Chewey

Not having a nickname would be marketable because UND would be the only school (to my knowledge). That's certainly unique, as I see it. UND had the best nickname and logo in all of college and professional sport. People would ask why UND does not have a nickname and logo. They could be told and it would become generally known that UND had the best and chose not to adopt another one out of respect for the Sioux people whose traditions and customs were disrespected. That would be entirely marketable. The uniforms could have only an "FS" which also would not violate the surrender agreement. "Here's your North Dakota 'FS' scoring!!!!!!"

Speaking of an addendum, if having a nickname was so important and was actually required by the NCAA and given the obvious ambiguity in the language of the surrender agreement, why didn't the addendum address that issue? What has there not been another addendum to address it? The answer: Because not having a nickname does not violate any policy; not having a nickname does not violate the surrender agreement.

Not having a nickname and logo does not violate "the Policy". Not having a nickname and logo does not render UND subject to "the Policy". There is an NCAA policy against having hostile and abusive nickname and NA imagery. That issue has been addressed. There is no NCAA policy requiring schools/teams to have nicknames and logos. At the very least, the surrender agreement is ambiguous. I'd have to offend my 8th grade English teacher by diagraming sentences but the result is simple. A policy - the policy - and what offends that policy are addressed. No nickname, no logo = no issue, unles the NCAA adopts a policy requiring schools to employ nicknames and logos.

It's a satire! My God. Well, there will be some unemployed actors, I guess. I'm sure that there will be other NA actors who won't be so hyper-sensitive.

Damned auto text. "HERE" is a place and not a sense.

Ermines does satisfy the criteria. Creative suggestion. I can though here claims of copying the rodents badgers wolverines....... Please not a horse related mascot. How many of those damn things are used? We'd be somewhat like MTU or SCSU or Mankato or Omaha or Boston College. Nodaks Or daks would make sense and would be a theft of an idea from the MIAC. Not thrilled with those either though. Like the Artist Formerly Known as Prince We could be "North Dakota Formerly Known as the F#%#%-+@ S$*&%". "FS" could be our symbol. That doesn't run afoul of the surrender agreement.

Not an appropriate comparison. On the one hand you have a monopolistic entity run by true believing academics inflicting its position and unassailable market hegemony against institutions with limited financial resources run by the same kind of true believing academics. On the other hand, you have private enterprise where the people who run teams who are assaulted have the financial means to defend themselves. Teams can move and you have major cities/states more than willing to build a Taj Mahal for any team willing to relocate. They have not had to address this issue to the extent that it has infected the collegiate ranks and they have the money and the solidarity to prevent it from getting there. The politically correct brown shirts are trying to ply the same script in the pro ranks as they have successfully employed in the collegiate ranks. Attacking private franchises and billionaires who make money and attacking entire states and cities and national fan bases is a much more complex task than attacking individual, financially constrained institutions that have been infiltrated by academic lifers who are fellow politically correct deviants. If some Commissioner of some league were to get the politically correct itch, teams would possibly spin off into other leagues a la the USFL.

Some fair points but the two situations are not similar. I am not sure how Marquette came up with the name "Warriors" other than making the obvious reference to the indigenous people in the area. I don't think a tribe, following sacred customs, etc. gave it to them. I don't think there was a majority of indigenous people vocally supporting it when that particular controversy was addressed. With UND, you had majorities of both Sioux tribes supporting retention, you had the SBoHE actively and not subtly lobbying for retirement irrespective of the 2009 vote, you had various people actively preventing a vote, you had an entire people silenced by administrative fiat (NCAA, SBoHE, UND). Both involve an intrinsic wrong though I would say that the UND case is more insidious because of the outright disrespect shown the Sioux people and their customs by entities (UND/NCAA) claiming to respect and protect them. In any case, the shrill absolutism and totalitarian tactics employed by those who espouse political correctness has reached such a level that it can't be met with passive acquiescence. What's truly disappointing is that there are so many who are willing to do just that. For purposes of convenience or expediency, they want to be indifferent or apathetic to the intrinsic wrong and just move past the whole matter. These sentiments find expression in comments made about the various marketing benefits to be realized by selecting a new nickname. They also find expression in statements made about the NCAA's supposed strength of position regarding the surrender agreement. The Vietnam War was an intrinsic wrong that was opposed by legitimate protest against greed and jingoism. The sale of CDO's/derivatives that caused the 2008 financial collapse constituted an intrinsic wrong, especially given that not one person was convicted of wrongdoing. What did we see? Crickets chirping. The levels to which political correctness has been taken constitutes an intrinsic wrong. The irony or hypocrisy with all of this is that many of the same Vietnam War protesters participated in and benefitted from the sale of CDO's and many are now employing the same heavy-handed tactics via political correctness that they opposed decades ago.

The teams are no longer using the Fighting Sioux nickname or logo; those were "hostile and abusive". This was the issue. Everyone's past that now. Associations, remembrances, people's informal invocation of a former nickname, people's wearing of old jersey's at games, are not prohibited by the surrender agreement. I think the NC00 is aware that it probably does not have a legal basis to demand UND select a new nickname when not having one does not violate the policy or the surrender agreement. Add to this the fact that it has done nothing in vis-à-vis the "cooling off period" and permitted UND to stock up and sell off Fighting Sioux attire for almost 4 years post-drop dead date of the agreement and its position becomes even weaker.

