Chewey

Wasn't control over "branding" the reason why the "North Dakota" and "Fighting Sioux" language was scrapped? Wasn't "branding" to be solved by the new U.S. Post Office logo and insipid nickname? Seems to me that UND would have helped its "branding" by just staying "North Dakota". Weren't we all worried that, without a nickname, others would be defining who we were and "branding" us as they saw fit? Doesn't the fact that no one even at the school knows "who we are" eviscerate all of arguments and contradict all of the odious, rudimentary paste that spewed from the mouths of the anti-North Dakota crowd previously?

Sioux need to continue playing aggressively. Prevent defense usually winds up being just the opposite.

Didn't see a thread on this but the clock is ticking at NDSU regarding "culturally insensitive" references in their song, among other things. "NDSU's system for confidential reporting of bias issues." WTF?

They should have a big weekend in Kalamazoo. My brother and I will be in attendance with our Fighting Sioux sweaters. Surprising tie with CC last weekend. They'll be ready to exact some correction this weekend. Should be fun to watch.

C'mon Sioux! Goalie pull your head out!

Let the alibis start in 3, 2, 1.......

Inexcusable. It's a nice arena and a great place to watch a game and it's a program with an extremely rich history. I guess many of the DU folks would probably rather be out skiing. Good thing to see the Rodents go down in flames tonight though.

Will we get into trouble with the NCAA because of the feathers on the bird logo? They are sacred to NA's after all....

I'm sure a couple of the boys would have worn a few feathers in their hats.............Calling Mr. Brien

Nodaks would be the best and most "creative" option, given the circumstances. At least it's not a copycat nickname or a stupid weather phenomenon.

You're quite right. It would have won hands down, and they know it; that's why it wasn't one of the options. The reasons why the school absolutely, positively, without a doubt needs to have a nickname are tenuous at best. Regardless of what the nickname is, sales of merchandise will not be anywhere near what they were with the Fighting Sioux nickname. They wont be that much better, if any, than the sales of North Dakota only materials. To use their own logic against them (i.e. the people who want to stay "North Dakota" really want to be the "Fighting Sioux"), all of the marketing fluff and other justifications really can be translated, as I've said before, to this: "We want to have a nickname - any nickname, even a horses#!# one- just so that we're not the "Fighting Sioux" and so that people are hopefully less inclined to say 'Fighting Sioux' at games." The meme that "North Dakota" violated the terms of the surrender agreement was a complete lie and was exposed as such. They still have plan B which is the whole marketing angle - an area that is so nebulous and esoteric and which can be impacted by so many varied perspectives that can never be completely identified let alone understood. With the surrender agreement, all one had to do was read it, acknowledge it and wait for the inevitable admissions.

Anything other than "Sundogs".......

Precisely. The ones who are propagating falsehoods and who "just don't get it" are the ones who still are saying that the surrender agreement requires UND to adopt a new nickname. The committee indicated that this was not the case. I believe Kelley indicated this was not the case, too. In any event, it's been publicly stated that it's not the case. It might be a good idea to read something recent before regurgitating the same false pablum that was mentioned a year ago. Just a thought.

Just another point of reference as to how utterly stupid the whole process has been. From the date the name was retired to now, one could not have purposefully and intentionally programmed a bigger clusterf$@&. So many PhD's. So many advisers. So many paid consultants. So much money. So many focus groups. This is what everyone got for it.

Nodaks is the only one that even comes close to being unique. They all suck badly, however. Nodaks, at least, would be sort of going the route of the MIAC with Johnnies, Tommies, etc.

The voice of dissidence appears. Everyone should get used to this sort of thing, and worse, because it's not going away for a very, very long time I think. The whole process has been an epic clusterf@#$ from day one. You will likely see the Sioux Were Silenced and like minded people protesting at different events. It will be the other side of the coin from the PC knobs. This mess will be Kelley's sordid legacy.

Agreed. I think UND gets its arse handed to it badly, however. Everyone my age will recollect with horror the days of the 80's. This coaching staff should promptly call Roger Thomas and ask him what he put in the water in 1993 to beat the Bison - finally - and be truly competitive with them. Now that we'll have an actual nickname, the recruiting scales of justice should finally be in sync again.........

Must be something in the water. I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. Hopefully, he gets to a good AA group.

