jdub27

Kennedy doesn't have a vision of FBS. Nor do the majority of other schools you listed. UND is currently at where they belong. You claim UND doesn't want to associate with those schools, yet you have continously linked them to schools that are much worse than those. You keep tieing UND's move to the Summit as some sort of tie to an FBS move. I am unequivocally telling you that it had absolutely zero to with that. That is coming from people involved in the discussions. The only move they may come from the Summit by July 1 is the loss of IUPUI and/or the addition of another though, possibly UMKC. There will not be any realignment announcements. I like the idea of some sort of combination of Summit and Big Sky schools forming a Great North type of conference, however I don't see a situation where it ever happens

I did listen to and in fact have heard the stories in person from him prior to the podcast. I have also heard his thoughts and vision on where UND should be and what you're describing isn't even close at this point in time. FBS is not in the radar, there are a lot more important things to address. No need need to take Faison's word on the Montana's not moving east, there are plenty of other people who have a lot more knowledge stating the exact same thing. I also told you UND was going to Summit/MVFC shortly before it happened yet you were insistent that it wasn't. Sometimes you need to listen to what people actually say instead of trying to interpret some secret meaning out of everything. It's fun to speculate some of these things but to present them as absolute fact when they are just pure guesses at best and almost all of them don't happen really hurts your credibility. You still haven't given a timeline on these big moves.

That "solution" just creates a different set of issues that are, in my opinion, worse than what we currently have.

That and over half of the committee that came up with the finalists are students.

Do they think real hawks are free? Like you just catch one and then you just have it and then that's it?

I listened to Chaves most recent podcast and Faison's from a few months back. None of what you stated is in any of that and in fact Faison was pretty clear about the Montana's having no desire to look east. That being said, what's your timeline on this?

I mean one of those is the actual current nickname of the University, which they are putting time and effort into marketing and one isn't (and the reasons why it isn't and can no longer be aren't even debatable anymore). Seems pretty obvious why one group would be confused by the other's insistence. I really wish there was a video of Bubba's speech at the logo unveiling, really puts things into perspective for those who are stuck on supporting a nickname instead of a University regardless of what logo/nickname they have. EDIT: Turns out there is, should start at the relevant point.

Do you think people look favorably on the constant ripping of the new nickname and logo? When looking into a college and they see a contingent of the fan base (apparently the large majority according to some ) ripping on the school's nickname and logo every chance they get, saying they can never get behind that and support but instead will continue to support something the prospective student-athlete will never wear or represent? Threatening to withhold donations and/or support (even if it is just an empty threat, but hey, how are they supposed to know that)? How can you possibly state that has zero effect on the opinion formed by someone looking from an outsider perspective? It's obviously impossible to quantify the actual effect, but in no way can you possibly think it can be anything but a negative. The University is trying to move forward and they finally have a brand to promote. They are able to put effort into doing that, something which has been sorely missing for the last decade, instead of wasting resources on a lost battle. The constant negative ripping on that effort is absolutely dumping on the University, directly or indirectly. I don't know how you can frame it any other way. But again, it's somehow justified because some people need just a little bit more time to move on from a nickname of a college that has been gone for 5+ years instead of just quietly hate the new one.

One thing we do know for sure: The Brien logo never hung a green banner in the REA but a generic jersey that said "North Dakota" did.

How do you think potential students and student athletes see the whole thing? In the very best scenario, it sure as hell isn't helpful. But I guess that's OK, people can continue to sh!t on the University they are supposedly supporting because well, nickname or something. Cool. The nickname and logo have changed multiple times and none of them have ever won a game or hung a banner. None of them ever appeared on the diplomas of people that graduated. The University of North Dakota is the one constant over the last 135 years yet people are stuck on a nickname that was around for a little over half of that (which has been causing controversy for at least 2/3's of the time) and a logo that was barely a decade old.

Then they can't play there. I'm just pointing out they have an indoor option available to them that can help if its a late spring.

I don't think anyone has issues with how people feel, it's how the are acting because of that feeling. If that feeling doesn't cause them to act in a way that doesn't put UND in a negative light, that's fine. The way it's being done now is not meeting that objective.

How do you handle it if their tennis team was practicing on a track in their indoor practice facility? No. The softball team can and does practice indoors. They also now have the ability to play indoors. SDSU was resorting to having their tennis teams practice on the track of their practice facility because of court availability in Brookings. While Apollo needs some improvements, it's still night and day to this situation.

