gjw007

UND can look at what Gino Gasperini did and after a few poor years ran him out as well. Tough to be a long term success coach at any level.

When I read these comments, I can't help but think back to the late 70s when I attended UND. All the Big Ten schools that played D1 hockey except OSU and Notre Dame were part of the WCHA. I think the BTHC will eventually materialize, the only question is in what form.

One will be chosen for you only if you don't market. Bisonville refers to UND as firetrucks so even if you have one, another will be chosen for you. It all comes down to marketing. Choosing to go with a nickname is easier but not necessarily better. Michagan and Wolverines are interchangable because of marketing.

I find it interesting that people think that you have to have a nickname to brand the university. University of North Dakota is a brand the same as GM or Apple. The University of North Dakota Football team is a product under this brand (the same as iPod is a product under the Apple brand) the same as the University of North Dakota men's hockey team, etc. The University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux or any other nickname is redundant. As such, the nickname can be marketed separately but doesn't necessarily add value whereas there is always value in the brand name (University of North Dakota). I would simply go with the University of North Dakota without a nickname. It is marketable with it unique logo. It is not as hard as people are making it out to market the name. In the end, the most important factor will be the alumni who support the school, not a name, and winning teams. Everybody wants to be with a winner so a winning team, or at least competitive, is important.

That might be a stretch but he is from an era that tended toward hard news rather than the soft stuff (like the endless Michael Jackson worship). He declared the US lost the Vietnam War after the Tet offensive, the very offensive that eliminated the North Vietnamese Army for the rest of the war from mounting a direct attack against the US and is largely credited for undermining US morale because of his position (rightly or wrongly). I was more a fan of Brinkley who felt that the journalist shouldn't let their personal politics factor their reporting. That is impossible but it is a goal that should be strived for. His comments on the Space Program were also amusing. Cronkite was an active Democrat and his reporting did reflect his values.

No, I think it re-enforces the need to vigilant against apathy.

The answer is never as the moment they achieve the initial goal, they create more, some of which the original individuals who proposed the path don't agree with. In the end, it progresses so far that they turn on themselves but the damage has already been done. It isn't only PC Zealots; you can look at how the conservatives in Germany in the late 20s and early 30s share similar beliefs with the Nazi thinking that they can control the excesses but the zealots got control and we know the history there (you can argue the same point for revolutionary Russia in 1918-1925 until Stalin turned on the Russia people with the mass murders in the 30s, Cambodia in the 70s, Sudan today). Unfortunately it is the nature of zealots to push their agenda beyond reason.

Personally, I think people buy sporting team merchandise when the teams are successful and while a few will buy when it is not successful, many people will not buy when the team is not successful. In the end, the nickname change, I think, would only delay when the person bought the new merchandise. Winning will more of a key.

I would think that the logo that UND already uses, i.e. the interlocking ND and UND logos, would do fine. They have in the past; I don't see why they wouldn't in the future.

It could be argued that the transition from the "University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux" to simply the "University of North Dakota" is a transition to a different name. I see no legal argument against this as this is a transition to a different name. Being similar doesn't mean that it isn't different. Also, sales of merchandise is not tied to the name so much as the team and sport. I can see sales of "UND" merchandise as successful as "UND Fighting Sioux" merchandise. The key is marketing and the success of the sporting teams.

I'm not sure this is true. Look at the Dartmouth situation where they changed the name, what 30 years ago, and because of why it was forced to be changed is still an issue today. I still think of Central as the Redskins and that is because they were the Redskins went I was in high school (EGF). I have less a problem with the changing of the nickname then the rationale for it. I believe that having Americans forget the Native Americans is more insulting and degrading than any fan's stupid actions toward the mascot could ever be (how many people would ever know about the Sioux, Utes, etc. if it wasn't for the nicknames). You support the school, the community, etc. and not the nickname. The problem is if they changed it once, any new name could forced to be changed again and it puts the University back in the same situation. By not having a nickname, it actually gives UND a unique marketing opportunity.

I don't follow this logic. First, you believe the University has the power to control what people think? If I showed up at an event after the name was retired with a Sioux logo on merchandise that had been sold by the university, you think they should turn me away as you believe it will cause problems? I can see lawsuits coming from a position like this if adopted by the University. Certainly it is not the America that I grew up in where the thought process is the government can tell you what to think. Second, whether the university adopts a new logo or just goes as the University of North Dakota, I think they will still sell merchandise so I don't understand this point. There may be a rush to get Sioux merchandise generating an unusual spike in the sales but that shouldn't be used then as the basis for future sales comparisons as it will provide misleading interpretations of the sales comparisons between the old name and the new name. I would prefer to forgo the nickname and just go as the University of North Dakota.

