82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
Here are some pictures to illustrate what a fighting hawk logo might resemble.
Give these to a good artist and they could come up with something interesting.
-
Well, considering the lack of leadership from this administration on pretty much everything, I am not as optimistic as you. I just think a public commitment to funding FCOA would help get the attention of alumni who are interested in keeping UND at the forefront of athletic excellence.
When you are asking someone for large sums of money you don't do it by making a public statement. You ask those questions in person, in private. And normally those questions are asked after a period of prep time. That's why most large fundraising projects raise a majority of their funds before they make a public announcement. You fill in the remainder with smaller amounts from the public.
-
Fighting Hawks will be fine if the logo is the one that has been going viral lately that has the Hawk with the colored feathers but there is about no chance that would be approved. I am all for the Roughriders. I don't care about a high school (that I went to) having the same name. The high school in Ames, Iowa is the Cyclones just like Iowa State.
For clarification, the high school in Ames is the Little Cyclones to differentiate from the Iowa State Cyclones.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I honestly didn't even pay attention to the list, because I was all North Dakota. We were never told at the get go it wasn't an option until it was removed in the last round. If it had been removed initially, I would have been more invested. I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. I like the idea of something aerospace related, since we are such a big aerospace school. I seriously refuse to buy anything Sundog related. That's just embarrassing!
You weren't paying attention, so now you're upset? Any name option, including the no nickname option, could have been eliminated at any of the meetings. They made that very clear. But you weren't paying attention because you just assumed that the option you liked would be on the final list. One of the factors people on the committee used when making decisions was the input they got from the general public. The committee eliminated the no nickname option at their last committee meeting, according to a vote they took it should have been eliminated at the previous meeting because it ranked very low. After it was eliminated by the committee and people got upset, President Kelley agreed to listen to the public to see if someone could give him good reasons to put the name back on the list. "I want it on the list" is not a reason. Neither is "I don't like the other names the committee came up with". Obviously no one gave him good reasons that he agreed with enough to change the list given to him by the committee. I'm willing to bet that insulting him constantly or demanding he make the change "or else" probably didn't help either.
-
7
-
Just when you think this issue is going to be resolved in October, another bureaucrat breathes more life into it:
https://sayanythingblog.com/entry/und-2/
And the key statement that tells you what Ms. Neset wants:
In other words, Ms. Neset is going to order Kelley to put 'North Dakota' back on the list.
I have a question for Ms. Neset: How many more "quick looks" do you need to give this issue? There have been literally years of "quick looks" given to this issue.
A better idea is to have a "quick look" at Ms. Neset's qualifications (or lack thereof) to hold the job she holds on the SBoHE.
And I mean every single word of that. People must have missed this part of the GF Herald article.
Later in the day, however, she clarified her words. In a statement, she said: “My initial reaction to the UND nickname announcement this morning is that more conversations will undoubtedly take place as it has been a subject of great interest for years. So many people are passionate about the subject because so many are connected to and care about the University of North Dakota. I think it speaks to the level of dedication that alumni feel toward their education.
“I have been talking to many people about the subject prior to today and though conversations will undoubtedly continue, I think it’s time we move on. As State Board of Higher Education chair, I believe that we need to focus on student success and affordability.”
An SBHE agenda, released for next Thursday’s meeting, does not include the nickname as an agenda item.
-
No idea what is holding the Twins from calling Berrios up. He would be an instant upgrade over at the very least Santana and Milone and probably over Gibson at this point.
Berrios probably isn't going to get called up at all this season because they are trying to control the number of innings that he is pitching. Before this year, the highest number of innings he has ever pitched in a year is 140, which he pitched last year. He pitched about 100 the year before. The original plan for the year was to have him pitch 160-180 because they don't want to increase the number of innings per year too quickly. He is at 155 already this year. That gives him 1 to 3 starts left for the year. It's possible that they could call him up to use him in the bullpen during the September roster expansion, and only use him a little bit. But, it is highly unlikely that he will be a starting pitcher for the Twins this year because of concerns about over-taxing his arm with too many innings.
-
Did this chart come from somebody within the football administration or is it Miller's best guess? Anybody know for sure? I wouldn't be surprised if some on the 2 deep don't even make the trip to Wyo.
