82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
An example of Nodaks being used as a nickname for UND athletics in the past.
-
That's Indian-related. Proper term would be "Illinoisan" or "Illinoisian."
Dakota is Native American related, too. The Kansas and Arkansas names come from the Kansa tribe. NoDak is a shortened form of the state name. Illinoisian is not, but Illini is also a shortened form. NoDaks is a closer comparison to Illini than to any of the examples you came up with, and shows that similar names are in use.
NoDaks has been used for years as a nickname for people from North Dakota, and I believe that it has appeared on UND uniforms before. Shortened forms of the state name are used as nicknames for state residents in other states also, such as Okies from Oklahoma. It isn't as outrageous as you try to make it out. It also isn't very creative, so it isn't at the top of my list. But it is an option that makes at least a little sense, which is more than can be said for some of the names that have been thrown out.
-
Nodaks? It's amazing that more schools didn't think of that idea sooner.
The Kansas Kansans?
The Arkansas Arkies?
The Rhode Island Rhode Islanders?
The West Virginia W-V's?
Nodaks? C'mon.
University of Illinois Fighting Illini?
-
North Dakota CHAMPIONS. We would be the Champs in every endeavor and event we are involved in. We already have a Champions Club. Queen's "We are the Champions" is our new song. If our rivals calls us the "Chumps", it describes exactly who we are to be here in the first place (thanks NC$$).
Champsosaurus
One of the most common fossil animals of North Dakota, represented by entire skeletons, Champsosaurus was a late Cretaceous creature that closely resembled a prehistoric crocodile (but was, in fact, an obscure type of reptile known as a choristoderan). Like crocodiles, Champsosaurus prowled the ponds and lakes of North Dakota for tasty prehistoric fish.
Or Champs for short
-
Will 96 the fox have TH on? I am bound to work, dang dumb oil price, so I heart radio is my baby
Yes.
-
Thought for the day (and I imagine this idea will be burned for being bland) I was reading an article today talking about the bighorn sheep population took a hit due to some pneumonia this winter, and my takeaway was " Bighorns" would be a cool nickname. The problem I had was, I just have trouble identifying North Dakota with a bighorn sheep, not sure why, I guess I've never seen a sheep in the badlands could be part of it.
I kept reading on, and it said moose and elk and all them fair'ed pretty well this winter. Which is cool, but then I thought an elk would make a pretty sweet logo with the big antlers and stuff (think all the cool statues of elk around), but Elk doesn't roll off the tongue. Maybe it doesn't identify any better than bighorn sheep, but I would say they are as representative as a bison (both only exist anymore on ranches / parks. I think an elk looks cooler too. Teddy Roosevelt described their appearance as "lordly." But it's still kinda weird to say with the hard k ending if you ask me. I thought I would check here if anyone knew a nickname for elk, similar to how "Bighorns" would be cooler than Bighorn Sheep?
I know it has been suggested before and I just don't remember when, but what about Pronghorns instead of Elk. A large game animal with horns that lives in the western part of the state.
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/pronghorn.htm
Pronghorns are unique among North American big game species. They are not members of the antelope or the goat families, but rather the sole surviving member of a species that dates back 20 million years.
The pronghorn is the only animal in the world to have branched horns and the only animal that sheds its horns as if they were antlers.
I found a school in Lethbridge, Alberta and a high school in Wyoming that use Pronghorns as a nickname, but I don't see those as deal breakers. Someone could probably come up with a pretty good looking logo and you could even have a mascot. It meets a lot of the criteria that has been mentioned.
The pronghorn is the fastest animal in the Western Hemisphere. It can run at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour and it can run long distances at speeds of 30-40 miles per hour.
Edited to add notes about speed.
-
Great ... a highly motivated SCSU team on Friday.
They have 2 opportunities to win 1 game thanks to the 3rd place game. The UND-SCSU game isn't do or die for them.
-
Miami postgame said lowest we can fall is 8 even with a loss tomorrow, nice to see the teams spread through the bands so we can try to avoid conference matchups.
How many was the most you guys had in the old wcha, 5?
