iramurphy

Watch our skill kids warm up. They don't always look the ball into their hands. Should be every player every time. DB's, RB's, receivers, LB's, QB's, punters etc. Basic fundamentals. Look the ball into your hands every time you catch it. You do it warming up, you do it in practice it, becomes a habit. Makes it less likely you drop passes or interceptions. Always need to pay attention to details.

You are correct, the AC doesn't have anyone like Hill but they have Morlock who is awfully good and Frazier if he is healthy. What they also have is a very good oline and one of the best QB's in the FCS. Our problem regardless of how old our guys are, is that we don't have a great passing game and our oline couldn't get the running game going. The Big Sky games are irrelevant until next week cuz we aren't playing them. Bubba is correct, we play it one day and one game at a time. The Wyoming and Drake games are irrelevant. They are over. People have legitimate concerns about our offense that ran the ball well week one and laid an egg week two. They are concerned about what to expect for week three. Doesn't matter if players are freshman and sophomores, they are who we put on the field. No excuses, we did not play well offensively yesterday and other than a great throw by Studsrud on the Seibel TD and nice run after catch by Stanley we didn't take advantage of what the defense did. We didn't throw an INT but we fumbled 6 times. That isn't better than last year. Talk of playoffs this early is premature. We tend to lose focus on the task at hand. Play day to day and each game one at a time, then if we are good enough, playoffs will take care of themselves.

Week one we soundly defeated a terrible Wyoming team. Our defense we excellent especially against two good RB's. We didn't turn the ball over and our freshman RB showed his athletic ability and speed that can make him special when the oline can open some holes. Studsrud did a good job of managing the game and didn't turn the ball over. Had nice TD run. Yesterday our defense was solid again until second half when they were on the field most of the time. Front to back this is a very good defense. Even when Drake threw the ball we had guys there and the Drake QB made some back should throws that his receivers came back and got. We had 6 sacks and pressured him all day. Front to back this is a very good defense. This is the best set of DB's we have had in some time. The real test for these guys is next week. If we can defend these guys with a healthy Wentz, then we can defend anyone in FCS. Offensively the big disappointment was our Oline. We had 6 fumbles by our starting RB and QB. The bad thing is Santiago and Studsrud were putting the ball on the ground without getting hit hard. We had only 2 first downs in the second half. Was hoping we were making progress this year. This was worse. Santiago is quick and fast. He can't run through holes that aren't there. Passing game had a couple nice plays in first half but dismal in second half. We are going to have to throw for at least 300 yds to be competitive next week. We had a nice showing last week albeit a weak Wyoming team. You can't afford to be going backwards against a team like the AC. Too many fans think Drake wasn't any good cuz the media hype isn't there. They weren't good but weren't bad either. Their QB and receivers made some big plays with QB under pressure. We gave up some passing yards but we didn't have the wide open receivers we saw in the Mussman years when our CB would make a tackle after giving up a 35 yard pass play and then pound his chest and taunt the receiver. This defense can keep us in a lot of games but the offense is going to have to win them.

They do but UND can't afford the cost of your booze and the $750,000 extra per year for athletes Cost of Attendence. Faison said the savings would cover 2/3's of the $750,000.

you do realize Wyoming is terrible don't you?

improved receivers are imperative. They need to run good routes, attack the ball so they win the 50/50 battles, look the ball in, secure it and get upfield. They didn't do that well last year. Too many people threw our QBs under the bus for the wrong reasons last year. I think if you give Studsrud time, have some semblance of a running game we can move the ball. If not Tom Brady won't have success. If you don't protect Studsrud it will be a long day and won't matter who the QB is. We should be good enough defensively that if we get decent oline play and improved play from the receivers, we should be able to compete.

I know. Didn't mean to. Didn't realize til after I posted. I think same happened to me with Fetch on the next Detroit blog or whatever it's called.

no

I have no problem with what Bubba is doing either. I don't agree Mollberg has had any any more opportunity than anyone else. Mollberg came in and after a decent spring and what seemed to be a decent fall camp sat behind Bartles for the first few games. They pulled Bartles and he led the comeback against Montana . Neither QB knew from week to week who was going to play and the play calling for both Bartles and Mollberg in addition to poor protection by the Oline hampered both of them. Neither Bartles nor Mollberg should be judged too harshly when you consider the Oline they have played behind and the beating they both have taken the last two years. I think Mollberg was close to showing his true potential last fall before he got hurt. With the potential we have a QB with these three guys and if what you say is true, I have to wonder why we aren't seeing the improvement we should should expect from each of them. We need to be able to develop our QB's.

