82SiouxGuy

It would completely depend on the specs, especially the size. I don't remember the final numbers, but the Alerus Center budgeted more than $900,000 for video boards and HD equipment when they were looking at upgrading. You probably aren't getting much of a video board for $50,000.

25% of restaurants of any kind fail in the first year of operation. Closer to 60% close within 3 years. Those are the averages across the country. Among the normal reasons are bad loans (often too high interest rates or not enough start up capital), poor customer service, bad food or products, bad location and many others. Franchise restaurants fail at only a slightly lower rate than independents. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-04-16/the-restaurant-failure-mythbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Timing of the approval from tribes was a factor. Central Michigan got tribal approval very quickly. The tribe and CMU had made a new arrangement in 2002 and the tribe let the NCAA know that they still supported that agreement. UND didn't get tribal approval before the original deadline (or before the lawsuit). UND sued the NCAA plus got an extended period to obtain approval from the settlement agreement. A lot of people believe that getting approval from 2 tribes was the price UND was charged for getting the time extension and for filing the lawsuit. There is almost always a price to pay to get concessions in a lawsuit, like getting an extended period to negotiate.

I missed Bob Jones University. They use Bruins as a nickname.

Most of those schools are art schools, med schools or a few law schools that don't have athletics. At least a few are online schools. Hollins University is a private women's college (a few men are in the graduate school) that competes in 8 sports at the D III level and they don't appear to have a nickname. Sage College of Albany is a D III school, but they seem to use Gators as a nickname. Their fan site is www.sagegators.com. It's possible that there are 1 or 2 others that have athletics but don't have a nickname, but Hollins is the only one that I have heard about before.

From http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/commemorate Sounds like the proper usage of the word.

It's possible that North Stars or Stars are not trademarked, although I doubt that. It is possible that the trademark is written to cover hockey but not other sports, or the restriction is written in a different way. Not all trademarks are written to eliminate all potential other uses. It is possible that Tri-City actually got permission. It is also possible that they didn't bother to get permission, but that Dallas either hasn't heard about it or just hasn't done anything yet. I wouldn't assume anything about the use without having more information. I also wouldn't assume that North Stars or Stars is the front runner at this point. As I said in an earlier post, they would have to do all of this work just exploring the trademark issue before the names could even be put on the list to be considered. They could do all of this work researching the name and then decide that the name didn't work or that others were better choices for the final ballot. Exploring the availability of a trademark is just part of the process.

Actually, sports nicknames can be trademarked. It has been discussed several times that the Washington Redskins was trademarked, but different groups were trying to get that trademark removed because the term is considered to be a disparaging word by many people. I've lost track of whether they finally lost the trademark or not. Words can be trademark for specific uses. Some really general words are much more difficult to trademark. Many of the repeat sports nicknames were in use before anyone trademarked them. And some repeats are being used illegally, but the owners have not pursued their removal. I don't know for sure whether Stars and North Stars are trademarked, but most professional nicknames are so I assume that they are. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-favorite-team-breaking-the-law-trademark-battles-in-the-sports https://www.nfhs.org/articles/trademark-issues-with-use-of-college-names-logos-mascots/

I am pretty sure that Stars and North Stars are owned by the Dallas franchise of the NHL. One of the criteria is that a name can't be chosen if it is owned (trademarked) by someone else. It is possible that they are doing their due diligence to see if it is possible to obtain use of either Stars of North Stars in case the name is popular. It wouldn't mean that the name has been chosen, only that they are following through on the process. Neither name can even be on the list to be considered as long as the trademark is controlled by someone else.

I could have seen myself wearing Dirtbag stuff when I was younger, I don't think I could see myself doing so now. Do they use that nickname any more?

I think the goal has been to have a new name selected by 7/1. I have heard concerns about whether that is enough time to make sure they get it right. But it isn't enough time to get a name chosen plus get a logo done so I don't think it would be implemented by 7/1. It definitely isn't time to get new names and logos on all of the uniforms. I would expect full implementation at some point in the next year.

Have you ever bought a new car that is a different color than what you normally buy? Maybe you bought it because it was something different that you don't see every day. You didn't want one that was white or black like everyone else. What happens next? You will see that color vehicle every time you turn around. It wasn't part of your regular consciousness before you bought that color and you weren't looking for it. After you buy it you will notice every one that goes by. This is exactly what happened to me a couple of years ago when I bought a pickup, and it happened to me when I bought a red car several years ago. I had no idea that there were so many grey-blue pickups or garnet red cars on the road. That is what Teeder is talking about. You like the Fighting Sioux logo and want to see it, so you notice every one that goes by. You aren't looking for a Banana Slug logo so you may or may not see them as they go by. I have no idea how much Banana Slug merchandise is sold or exists compared to Fighting Sioux. But I am quite sure that there is more Banana Slug merchandise out there than either one of us would naturally expect.