The thing is, one group has moved on with the University, tired of the watching time and resources being wasted on a fight that was lost long before it was over (but as previously stated, no concerns on the money spent there!) while the other group continues to live in the past, holding onto to an inanimate object with continued negative objections to any change, which do nothing but harm UND. I don't care if people don't like the name and logo, but the need to publicly proclaim it at every chance is ridiculous. The constant negative reactions on social media or at events is a tiresome act that does nothing but shed a negative light on the school we are all supposed to be supporting. Because that is what is actually (supposed to be) about, the University and student-athletes, not the logo or nickname on the jerseys or scoreboard. That's the issue some people can't seem to figure out.

There's are plenty of things wrong with this but the most obvious are (in my opinion) are: Cal Poly and UC Davis aren't leaving the Big West Missouri State is already bleeding money in football and this would do nothing but make it worse UMKC wants out of the WAC, they are absolutely bleeding money because of the move out of the Summit and I wouldn't be surprised if they moved back Oral Roberts doens't gain anything from this association Sacramento St is broke The Southland schools aren't going to want to move out of their footprint The Montanas aren't moving east nor is Weber State or Idaho Why would Seattle and UVU leave your proposed WAC to move to the Big Sky? That being said, what's your timeline on this? That's a whole lot of movement and I am curious when the dominoes will start falling.

Ouch, that's a tough loss.

Just think if they would have put a bird randomly wearing a headdress on it!

I agree with most of this. UND ended up with a bland nickname because there was too many groups allowed to give input (I likened it to when a group tries to order pizza and they end up getting the most predictable result, pepperoni). The flip side is, we've seen first-hand the outcry that arises when people who feel like they are owed input, aren't given it. It was a no-win situation (similar to this whole process). Killing the new nickname is a decent idea in theory, but we're already seeing people with faux-outrage, under the guise of budget cuts, complaining about spending small amounts of money on things like a mascot and branding, which are normal expenditures. I can't imagine the backlash these newfound budget-hawks (since there was minimal concern over the spending to keep the Fighting Sioux nickname) would have if UND was to scrap everything they've done up to this point and start the whole process over. In the end, there is zero guarantee you'll have something much better and you're still going to end up with something that a vocal, small subsection of the fan base will not support because they have pledged their allegiance to the Fighting Sioux deity and that apparently won't change. Frankly, it doesn't really matter. Look at the nicknames across college sports, the majority of them aren't real exciting, it is the teams and branding behind them that make them popular, not the actual name itself. I think the current logo is fine and they change and evolve as time goes on. At some point, they need to come up with a secondary logo and I think that will help matters.

That's a lot of assumptions about something you don't seem to have much first-hand knowledge about. Calling something "facts" doesn't make them so and if you truly have that much concern over the whole thing, I'm sure someone at the Alumni Association or Foundation would be happy to help explain some actual facts to you. That doesn't even include the time/resources indirectly dedicated to the "cause" but your comment really puts in perspective what people are actually upset about and it sure as hell isn't the money.

The Alumni Association and UND Foundation help provide funding for a lot of projects. Some people don't have specifics where their money goes, some people do. They identified people who wanted their donations to go towards a new mascot. Shame on someone for donating their own money for an idea that was pushed by some students and that they feel will add something extra to the gameday atmosphere. You make it sound like having a mascot is a some sort of controversial position to take.

Fundraising for golf is still ongoing. Sounds like they are optimistic but I haven't heard or seen any numbers that actually back that up. Funding for the mascot is coming from private funding.

Tact has never been a strong suit down there.

Multi?

I was off a week.

I covered all of that: The average D1 lacrosse program has 30 players on it (actually 28.5, but I'll round up), they can give up to 12 scholarships, meaning you're getting the equivalency of 18 people paying tuition. WG and WT gave out 9 scholarships and had 22 players on their roster, meaning the equivalency of 13 were paying tuition (though I believe that number increased by 1 or 2 this year). A net gain of 5 people paying tuition (even if it is out of state), does not cover what is between a $400-500K difference in expenses (average budget is $917K and due to travel, UND's would likely be fairly high). I don't think you're going to get an additional 20 people beyond the average size roster to come to UND to walk on to the program, but that's just my opinion. There wasn't a single school out of the 108 schools that offer women's lacrosse that had 50 players on the roster. In fact, only 5 had over 40 (Syracuse, Michigan, Elon, OSU, and UNC) and only 10 more had over 35. Like I said, the math doesn't pencil out for gaining more revenue (or losing less money) than that sports currently offered.