Teeder11

What's with the personal attacks! Though I agree with your sentiment, why would you resort to calling Leigh a name like that? I violently disagree with Leigh when it comes to the nickname and logo, and I have told him as much. But nowhere in my dealings with him have I ever thought that he acted as you describe him just because of an ideological difference. Leigh is a nice person and a gentleman who has strong opinions. I think they are misguided opinions rooted in fallacious ideology but that does not make him any less of a person. Wow! We are better than this, aren't we?

Amen, brother.

+1 Excellent post! I already used up my positive vote on your post, so I thought I would send another your way.

True, but "Carolina" (taken from the Latin word for Charles (Carolus) honoring King Charles I of England) in North and South Carolina originates from a human source, such as "Dakota" does for North and South Dakota. I wonder if the descendents of King Charles are offended by the Tarheels' and Gamecocks' abusing their heritage? I ask that rhetorically, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I understand your greater point that nothing the NCAA does can be described as rational, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that an institution cannot use a derivation of its own state name, and by extension, its own name. I think UND has another case to be made, as the word "Dakota" is more than a name of a tribe in that it is also a word meaning "friend" or "ally." What a mess! Thanks NCAA. Wish you weren't the only game in town, because it really sucks that we are so desirous to be part of an organization for which we have such collective disdain!

Open land just west of the Chester Fritz Auditorium along University Avenue.

No problem UND Fan and Siouxbooster. Thanks for seeing it for what it was, just additional insight.

I see what you are saying. I think it is because of my intimate knowledge of the way things actually work inside the Herald that it is coloring my perceptions and maybe limiting yours (which is not a slight or a dig at you.) I spent 13 years with the organization and left on very good terms. I was never once made to feel awkward nor ashamed because of my very pro UND Fighting Sioux nickname position. Instead it was just the opposite. So with that said... please take the following as an attempt to explain how things are set up in the newsroom and not as a means to shoot holes in your opinion. Jacobs and Dennis are not editors in the sense that most people associate newspaper "editors" to be. They are not fact checkers or spelling checkers or story assignment editors, per se. There are other mid-level newsroom editors who fulfill those roles. The mid-level editors are the ones who make the hour-by-hour, day-by-day decisions in the Herald newsroom. They are people who you've never heard of, but who actually wield more influence internally in the newsroom than Jacobs or Dennis. As an aside, every one of these mid-level editors (city editor, night editor, managing editor) are the biggest Fighting Sioux supporters you'd ever want to meet. Go figure. So anyway, Jacobs role is more on the publishing side. His day and week is spent worrying about the bottomline and how all of the individual departments affect that result. The newsroom is among at least 10 different departments at the Herald and it is about at the midpoint as far as number of employees. Some of the others are Advertising, Circulation, AgWeek, Mailroom, IT, Printing Press and Marketing). Jacobs has his fingers in all these areas and has little time for the day to day decision making that it would take to manage the news content of the newspaper. He has the same limited role in the other departments. He is a jack of all trades and master of none, so to speak. He leaves the news decisions up to the mid-level editors. They, with the other Department Heads, make the "Daily Miracle" happen. Jacobs does at times suggest a story that could be done if he hears about something or gets a tip that no one else has already received, but for the most part the editorial decisions of the daily newspaper are left to the mid-level assigning editors. The most involvement that Jacobs has is at the so-called daily "budget huddle" where he gets a brief rundown from the mid-level editors on what is going into the paper the next day. This happens at about 3 p.m. every afternoon and it is more of an FYI to him than anything else. He has been known to suggest changes, suggest new stories or ask that something be held for another day, which is his right as the top dog of the newspaper. The buck stops with him, ultimately. But he absolutely does not have intimate involvement or influence over the reporters as has been suggested. Tom Dennis has even less influence. His job is simply to write editorials. He has no editing, mentoring or assigning involvement of any kind with reporters. In fact, Tom's editorials are edited for him by the same mid-level news editors that I wrote about earlier, the ones that hold the real influence. For these reasons, I have no problem with Jacobs or Dennis writing editorials about the nickname -- pro or con-- and I don't really care how many they write nor how much they pile on on a particular day, because I know that their collective influence on the reporting that is done on the news side is nearly nil. That's my take after spending many years on the inside.