You are comparing some of the most well known schools in the country, schools like Michigan and Harvard and Stanford, with a small midwestern school. Those other schools could use almost anything on merchandise without hurting sales. Two of them use a color for a nickname (Crimson and Cardinal) and they are successful with those names. That isn't exactly comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the sales of Fighting Sioux merchandise the past few years has slowed the sales of North Dakota merch. But there is absolutely no excitement about buying North Dakota stuff. I don't see that happening in the future. I can't prove that a new logo would outsell North Dakota merchandise, it is impossible to prove something that hasn't happened yet. But it appears that every other school that has changed names has had an increase in sales after a nickname or logo change. People resist change, they don't like change, and they are often afraid of change. But change can be very good in the long run, and I believe that changing the nickname right now will be a good thing in the long run for the University of North Dakota.

The premise is simple. It is easier to sell something (a new nickname and logo) than nothing (what UND currently has for a nickname). North Dakota is not a sports nickname. It is the name of the state. University of North Dakota North Dakota sounds stupid, but that is what you would print out if you were using North Dakota as a nickname. North Dakota doesn't work well for a lot of chants, "Here we go, North Dakota, here we go (clap, clap)." We have already seen that the interlocking ND logo is not a big seller, and is confused with Notre Dame. What UND has been using for the past 3 years is not working from a marketing standpoint, and it isn't working from a cheer standpoint. All it does is encourage a significant portion of the crowd to continue using Fighting Sioux while others won't use Fighting Sioux. Yes, people will continue to use Fighting Sioux no matter what is chosen, but a new nickname will give others something they can use other than the name of the state. Yes, the amount of success that a new nickname or logo will have will depend on the quality of the nickname and logo plus how quickly it is accepted. I think that the committee will find something that a lot of the non-fanatics will accept. But I also believe that almost any new nickname and logo will be more successful from a marketing standpoint than what UND is using now. There are schools out there using Billikens, and Anteaters, and Banana Slugs that have success. I'm not sure what kind of ulterior motive I could have by promoting the selection of a new nickname, especially when I haven't been promoting any specific nickname. I have seen quite a few that I believe would work, some better than others. I believe that the committee may have gotten others that would also work that we may not have heard yet. Every other school that has chosen a new nickname has found one that works for them. If every other school that has been through a similar process in the past 40+ years (going back to Stanford) has been able to find an acceptable nickname, then I believe that UND can do so also. So I am very confident that UND will also find a solution that works in spite of the apprehension that some people seem to have about the process.

This is not true. There are always going to be people in the market to buy things. There are several thousand freshman entering UND each year. All of them have families. There are new people moving into Grand Forks each year, and some of them will adopt UND as a team to root for. There are people like myself. I own multiple jerseys, sweatshirts, tee shirts, sweatpants, etc. with the Sioux or Fighting Sioux names on them. I have purchased plain North Dakota goods. I will purchase goods with the new nickname. I purchase to support the University and to show my support for the University. I don't buy just to support a nickname and logo. I graduated from the University of North Dakota, not the University of Fighting Sioux. There are plenty of people that will choose what merchandise to buy from what is available. If the only choice is to purchase merchandise with a new nickname and logo, they will choose to buy that merchandise because they want to associate themselves with the teams and the school. They might even want to support the school. But if they have a choice between merchandise with the new nickname and logo or choosing merchandise with the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, a significant number would choose to purchase the Fighting Sioux merchandise. It has history, is established and better known than a new nickname, and it is a desirable brand. Under your scenario those dollars would go to the tribes. That equals a negative sum of money going to UND compared to what could be going to UND. Again, I support what is best for the University of North Dakota, not what is best for a sports nickname. The problem is your assumption that the world breaks down into hardcore Fighting Sioux fans (people that would only buy Fighting Sioux merchandise) and non-hardcore fans (fans that would not be interested in Fighting Sioux merchandise). It is true that there are people in both camps. But there is a large group of people in the middle. These people will buy what is available and what is more desirable to them based on looks, color, etc. That etc. could include the name and logo, meaning they would choose Fighting Sioux over the new nickname if they are given a choice, but would purchase new nickname if there is no Fighting Sioux available. These are the dollars that would be lost to UND every year under the scenario you are promoting.

There is not any kind of a vote going on right now for nicknames. They are taking suggestions, not taking votes. The names selected to go forward will not be based on the number of times they are suggested. It is not based on numbers at this point in the process. The committee will review the suggested nicknames and will choose the 3 they believe are the best choices for the school based on the criteria that has been developed. Names that are obviously obscene, trademarked, and/or not appropriate are eliminated during this stage. The actual name chosen will be the 1 out of those 3 that gets the most votes.

UND can control what it can control. The Sammy Sioux logo went away because people realized it was insulting. The Chicago Blackhawks own the Blackhawk logo. They get the revenue, not UND. They took it back from UND years ago, which is a major reason that UND stopped using it. The geometric logo never sold well, that is why it was replaced. UND can control the Fighting Sioux nickname and Brien logo. Those are worth a significant amount of money. Giving the nickname and logo away to a tribe would be taking dollars from the Athletic Department because they would divert money that could be spent on UND merchandise. This is very much a financial decision for the University, as it should be. People come on this board and complain about the budgets for various sports. They don't think that UND is spending enough on football or basketball. Then a few of you come here and want UND to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in merchandise revenue. That is what is stupid, and something only a fool would do, give away large sums of potential revenue at the same time that you are trying to increase department revenues. That would be like giving away your paycheck when you haven't paid the electrical bill. You may live in some idealistic world, the UND Athletic Department does not.