That was released by UND. You can tell by the logo in the middle of the paper. If you saw the very bottom of the page you would see the schedule for the next game. Here is the same page from the UND Sports web site, http://www.undsports.com/pdf9/3742006.pdf.
-
Just copied this, did you chew him out?
All you had to do was read 2 more posts to see my response, which was to tell him that yelling Sioux at a sporting event was not protected by the First Amendment.
Are you claiming that I chewed you out by asking a simple question? Or that I chewed you out by quoting the First Amendment? Or that I chewed you out by providing more information about the First Amendment and how it applies?
-
Do you really think the UND administration or NCAA are going subject themselves to the scrutiny they would get for doing something as stupid as telling fans what they can cheer? Twitter, Facebook, etc. would blow up and it would probably make national news! ..and not in a good way! How would that work for student and/or athlete recruitment? Not happening!
The NCAA wouldn't say a word to the fans. They would tell UND that by not choosing a new nickname the school obviously hasn't done enough to move away from the Fighting Sioux nickname. Their chosen option would be to put UND back on the same sanctions as they would have been on if they had kept the Fighting Sioux nickname. And UND wouldn't tell the fans what they can cheer. If the NCAA puts UND back on sanctions, UND would move quickly to choose a new nickname to get off sanctions. Yell Sioux all you want, no one is going to tell you to stop (other than the people that think it is disrespectful to yell anything during the National Anthem).
-
2
-
-
Looks like it to me...as the court hears the slamming of the judges gavel while his honor shouts "case closed, stop wasting our time with this nonsense, have you people not heard of the 1st amendment"!!
As sioux83 yells " you can't handle the truth"!
Have you ever read the 1st Amendment?
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
It doesn't say anything about schools, or organizations such as the NCAA, limiting speech in some way. As a matter of fact, the courts have upheld multiple cases where schools have limited speech.
-
well Stanford did pick a lame color and a tree for a logo and nickname. I would say this is as bad as not picking one at all. You don't hear anything but Stanford when you hear about.... Stanford.
why are you still on this forum spreading a bunch of fear? Are you president Kelley? You people are really digging deep to say that the NCAA will sanction UND further for the fans expressing their first amendment right.
Stanford is one of the best known schools in the country, and they don't base their reputation on sports. Not exactly a good comparison for the University of North Dakota. But a whole lot of people still know that they are the Cardinal.
Yelling Sioux at a sporting event is not protected by the First Amendment.
-
Just curious, why was it disappointing to see guys in shorts?
I'm pretty sure that those are the players that are injured and being held out of practice. Most probably have minor injuries unless they have casts, walking boots, crutches or other aids to healing.
-
1
-
-
For the record, 82SiouxGuy, I am not in favor of remaining nickname-less. My point is that in the great scheme of things, without a nickname or even with one, UND is still a relatively small-time school in terms of national athletic exposure. That's just the way it is.
Was that a UND logo on your sweatshirt that the guy in Boston saw or one with the Sioux logo on it?
I agree that UND is relatively small-time in terms of exposure and awareness. That is part of the reason it needs to work every angle possible.
In that particular case it was the Brien Sioux logo. I always remember the conversation because he said that a lot of college students in the Boston area knew and liked the logo. He said that some of them bought t-shirts and sweat shirts with the logo and wore them around Boston. This was after the NCAA announced their policy, but it was before the lawsuit was settled. He knew that UND was in Grand Forks, and knew where North Dakota was although he had never been anywhere close. It was an example of how a good logo can help increase awareness.
-
I walked around Yost Ice Arena back in 1998 prior to and during intermission of the Sioux/Wolverine game. Can't tell you how many folks I ran into who were happy to let me know that "Spartans suck" or yell "Go back to East Lansing" to my face. The geometric Sioux head on my green jersey meant squat. People see what they want to see or what they're accustomed to seeing. Hell, I still have to explain to folks in western WI the difference between UND and NDSU. Having a nickname won't change that.
Yet the National Park guy I talked to in Boston 10 years ago wanted to talk to me about the UND hockey team after seeing the UND logo on my sweatshirt (before I said anything more than hello). Maybe nicknames and logos do make a difference with some people. If names and logos didn't make a difference in marketing you wouldn't have the logos below or any of the million other logos on products, or the nicknames and logos for every other sports team in the US.
-
1
-
-
Why can't UND plan ahead like this?