Maybe a good idea would be to get out in front of it and set the tone/market rate. It's inevitable and stipends are entirely overdue. No one ostensibly has the backbone to jump in but everyone knows It's here.

This. ^^^^^^^^_

I'd hire him in a heartbeat. The guy has a backbone and he is principled enough to take a stand against the slimy, underhanded, 11th hour tactics and corruption of the administration. If anything, this kid is an astute, wood-be politician because he has seen how corrupt the administration is and he has seen how unpopular they are throughout the whole state and he is taking advantage of that. Good for him.

If differentiation is what you're after, not having a nickname would differentiate UND just fine. UND could even be a trend setter in that regard. The latter part of your sentence is the real reason for the clarion call for a new nickname - any nickname. As far as the school itself is concerned, brand awareness is developed and sustained by the strength of the programs it offers. The brand is also based upon the perceived trustworthiness and credibility of those who run the place. The aviation school, law school, medical school, etc. are still top notch regardless of whether the school has a nickname. For athletics, trying to market a new nickname selected via some rash attempt to squelch and simply move past the former nickname would be wasted energy and could be counterproductive. There would be marketing value in not selecting a nickname because of the message that the school had the very best nickname and logo in all of college athletics (and professional athletics, in my opinion) and held it and the Sioux people in such high reverence and esteem (exactly what the school used to say) that no other nickname would do. Now, that is both a principled and powerful message that would sell and sell and sell. And, it's consistent with what the school stated throughout. And, it's not prohibited by the surrender agreement.

The Zep Grinders?

I believe the "Siouxweresilenced" campaign is an appropriate voice of dissidence. It can't be a shock to Kelley, the NCAA and whomever else that a lot of people, most notably majorities of the Sioux reservations, were extremely angry over how the Sioux nickname and logo were retired. There are a lot of people very angry over the rush to a new nickname - any nickname - that isn't "Fighting Sioux". Kelley couldn't have been so naive so as to think the matter would just go away.

Seems like there's enough of a "hostile and abusive" atmosphere there. Thank heavens the nickname and logo aren't there adding to it. What, pray, would people do then? If this is the thing that helps get Kelley out the door sooner rather than later, it's been Heaven sent.

That and there's just too much of a personnel infrastructure to support. Nationally, enrollment is dipping and people are weaning themselves off of the previously limitless Sallie Mae teet. A system such as UND"s needs quite a volume of students coming in each year to sustain it. I haven't looked at UND's #'s lately but it wouldn't surprise me if these things had something to do with the tuition proposals. My brother's an English prof at a college in the Chicago area. The college is trying to find was to limit itself regarding tenured profs. They're hiring more adjuncts, etc. Of course, there are just as many administrators as there ever were. They are the ones making the decisions and they are protecting their own backsides at the expense of the instructors. Cull 25% of the administrative bloat at UND and tuition could remain the same for a long time, IMO.

Eades was 2nd in line for the Mankato job - surprised he didn't get it. Yes, I think those players still come to the Sioux with Eades or Sandy. I was in graduate school in the early 90's and my last year was the first year of Blais, so I watched a lot of those games where Greg Johnson and, later, Landon Wilson were really some the only highlights of the team.

Unfortunately, I think that's where a lot of people are. The 1-7 is like erosion such that we're solidly in the lukewarm purgatory of "we have a good, solid program but (titles?)". One could say that the program is being, at least, sustained but it has been attritted down, in my opinion. Getting to the FF and then retreating back into the usual alibis and tepid expressions of hope for next year is not good enough; it may be good enough for other programs, but not for the Fighting Sioux. You give Eades (exclusively) the program in 2004 or hire Sandelin away from Duluth and, with the teams we've had, you know either one would have had 2 NT's by now. Is Doug Woog on the payroll at UND? Has he been wandering around the campus lately? Does he have a Hakstol voodoo doll? His aura is definitely wafting 300 miles northwesterly. Lucky for us, though, we have Hak and he has nice hair.........

I think Hakstol is safely in Doug Woog territory now. 1-7 (or is it 1-6) in the FF? WTF?!?!?!?!?! Zane let in a couple softies to be sure but this guy just can't get it done. Great teams -- namely, 2011, 2013 and 2014 -- that should have won it all and nothing but choke after choke after choke. Eades please!

I don't know. I think I agree with Red. Add Mike Crowley of the Gophers to the long list of players that left too early only to languish in various minor leagues or in Europe. I think Bryan Lundbohm and Ryan Bayda were two one such Sioux players who did likewise. With Bayda, I think the 2003 team does not lose to Ferris State and makes a serious run at #8.

Please call or text 507-327-6614

Thanks and agree. Are the general admission tickets that you have SRO?

You still got them First-Time-Caller?

I'd be interested but I'm also bringing my 4 year old son and would need a ticket for him, too. Do you know of anyone else who'd have the same arrangement you have? I'd buy tickets from both at your price.