Teeder11

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.

That's funny -- and so true. Curiously, though, it's not an argument for just our Indian friends. The problems associated with Roughriders as far as its dark history toward American Indians was brought up by a number of folks at the "Just North Dakota" protest last evening. Seems to be a popular sentiment out there right now from various viewpoints in the nickname battle.

I agreed with you up until your last sentence. The Walk actually drew hundreds of people from all walks of life and exceeded expectations of both the organizers and of those on the Fighting Sioux forever side of the fence. I have a birds eye picture of the mass of folks at that rally and it was quite impressive. People that were critical of the Walk for Change (such as Rob Port) were very interested before it happened what the attendance would be. Once it was reported that the numbers were actually strong, their tactics changed to criticize it in other ways. Those t-shirts hit a nerve. Though personally I thought the reaction was overblown. But to say it was a small gathering is just not accurate. It dwarfed what took place yesterday on campus. But again your greater point is valid. I don't put much stock one way or the other in these kinds of demonstrations as far as support for a cause.

Last year, we got our first commit on July 29. --Grady. This year we have four verbals five days earlier than that. . Nice work Bubba and Co.!!!!!!

There we're a few but a lot more Fighting Sioux apparel.

Well, I was kidding. Both Brad and Tom are very good friends of mine, and Virg, too .... And I beg to differ on their journalistic ethics.

His 40 time is fast, at least the one that is reported. -- 4.47

Recruiting tape says he's 5-10, 185 pounds. probably somewhere in the middle. By comparison, Jer Garmin was 5-9, 190 last year and was much smaller when he was a sophomore (should have been his redshirt freshman year), which is probably when this guy would see the field at the earliest.