mksioux

Who's going to care? The committee will care. University officials will care. Certain stakeholders will be actively against that nickname and if there is opposition or controversy from a major stakeholder, the nickname doesn't have a prayer of being chosen. Just think for a second about the controversy it would cause in the local media. There would be editorials, letters to the editor, complaints, and talk radio would get a lot of mileage out of it. After all the nickname crap that has gone on over the last couple decades, do you really think the committee and the school are going to press forward and say "who gives a !@$!, let's move forward with another controversial nickname!" I realize that no nickname, no matter what it is, will be immediately and universally accepted. But that's a far cry from choosing a nickname that will be openly controversial and one that will face opposition that has a lot more weight than "I don't like it" or "it's lame." Go ahead and continue to believe that UND is going to adopt Red River's nickname. I realize I'm not going to change people's minds that believe Rough Rides is a viable choice. There are quite a few on this site that think it is. I was trying to inject a little bit of reality into the discussion. While it may be talked about as a possible choice, there is no way it will ever become the new nickname.

It doesn't have to be unique to every nickname in the world, but there's no way UND will pick a nickname already used by one of two high schools in its own city. There's just absolutely no way that will happen. I've never understood that a number of people on this board honestly believe there's a realistic chance that UND would adopt Rough Riders as its new nickname. UND is going to avoid controversy at all costs with its new nickname. It isn't going to choose a nickname that's going to piss off the Grand Forks School District, half of Grand Forks, and countless Red River alumni.

Disagree. It's still very easy to argue with how UND handled this. It doesn't really matter that Ralston felt bad about it. In fact, that makes the administration look worse. If any punishment was warranted (a point that can be debated), it should have been handled in a normal employer-employee manner, such as a warning and a corrective interview. A public two-game suspension that invited media attention, which ultimately resulted in national mockery of the University, was a stupid and self-inflicted media blunder. Ralston is not an athlete or a coach. Just because he is an employee in the athletic department does not mean he needed to be punished under the customary player punishment system of the game suspension, particularly over a relatively trivial transgression where he immediately apologized.

I read the deadspin piece and I continue to think UND comes out of this looking ridiculous.

I'm on record as preferring the Summit/MVFC over the Big Sky, but UND would have been downright foolish to pass on the Big Sky. You simply cannot turn down an invitation from the Big Sky for the mere possibility that the MVFC might eventually get around to inviting you. Football is just too important to gamble like that. All the talk on preferences, while fun conversation, is really beside the point. The Big Sky invited UND while the MVFC did not. That's all that really matters.

The Big Sky is better than the Summit at being stable and not being at risk for losing automatic bids.

Once again, here is what the actual agreement says: "If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy." As I have stated, it is certainly reasonable to look at this clause and interpret it in a way that dropping the Fighting Sioux nickname is not good enough to comply with the agreement and UND must affirmatively adopt a new nickname in order to be in compliance with the agreement. However, the deadline has come and gone and UND has not adopted a new nickname or logo. Yet, the NCAA has specifically removed UND from the institutions subject to the Policy and has stated that UND is in full compliance. Therefore, the NCAA must not be strictly interpreting that clause to mean UND must adopt a new nickname and logo. If there is some other agreement out there that sets a new deadline for UND to adopt a new nickname and logo, I've not heard of it. If you know what this new NCAA-imposed deadline is, please share. Having said all that, I agree that UND will eventually adopt a new nickname. I just don't necessarily agree that it will be forced to adopt a new nickname by the NCAA.

I'm sure this is good news for their program, but from a visiting fan's perspective, it kind of sucks. Omaha's setup with the downtown Century Link Center is perfect for the visiting fan. I suppose the building is too big for UNO hockey (except for when UND is playing there), but it's a really nice setup.

The wording in the agreement is poorly written and one reasonably could interpret it the way you did. I initially interpreted it that way too when I first read the agreement. However, it appears that the NCAA is just fine with UND not having a nickname because it has officially removed UND from the sanctions list and has said UND is in compliane with the policy. Thus, I believe having no nickname is an option. Having said that, I think it is highly likely that the University will move forward with naming a new nickname once it is able to do so under the statute.