I'm not misinforming anyone. You are stating your opinion. I am stating my opinion about what is possible. You are trying to come across as though this question has a cut and dried answer. Several of us believe that there is quite a bit of gray area in this discussion. It would depend on the interpretation of both parties as well as the interpretation of any judges that may look at the case. Stop trying to act like you have the final decision on how this would come out. One of the challenges that UND faced was the interference by the North Dakota State Legislature, first not allowing them to change the time within the time frame agreed to in the settlement agreement, and again when the Legislature put the January 1, 2015 date in for a transition. UND is not the North Dakota Legislature. The Legislature has a lot of control over the University, but the State Board of Higher Education also has a lot of separate control. UND is caught in between. UND could very easily have plans to make a transition to a new nickname and still have those plans delayed by a state law put in place by the Legislature, as a matter of fact that is exactly what happened. And it is very possible that the NCAA could hold off on forcing the issue since there was a definite date after only a few years for a potential change. Forcing the issue under those conditions would look like they were being totally unfair to the University. It would be an unnecessary PR hit, which is something that the NCAA didn't need. The hit would be much less now if they decide that UND isn't living up to the settlement agreement. With everything else going on it would just be a blip on the radar rather than a major issue.

Why do some current Marquette students still want to use Warriors? Marquette hasn't used the Warrior name for years. Why do some people still want Stanford to be the Indians? They changed the name in like 1972. Fighting Sioux was a good nickname and it is a good looking logo. People that weren't affiliated with the school in any way liked the name and logo. So obviously, people in the future would still like the logo, especially when you add the history associated with name and logo. Why would UND allow a competing name and logo to be used against them? Your plan puts extra roadblocks in the way of a new name being accepted. The idea of adopting a new name has enough challenges by itself. Only a fool would add unnecessary roadblocks, especially when it is so obvious. This is the issue that several people have noted in the past, people are trying every angle they can come up with to maintain use of Fighting Sioux as the nickname even if it is unofficial. Your idea makes no sense for UND if they want to make a successful transition.

I agree with tSic rather than with you. I think that the NCAA could argue that they have been giving leniency due to the challenges faced by UND and were just giving them extra time as long as it appeared that UND was working toward a new nickname . The NCAA could very easily make a decision to enforce the "new nickname" portion of the agreement. I have no idea whether they would or not, but it definitely would not surprise me. Then it would be up to UND to take the issue to court, this isn't something that the NCAA would need to take to court to enforce. I also agree with jdub that the 2012 addendum was focused on the facilities portion of the settlement agreement and not on whether UND was in compliance on the new nickname portion of the settlement agreement.

The problem is that it would keep the Fighting Sioux name as an active and ongoing factor, not one that is in the past. It wouldn't be limited to just the diehards that have used and worn the name for years, it would be available and used by future residents and students also. It would be direct and active competition against any new name and logo. It would hurt the chances of the new nickname and logo being accepted and used by a wider group of people. It would be a stupid decision for the University if they want the new name to be successful. And there is no chance of it happening.

Or is it possible that the NCAA hasn't given anyone an answer about whether they are going to enforce the "new nickname" portion? Maybe that's why Kelley hasn't eliminated no nickname as a possibility. He wouldn't be able to commit either way if the NCAA hasn't answered the question. And we know that the NCAA is very good at not answering questions if they don't want to answer the question.

A few problems with your reasoning. A lot of the people that claim to be "honoring" the Sioux tribe by using the name actually know very little about the actual tribes and the history of the people. It is very difficult to honor someone when you don't know anything about the people that you are honoring. And I would be willing to bet that most people that claim they are trying to "honor the tribe" would fail a test on the history and customs of the actual Dakota, Lakota and Nakota tribes. In addition, some of that same group that claim to be "honoring" the Sioux people will start throwing insults at any actual Sioux people that disagree with them. You don't have to agree with them, but you can't honor a people and insult them at the same time. Turning the logo and name over to the tribe wouldn't retire them. It would give free reign for the tribe, and anyone else they would allow, to produce merchandise and keep the name alive. In fact, it would be a great money making proposition for the tribe. In other words, instead of the name going away it would continue to live on as a competition for any new nickname and logo, thereby making it very difficult for the new name and logo to be used successfully. That is just another backdoor way to continue using the Fighting Sioux name and logo. That is why UND has to keep control of the nickname and logo, to limit the potential for others keeping them active as competition for the new.

You may not be aware of this, but the play-in games are not automatically #16 vs #16. And they are not all low level conference title winners. This years teams included Old Miss from the SEC, BYU from the West Coast, Dayton from the Atlantic 10, and Boise State from the Mountain West. All of these were #11 teams. All were at-large teams and the last 2 were 25-8 on the season.

I want UND playing on a Monday night in April. That probably isn't going to happen. I would prefer UND playing on a Tuesday or Wednesday rather than not playing at all in the Tournament. Opening the conference tournament to all teams, just like happens in almost every other league in the country, gives everyone a chance to play in the Tournament.