't always win. If people aren't all excited about a single nickname choice, they may not vote in the election. At the same time, the group promoting no nickname could get all of their supporters to vote. So apathy for a specific nickname could throw the vote to the no nicknames even though a large majority want something chosen.
Most of all, keeping no nickname as an option clouds the entire issue. A lot of the people that are supporting the no nickname option are not going to drop their support of the Fighting Sioux nickname or their opposition to any new nickname whether no nickname loses in an election or not. I have outlined some of the reasons that having a nickname are important. Going without a nickname shouldn't even be an option. This process should be about what is best for the University and the athletic department, going without a nickname is not what is best for either. Even the nickname choice committee agreed with that position after spending many hours working on the process. It is time to drop that option and make a decision between the actual nickname choices.
I understand your clarification on the social media aspect. Thanks
Otherwise, I have put into bold what I consider to be the key portions of the rest of your post - I've always loved the argument "damn the will of the majority - I know what is best" - it does have the unfortunate side effect of opening one up to the criticism of acting like a pompous ass, however.
-
Online, non-scientific polls have no reliability at all. Most of those polls allow someone to vote as many times as they want. That alone makes those polls null and void. The average person doesn't take part in those polls, often only the ones that are most vocal take part in them. The group that wants no nickname thought they were losing that option, so they are naturally more likely to take part in such a poll.
About the same validity as trying to draw conclusions from posts on social media, wouldn't you say?
I am very sure that the actual group supporting no nickname is much less than 40% of the stakeholders at UND.Based on what, might I ask? If you truly believe this, then you should be amongst those screaming the loudest to have the "no nickname" option included in the final ballot - having it voted down is the surest way to have it dismissed with the least amount of blow-back.
-
1
-
-
If the "no nickname" option makes the final ballot and wins, and IF and when the NCAA et al were to make a stink, then the next most popular option could at that point be adopted quickly and without additional fuss.
-
Also, for those that are adamant that UND pick a new nickname, as Brad Schlossman has said, the best way to get past no nickname is to have it on the final ballot, and then have it voted down.
-
As Dave St. Peter said recently, "I thought there was something incredibly powerful and unique about having the words 'North Dakota' stand alone without a nickname." I think it can be made to be even more so with a clever marketing campaign. Wisconsin, adds a modified Budweiser jingle to the end of one of their school songs ("Varsity", I believe - but I could be mistaken), to wit, "When you've said Wisconsin, you've said it all." If UND were to continue without a nickname and do the same (When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all), it would actually have meaning and fit far better. I'd like to have a marketing plan along the lines of the following: Famous alums or persons associated with the university used in short video messages. Some examples:
- Show Jimmy Kleinsasser saying " When you've said North Dakota, you've said it all", then folds his massive arms in front of him in a defiant pose.
- Have Howard Walker, who you know is still rockin' a fu manchu and looking evil, say "North Dakota - wanna fight about it?"
- Matt Greene, "Just North Dakota, baby".
- Dave Hakstol and his stare - no sound, just the words "North Dakota", then go to a black screen where first the words "It's no good turning away" appear, followed by "You know he's still there".
Others along these same lines are possible, using those such as Dave Osborn, T.J. Oshie, Zach Parise, Jonathan Toews, Commie, perhaps even the heretofore useless Phil Jackson could finally make himself useful. In this way I believe we can make not having a nickname interesting, create a following, and ultimately turn a weakness into a strength.
-
1
-
Based on social media alone it is plain to see what the majority of the alumni, students, athletes and fans prefer the North Dakota option... well, at least it's plain to see for those who do not have their blinders on. Several on this site and the committee clearly have theirs firmly attached. Once again the majority of UND fan's wishes will be effed over by a small vocal minority.
Not enough info to say that it is a majority, but that and "Roughriders" seemed to garner quite a bit of popular support and for that reason both should have made the final round. Now all we'll know is that a lot of people feel as if they haven't been listened to at all - again (or should it be "still").
-
Weird how you didn't bother to correct those who keep saying "no nickname" was the most popular option, which is also nothing more than an opinion.
I took Jim's post to mean that that was what was said at the committee, which other sources seem to corroborate (that is was stated, not that the statement was true).
Art in Grand Forks
in Community
Posted
And none forthcoming.