I know the two-class debate has been beaten to death and they're never going back to one class. Having said that, I wonder if the legislative authors of the bill that required a two-class system would look at this year's single-A field and have any regrets about what they did? Four of the eight teams are private schools. The two-class system was supposed to open up opportunities for smaller schools that otherwise wouldn't have a chance to make it to the state tournament. I doubt those legislators envisioned that single-A would almost become a private school tournament.

I want the Dakota schools on the schedule as much as anyone, but to think UND fans have a strong interest in traveling anywhere for football other than Fargo is a stretch. Sure, there would be some UND fans in Brookings and Vermillion, but not enough to pack their stadiums. Granted, the weather was terrible, but the last time UND played in Brookings, the attendance was 3,918. I want them on the schedule because I like rivalries and familiar opponents. I also think it's a financially wise decision to make for all schools -- you get home and homes against familiar opponents, no reasonable likelihood of a school backing out of the contract, and you can bus to the away game. Seems like a no-brainer for everyone involved.

For the record, they're still making fun of UND on Barreiro's show on KFAN in the Twin Cities. Yesterday, they had a spoof of the radio call for the Omaha game during Ralston's two-game suspension and had many a laugh at UND's expense. And I get the feeling that this story is going to be a running joke for them on that show. The gift that keeps on giving apparently.

I agree. Expansion is fun to think about and discuss, but unless a rich alumnus of some school who is crazy about hockey donates millions of dollars tor the specific purpose of starting a team, I don't think any major university is going to start hockey in the foreseeable future.

Both NDSU and UND should have moved up in 1978. They did not belong in DII. I credit NDSU for figuring it out first.

There are a lot of people that have genuinely grown to like and enjoy WCHA hockey over the last several decades. There are many people that really like UND's 60+ year rivalry with Minnesota. There are a lot of people that like how college hockey used to intertwine the small schools with the big schools. There are some people that used to believe in the romantic idea of college hockey being about tradition and rivalries. By adding DI varsity hockey, Penn State changed all of that. Of course it's not really Penn State's fault, but people have to blame someone or something. A lot of people have latched on to blaming Penn State as the new kid on the block that effed everything up, or they blame Barry Alvarez for seemingly being the drive behind insisting on the BTHC. It's not entirely fair in either case, but it is what it is. It's the same thing with the fans of the WCHA left-behind schools blaming UND for the starting the NCHC. It's not entirely fair to do that, but it is what it is. The reality is that change probably would have eventually happened anyway. It just turns out that Penn State was the catalyst for it happening now.

I agree that was thinking behind it. I just don't agree that the Minnesota schools absolutely had to be paired together. There is more history between UND and Duluth than St. Cloud and Duluth. I was in Omaha and agree that it was a great trip. And I actually think Omaha has a great set-up with the Century Link Center/downtown/hotel area. However, are that many UND fans going to travel to Omaha without the outdoor game? It's a long drive from any location that has a concentration of UND fans. And there is absolutely no history between these teams in hockey. I'm not sure if they even played each other before 2010. Assuming they balance out the schedule (which I think is a safe assumption), I believe your math is correct. With a 24-game rival scheduling system, UND will play every non-rival team four times two out of every three years, which means each non-rival team will skip the trip to Grand Forks once out of every six years. It's just too bad Denver had to be the first one right out of the gate. Agree to disagree on this. I'd rather see a complete NCHC schedule than more games with Bemidji or Northern Michigan (or most other WCHA teams).

