mksioux

My vote in this ss poll was Norse/Fighting Norse. But that didn't make the cut for some reason. So of the final 64: First Tier: Cavalry, Fighting Nokota/Nokes, Roughriders, North Dakota. Second Tier: Badlanders, Flickertails. Complete Garbage Tier: The Rest

I think it's lame to copy the local high school team, but if it is chosen, I'd get over it. Even someone like me who has been critical of Roughriders concedes it's in the top-5 of that dreadful list.

Yes.

Which came first? I bet you Iowa State had their nickname first. I have no issue with a high school copying a university. A university copying the local high school feels different to me.

If you want verbal diarrhea, try reading this out loud. http://www.grandforksherald.com/sites/default/files/Nicknames-full%20list.pdf

It's difficult to compare and predict success when you're comparing "nickname" versus "no-nickname" in the abstract. Give me a specific nickname, and I'll give you an opinion on whether it would be better for the University than having no nickname and keeping the existing logo. I suspect most people would prefer having a new nickname if it's a nickname they don't hate and the logo is done well. It's just that of the 64 remaining options, the vast majority of them are terrible. Many are downright atrocious. Having no nickname is vastly superior to most of the options still on the table. Thus, when people are looking at that dreadful list, "no nickname" is a very comforting option. That's how I see it anyway.

The video evidence showed Kolstad as the aggressor and he initiated the fight by sucker punching Nelson from behind. Kolstad was then punched by a random guy, Trevor Shelley, which knocked Kolstad unconscious with his head hitting the pavement. The prosecution's own medical expert concluded it was altercation with Shelley that caused Kolstad's major injuries, not what Nelson did afterward. That does not excuse what Nelson did after he was punched, but it puts it in context. Nelson was able to plead down to a misdemeanor given the video and medical evidence. I have no opinion on whether he should be given a second chance at UND, or anywhere for that matter. But, as with most things, the story ended up being a lot more complicated than it was initially reported.

Blanders??? I always figured the new nickname would be bland, but I never thought I could literally be bland.

I'm sure UND could and would make the Flickertails logo to be as different from the Gophers logo as possible. They'd probably do a good job too. But at the end of the day, it's still essentially a gopher. You just can't get around that fact.

I've been as staunchly against Roughriders as anyone on this board. But I have to concede, when compared to the pile of garbage on that list, it doesn't seem horrible despite the Red River problem. I still don't like it, but am warming. It's funny how all the atrocious suggestions make even mildly acceptable nicknames seem good.

If you would have asked me when this process began, I never thought I'd be accepting of Flickertails. But given how horrible most of the nicknames sound when you see them on a list, Flickertails suddenly doesn't seem so bad. I still don't like it because of the Gopher connection, but it's better than 90% of the other suggestions. I think I could reluctantly live with it, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of suggestions. At this point, "reluctantly live with it" is the best I can hope for because I can't really embrace any of these.

If I didn't loathe their hockey program, I would have no problem with Minnesota's nickname/logo/mascot.

I don't think so either. This is all subjective obviously, but I find Flickertails to be a much better nickname (in theory) than Meadowlarks. It has history to UND and it's an official nickname of the state, and I think it sounds cool. But again, because it's essentially a gopher, it won't work. Meadowlarks brings nothing to the table in my opinion.

Flickertails is a good nickname in theory. It's one of the three nicknames of the State, it's unique, it sounds good. While not ferocious, it has decent logo and mascot potential. I think it would be a good nickname......IF the University of Minnesota was not the Gophers. But since they are, I don't think Flickertails will work. That's just the way it is.

I think I'd rather have Undermine pick the name than some of the people on this committee. He at least understands the definition of unique. It seems some of the committee members -- and many people on this board -- just want to copy their favorite NHL team's nickname or the in-state USHL team. The fact that even one person on the committee thought "Bison Slayer" is an even remotely acceptable nickname is mind boggling.

I'll make a deal with you - I'll consider your beloved nickname if you drop your anonymity and tell us who you are.

