Herd

With no new nickname, fans will not move on. The ncaa does not know your fan base very well if they were smart enough to require replacement.

I'd be shocked if the ncaa does not require a replacement nickname as part of their legal agreement. The reasons that the ncaa would require a new nickname are too obvious that it does not require elaboration. Not changing the nickname, that simply would not be acceptable by the ncaa.

Rough Riders has a historic and national association with our state. People across the US would make a positive assocation to ND with Rough Riders. I can't think of a better name than that. Other thoughts: "Badlands", just "Badlands" . . . we were looking for a link to the west.

It pretty obvious why the ncaa would require you to take a new nickname. If it did not, the old one would be assumed by most. and your problems with the ncaa would not go away. If a school never had a nickname in the first place, I'm sure the ncaa wouldn't care, but if you are forced to retire a nickname, the ncaa is going to insist on a replacement. That fact does not require further elaboration.

If you want to come to Fargo every year, that spot could be yours. I didn't think so. Are you the AD paying the bills in Fargo? I didn't think so.

I would be very surprised if the word und is uttered by Bohl during a recruiting visit to Fargo. I am quite sure the focus is on selling your program, institution and city, not running down another.

The paranoya has a strong grip star. Kelley is trying to save you from yourself, but you would prefer an honorable death, hey i get it. We all have to live with our choices.

So, how do you explain the overwhelming majority in support for this bill if the top und supporters where not? Clearly it was the pro-nickname people who jumped on board with this law being a end all to the ncaa problem. This was the bag of goods sold to the fervent nickanme supporters. Most saw a vote for the law as as a positive for retaining the nickname. Yes, there are und supporters who are not pro-nickname, including the president who opposed the law, but aparently they were the minority.

So, all the state legisltors who also voted for the bill had bad intentions and were trying to screw things up for und? So the posters on SS who thought the bill was actually a vote in support of und also really had bad intentions and were trying to screw things up for und and big sky conference. You don't make any sense.

I responded the to the bashing because it's clear that Carlson had good intentions, and a great majority of legislators had the same opinion as he did also supported the bill, also with good intentions. Their judgement, all of them, turned out to be poor, but they had good intentions. It would be refreshing to hear, "Man, I was wrong about this bill, this whole thing really backfired". Instead, it's negativity, bashing, blaming, etc, etc. Just looking for a little honesty and integrity about the real situation. I dont' know what this has to do with ndsu, nothing that I can see.

Al Carlson had your support for this bill. Then it turned out to be a negative for the nickname, and all the sudden you are an Al Carlson basher. You don't see the hypocrisy in this? Are you kidding me.

If it's so obvious to you and everyone else that this was a terrible idea, why did it have support on this board, in the state legislature. Did Al have a gun to everyone's head? The only person that I heard speak out against this bill was the UND president, and most of you wanted to tar and feather the guy with his comments that you percieved to be anti-UND, and anti-nickname. Those people lined up behind Al and walked right off the cliff. Now you want to criticize Al Carlson? That's rich. I don't give a crap about Al Carlson, but its easy to see when people are talking out of both side of their mouth.

If Al is such an idiot, why did this bill pass? I'll tell you why. . . . because everyone in the legislature with any ties to UND voted for the bill, that's why. Those people that voted for this bill had the same opinion that 95% of people on this board had, "what a great idea for UND, a state law seals the deal"!! So, now Al Carlson's and idiot? Does that make 95% of the people on this board idiots, and a majority of the state legislators that support UND idiots too? I guess so. Within two weeks everyone on this board went . . . from great idea, to Al Carlson a bumbling idiot. Boy is it easy to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Introducing a bill that everyone thinks is a bad idea, does not get passed.

So, if you get rid of the law, what does that do? You would have to actually drop the nickname, and no one seems to grasp that concept.

Posturing? You need to retract one more statement. Id say this is serious, and the clock is ticking. Unless this issue is resolved to the ncaa's liking, there is not a conf in the ncaa regardless of division that will take you. That is one statement that i have repeated, and won't retract. You need the bsc way more than any perceived benefit to hockey of the logo.