At least we should have a nickname by then.
Like the UND game with Washington that has been on the schedule for a year or 2?
-
1
-
-
-
Nice try 82.
I told you and F.S.F. and scottm on here back in 2012 when you were demanding I give one good reason why one should vote to keep the name that that "one hood reason" was so that people wouldn't be able to say B.S. like what you just said
We all know what the Sioux as a majority wanted. That was clearly demonstrated in the polls before 2012. They like everyone else voted that way to protect UND from sanctions as the aggressive media campaign said they should. Even Hak said it.
So F.off with your petty B.S. manipulations of that vote. You know the truth! The Sioux wanted and still want by majority to keep their name..
You're truly the worst kind of cancer to this whole situation. The fact that anyone listens to your rhetoric is beyond me.
Sorry you don't like to hear facts. The actual election is the only "poll" that counts. We have the results of the elections. I do know the truth, and the truth is that it is time to move forward by selecting a new nickname rather than extending this mess indefinitely.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Everyone that doesn't share your view needs to educate themselves! I do know how government works, I don't act like a council is all tribal people's opinions on something like you do, just because you voted for a president does that mean you agree with everything he does? Try and have a debate once without belittling people! Tribal people apparently don't care to go out and vote in a statewide vote, they did sign a petition in the res though? How is that hard to understand? You ever think this one book might know more about the whole thing than you? I'm sure that's impossible in your superior mind!
I tthink you are wrong on your stance, I hope ND becomes the name, I don't believe any of you and the three others doom and gloom bs!
I don't have to agree with the President, or with the Congress, but I do have to follow the laws that they establish. Those are the rules. The opinions of the people are not what decides issues, the actions of the elected officials make the decisions. The Standing Rock Tribal Council has acted on the issue several times, and since 1992 they have been constant in their opposition to UND using the Sioux nickname. You are the one belittling people with your "only 4 people" thing. I don't believe I'm belittling you when I point out facts, and you don't. That is part of debate. You said I was wrong about the Standing Rock Tribal Council coming out against the Sioux nickname in 1992, and that a member of the group that participated in the pipe ceremony was part of that Tribal Council. The facts say otherwise. I keep saying that the Tribal Council has acted on the issue, you go back to saying that only a small number of people were involved even though that is exactly how the process is supposed to work. You bring up the petition with 1004 signatures. I mention an opposing petition with 1010 signatures and you ignore it. You say that maybe tribal members don't vote in elections, if they actually want their opinions to count that is the process to make it happen. Putting their opinion on Facebook does not really count. How are any of those hard to understand?
As tSic and others have pointed out, nothing in that book is new, none of it was hidden. Everything was published by the regular media as it happened. Or it is taken out of context. Or it ignores how the legal system actually works. It doesn't prove what you think it does. Try Google, or Bing, or one of the multitude of other search engines and get more information. I have been watching and/or participating in this debate for almost 50 years, almost the entire time that the Sioux nickname has been debated on campus. It was talked about when I was a student in the late 70's and early 80's (I'm SiouxGuy82 because I graduated from UND in 1982), plus I grew up in the area and remember it being discussed going back before that. I don't know if I'm an expert or not, but I do know quite a bit about the subject, from both sides.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Pretty bold accusation. Having talked to some of them I also think its blatantly false.
You citing something where people were able to (and very obviously did) submit things as many times as they could click a button. It carries zero weight.
Yes, the nickname committee had an agenda: to pick a new nickname. You are correct, it was voted 7-4 to remove "no nickname" but it was the lowest remaining score among those left under consideration twice and somehow survived the first time.
You mean a list where Ermines was submitted 35 times? Or where Flickertails was submitted more than 180 times? A list that we know included a large number of submissions by NDSU fans to try to interfere with UND getting a new nickname? That sounds like a real accurate portrayal of interest, doesn't it.
-
1
-
-
Are you referring to the selection of the new nickname or this thread? :)
It probably applies to both.
-
I did this on my phone, hope you understand what I was trying to say above in your quote.
You really need to educate yourself on the facts, not just pay attention to one book. Aljoe Agard was Tribal Chair at Standing Rock from 1961-1969, and was part of the group that participated in the pipe ceremony. He was a member of the Tribal Council in 1992. That Tribal Council passed a resolution asking UND to quit using the Sioux nickname. He voted for that resolution. Those are facts, look them up. He must not have believed the ceremony was "sacred", and neither did the rest of the Tribal Council.