I hate that, too! Damn, NC$$!!!! Let's get 'em, North Dakota. Go Sioux!

Good points! Yes, it is true that opinion writers have a little bit more responsibility than, say, the man on the street or the anonymous message board scribe in that they actually put their name on the line with their opinion. True, most newspapers don't identify their editorial writers as up front as the Herald does, but you can still easily find out who the editorial writer is. Not so in other more anonymous forums. So yes you are right on that. But that's where it stops. I still contend that newspaper opinion writers have no more or no less responsibilities on what their opinions are than the man on the street or message board posters. The big one that does exist is that they all must be cautious not to make libelous claims. That's about it. It is not the Herald's fault it is a monopoly. Many years ago, George Winship invested in a small privately owned river city newsletter and grew it into a dominant source for news, opinion and advertising for many years in the northern Valley. That's the American dream at work. I am sure there were threats to its monopolistic hold along the way, but it was able to thwart them off, again, in the private sector. Now, I am not so naive to think that it's easy to start up a newspaper and compete against an existing giant. But the opportunity is still there for anyone ( I would advise against the traditional newspaper model, though). I do know that the Herald does get public money for being the official public record in the area, but that is something that we the taxpayers vote on. If someone wants to start up a public access publication (online or otherwise) and vie against the Herald for that public money, they are free to do it. So, in the spirit of full disclosure, I acknowledge that there is public money used by the Herald (and I am sure there was heap of public assistance received by the Herald and many other private sector businesses after the Flood of 1997,) but the fact remains, that it is a private sector, independent business. It will live and die by its ability to attract and maintain readers and advertisers (voting with your pocketbook is the immediate feedback that controls the Herald, akin to the instant checks on a message board that you alluded to) I find it curious that with all the general conservatism and and free market stances that are celebrated here that anyone would begrudge a business its right to think and opine how it wants to. I just get nervous when there is even a suggestion that anyone in this great country of ours should be censored or somehow have their freedom of speech limited. That's all I am saying in all this. I would fight tooth and nail if anyone tried to do something like that to Siouxsports.com

Good points. Very well thought out and presented as usual. Where we separate is on the point where you say that "their editorial practice has made them a partisan in the fight -- and that is a serious breech of their journalistic integrity and ethics." Let me back up by saying that you are very correct about Jacobs and Dennis in the first part of your statement about being partisans, and they would fully admit it. But it's the latter part where I specifically take issue. Jacobs and Dennis are not the beat writers when it comes to the nickname on the news side of the newspaper. They never have been and they never will be. They are the opinion makers on the opinion side of the newspaper, and this includes their incessant rants against the nickname. They always have been and they always will be, I am confident enough to wager. They will never write a nickname news story. And we, who study their every move and who are students of American journalism, no the reason why. The wall between the editorial side of a newspaper and the news side is very high and has few doors. The reporters are the ones tasked with bringing you the news, with, in theory, no opinion. The editorialists are the ones charged with entertaining you or repulsing you with their opinions. If, and this will never happen, Jacobs or Dennis ever writes a straight nickname news story -- not an editorial, not a column -- but an honest to goodness news story that appears in the news section, then, your claims of lack of journalistic integrity and ethics would ring true. As long as their opinion, no matter how many times it is states and restated, appears in the opinion section they are fully in their right as individuals in America to express an opinion. Just because they work for a newspaper does not mean they check their 1st Amendment hat at the door. I know you are not suggesting that. Sorry about the hyperbole. Maybe it's clearer for me to say it this way: I view a newspaper's opinion makers to be just like any other individual or group in America, with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Now just like anyone else in America, newspapers are fair game to criticism, but in the same light, just like anyone else they are not unethical for stating an opinion over and over and over again. I mean, based on your argument, the vast majority of individual posters here on Siouxsports.com would be considered unethical because day after day after day we present pro-nickname arguments, counter arguments and opinions. I am curious to learn the difference between a newspaper repeatedly stating an opinion and an individual person doing the same thing. Or maybe you are saying that the Herald is making a bad business decision by keeping up the constant drumbeat against the name. This, I can agree with you on, but again, ethics has nothing to do with it.

