82SiouxGuy

Great nickname. Logo doesn't jump out at you unless you know the back story. The Leathernecks nickname and the bulldog logo (Marine's mascot) are used with the permission of the US Marine Corp and have been since 1927. So they are probably pretty popular with WIU supporters, but the logo alone doesn't stand out for people that don't know it.

Much better comparisons. I don't think any of them is really well done. Bears is a pretty generic name. I count 30 different schools using Bears if you count schools that use adjectives like Black Bears or Battlin' Bears (Rocky Mountain College in Billings). Dukes is only used by 1 other school, but it doesn't jump out at you from the logo. That could be a King or a Bulldog. I had to look it up because I couldn't remember that James Madison was the Dukes. As far as the UW Milwaukee Panthers, again you have a name that is far from unique (38 schools), but the logo at least represents the nickname. So I would consider all of these average at best. But they are still better than having no nickname or having a logo that is mistaken for a well known school like Notre Dame. And choosing a unique name, one of the main criteria, would help differentiate UND from everyone else.

You missed the point entirely. Mafia used examples of big name schools that used letters as a logo to try and prove that you don't need a logo to be successful.. I pointed out that they had been using those logos for years, and that comparing them to a smaller school starting to use a new logo wasn't a fair comparison. I said that a better comparison was UND's use of the interlocking ND since UND has been using that for many years. Yet most people still associate the interlocking ND with Notre Dame, not UND. UND finding a new nickname and logo aren't going to guarantee recognition outside the region, but they would have a better chance of doing so than continuing to use no nickname and the interlocking ND as the main logo. UND started using the Sioux name in 1930. They used a bunch of different logos over the years. But merchandise sales didn't take off until the Brien logo started being used. That logo WAS known by at least some people outside the region. That same logo is a huge part of why so many people still want to use the Sioux nickname. Obviously, getting a new logo worked for UND in 1999. But according to some of you, a new logo doesn't have a chance to make any difference going forward. UND already has proof that a new logo CAN make a difference. There is absolutely no guarantee that a new nickname and/or logo will make a difference. And they definitely aren't going to create a huge new fanbase instantly. But a new nickname and logo at least have a chance to become recognizable just like the Brien logo did. Using no nickname and using the interlocking ND logo are going to do nothing for UND. People outside the region don't care about the NCAA taking the name away from UND. And they automatically think Notre Dame when they see anything resembling an interlocking ND. It is time to start fresh with something new.

Oh wait, you're comparing Power 5 conference schools with a school that finished moving up to Division I a couple of years ago. Schools that have used those logos for years, most for decades. Schools that get a lot of national TV coverage. Versus a small, lesser known school going through a nickname and logo change. That makes sense. And you substituted the word absolutely for the word options that southpaw used. Got it, good comparison. If you want to compare the use of letters, use the interlocking ND. How has that done for UND recognition? UND has used it for decades. If you show the interlocking ND logo to random people at sporting events in Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, New York City, or even Minneapolis, what school are most of them going to think it belongs to? UND or Notre Dame? Pretty unique to UND isn't it? Or not so much. And that's true even though Notre Dame also uses a small, bearded guy in another logo. Does anyone actually believe that continuing with the interlocking ND logo as the main UND logo is going to help build recognition for UND?

My impression is similar to yours, that Hextall had made 3 attempts in the past few weeks. During the Flyers press conference either the owner or the team president mentioned that Hextall had spent large parts of 4 days with Hakstol and had done a lot of research. That didn't happen since Friday.

The weather in this region still makes it more difficult than in most other parts of the country. I didn't say that they couldn't be successful. Minnesota traditionally has a strong baseball program. The weather is better in the Twin Cities than Fargo or Grand Forks, but it is still a bigger challenge than most baseball power programs have to face. The weather for both baseball and softball in eastern North Dakota is very unreliable and tends to be both cool and wet during much of the season.

Baseball and softball make more sense than baseball and women's hockey. Baseball and softball are popular with students from the playing side, but our weather and the seasons make it difficult to be successful on the field. If they change the playing season, which is being discussed for baseball, it may make sense to keep them. Otherwise it may end up making sense to replace them. Lacrosse does seem to be an up and coming sport and should be looked at if changes are going to be made.

And I keep telling you that baseball and women's hockey are not equal cuts. To follow Title IX you would have to give a lot more funding and scholarships to women's lacrosse. Do you think that's going to fly with anyone? And do you have any proof, any real numbers, that would prove that lacrosse would lose less money? Women's hockey brings in a little bit of money. Baseball doesn't. Do we know how much either men's or women's lacrosse would bring in? My guess is that you aren't going to bring in any for women's lacrosse (about equal to softball) and probably not much in men's lacrosse, at least for a few years. There is no history or built in interest for lacrosse in this area. Plus, I'm guessing that you have no real idea about actual costs for any of the those sports. So you don't have any actual facts about which are more money draining. Unfortunately, Title IX is a necessary evil. I looked a little further and it looks like all women's sports at UND started after Title IX was passed. I do believe that women should have a similar opportunity to play sports. Title IX is what has opened up those opportunities. Without Title IX those opportunities may not exist today. The opportunities still don't exist on an equal basis at a lot of schools, just look at the numbers of men and women athletes at NDSU. They have roughly 2 male athletes for every female athlete. Without Title IX it would be much worse. So Title IX is still necessary today.

Not nearly as many sports were offered to women before Title IX. That is why they created Title IX, to try to provide more equal sports opportunities. For instance, basketball and volleyball were started at UND after Title IX was passed. Most of women's sports expanded after Title IX. And yes, wrestling was a victim. The choice was either expand women's sports even more, or cut a sport (kind of like the way you want to cut baseball now). I guess that you don't think UND should have women's basketball or volleyball.