I'm pretty sure 6 made it one year, but there were at least 10 teams in the league.
-
WCHA commissioner was just on and talked very candidly about how they really are coveting ASU. Something came to my mind during this conversation. Would NCHC pass up ASU if it could lure Bemidji and Mankato to the conference. I am looking at travel as being the reason behind this move. Let WCHA have ASU and let's say Alabama or Notre Dame?
The NCHC could have had Bemidji and Mankato if they wanted them. The NCHC was set up to attract schools that will financially support their hockey programs at a high level. Bemidji and Mankato didn't meet those expectations. St. Cloud was a last minute addition when they wanted an 8th member. Schools from a Power 5 conference would be more likely to have the resources needed. If they are adding a sport like hockey like ASU, or have it and have shown an interest in supporting it, like Notre Dame, the school is more attractive to the NCHC. The conference was meant to be a national conference, which is why they invited schools from Ohio to Colorado, so they aren't going to invite schools based on decreasing travel.
-
OK, I'll put it this way. Let say you're living in the Twin Cities, or Madison WI, or some other city in the upper Midwest. Let's further say that you have a kid and that kid is a good athlete who receives scholarship offers from two schools, one in the Big Sky an one in the SL/MVFC. As the kid's father, with I hope a fair amount of influence over the kid, which offer are you going to want the kid to take? The one were you can drive to Brookings, or Fargo to see him play away games? Or the one were his away games are at least 1,000 miles from your home? Now, put yourself in the kid's shoes, wouldn't you like to have your family at an away game or two, and maybe some of your friends too? Heck, some of those friends may already be attending some of those schools. Do you really think that those sorts of factors don't have anything to do with recruiting decisions?
Sorry, but there's no doubt that UND is at a disadvantage in this area versus SL/MVFC schools because of its affiliation with the Big Sky.
Or maybe things like what degrees are offered at the school, the quality of the academic programs, the quality of the facilities, and the big one, relationship with the coaching staff, might all rank well above the proximity to a few away games. Moreover, some students might appreciate a chance to visit Portland, OR, San Francisco, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, and Big Sky Country over trips to Brookings, SD, Vermillion, SD, Omaha, NE, or Carbondale, IL among the high points in the Summit/MVFC. Desire to have some friendly faces at a couple of away games may resonate with a few student-athletes, but it isn't the major deciding factor that you are trying so, so hard to sell.
-
Any idea if they have already made it through clearinghouse or there will be any issues? Or one of those things you don't get to find out until it happens?
I don't think there is any way to get pre-approval by the clearinghouse. Otherwise they would do it with all of the athletes. They do have the requirements, and usually can predict whether someone will get through or not. Sometimes schools take a chance on borderline cases, and sometimes things show up that the schools don't know about. But I think it is a process that just has to play out.
-
I agree. Why extend when a coach has multiple years left on an existing contract? Clearly that benefits the coach, but how does it benefit the athletic department? If by chance the coach becomes successful, he can still leave for a higher-paying gig anyway. But if things go south, the a.d. either has to go solicit funds from donors to buy his way out of his mistake, or else he has to keep the coach around for a year or two longer than he otherwise would have. Unless the coach in question has been wildly successful over an extended period of time, or is on his first contract, I would prefer a contract never extend farther than about two years into the future.
Most college coaches have more than a 2 year contract. Recruits, especially recruits with a lot of options, want to know that the coach is going to be there the whole time they are in school. They want that continuity. Most of them know that coaches can leave for a lot of different reasons, but they feel more comfortable if the coach has a contract for the length of time they will be in school. Most college coaches seem to sign 5 year contracts when they get a job, and usually get an extension when they have 2 or 3 years left if they are having any success at all. It is the way the game is played right now in college coaching, especially in basketball, football and hockey.
-
Without giving details what did GF Hockey to be suspended? As a relatively new poster to this forum I should know what's off limits.
http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules
-
Good luck getting the Pepsi Center, or any major hockey arena, to hold a random weekend in April when the first round of the NHL playoffs are often starting.