Ditto!

That's exactly what I said. They are getting paid by the Herald to give THEIR opinion, not to be a megaphone for or a reflection of the opinions of their readership or nonreadership, in your case. Yours is a different beef than mine, however. You don't like liberalism being expressed without a balance of conservatism added in. There is nothing wrong with that stance. And there is also nothing wrong with the fact that you have voted with your pocketbook not to support what you perceive has unchecked liberalism in the newspaper. Here's the rub, though, every newspaper has its biases, the NYT, Washington Post, Grand Forks Herald, etc. are liberal, while the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, et.al are right of center. They have made a decision to favor one ideology over the other. That is their right. You will be hard pressed to find a utopian publication of unbiased opinion. If you like a publication's posture, then fine, if you hate it, then take your dollars elsewhere, as you have so rightly done. BUT to suggest (not you) that they are being "unethical" by giving their opinion in an opinion section is what I take issue with. Personally, I still hold my subscription to the Herald, not because I agree with its editorial ideology, but rather because I love its UND hockey coverage and I want to support Schlossman. He's the man! I totally respect your opinion. Have a great day!

Firstly, Jacobs and Dennis are paid to give their opinions. They are not the news writers. They give their personal opinions on the news of the day and they have not been at all cryptic about where they stand on the nickname issue. And they sign their name under their opinion and stand by it. I for one think that's admirable, regardless of how asinine the opinion. I may not agree with their opinion but I at least am savvy enough about journalism to know who is an opinion writer and who is a news writer. Secondly, Omdahl does not work for the Herald. He is not a journalist, either. He, like Jacobs and Dennis, is a man with an opinion in a country where we value the right to express such. If they wrote their usual drivel, and Chewey's favorite word, pablum, on the news pages, then, I would say your point is spot on. But, it's not... it's just their opinion and it appears where it belongs -- on the opinion pages -- so they are fully within their right, IMHO. I find it refreshing to read opposing view points than what we get for the most part on this message board. Always nice to know what the other side is thinking, I say. What a boring world it would be if the Herald and Forum only wrote exactly what we think and what we believe... I mean, what would we gripe about. LOL! Hey, even Chuck Haga threw a curve ball the other day with his piece about Former Gov. Allen Olson and his negative view of the NCAA. I thought it was a great article that portrayed the NC$$ exactly as it is: a money-grubbing, monopolistic, small-school bullying, big-school kowtowing, hypocritical organization. The article went against the grain as far as the popularly believed narrative about the Herald that is oft repeated on this message board. It may have confused you and many others. Thus, I am not surprised that you did not recall that the Herald did exactly what you say it did/does not -- in your own words: "take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position." You must have missed that article as I did not see you leading the cheer line, dishing out compliments for the local rag. That said, I did see a few positive comments from others about the story on here. I know, I know.. one story does not make up for the mountain of anti-nickname venom they've eschewed over the years. My point, however, for the sake of consistency, is that we should applaud an effort well done as much as we complain about perceived hatchet jobs that injure our pro-nickname cause and our fellow friends of the nickname.

The Forum has never identified the writer of its opinions. This is nothing new. It's Jack Zaleski most of the time, but it's supposed to represent the opinion of the entire editorial board. The Herald is one of the few newspapers whose daily opinion writers identify themselves, usually it's Tom Dennis, and Mike Jacobs when Tom is on vacation. Kevin Grinde on a rare occasion will step in.

Just tweeted Josh Duhamel to let him know about the Sioux in the Frozen Four. Should have known that he was already all over it! Here was my tweet followed by his response: Siouxfan72: "Hey, Josh, yur Fighting Sioux play Michigan in the Frozen 4 Apr. 7 at the X in St. Paul. Wear yur cap for good luck! Go Sioux!" @joshduhamel: "I'll be watching!"