If you read my posts I have already stated the obvious that I am probably biased. I have also stated you trust the coaches that are watching the players. Doesn't mean we can't question things. I disagree that Mollberg and Bartles haven't shown anything. They have overcome poor protection and no running game and both had some very good play. Mollberg was playing well when he got hurt. I don't want to keep kicking a dead horse cuz I'm not going to change anyone's opinion and the coaches picked their guy. If he can't get the job done they are the guys who are held accountable not us as fans. Go Sioux!

He isn't smarter. He hasn't made better quicker decisions in games yet cuz he hasn't done much. Joe is an excellent student and completed last semester with a 4.0. The thing I believe makes people uneasy is that Studsrud hasn't done anything yet. He completed less than 40% of his passes last fall even though we were finally getting something out of our running game and the oline. He did nothing in the spring game and didn't separate himself this fall. This is a big year for the program and this staff. I'm not sure how he moved ahead of Bartles before practice started this spring. Once there however I assume neither Mollberg or Bartles did enough to displace him. I'm a Gene Murphy disciple so I believe that you go with the veteran until the vet shows that he can't get it done or until the younger guy is clearly the choice. Neither of those things have happened. The other school is to go with the younger guy and let them play through their mistakes. My job doesn't depend on these decisions. Bubba's does so you gotta trust him and his staff.

He is healthy enough to play. Has been left on the 3rd team all fall, so not getting as many reps and few with the ones. Surprised cuz those who have been at practice and scrimmage said good things about him except neither he nor Studsrud had done anything to distance themself from the other. Everyone had both of them ahead of Bartles. He worked hard to rehab, acheived a 4.0 this spring and has continued to be positive hoping he would get a shot. Had some soreness this fall mostly the non-injured side but nothing he couldn't have played with. Seemd clear they were going with Studsrud from the start of spring ball when they moved him ahead of Bartles who had outplayed him last fall. To be fair to Studsrud, they are going to have to be patient and let him play through his mistakes. If he has to be afraid to make a play cuz he could get pulled, it will be a long season. I can't see both Mollberg and Bartles wasting their last year on the bench. Not sure how Mollberg dropped to three but I am not at practice. Have to trust coaches. They are the ones at practice everyday and I don't think they are going to start someone they don't think gives them the best chance of winning.

I agree with Teeder than Studsrud will likely be the starter. He was recruited by this staff and Mollberg and Bartles weren't. I would have gone with either Mollberg or Bartles because of their experience and size along with the fact that Studsrud didn't do much this spring and wasn't able to separate himself from the others this fall. All being equal, I would have gone with Mollberg because of what I have seen he has been the best of the bunch and as you all know I am biased. Having said that, I haven't seen any of them this fall, so you gotta go with whomever the coaches who are at practice everyday think will give us the best chance to win. I would guess that if they go with Studsrud, they knew that all along and kept it quiet because they couldn't afford to have either Mollberg or Bartles or both transfer out. They are both good enough to start somewhere else and I would not sit the bench behind a Soph who hasn't separated himself from the others. If they go with either Bartles or Mollberg, there is no pressure on Studsrud to relieve them if they can't get the job done. If either Mollberg or Bartles can't get the job done this year as juniors, behind what is supposed to be a better oline, then they have no excuse and they go with the young kid and build for the future. Teeder has been at practice and I think is probably correct that Studsrud starts.

I thought Cabot Cove, Maine had the highest murder rate per capita in the world! Detroit is a safe haven compared to Cabot Cove. Jessica Fletcher was solving at least a murder per week in that little town in Maine.

Not sure if it was the new Chancellor (who I have some good things about) or the Chancellor and the board. I doubt he would do this without input from the board, but I don't know for sure.