You have it all wrong. The state law tells UND what it has to do. The state law doesn't mean a thing to the ncaa, is simply clarifies und position for the ncaa. If the state law stays, the ncaa position will be clear and simple. . . sanctions. If the state law was gone, und might have some room to negotiate. The law doesn't do und any favors. The ncaa response to the 11th hour state law will essentially be . . . oh that's nice. Looking at the situation any other way would be wishful thinking. The whole state law thing and the thought that it would have any impact on the ncaa was a big miscalculation by our not-so-wise legislators

(1) Official Tribal support = their postion to ncaa. . . a No, and that hasn't changed. Does the supreme court make decision via a referrendum and popular vote? Neither do the NA tribes in situaiton like this. Official tribal support may not equal a popular vote. I think we both agree on that, but I'm not sure it matters. (2) You seem to be talking a lot about the ncaa being subject to law, what about the legal agreement that und signed. When this whole thiing is scrutinized, what has more merit, the legal agreement that und signed with the ncaa, or this 11th hour/after the fact legislative ploy. In an independent review, this seems like an easy question to answer. Im not sure that the ncaa is scared of this. (3) The ND legislative law dictates what und has to do, not the ncaa. Does the law say "UND must keep the nickname and the ncaa can't touch it" or does it say "Und must keep the nickname"? I think your position is wishful thinking, but not based on reality. Other than that, I agree with your ideas and positions. I'm still wondering if Und is better off with this law in place or not. The way I see it, this ND legislative law does not help und. UND can decide to go back on their legal agreement and face sanctions with or without this law. The law just prevents any negotiation.

(1) The official position of the Tribe is all the matters to the ncaa. That position seems to be No, No, No, No, and No. All this talk of referrendums, votes, majorities doesn't seem to be impacting that. This situation for the NA's is more like an office harassment situation. You don't put it to a vote, I'm not sure what that would accomplish in this case. if some want the moniker gone, especially at the leadership level, what difference does a majority make. Referrendums and votes is not how the NA operate. (2) The ncaa is a private org that is not bound by anything the ND legislature want to throw at it. The ND law will impact and potentially handcuff und, not the ncaa. (3) Whehter or not the law is enforceable will only unpact the way und reacts. The ncaa will simply say, here are the penalties if you don't comply. UND has a legal agreement with the ncaa that is threatened by this law, but the ncaa is outside of this equation simply imposing sanctins if und does not comply. As I read the situation, the ball is in und/ND legislatures court, the ncaa will either impose sanctions or not based on whether und meets it legal agreement with the ncaa.

I'm sorry, but the situation is not this complicated. Im not sure that super-majorities and opinionsn really matter this late in the game. The facts are: 1) The Indian tribe will not lend it support. 2) Therefore the ncaa will likely impose sanctions. 3) Do you want a law in place or not is my question? (A law prevent negotiation with the ncaa and repealing the law might lead a name change but could prevent sactions) The only way the Legislature is able to impact the situation is by having the law or not have the law. They cannot impact the tribe position, that's not how it works. I'm trying to understand if the majority want the law in place or not, because it seem like people are angry with both having the law and the thought of repealing the law.

You dont seem to be answering my question, which tells me that you are not sure if its better for the law to be in place or not. It seems like you are riding the fence,while bashing people on both sides? Only on a fan board. I think i understand the politics, but i would think that people would pick a side vs just being negative toward both sides of the political arguement.

So,do you want this law in place, or do you want it repealed. It seemed like everyone was calling for the head of those who put this law in place, requiring you to keep the nickname. Now a group is trying get this law made unconstitutional, and you are now calling for their heads. Which is it?

The only apples to apples comparison for having full invites into the Big Sky or the Summit/MVFC was USD. No one else had invites to across the board to both. NDSU and SDSU did not get Big Sky invites, and UND did not get an MVFC invite. Would UND have gone to the Big Sky if they had a Summit/MVFC invite on the table? All we know is what USD did when both were fully offered. I will say, the Summit matches up better with the sports offered at NDSU. Baseball/Softball is important to be in-conf as far as I am concerned.

They are all ND kids when they come to ndsu. May the best player win the job.