Oxbow6

Once again there seems to be this thought process by many here that being a supporter and fan of UND, especially in regards to athletics, has to include the unconditional acceptance of the new nickname and logo. Some also try to tie the increase in "record" dollars given to the university to the new nickname and logo. Neither of these things have to be or are mutually inclusive. With all that said put the logo where ever it is best suited.

Best argument and position I've read so far.

Eat some cheese or bananas..............................

So you disagree with Sic's 2nd point????

Pretty sure many supporters of the university as a whole would question if Kennedy has the university's "best interests" in mind? No argument on your 2nd point.

The ghost of TC???

Are you insinuating it's someone who hasn't been on the job all that long yet has already interviewed for another job?

Just a random thought............................could all of this have been avoided it the university just went with "North Dakota" and no nickname? another thought...........................my father doesn't have a middle name. Has been a real detriment to him.

You make some very valid points but let's not get totally silly and carried away.

Agree. It most likely would do "wonders".......but it would still look like ****!

I grew up a "Sioux" guy. Not a fan of the "Hawk's" name or logo but this is getting very petty.

Hopefully they put the logo at center ice soon. That will at least stop the fans at the Ralph from yelling "Sioux" at the end of the anthem!

I recall most of the complaining being, as Petey put it, that UND "got taken" for the quality of product it received in relation to the cost paid out to get it. Most (on this site) didn't see this logo as a sufficient ROI.

Yup......once again in your infinite wisdom you nailed it. Congrats.

But not nearly as good as the guys at SME........just ask jdub.

It is truly amazing isn't it?

Well at least it is better than this one Darell submitted..........

Nice to see we can agree on something.

Neither.........he's extremely successful at what he does. I'll defer to him on this topic........not to you and your continued nauseatingly drivel. Just because you stay within the lines with your crayons doesn't make you remotely quaified in this area.

Business decisions are objective. Petey's business happens to be based in art. His "objective" opinion must mess pretty well with his customer's "subjective" opinions........but as usual you know best!

Do you work in the area of graphic design of logos and the such? Didn't think so. Petey, on this topic, is far more knowledgeable than me and you. His opinion in this field, which is his expertise, is an objective standard based on his business in the region he works, designs and sells. If his objective standard was trash, like the logo, his business wouldn't be in business anymore.

No argument with that.....but if the numbers extrapolated out over years for what Kennedy is pushing for vs losing the Foundation altogether don't make sense.......but he is a businessman. Maybe he's asking for UND to have total control over everything the Foundation is associated with plus wanting a minimum of $10M from them a year?

I knew the numbers but we squabbling over a few hundred thousand in FB revenue yearly vs. losing potentially millions from a donor? I get both sides of the argument but for the sake of Warren Buffet Kennedy needs to push a pencil here. This is an oversimplification but kind of make one go..."hmmmmmmmmmmm". The FB program is a long ways away from being a cash cow for UND.

Someone smarter than me calculate the gross revenue if every seat was sold for every FB game next year at the Al. Be generous with concession sales and miscellaneous sales and present us with one number that the university is losing revenue wise due to the Foundation thieves. I'm serious.....and curious.

I avoid fast food restaurant bathrooms and Chinese restaurant kitchens