So you don't believe that women should have an equal right to play college sports. Got it. And don't go to the sports paying for themselves. Almost all college sports in the country would go away if they had to pay for themselves. Some college football, most of men's basketball and some selected programs in other sports would be the only ones that exist. The original reason for college sports, and part of the reason they still exist, is to provide opportunities for students in a variety of ways. By the way, did you realize that women's hockey has a higher average attendance than volleyball? By your reasoning they should eliminate volleyball first. Actually, your reasoning would have them eliminate all women's sports other than basketball since that is the only sport that has higher attendance than hockey.

Baseball and women's hockey don't give out an equal number of scholarships. That is not an equal Title IX trade off. Plus you have the other Title IX factor of offering sports that are of interest to the students. Hockey is of much more interest to UND students than lacrosse.

An internet poll is far from scientific. They are less accurate than preseason sports polls.

Those aren't votes, they were the number of suggestions. The numbers are meaningless at this stage. A name with a single suggestion could end up being the one chosen in the end.

Nokotas are horses. Nakotas are members of a Sioux tribe. Nakota would not be acceptable by the NCAA.

Have they taken away any titles because of players testing positive for anabolic steroids or HGH? In any sport? Have they proven how many points advantage those PEDs provided in a specific game? If they have proof that every Patriot tested positive for PEDs I would have no problem suspending them, or even throwing them out of the league. Take away every 1st round pick for the next 10 years. But you can't take away a title unless you can prove exactly the effects on that specific game, like players cheating to let the other team win. You would need a major offense to result in taking away the title. Having underinflated footballs is not a major offense. Your example may come close, but because it is so hard to quantify I don't think you could do it in that case either. If they haven't taken away home run titles and records, I don't think they can take away titles.

And IMO, changing results after the fact, especially when you can't prove that the grievance changed the results in any measurable way, would be a gross overreaction to the problem. As to your question about why, people cheat all of the time to try and get an advantage. Sometimes that advantage is only in their minds. If they can't prove that the team got an advantage from the deflated footballs, then it is possible that the advantage was only in their minds. Again, taking away a Super Bowl title for an advantage that was only in the team's mind would be a gross overreaction.

The NFL had a situation during a Viking game last year where both teams were heating the footballs. This is against the same part of the rule book as the inflation level of footballs. In the Vikings game the officials told both teams to stop doing it because the footballs are supposed to be left in the conditions other than being covered from moisture. They didn't have any other penalties for either team, probably since both teams were doing the same thing. The officials figured out that there was a problem during the New England game. They could have made an effort to fix the problem then, and could have penalized the Patriots during the game. They didn't. No one knows whether the deflated footballs actually affected the results of the game. If the "advantage" didn't affect the results of the game they shouldn't take the game away from the team. Therefore they can't take the Super Bowl away from them either. You can't retroactively change the results of the games unless something very radical happens, like multiple players throwing games.

Ski U Mah is not an Indian saying. It is a made up term that was created by the U of M Rugby captain in 1894. He thought he heard some Indians yelling Sky yoo after winning canoe races, and assumed that it was a word for victory. They added mah to make it easy to rhyme in cheers (think rah). It turns out that there are no Indian words that sound like sky yoo, and definitely none that mean victory or anything close. The entire term is made up, so it isn't possible to be in violation of the NCAA policy if someone at the school made it up.

They had a huge amount of proof, including confessions, to prove that the players were throwing games. In this case they have some evidence that Brady might have been aware. The main people that were guilty in this case were low level staff, and there is still no hard evidence that the actions had any real effects on the game results. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.

Did a baseball team ever get a World Series title taken away because their pitchers were accused of throwing spit balls, or in any other way doctoring a baseball? The answer is no. As you said, there is no way to know how much the deflated balls affected the actual outcome. Therefore you can't go back and negate any of the results. That would be a gross imposition of a penalty. Kind of like the death penalty for jaywalking. The team will be fined and probably lose a lower level draft pick. Brady himself may not be penalized since they don't seem to have definite proof that he was involved. Taking away the Super Bowl title will not even be considered.

A lot of people try to cheat to get an advantage. They will try things until they get caught, and get punished. But the punishment has to fit the crime. Deflating the football is probably on par with throwing spit balls. Probably not as bad as corking a bat. It was a minor advantage. Spygate was equal to baseball teams stealing signs. Neither is as important as you seem to think.

Deflating the football doesn't rank on the same level as using PEDs or betting on the game. I would be shocked if 10 people across the country decided to boycott the sport because of this episode. It's a minor blip.

Do you mean the Ben Brien logo, the one that was introduced in 1999? Which means that it was the official UND Athletics logo for about 13 years? Or the Geometric logo, or the Blackhawk logo, or the Sammy Sioux logo, or the indian head logo from the 50's? Or do you mean the nickname that also changed with time? It wasn't always Fighting Sioux, for most of those 80 years it was normally just Sioux. The Sports Information office started using Fighting in the 60's, but Sioux was the most common use even through the 80's. So your image of some logo that has been around for 80 years isn't exactly accurate. Change has been the only constant during that 80 years. Also, the nickname and logo issue are about more than just the hockey team.

It only takes a few minutes to register a domain name. And most of them are pretty cheap. As tSic noted earlier today, they don't have to be the obvious names either. NDSU uses gobison.com. Or maybe UND will do something revolutionary and just keep the website they have, undsports.com instead of matching it to the new nickname. That might stop all cybersquatters in their tracks.

You mean someone that wants to work in marketing or public relations. He finished college in December and had a couple of internships, but does not have a job in marketing or public relations according to his resume. I agree that he is speculating. Most of those domains go for $5-20 each. He probably invested his tips from Cracker Barrel one day to buy up several names and try to make a big score.