I see the selection committee does not include the CEO of the UND Alumni Assn. DeAnna Carlson Zink but includes Grant Shaft. Shaft was suspended by the N. Dak. State Bar Assn. last year. Google the summary of the disciplinary hearing. He also was primarily responsible for manipulating the selection process resulting in the selection of Shirvani as Chancellor of NDUS. Shirvani was not one of the original names to be considered. Even a cursory google search revealed Shirvani's history of previous incompetence and turmoil with his previous employers. Despite being advised by legal counsel that Shirvani was violating the open meeting laws, Shaft supported Shirvani and also redid Shirvani's contract in the midst of the controversy resulting in the $900,000 buyout rather than simply letting him go at the end of the year. Carlson Zink represents the largest Alumni Assn. of all of the state institutions of higher education yet, was left off the committee for a lawyer who admitted to wrongdoings at his hearing in front of the disciplinary committee of the state bar. This is why our state leaders, politicians and SBoHE lose credibility. Anyone involved in choosing someone like Shirvani has no business being involved with this process.

If I understand correctly you are saying that polls showed that the majority of Native Americans and others supported keeping the name. I agree. If you are saying that the vote to keep the name which was defeated was primarily to protect UND from sanctions rather than how people really felt about the name, I also agree. I'm sure you understand that although I agree with this, I also believe it is no longer relavent to our present situation and where we need to go from here.

But the point I seem to be having trouble getting across is that most of all of that doesn't really matter. What matters is what is best for UND and UND athletic teams. You and I should be able to deal with being slighted now and again if we are going to get into debates on a blog. The only issue at hand is whether or not we chose a nickname. There isn't a name everyone will like and I don't believe time will change that. If we choose a name can you and others live with it and move on? If we have no nickname I can live with it until some legislator or well meaning group resurrects the issue. As a former athlete and coach the name (including our former names) are not, nor have they ever been what is most important.

Appreciate Chewy's perspective and I understand. I can respect that you feel we are best served by remaining North Dakota. I disagree but I can live with being just North Dakota. I disagree on the amount of blame on Kelly except for the fiasco and process used to select the new name. I would never put the issue to a vote of more than a select few but I would include remaining just North Dakota. According to a gentleman closely associated with the final hiring process, Kelly was told by SBHE members the issue was resolved and he wouldn't need to deal with it. Yababy you seem to infer from what others post,that it is directed at you personally. I assume you meant rhetoric when you referenced me. I offered no criticism of you personally but I will reference you now. Look at the difference between your last response and Chewy's. Which do you think might lead to some sort of dialogue to come to a reasonable resolution? If you can't see the difference, then ignore my posts. We have to get past taking every comment being a personal slight before we might bring this to some sort of closure. If we remain North Dakota then we move on and try and do what is best for UND. If we pick some goofy nickname ( almost all schools nicknames are a bit goofy), then we still need to move on and do what is best for UND. Not what is best for Ira, Chewy, 82 or you but what is best for UND.

The postings on this blog if nothing else prove how devisive this issue has been. 82Siouxguy posts his opinion and cites facts and is accused of belittling people. In a debate like this you shouldn't feel belittled as people try and express their views. We have derailed this debate back to whether or not UND had proper permission to use the name and whether or not the majority of the people on the reservations support the use of the name. It no longer matters. I believe those who wish to either keep the name or remain nameless believe that is best for UND and are loyal UND fans just like those who want to select a name. We derail the whole issue by trying to insult those with opposing opinions. If someone's post makes you mad then counter it with some semblance of intelligent discussion and counter their facts with facts. Nobody really knows what people on the reservations want or don't want or what they wanted back in the 1930's. I believe most supported the use of the name then and do now but none of us knows for sure. Really it no Longer matters. As I said before the fact is that the people on the reservations and the tribal councils had years and ample opportunities to turn this issue in the favor of keeping the name which I and I believe the vast majority of Sioux fans and Natives supported. The fact is that unless the NCAA completely reverses their stance on Native names and imagery, that ship has sailed and UND athletics is on shore and we can wave goodbye . The whole naming issue has been a fiasco. The people on the committee are doing what they think is right for the University and includes people who wanted to keep the name wanting to adopt a new name because they think we need a name and need to move on. No reason to insult them. I don't know how they can come up with a way to vote on this issue because there is no way to define your voting constituency. To me the only question that remains is what is best for UND and UND athletics. From what I have read, having a name allows us a brand and identification that allows us marketing opportunities that remaining North Dakota doesn't. Remaining just North Dakota leaves this debate open and decisive for the foreseeable future and doesn't resolve anything, it postpones what even many who wish to remain just North Dakota is inevitable. I and others understand the emotional and historical ties associated with the Fighting Sioux name and the wish and inclination that we will never give up. Beyond that, what is the value to UND in remaking just North Dakota? Forget what the name was, and the heavy handed way the NCAA dealt with the issue here and elsewhere. The name for athletic teams allows an identity that eventually gets back to the University and the teams and just like the Gophers, Cornhuskers, Cobbers, Jackrabbits, etc. we will adjust and be fine. If we get a cool logo, we will adjust faster. More importantly than the name is that our fan base at this level has resorted to name calling and threatening to pull donations or stop supporting UND. That issue is more important that what name we eventually choose. Convince me we can do the same thing without a name. Leave out all of the debate about what the tribes wanted or who is to blame. The issue is simply name or no name. The University and our athletic teams remain the constant. Attach any of these names or many of those dropped and we will be fine. The time to adjust will be shorter with a name than without in my opinion.

