Matt

When/if the name change happens, I would think rather than being punitive toward those that use "Sioux", they will give preferencial treatment to those who promote the new name...catching more flies with honey and all of that.

According to Sean Johnson on the radio last week, Kelley comes back from a Big Sky Presidents meeting at which Kelley gave them an update of the nickname situation. At the meeting, the presidents give no negative feedback to the nickname update from Kelley. This was one reason Johnson and Kelley were surprised by the subsequent letter from Fullerton expressing the position of the Big Sky Presidents. The question is: if the presidents did not express to Kelley the position they took in their subsequent letter, when did they formulate that position? Was there another meeting that Kelley did not attend? Is Johnson or Kelley misrepresenting what actually took place at the presidents meeting? How could the rest of the presidents formulate a group position and authorize Fullerton to draft a letter on their behalf without Kelley's knowledge? Yet, both Kelley and Johnson expressed their surprise at the time the letter came out.

And surely you are not naive enough to think an alum will give your opinion the same consideration as a fellow alum?

Since the settlement was a voluntary agreement signed by both parties, wouldn't both parties have to agree on a change? Under what circumstances could the court force both parties to ammend the voluntary settlement?

I've heard a lot of interviews with UND admin and they say they need to sit down with the NCAA and talk, but it isn't being specified what exactly they want from the NCAA. Do they want the NCAA to void the settlement? Open a renegotiation? What motivation does the NCAA have to do either of those things? When the simple act of setting up a meeting is this difficult, how does that bode for being granted a concession from the NCAA?

I would think those professors/administrators position aren't directly at odds with their supervisors.

"The nickname legislation was authored by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, and handily passed both legislative chambers after a ferocious email campaign mounted by nickname supporters, including UND hockey Coach Dave Hakstol" How do you move forward when the athletic department itself is split on this? Hak's role here seems to be the elephant in the room. If you are Faison how do you handle Hak?

From the NCAA perspective, wasn't the purpose of the timeline agreed upon in the settlement written that way for the very purpose of giving plenty of time to get tribal approval? As long as we are renegotiating the settlement here, what is a reasonable amount of time?

I'd like to believe that, yet the only tangible damage I've seen thus far is being taken by UND. Isn't it time for someone to put up or shut up?

A rumor started with this question: "Would the WAC invite UND, with the Fighting Sioux name? The NCAA sanctions against the name really only matter at the FCS level, not at the FBS level." Asked by a self described "siouxfan"? Good stuff, but I may need a better source, even to call it a rumor.

We could prepare quite a list of people that have been fired for things they have said which are perfectly within their first ammendment rights to say, but their boss didn't like.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If the Big Sky actually gives an ultimatum, a "retire it or you are out" situation, then I panic. Right now there is some harsh language, but it gives the administration time to put a plan in place for whatever scenario comes to pass. I too would like to know exactly what the NCAA is saying to Big Sky leadership.

I tend to think the NCAA legal team knows what they are dealing with more than the politicians of ND...as well intentioned as the politicians were (perhaps a legal ruling on the proposed legislation should have happened prior to a vote?). On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Until UND proves something in the conference, don't be surprised the opponents disrespect. Respect is earned.

It's interesting how an attractive conference schedule makes the prospect of playing NDSU on anything but a yearly basis seems to be now, just fine.

Don't lump SB in that. NDSU has shown you can field a nationally competitive team here. Baseball is a different animal, even if you play in the Big Ten.

Couldn't agree more. I'm waiting for the next argument that playing outdoors in the rain is better for the passing game than indoors on turf. How about the best two minute drill offense is the wishbone? Or that when you win the toss you always give your opponent the ball and the wind? Onside kicks and two point conversions are the only way to go?

This is a totally different discussion than your previous one on the impact of not hosting football playoff games. Did NDSU look like they were close to hosting a playoff game in '09? No way. Yet there they were in '10 hosting one, and damn near hosting two.

How about you explain that logic to christopher.mussman@und.nodak.edu and please share his response with the rest of us. Try and keep a straight face as you do so. I apologize for my sarcasm, but It's difficult for me to fathom how we arrived at disagreeing on the value of having home field in the football playoffs. I've never heard of such an argument.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. You think a "save the Sioux, move to FBS" campaign wouldn't bring in the dollars? Why wait down the road on this? The nickname iron is hot NOW! Alumni are clamoring for a reason to get behind this president, the AD, and stand up publicly for this university. If a move is anywhere in their plans, I would think about moving it a lot closer to the end of the transition. Have the courage that NDSU showed when they picked up and left. This nickname issue could be the defining moment for the university. Will the leadership make it a positive or negative? The voters of ND have spoken through their elected legislators. Now it's the university's turn.

I like it. In the words of the common man, "you're either on to something, or you're on something."

Staying with the pro example you use here, I think your moral is wrong. It should read something more along the lines of "a historically great team with multiple hall of famers will find a way to go undefeated and win the super bowl, including a road win at Pittsburgh, a feat which has yet to be replicated." You and I usually agree, and I enjoy your posts, but this example is absurd. It is hard enough to win a national championship playing all but the title game at home. Doing it all on the road is literally next to impossible, the numbers bear that out. To some, que sera sera-the name is worth it. I need to think on it some more. But I know this...I'd rather have my opponent forced to walk that road in the recruiting battle than walk it myself.

I suppose this is a fair point. Any football recruit would have to sign with the knowledge that he will not be playing in a home playoff game until...whenever this is settled with the NCAA. There wouldn't be a home playoff until the transition is over anyway, but there is a deadline for that at least.

Is there a program eligible for an NCAA championship event next year except hockey? I don't think that dot com thing basketball competed in this year is considered an NCAA championship. Neither are conference post season tournaments.

The NCAA may have inadvertantly found UND another revenue stream by forcing a new jersey for next post season. Well played!