The sooner Kelley exits ND, the better.

Kelley, in his infinite stupidity, has just guaranteed that this controversy will linger on for a very long time.

The weather sucked but it was good to be there nonetheless.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying. However, ramming something through is only going to accentuate the divisiveness. I want to be "North Dakota" in perpetuity but many of the "North Dakota" crowd simply don't think it's a net positive for UND to move forward with a with either an unimaginative or appropriated nickname no matter how cool any logo is. With how emotionally charged this whole process has been and with how unacceptable all of the nickname replacement are moving forward with one of them would not be moving forward at all. This fallout is not the fault of the "North Dakota" crowd or of most people who genuinely support UND. It's not wrong for people to react the way they're reacting. This is the fault of the PC anti-nickname crowd, the NCAA and Kelley and his administration (for how they've handled it and for the propaganda they've been throwing out there). As I said before, I'm sure Kelley is a nice enough man and, no doubt, he has had a very tough job with all of this. I don't think either he or Peter Johnson or the whole Administration have been at all forthright and genuine about it though. This has been quite apparent and the latest example is the GF Herald screed concerning what the NCAA may or may not do to regulate speech. The duplicity and the failure to engage people in a straightforward manner is a primary reason why we're seeing accentuated divisiveness. Kelley should just put "North Dakota" on the ballot or just say that all of the replacements are terrible and that we're staying North Dakota for 5 more years or 3 more years or whatever.

It's fear and frustration that motivate all of it. I have more respect for many of the anti-nickname crowd who have spines, passion and a collective will to effect "change", than I do for some of the disassembling, propagandizing, expedient-minded, move on at all costs types (even with a boring, unimaginative, rip-off nickname) on this board. The purpose of the committee was to get input from the various stakeholders and choose a new nickname based upon the input gathered from those stakeholders. A great many of those stakeholders have said that they want to remain "North Dakota" so let's include it and see how a vote of all of the stakeholders shakes out. Why don't some want to see that? They don't want it because they fear that their claim that only a small, vocal group wants it will be proved incorrect . They don't want it because they fear that "North Dakota" will receive a majority. These fears are well-founded. If "North Dakota" is not an option, even though many people want it, the process will be revealed as more of a sham and a "fix". What business stops producing something because a sizeable # of people want it? What politician, other than one who has something to fear or hide, avoids an issue that is important to a lot of people? What reporter, other than one trying assist a sleazy politician, squelches an idea or a story that may be important to a lot of people? Does doing any of these things cause an idea or issue to go away? Wouldn't an issue, idea or concern only persist and gain strength? Does anyone think that the issue will not continue to fester among young students/people who generally think and do the opposite of what they're told they should think and do? Does anyone think that the alumni, Native Americans and many others who support "North Dakota" are just going to go away? Not including "North Dakota" will only cause the whole process to live on. It will become a perennial fertile field for people to sow the seeds conspiracy-minded paranoia and harvest the yield of ever-deepening, visceral animus. How did attempts to deny and squelch legitimate points of view work out with the Vietnam War, the 1968 Democratic National Convention (the squelching or "moderating" of the anti-war sentiment lead to Richard Nixon's election), Watergate (Richard Nixon's antics only led to deepening inquiries), Ford's pardoning of Nixon (only gave more grist for Watergate controversy) 1976 Republican National Convention (squelching or moderating of conservative points of view resulted in the election of Jimmy Carter who would have likely otherwise lost irrespective of Ford's pardon and his "Communism isn't a threat" nonsense), Iran-Contra, Hillary Clinton's email scandal, etc.? Aren't Kelley and like-minded academics all about having open "conversations"? The only way a position loses momentum is to fully allow people to voluntarily consider its merits or lack thereof. Anything less constitutes an amputation of reason and legitimacy.

Very much looking forward to this after a 6 hour drive: Commenting on an earlier post, I never would have thought that I'd agree with Tom Denis on anything pertaining to the nickname issue but he's dead on about the effects of not allowing "North Dakota" as one of the options and trying to squelch free speech. Do what the committee and the process was, in part, charged to do: Gauge public sentiment from the various "stakeholders".

One reason I will never vote for a Democrat again in my life -- ever. Somehow, I voted for Al Franken and Tim Walz in 2008 and we're all experiencing the fallout inflicted by these clowns now.