We are probably looking at the last weekend in March most years for the first round of NCAA playoffs, so the NHL playoffs don't figure in. However, they aren't going to hold dates for a "possibility" if they can schedule something definite like a regular season NHL game, a boat show or whatever else would be sure money.
-
I actually agree with you that giving the betty a facelift or new facility would be the way to go but what is the most cost effective have to grow men's bball. That was the basis of my argument. UND needs to keep up with the competition facility wise for recruiting or we fall further down the list and I don't see attendance improvement or NCAAs without at least trying to keep up.
a new BBall facility - 20-30 million (not happening)
renovate the Betty - 4-5 million (not happening until after IPF phase two is done 5-6 years maybe?)
REA lockerroom for MBB, weight room access, and 5-6/most D1 games in the Ralph - 500,000-700,000 maybe 1 million...That would be for the locker room and the converstion costs the first few years until attendance built up. maybe
With IPF phase two going on BBall fundraising falls further down the list. If someone has a better way to improve facilities to help raise bballs profile I am all for it. Just think this is the quickest and easiest way to give MBB some of the best facilities in the country. I agree with everyone that this is very unlikely to happen, but I wanted to at least present an option I thought is feasable. Appreciate the debate fellas.
I believe that the locker room remodel done for the hockey team was well over a million this year. The things you are describing are probably going to cost at least as much. And it is a bandaid, it isn't a long term solution.
The IPF is being built by UND. The Engelstad trust owns the REA and the Betty. They have covered all construction costs so far for the facilities out of revenue (after the original donation paid for the original building). I don't see the Alumni Foundation/UND spending money on the REA facilities. REA would need to approve and spend the money to do either the REA locker room remodel or work on the Betty. Depending on how much work they decided to do, it could cost much less than $5 million to make the Betty a nice facility.
-
If the NCAA had a definite motive to put that clause in the settlement agreement so that UND could not go without a nickname, I believe they'd say that to the committee. What good would it do the NCAA to keep silent if their motive was clear in including that clause in the settlement agreement? It certainly wouldn't help their legal case later on (if it ever came to that). On the other hand, if they had never thought about the issue and didn't have a position on it, then you could be right. But that would mean they weren't thinking about the issue when they drafted the settlement agreement.
As to the lawyers, you give them way too much credit. If the NCAA wanted to make sure that no-nickname was not an option, then their lawyers did a terrible job drafting the settlement agreement. A proper drafting of that intent would be to call it out and specifically say that proceeding with no nickname would be a violation of the agreement and would place UND back on the list. Again, this leads me to suspect that neither party contemplated that UND might proceed without a nickname. Lawyers drafting settlement agreements do the best they can to think of every contingency, but they almost never do. Sometimes, they don't think about things that, in hindsight, seem obvious. I see it often. I see it with both big and small firm lawyers.
With all that said, the fact that the NCAA might not give the committee an answer is no reason not to ask the question. If the NCAA refuses to answer, then the committee can weigh that and perhaps reasonably conclude that proceeding without a nickname is not worth the legal risk. It would still be better than assuming and speculating without asking.
I'm sure that someone will ask the question. I don't believe that the NCAA would give a direct answer.
-
I put that together in 5 minutes. I would hope REA staff could put something together much better. I am pretty sure Men's Hockey leaves town on Wednesdays anyways so them practicing at nights Sun-Tues wouldn't be a change on weeks they are gone. Only change they would see would be during non-conference play if MBB had a game on a wednesday night and they converted it Tuesday. They'd have to practice in the olympic or maybe purpor those nights.......It's been done before. I addressed womens hockey and conference issue in my reply to JDUB. You also wouldn't see 4 straight weeks of one team being at home under this schedule plan.
Trust me all of those schedule conflicts could easily be worked out with proper planning which all conferences do.
Like I said why doesn't UND just try and have UNI, NDSU, SDSU, and 3 Big Sky saturday games in the REA when both hockeys are gone next winter. If they can average 4000-5000 for those 6 games I think they should seriously think about hosting more or all D1 home games at the REA and putting a MBB locker room over there with access to the weight room.