It has been known for a while that the vote will be open to anyone. What is not known at this point (at least not to me) is how the vote will be taken. I hope they make it kind of hard to vote (by U.S. mail or in person for example) Because if you combine open voting with easy internet voting, you're asking for trouble. You're not only opening it up to rival fans, but you're opening it up to the idiots at deadspin, and the like, that just want to mess with the process. We will have to pray that there is no weak link among the finalists, because you can bet the weak link would be chosen.

Condensed "Consideration" list, per Herald. http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/3738017-condensed-list-und-nickname-suggestions I think the way to look at this is to disregard the "No Consideration" List. That list is irrelevant unless you're looking for a laugh. If the name is on the "Consideration" list, it is still under consideration. If it's not, then it's not (subject to change). Per this list, Roughriders is still under consideration, as is all the other usual suspects. The "North Dakota" option is essentially the no nickname option and is still under consideration. Nokota is not there, but "Charging Nokota" is, which doesn't make much sense. We'll see how this develops. It's pretty clear that nobody put much thought or effort into these lists before releasing them. I'd expect some changes.

They should have released a "Submitted List" showing all the names submitted, and then a "Moving Forward to Consideration" list with the nicknames that will be considered. Simple. No confusion. Instead, they put out a "Considered" list and a "Not Considered" list with the same nicknames on both lists. You really have to question what is going on when they botch something so simple.

You would think they would put coherent lists together before releasing it to the public.

The addendum is the NCAA's answer to that question, at least from a legal standpoint. One more time, this isn't simply a case of the NCAA taking no action to enforce a right under the settlement agreement. This is a case of the NCAA affirmatively removing UND from the list and stating UND was in compliance with the settlement agreement. If this ended up in court, which I highly doubt it ever would, and even if the court agreed that the original settlement agreement required UND to adopt a new nickname and that no-nickname was not enough - the addendum signed in 2012 would make this a very easy case of waiver.

I apologize to most people having to read this for beating a dead horse until its remains are unrecognizable. I just think this myth that UND must adopt a new nickname or go back on the sanctions list has spread far enough and needs to be stopped. Whether UND adopts a new nickname should be decided on whether its the right move for UND. There are lots of good reasons to adopt a new nickname. I prefer certain nicknames over no-nickname, but prefer no-nickname over some of the nicknames that have been floated on this board (particularly the unoriginal ones). Ultimately, I hope the committee suggest finalists that will at least be acceptable and will allow most people to move on. A couple parting questions to those that still believe the settlement agreement requires UND to adopt a new nickname: Do you think President Kelley wants a new nickname? I do. Don't you think, if it was at all possible, he'd love to pin this on the NCAA and say the settlement agreement requires UND to adopt a new nickname? I do. The fact that he has stated no-nickname is an option speaks volumes that it is, in fact, an option. I don't think he particularly liked saying that. If there was a reasonable legal interpretation that the NCAA required a new nickname, I believe he would say very publicly that the settlement with the NCAA requires UND to adopt a new nickname and remove himself from being the one to shoot down an option that is very popular in some quarters.

Sorry, I have no idea what you call that. Seriously, you might be thinking about impossibility or substantial compliance or something like that, none of which apply here. If a state law could trump the settlement agreement, then the original law requiring UND to stay the Fighting Sioux would have gotten UND off the hook. As we all know, the NCAA didn't give two ________ about that law and placed UND back on the list anyway when UND failed to retire the nickname by Aug. 15, 2011. Likewise, a state law allowing UND to retire the nickname, but not allowing UND to adopt a new nickname until 1/1/15 wouldn't bring UND into compliance. UND was either in compliance or not in compliance on September 24, 2012.

So the NCAA signed an addendum that removed UND from the list of schools subject to the policy, contingent upon UND remaining in compliance with an agreement UND was not in compliance with on the day the addendum was signed? Do I have that right?

Under my theory, UND was in compliance on Sept. 24, 2012. Therefore, the NCAA removed UND from the list as part of the addendum and required UND to remain compliance. Under your theory, UND was not in compliance on Sept, 2012. Yet, the NCAA removed UND from the list anyway, without explanation. And, for some reason, made that removal from the list contingent on UND remaining in compliance with an agreement they were not in compliance with the day they signed the addendum.