Very true. However, shouldn't we hold a publication like the Plains Daily to the same standard. Or, and seriously here, maybe it is a different sort of pub that doesn't carry the same responsibilities. Not sure what the new rules are for e-news sites. I would contend that as much overt bias or even bias by omission that we see in the Herald news pages is seen in the Plains Daily. The only difference is that the Plains Daily perspective is what we want to see written, or in other words, it is favorable to the pro-nickname point of view. The Plains Daily clearly has an agenda and I applaud it for pursuing an angle that obviously wasn't being covered, but completely fair and balanced it is not. I think a more complete picture of what might have taken place with "plane gate" can be discerned only after reading both pieces -- the one in the Plains Daily and the reaction piece in the Herald. That's the way news consuming should work... get your information from more than one source. If you limit yourself to one you're usually only getting one side.

No problem...thanks for the clarification. Sometimes jokes don't translate well or I am too dense. Probably the latter. Rock on!

Good points, Star2city. I respect your opinion and share it as well.

It happens every game. Not a news flash. You're grasping at straws for a conspiracy. What are we going to say next that Schlossman has to be fired!?? Or, maybe we should say that everyone but Shloss should be let go, because he writes what we want to read." The Web layout team who would have chosen that photo are as big a Sioux fans as you and I. Admittedly, the choice in photo could have been better so as to avoid the inevitable cry of "bias" by the vast majority. My first reaction, too, was "why couldn't you just use the same Ben Brien Fighting Sioux logo that is usually used with Fighting Sioux stories." The difference is that I know it wasn't an intentional jab at the pro-nickname crowd and instead just a boneheaded decision. But, then again, why should it matter? Why should they have to walk on egg shells and care about how one side or the other is going to perceive the motives behind a simple photo decision that at any other university town would have been a non-event? That smacks of PC-think: to cave and make decisions that won't offend a certain group. I know it's done all the time with non-nickname issues. But c'mon, they are not showing anything that can't be seen by anyone who attends a game at REA and that isn't shown a thousand times each game night on FSSN. I will chalk that up to ignorance rather than organized conspiracy to foil the nickname. Jacobs and Dennis' influence isn't as great as some purport it to be. The vast majority of Herald employees are huge Fighting Sioux fans and pro-nicknamers. Jacobs' administrative assistant is as big a Sioux fan as there is. But like any big organization, you are going to have wide-ranging and varied opinions on the matter. You're opinion is valid and welcomed, don't get me wrong. I wasn't going to write this much, but I get a little worked up with blanket statements that malign the loyalty of some of my good friends and loyal Fighting Sioux fans at the Herald just because of the few that I would describe as having tepid, at best, feelings against the nickname. Don't let the few spoil the bunch! Go Fighting Sioux and Fighting Sioux forever!

It's coming. I have a hunch.

+1 for you. That is exactly right! We recruit the best in the nation and the world. Why limit yourself just because you "think" you can? I don't see Ohio State or Michigan or Texas or any of the SEC teams in football recruiting only from their home states. Same for in basketball. Why should hockey be any different?

Thanks for the clarification on that. Phew! That's great to hear (for basketball, anyway)!

What happens if the Big Sky keeps it current tourney format, and at some time in the future, UND wins the league, and by virtue, is awarded host status? Would it be able to host under the threatened sanctions of the NCAA due to the nickname and logo? And if not, where would the tourney be held in those years? Would the Big Sky have to always have a neutral site contingency plan for UND? Seems like a bit of a headache for the Big Sky if that would be the case. Might this be what Fullerton was alluding to when he was saying that the Big Sky was watching the nickname legislation carefully? I know these are a lot of questions and it may not be something to worry about for a while, but I am wondering if anyone has pondered these scenarios. I would love the feedback. Sorry if this has been hashed and re-hashed already. I missed it, if it was.

Do you need one? This is the Internet. Sadly, there's B.S. tossed about on here every hour.

Since you use a hypothetical... I will too .....I could imagine cheering the Mens team if we finished 6th of 12, if prior to that, we had been perennial cellar dwellers like Michigan Tech, which is pretty much what the Sioux Women's team was during the pre-Idalski years. So, I think in that context, it is call for some celebration among Sioux fans. You will never hear Idalski or his team saying that, though. In their minds, they've done squat and have their eyes set on bigger prizes.