Teeder11

If it is Helgren....that's a pretty nice addition. 6-6, 270 OL with offers from SDSU and USD.

Are you serious? Mind. Blown. ?

I think the times that I remember us being very bad last year --worse than I expected -- were against Mo. State, So. Utah and EWU. I think injuries and lack of depth in the latter two games played a huge role. But those are the breaks.

I certainly did! Good catch! Thanks.

It never ceases to amaze me what a good job Bubba and staff have done over the last two years as they've battled the losses of the players to attrition for various reason, including cutting hold-over players from the old staff who weren't up to par or were not committed to UND football. Because of this, too many (IMHO) players have been rushed forth to two-deep status and have had to have their shirts pulled instead of allowing them to get acclimated early on. No critizing this practice, as I know it needed to be done. For what it's worth, based on a quick scan, here is a look at our core of young players (pre-junior status) currently on the roster, as of today. These are the guys who committed to UND and have stuck with it, so far,and who have had the luxury of developing slowly and arguably the right way. Some of them might have played right away, too, had it not been for injuries that kept their Red Shirts intact. Defense/Special Teams: 1. Reyes, DB -So 2. Flowers, DB - RSo -- Juco transfer 3. O'Brien, LB - So 4. Harmston, LB - RFr 5. Walton, LB - RFr 6. Schmitz, DE - So 7. Cieselak, DE - RFr 8. Meindel, P/K - RSo* Offense: 1. Fiedler, TE - RFr 2. Francis, TE - RFr 3. Ruhe, TE - So 4. Norberg, RB - So 5. Coyne, FB - RFr 6. Miller, OL - So 7. Taylor, OL - RFr 8. Cox, OL - So 9. Stiner, OL - RFr 10. Bell, OL - So 11. Stockwell, OL - So 12. Stanley, WR - RFr * played right away but was held out last year, initially for disciplinary reasons

He works for the UND Division of University & Public Affairs.

I was fearing this when all of a sudden Jordan's dad stopped posting here. Well, moving ahead...... Greer is highly touted out of High School. And we know Bubba and Schmidt aren't above playing true freshman on the line.

Yeah, I guess you're right!!!! (:

Of course, special teams should not be discounted, either.

My hope is that this year's UND DL play makes Mike Kramer think again about his comments about the lack of effective defensive linemen in the Big Sky. For Wyoming: My hope is that, if Hinojosa, Dranka Greely and Co. can run wild against the Cowboys and the secondary just does its job and holds things in check (no escorting of opposing players into the end zone)... the linebackers will be more than capable of cleaning up the leftovers. Now on offense.... limit the turnovers, bad snaps and false starts. Establish a conservative but effective running game and augment that by hitting the occasional good possession receiver (Seibel) or TE (Adler) or FB (Iverson). Finally, I hope that Taubs and whichever punter wins the job out of camp is on target and can pin them deep when needed. That's all I ask for. If those things happen, it's a solid start.

Yeah, I am that good! ( :

Oh I see. Highly doubt it. Conservative groups and the state Legislature already get up in arms when UND spends money on things other than education.

I don't know if the small pittance that UND receives from Legacy merchandise each year to maintain the trademark would even pay for the special costs that would have to be incurred to set up such votes. It's not a moneymaking venture so much as it is a means of trademark protection.

Exactly right. It's important to control it lest someone else gets a hold of it and does who knows what with 80 years of our school's proud history.

Not really.

Have to.

Well, I will speak for myself and say that my stance has been consistent from the beginning: I will cheer for UND and proudly wear its nickname and colors whether we are the Sundogs, North Stars, Nodaks, Hawks, Roughriders, No Nickname or Fighting Sioux. I just think it's better to have a nickname in the long run so we can focus on the true mission of the school again. No nickname just kicks the can down the road. There is no real sense of resolution, and loud mouth PC pandering crowd get that many more years to drag UND's name through the mud as a place that caters to "hostility and abuse" -- their words not mine," because it continues to foster an environment where the old monikers are allowed to live on as defacto symbols in the vacuum that would be left by no nickname. Now I am not so naive to think that the Fighting Sioux forever crowd won't continue to fill that void anyway for years to come. The difference, however, is that if some sort of new name is chosen, it would show the NCAA that UND has done all it could to fulfill the spirit of the settlement agreement, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, it would severely preempt and undercut the protestations of the bleeding heart constantly offended crowd that is just licking its chops to use this issue to keep their "cause" and name in the spotlight at the expense of UND's reputation.

Good points. My litmus test as to the sincerity of one's arguments for not having a nickname is if they would be logically consistent and hold that exact same opinion if the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo were somehow magically (or as an act of Devine intervention, take your pick) still an option. In most cases, their arguments for No Nickname evaporate under that imagined scenario. So then the argument becomes: we are for no nickname, with one big qualifier -- as long as Fighting Sioux is not an option. To me, that qualifier sort of undercuts the sincerity of the no nicknamers arguments. * Notice no use of whiny cry babies and/or tantrums were used in the making of this post. ( ;

I think your last sentence sums up his/her whole goal. The enjoyment of trolling a rival's board only pays off if there is some kind of negative reaction. He/she makes a valid point but the source of the opinion and that it stems from indignant disdain for the subject instead of genuine interest and concern is what puts most of us off.

True. I said exactly that on my original reply to you a few posts back.

Totally agree!

Yes. Most likely they took their 30 minute lunch combined with their two allotted 15 minute breaks. But instead of working or eating they participated in the March. That's the staff. As far as the faculty, they are all basically independent contrators so who knows how they handled their individual break periods. And the students either skipped class or didn't have it at the time. The rest were off campus members of the public so I wouldn't have any speculation on their situations.

It took place over the noon hour when most people are on break.

I'm sorry if I come across that way. My alma mater just means an awful lot to me. I tend to be very passionate about my feelings and about correcting misinformation before it becomes Internet gospel. That said, I thought I have been quite respectful when articulating my opinions directly with others on here -- unless interacting with someone who has demonstrated uncivil dialogue toward me or others now or in the past. Sometimes histories between posters go back years and transcend the nickname threads. Their hostilities actually started elsewhere and it just spills over to these threads. There's a myriad reasons why this takes place. So again, sorry if anyone thinks I am attacking them personally instead of the positions they take on issues. I really am quite happy in my life here in Grand Forks and enjoy UND Athletics immensely, as you will see me and my family at almost every game -- women's and men's. Peace all!

Well there's that. But even more telling, and probably under-reported so far, the message of the five rally speakers was decidedly pro "Fighting Sioux." This was not only some underlying theme. It was their overt, stated and intended message over the loudspeakers. And the "crowd" ate it up with smiles, nods, applause and like there was no contradiction in the message.