dagies

I'm going to disagree with you on that. But maybe after seeing them a little I would come around.

I did need to log in again on my Android phone, but did not have to on my laptop (IE).

I'm not the one who suggested this but I kind of like the "Outlaws" because that's what we became through a change in the rules, outside of our control.

Do you think the connotation with the Trojans is different for USC than Roughriders would be for UND, just because USC selected that nickname back in 1912? I think the Sicatoka's point is if USC can be successful with the Trojans UND can be successful with the Roughriders or Roughriders or however you want to say it. I'm personally not concerned with the connotation. Cripes, if the State of ND can survive with Roughriders as an unofficial nickname I think UND will do quite well using that as an official nickname, given the marketing that will go along with why the nickname was selected, and with how the nickname will be used and any potential logo. I guess part of me thinks just about any nickname can be made fun of, or slightly altered in a way to insult or jeer, so why worry about it? Pick a great nickname and go with it. Roughriders works for me, since no one else likes the "Iron Horses". :-)

I don't agree. I think most of the country is at least somewhat familiar with that name from a historical perspective. And I think less people than you think will immediately go with the condom connotation.

Thunder Gods Done deal. See? That was simple...you're welcome, everyone.

yup

That sounds fantastic for a cycling fan.

You climbed Alpe d' Huez? Very cool!

The older I get the fewer assumptions I make about what other people are and aren't/should and shouldn't be capable of. Typically hidden from us are the details of a person's life that better inform us about their present situation. Doesn't mean I don't forget this at times. But I do it less often than when I was younger and smarter than everyone.

The Thor connection was where I was going, yes.

Not even his mother would do THAT

I could actually live with that one. I still like the Thunder Gods

I didn't watch every webcast but I watched a handful, and I don't remember any big issues. I appreciated the HD video and I was able to plug my laptop into my TV so I had a good view. Again, I probably only watched about 25% of the webcasts, though.

I was gone for a few days, but talking NBA on the hockey forum is a FORUM FOUL!

Ok, I'm not interested in arguing because I'm far from knowledgeable enough to forcibly back up my positions. But I'm interested in jumping in with my opinion on this topic because I consider myself a bit of a WWII history enthusiast. Not even close to an expert and I forget much of what I read, but I've read quite a bit.... Count me in the camp that says if the Normandy landings had failed Hitler still would not have won the war. However, I believe Europe would have looked a bit different. I don't see any way Germany stops the Russians. We can debate Wikipedia as a source, but I doubt these numbers are significantly far off. According to this link Russia had twice the number of troops on the Eastern front than Germany: http://en.wikipedia...._(World_War_II) According to this link, 2/3 of Germany's divisions were already on the Eastern Front in 1944: http://en.wikipedia....ion_of_Normandy If Normandy had failed, the Allies still had other options. Don't forget there was a follow-up landing on the south coast of France in August 1944. Whether the Allies would have still been able to land there had Normandy failed, we don't know. Probably the timing would have changed but who knows what would have happened. If nothing else they could have poured WAY more resources into Italy and forced the situation from there. Italy was tough going and a stalemate, and Germany was in very good defensive positions so it would have been tough, but who knows how that may have gone differently if the primary focus of the Allied drive into Europe would have been through Italy instead of through the north of France? A failure at Normandy doesn't mean the Allies were out of the war. No, the strategic bombing campaign would have continued, and perhaps intensified. This was at the pivotal point where Allied air power was beginning to dominate the air. The air war would have continued to degrade Germany's war making ability even if British and US ground forces were not significantly engaged. Russia was gaining strength and gaining momentum. Germany was weakening and could not replace losses. Stalin could now see that he was in a position to keep conquered land. Stalin was going to keep rolling and he was going to go as far west as fast as he could. Because the Brits and Americans had taken so much time to open the "2nd front" he knew he was in a bargaining position when it came to post-war borders. He had no intention of giving up any conquered territory after the war. Russia had a history of fighting wars on it's western borders with European powers. Stalin was going to take as much cushion as he could. No, I don't believe Stalin would have quit until he got to the boarders of the Allied European powers. The more I've read over time the more my mind has been opened to the fact that the Russians did the majority of the fighting and dying in WWII. Part of that is because they could meet the Germans face-to-face and it took the Allies some time to get on the same piece of ground with the Germans. Part of that is because the Russians treated their soldiers like meat and battle tactics like meat grinders. Just keep poring them in and sooner or later the battle will be won through attrition of German forces. The US lost about 400,000 men in battle in WWII. Germany lost about 4-5,000,000. Russian lost between 8-14,000,000. Yes, that's "million". That's not an accidental extra "0". Germany was ground down by the Russian millstone. None of this takes away from the accomplishments of D-day. The scope of the operation, the skill of the planners and logisticians, the bravery of the men who executed it...nor does it diminish the sacrifice of the men who fought and died there. Clearly it hastened the end of the war, and likely it kept more European people "free" than if it had failed. It was a magnificent undertaking that was successful due to the bravery and guts of the Allied fighting men. Just my 2 cents

If that is the case, I concede the point

The original t-shirts were a really bad idea. One thing to have a little fun in your own back yard but in the current climate just not a good idea to wear out in public, or worse yet, throw it out on the internet. As for these new shirts, I don't see the issue. I know there was criticism of using the nickname, but certainly the real issue was the connotation of the drunk NA. If it hadn't been for that, I doubt anyone would have cared. People wear Sioux gear all over without it raising this sort of ruckus, so it was the imagery that was the problem.

I don't know but is it possible some recruits come up to train without taking courses? Not sure of the rules or policies around that....just asking.

I think he should strap on a couple of ivory handled revolvers.

The thing is, that's not even all that interesting or clever. Stupid idea.

omg...you can tell it's the off season

I could be wrong, but many years ago, wasn't there a movement to move the college game on to NHL ice sheets? So as new arenas were built, they were built with the Olympic sheets? Again, could be a poor memory here too.

"Let Me Show You....To Your Roooommm"

From a fan perspective I like that. I don't like it if my team has to play 3 games and then play in the NCAA's 5-6 days later.