You think that the tribe is in favor of the nickname because of a petition where they got 1004 signatures. You don't mention the fact that an opposing petition which asked the Tribal Council to continue supporting the 1992 resolution against the nickname got 1010 signatures. 1010 is more than 1004. Maybe they aren't as in favor as you think. Then you say that they didn't vote for the nickname because it wasn't a priority to them. It was part of a regular election. They didn't have to go out of their way for a special election. It wasn't even important enough for them to go to a regular election and vote to keep the nickname. That doesn't show me that it is very important to them at all.
You also don't seem to realize how government works. The Tribal Council is very similar to the operation of the United States Congress or the North Dakota Legislature. Representatives are elected to make decisions for the entire group. Regular people don't get to vote on every decision. Actually, at the federal level the only decisions that the people get to vote on are to decide who is going to represent them. The same is true in over half the states. The tribal members don't get to make decisions on how their tribal government is run, they elect a Tribal Council to do so. The tribal members showed that they had very little interest in keeping the Sioux nickname by their very low turnout at the election where they had a chance to vote on it. This mirrored the little interest in keeping the nickname showed by the Standing Rock Tribal Council. Just because a small group has been vocal doesn't mean that they have a lot of people that support them. Again, try doing a little more research on the subject and learning more of the facts.
-
2
-
1
-
-
First off the "we are ND" was an FSN thing. We are no longer on there so that's why it seems like the ad is gone. "We are FSN, we are NORTH DAKOTA "
If the four of you weren't so afraid of no nickname being on the ballot, this over and over BS wouldn't be happening on here.
We all know the outcome if it is on the ballot, and that's why the four of you brand everyone a person that can't let go, and by the way you are WRONG! Also you are obviously scared to death, it shows in every post you write over and over and over and over!
News flash, if you keep saying it is wrong, will not make it wrong! It will not change the higher ups decision either! Let's just see what they decide to do, shall we?
No one knows what the outcome would be if it were on the ballot. My guess is that it would meet the same fate as when the Sioux Forever group wanted to keep the nickname and it went to a statewide ballot since there are a lot more than 4 people that want it to end, and want UND to move on with a new nickname. It is time to end this long, long, long, long waste of time.
-
Funny how you keep coming back to the "big picture" and referencing that. The big picture is the hostility and abusiveness of not honoring a "sacred" 1969 pipe ceremony. To me, that is the most disrespected angle that no one talks about. PC libtards continuing to ruin and remove history. Shocking...
A ceremony that the Standing Rock Tribal Council has ignored since about 1992. I believe that was the first year they came out against UND using the Sioux nickname. That group included someone that was part of the ceremony. I would guess that the Standing Rock Tribal Council knows much more about that pipe ceremony than you do. It must not have been as "sacred" as you and others believe. Do those Standing Rock Tribal Council members fit in your PC group?
And how about the tribal members from both Spirit Lake and Standing Rock that voted to get rid of the nickname in 2012. It passed in all counties, including the counties where the reservations are located. And it passed in the precincts on the reservation. I guess those tribal members must also be PC and abusing a "sacred" ceremony.
-
1
-
-
I don't necessarily disagree, but a sales tax is not the way to go for a vanity project that may not even materialize. I say, figure out the cost difference between (a) Merrifield with frontage road and (b) two interchanges, and let the developers foot the bill.
The developers will end up paying for most or all of the streets and sewers in that area through special assessments, adding a bridge to that might be difficult. In the past the Federal Highway funds would have paid for at least 80% of the bridge in most cases. Most of those dollars are gone now so they are looking at options. I don't think that anyone has the answer right now. But I don't think it's a vanity project. If they put in a frontage road system there is a pretty good chance it will fill in just like it did along I29 through south Fargo. It could be a good location for something like Fleet Farm, Costco, or other large scale operations that need the space. Putting in the 47th exit would help them develop in stages rather than having to pave the frontage road all the way from Furniture Row to the Merrifield Road all in one stretch.
Editing my Signature
in SiouxSports.com
Posted
I've used the ignore all signatures for a couple of years. It is much cleaner and easier to scroll through pages.