The recruiting returns off of a small change like that could be big time. I'd like to see UND make the NCAA tourney 3-4 times in the next 10 years. I don't think that happens by staying status quo with the Betty and waiting around for it to happen. Make it happen by giving MBB facility upgrades instantly that seperate them from their competitors. The ROI potential is their and if you don't see that I don't think you fully understand college athletics.
NSDU and USD are building new arenas and practice facilities. Think about how the Betty stacks up against those by itself and then think about how different the REA/Betty as a small game practice facility stack up against those facilities.
The scheduling issue isn't nearly as easy as you assume. Getting leagues to work together on schedules is never easy. UND couldn't get the WCHA and the NCC to work together in the old days, it isn't going to be any easier with new conferences plus adding women's sports into the mix. There are a lot of years where UND hockey plays at home at least 3 weeks in a row, that isn't going to change. They play 2 weeks in a row every year, usually multiple times.
I disagree with your premise on how much moving to REA would affect recruiting either coaches or players. The money you want them to spend on upgrades and new facilities to move basketball to the REA would be much better used to upgrade the Betty into a better facility, or potentially a start on building a new facility if you want to think big. Build a basketball facility and use the Betty for volleyball, practices, and other purposes. REA is still going to be a hockey arena, you would impress basketball recruits more if they had a real home that would give them an advantage on the court. NDSU isn't building a new facility, they are renovating a building that hadn't changed a whole lot in more than 40 years, not a comparison at all. The Betty is 10 years old. And even if you average 6,000 in the REA, you still have half the building, the entire upper deck, that is empty and there is no good way to fill that space to make a great atmosphere.
You keep accusing people of not having vision or understanding potential. We just disagree with how to accomplish those goals and don't think your plan is the way to go.
-
1
-
-
Yes, I'm speculating. I have no inside information. Also, I'm not the one making grand proclamations about the NCAA's motives behind that specific clause in the settlement agreement. I think there are two reasonable interpretations of that clause - one, it was a drafting oversight, and two, it was intentional and the NCAA will not allow UND to go forward without a nickname. The fact that there is no evidence in the public record that the NCAA has said or done anything over the past three years indicates that maybe it was a drafting oversight and the NCAA is fine with UND proceeding without a nickname. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. Maybe the NCAA is waiting patiently for this to play out, but will not approve of this arrangement indefinitely.
All I'm saying is there is no need for the committee to speculate, like numerous posters are doing on this site. They should seek clarification. If the NCAA says "no-nickname" is not acceptable, at least they would have 100% clarity and can blame the NCAA for it not being an option. That will cushion the blow for those that really want no-nickname. If the NCAA says that "no-nickname" is okay, then the committee shouldn't rightfully be allowed to hide behind the settlement agreement when they take "no-nickname" off the table.
Make no mistake, I fully believe there will be a new nickname in place at UND at the end of the process. I just think the way they go about getting there is important. I don't think the committee should eliminate "no-nickname" as an option and use the settlement agreement as the scapegoat without fully looking into the matter. I think that will cause unnecessary resentment and may impede closure.
I don't see the NCAA issuing an opinion on the question. That wouldn't fit with their typical style. They are either going to do something official, or they are going to avoid the issue. They aren't going to issue an unofficial opinion. And they aren't going to lock themselves into an official opinion on not having a nickname without having studies and exploring all of the ramifications on either side of the issue. Their answer would probably be something like, "It is up to the school itself whether they decide to choose a nickname or not at this time."
However, the time, effort, and money that they have expended in eliminating Native American names and imagery is what leads many of us to believe that they will eventually push the no nickname issue since it is written directly into the settlement agreement. The NCAA spends a lot of money on lawyers so it is hard to imagine they would put a phrase like that in by accident. Leaving UND without a nickname makes it much easier for people to keep using the old nickname. That defeats the purpose of eliminating the nickname in the first place. They won't go as far as banning fans from using or wearing the name, because that would cause some potential 1st Amendment discussion. But getting UND to choose a new name helps move people to using that new name, which means fewer people using the old name over time. That is their goal, eventually eliminating any use of Native American nicknames or imagery.
-
Oh really? I couldn't be interested in the two largest universities in my native state without wanting to see the two schools play a football game?