I think these are legitimate questions but the fact is that if UND gives up the current nickname, Fighting Sioux, it would have adopted a new nickname, simply the name of the University. The interlocking ND could still be used as the logo. Since it already has these, it would be completed before the date and should be no problem. Really, do you think the NC$$ would pursue it any further?

Especially since UofM shouldn't be a number 1 even in that list

Let's see how well my guesses are; they're usually so-so but I have UND facing UND with North Dakota beating Notre Dame in the final. It's fighting Sioux versus fighting Irish.

Wow! I'm not from North Dakota (Minnesota actually) and I live in Maryland (just outside DC) but I did attend UND for awhile. My wishing NDSU well has nothing to do with supporting the state of North Dakota as these are individuals playing the game and not the state. I think when your prime rival does well, it encourages you to do better. This has been seen in how NDSU's women's basketball team won national championships, it encouraged UND to get better. Likewise, when conference members win a national championship, teams strive to get up to that level. As far as the statement about Rush; he feels, probably correctly, that Obama wishes to create a more socialistic society (hard liners say Soviet-style) rather than the successful individualistic society that has been our nation's trademark and he is opposed to the politics that create a socialistic society. He wishes Obama to fail in getting his goal of creating this socialistic society; this is not the same as wishing the country to fail. Certainly this is more honest than Vice-President Biden's comment a week before the election that he didn't want the democratic party's supporters to do them (Obama) what they had done to the Bush administration for the last eight years. This is not the place for national politics but people can have different views; this doesn't make them bad people. Shame on you for bringing national politics into the discussion. Likewise, I like to see the little guy do well. Who knows when NDSU (or UND) will ever make it to this stage again. Let the kids enjoy it.

I agree. All that will happen is that this will happen again some time in the future. The only question is when the NCAA will determine that other nicknames are also abusive and hostile. The no-name potential could be a problem since Dakota is the name of a Sioux tribe (and by NCAA definition, hostile and abusive).

Good luck to the Bison. Now the Sioux just need to figure out to get to DC (and hope I can get tickets) as I live just outside DC.

I can't see this actually happening either but when PC runs amuck, who knows. There is an interesting book titled '1491' about the Indians in the Americas before Columbus. It is much more hostile and abusive to force people to forget them than it is to recognize them.

I agree with the no knickname approach but it stills needs to be recognized that the NCAA could still hold UND 'hostile and abusive' even going as the University of North Dakota since Dakota is the name of an Indian tribe.

Yes, I think it would be good if NDSU made the big dance as it benefits ND as a whole. The success in the various sporting areas by either UND or NDSU prods the other school to do better.

The primary job of security is not communications. If it is, then our country is is grave danger. Can you think of the security personnel not being at a bank because they are off being a gopher? Right, proper use of the position! There is a need for better communications in almost every job but if you're hiring a security person to strictly be a gopher, then you are wasting that person's talents and the company's money. Does that mean that people in this position can't be used for other functions? No but again that is not their primary function and it shouldn't be.

This makes no sense. When did security become part of communications? As a general precaution, it makes sense to have a security presence in the main administrative building, it may make sense to have security patrol in the President's neighborhood, it may make sense to have additional security at sporting events, but really, for communications?

It was only a matter of time before the notion of scheduling the two teams became a political issue. It has happened with other teams as well. For example, the ACC was forced to take Virginia Tech due to the politics. As far as government intervention, it gets a little tricky as government money is being sent to the schools and there is a feeling that they should have at least a voice at the table. As it is state money that funds these schools, for the most part, government will intervene at some point.

A more interesting solution is a partial dissolution of existing leagues by having the Big Ten schools form their own separate conference with possible invitations to bring this to an 8-team conference. The other conference can then rebuild using the existing members of the CHA. The main conferences affected would be the CCHA and WCHA but it would create a new viable conference but the CCHA/WCHA conferences would suffer in my opinion as they would lose some premier membership. But it makes the CHA teams happy as they find a home and may, over time, make college hockey stronger.