This was posted in the 2012-13 season thread, but I agree that it needs its own thread. I believe the Wisconsin series resumes in the 2014-15 season with a road series in Madison, then in Grand Forks the following season. I'm pretty much in agreement with you. This is a very poor schedule for the casual fan. Sure, many hard core hockey fans on this board will say we're overreacting and will point to the current PWR of next year's opponents and say it isn't as bad as it looks. There will be talk about strength of schedule and how this won't be that bad compared to how the SOS of the Big Ten teams will look, etc. That nuts-and-bolts type of talk may all be true, but to the casual fan (or to the average incoming freshman), there are no big names on the home schedule to get real excited about. I have a broader concern than how this schedule might help or hurt UND make the playoffs next season. I was surprised to see only a 24-game conference schedule. I just assumed that with only 8 teams, everyone would have two series against everyone. I suppose the theory for a school like UND is that it would eventually like to get a series with Minnesota and Wisconsin every year, and that's four OOC games right there. If there were a 28-game conference schedule, there wouldn't be much room for other games if UND plays Minnesota and Wisconsin every year. The problem with that theory is that I don't believe UND will ever arrange an annual series with Minnesota. I think Minnesota might schedule UND once in a while, but it will not be an annual series. For that reason, I would have preferred a 28-game conference schedule. As someone else mentioned in the other thread, if the NCHC hadn't added St. Cloud, you could play every team two series with a 24-game conference schedule. That would have been preferable to this. It appears that UNO is UND's "rival" which is rather disappointing. If we had to go with the 24-game "rival" scheduling system, I would have preferred Duluth as UND's rival. I think 2013-14 is a very important year for UND. The biggest threat to UND hockey right now is that it will start to look second-rate in its new conference. The schedule in the first year out of the gate doesn't do much to comfort me on that issue.

I can't say I predicted this story would be picked up by this many national outlets and get this much attention, but I knew from the moment I read about the suspension that the suspension would get more publicity than the underlying events did. It was obvious from the beginning that the suspension was a PR blunder.

I assumed that all seven conference foes would be on the home schedule, so I can't say I'm excited to see Miami and Western Michigan on the home schedule because I expected them there. By my math, if they're going with a 24-game conference schedule and a rival system, once every three years UND will not play Denver four times. Which means we won't see Denver in Grand Forks once every six years. Same with the rest of the teams, with the exception of UNO, which is apparently our "rival." It's funny that for a storied program like UND playing DI hockey since 1948, our two "rivals" under natural rival systems have been St. Cloud State (started DI hockey in 1987) and UNO (started DI hockey in 1997, and didn't move to the WCHA until 2010). I understand why the NCHC paired DU with CC and Miami with Western Mich, but did Duluth really have to get paired up with St. Cloud? Aside from some good games in the last couple years, there is no historical or natural rivalry between UND and Omaha. I would have preferred a 28-game conference schedule with a no-rival system. But short of that, I'd rather Duluth be UND's rival and St Cloud could have paired up with Omaha.

Old news. Faison later agreed and sent GT a contract for every other year as GT requested. GT has not signed it.

This deserves its own thread. What a horrible schedule. What is the point of an 8-team conference if you don't play everyone four times and develop some rivalries? I missed the memo on this if it was previously disclosed, but I can't believe there are only 24 conference games. Not playing Denver at home is BRUTAL.

The reason everyone jumped to the conclusion the suspension was for being critical is because no normal person would think the term "choke-job" (in the context of sporting event) is a reference to a pornographic act. Every sports fan knows what "choking" or a "choke-job" means in the context of a sporting event. And if some egghead at the University perceived it to be a sexual reference, then Faison should have had the leadership ability to calmly explain to that person what a choke-job really means, tell Ralston to be a little more tactful in his criticism in the future, and move on. End of story.

In addition to being on the front page of espn.com and si.com, this issue was also discussed on Dan Barreiro's show on KFAN in the Twin Cities tonight. And he predictably cut into and laughed at the administration for being thin skinned. With all the negative publicity UND has received in the last few years with the nickname thing, the last thing UND needed right now was more regional/national negative publicity, this time self-inflicted. The point is not whether Ralston should have said it or whether Faison had the right to do it. Of course Faison had the right to make this move, but it was a boneheaded PR blunder. Hundreds of thousands of people now know about this situation that otherwise would have had no clue precisely because of the suspension. And UND comes across looking thin-skinned and amateurish. Of all the ways Faison could have handled this, this might have been one of the worst.

The customers (i.e. - the fans) don't like duckies and bunnies all the time, particularly when things aren't going well. I like the announcer to have some homer in him, but when things are falling apart, I cannot stand an announcer that won't say the obvious and give a voice to what most of the fans are thinking. Even if the broadcast guy is a direct employee and is essentially a PR guy, I still question this move because the suspension is worse PR than the original comment. I'm not a big basketball guy and I personally wouldn't have even known about this situation but for the suspension. The suspension shines a light on the choke-job itself and demonstrates the thin-skinned nature of the administration.

I didn't listen to the broadcast, but from the media accounts, this suspension makes Faison look petty.