You wouldn't be posting on the "non-rivals" football forum if you weren't a) Interested in the game or b) trolling. Are you interested in the game or are you trolling?
-
When we were in Omaha for the hockey series, we took in the Saturday afternoon Mens basketball game between Creighton and Georgetown. Over 17,000 in attendance at Century Link for the 1:00 pm MBB game. With the Omaha - UND MHockey game at 7:00 pm. We talked to some locals and asked about the conversion. They said the arena staff can make the complete basketball to hockey conversion in 30 minutes. A multi-purpose facility has to have the equipment and manpower to make the conversion that quickly if they want to schedule both sports a few hours apart. Just saying, no reason it couldn't be done at the REA (except maybe the costs of extra equipment and payroll)
17k for Creighton BBall and 10 or 11k for UNO Hockey (at least against UND) probably makes it more financially feasible than using our BBall numbers.
The system that REA uses takes at least 4 hours. They cover the ice with a layer of particle board, and on the ends they have to fit some specific pieces into place to make it work. Then they put down another layer of another material, I don't remember exactly what it is. They have the same issue with specific pieces. Most of the material on both layers are 4x8 sheets, like sheets of plywood. As you may be able to imagine, it takes a while to cover a hockey rink with that many pieces, and they have to do it twice. They have to have most of the 2nd layer down before they can start putting the basketball floor together. If I remember right, the floor itself comes in 4x4 sections that are much thicker. The first 2 layers just fit together, the floor has to be snapped together. Then add baskets, tables, chairs, etc.
The Ralph wasn't designed as a multi-sport facility. It was designed as a high end hockey arena, that has some ability to be modified for other uses. Century Link was probably designed as a multi-sport facility. Design features can make changeover much easier and quicker. Some facilities are designed with the ability to raise and lower the floor so that seating can be added to fill the arena space for basketball. It would probably take major, expensive renovations to make the Ralph a real multi-sport facility and significantly cut the time needed to convert between sports.
-
Haha!
Maybe the rule doesn't exist I don't know why I thought it did.
Now that I think of it the U.S. world junior team has played games against ncaa teams in the past and that team will always have a few guys from Canadian juniors.
A game vs the wild would be fun but I'd love to see the Sioux play a few games against some whl teams. Or the NCAA champion play the memorial cup champion. Or an all star game where the guys actually play! Or all of the above!
My guess is that the reason the games don't happen is that Canadian Juniors don't want the comparison. US college teams are often older, bigger and stronger. Even if the Junior teams may have more high end talent, the competition probably isn't going to let them appear superior. And the Junior teams want to be known as superior to the college teams.
-
No, I never said Bison fans would not want to go to the game. Of course they'll want to see the game ... they want to see the game no matter who NDSU plays. I'm just saying that the expectation that this game will be some gigantic event that NDSU people will pay anything to get into is just wrong. It truly will be just another game in the context of the whole season.
As I said, the spike in demand for ticket prices (if there is one) will be primarily because of the proximity of a large number UND fans to the Fargo area. That's what makes this game different. Not NDSU's enthusiasm for playing UND.
You can just keep telling yourself that this isn't a big deal, as you try to sell it on the "non-rival" forum. Everything about you being here trying to sell this tripe proves just the opposite of what you keep posting.
-
2
-
-
I'd rather we lead than follow.
It isn't leading if no one is following you. And no one is going to go without a nickname in the near future (at least the next decade or 2).
Actually leading would have been one of 2 things. Either developing very strong relationships with all local tribes to ensure their support to use the name, or dropping the name before it became an issue with the NCAA.
-
I'm wondering why the ncaa would allow the gophers baseball team to play the Twins but the ncaa won't allow a college hockey team play a chl team. Another case of ncaa's hypocrisy?
I'm pretty sure that college baseball teams have played Spring Training exhibition games against major league teams for many years. It isn't just Gophers-Twins. Very few real major league players actually play these games, usually just a couple so that they can put the label on to sell tickets.
New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
Now we know where their fascination with "morale victories" comes from, only they called them "noble victories".