How would you do that? Who decides who participates? There is no way to get all of the right people involved anymore than getting the name right. A small committee assigned with the task and given a couple of months would have worked better. You didn't answer the question posed to you. What name do you want? How about the Barons? Oil barons, land Barons you decide. Satchel Paige once pitched for the Bismarck Barons. Doesn't matter to me. Oilers, Bombers, Flyers, Roughnecks, Drillers. Design a great logo and we are in business. How much more time do you need? I should say how many more years do you need? Give us a name. It has been how many years? I have no issues with people protesting or disagreeing but what is the purpose? What does it accomplish? Who am I to say you are wrong? Who are you to say I am wrong? I just believe there are more good reasons to move this along than delay any further.

The nickname issue has divided our own fan base. We have fans who claim they will quit donating to UND. We have fans who claim they won't come to games. We have fans insulting each other rather than opponents. We are dividing between "hockey only" vs UND athletic fans. That is what opposing coaches will tell recruits. They will tell them fans are divided and won't support our teams. You are probably correct in that the Ag School FB coaches would focus on their successes rather than the nickname. We are no longer the Fighting Sioux and our Native American Tribal Governments across the state weren't unified enough to clearly communicate support to the NCAA. Native leaders at UND lobbied against the name and Natives claimed racism and discrimination based on the name. You have to remember the NCAA administration is made up of University Administrators from across the country, mostly PC types. They were not going to allow facts to confuse the issue. Having a name allows us to move on and I think a new logo will do more for the issue than the name, just like the Brien logo was the best part of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. It allows the University a brand for marketing and allows us to put the issue behind us. Having no name allows the decisiveness and debate to continue to be a distraction for a long time to come. Those resources and energy are better spent helping our athletes and coaches be successful.

Who has time to waste on kicking this dead horse? I don't believe we know whether or not " the vast majority" of people want to remain just North Dakota. The vast majority of selected groups want no name. We have dicked around with this issue way too long. With all due respect to the Natives who wanted to keep the name, it is too late to protest and complain. That ship sailed repeatedly years ago. Why blame Kelly? Pretty shallow thinking. Starcher, Clifford, Baker, and Kupchella had more opportunity to solve this problem than Kelly. Kelly's failure is to have allowed this to drag out for so long. To call for his immediate resignation over this issue is cowardly and stupid. That said his successor needs to have a clear understanding of the culture of this University, the importance of intercollegiate athletics to our public image and marketing and the relationship that success there leads to increased donations and enrollment. Who cares what name is chosen? People have gotten used to being called Gophers, Beavers, Badgers, Cornhuskers, etc. we can deal with whatever comes along. Our focus needs to change from a pissing contest with the NCAA and the PC crowd to finishing our move to D1 by finishing our facility upgrades and improving our coaches salaries. We also need to upgrade our marketing for the University and Athletic Dept. We need to remove any coaches who don't have a vision for success at this level and aren't willing to actively work on connecting with supporters and Alumni to make up for any shortcomings in the overall athletic budgets. That means, golf, baseball, swimming, track, cross country, tennis, soccer, in both men's and women's sports as well as FB, Hockey, VB and BB. Too many of our leaders, and administrators don't have that vision. We need to maintain expectations of success in all University activities and programming. Time, energy and resources wasted on the name issue are better spent elsewhere.