jdub27

That's a fine position to have, but my point is they are doing their thing in a way that is detrimental to UND, the University they supposed support (or I guess the University that sponsors the hockey team they support ). If they weren't, I wouldn't care. The fact that this whole disaster has been going on for over a decade and finally appeared have a resolution and UND was going to be able to put it in the past, move on and focus on promoting itself instead of having to battle it's own supporters, yet here we are.

It's better than whatever SDSU is doing....

It was worded poorly on my part, but UND is trying to move forward and people are undermining that. UND should be done wasting time and resources on the Fighting Sioux nickname, however it does appear that they are actually still spending time on the Sioux Forever people because I have seen multiple responses where a UND official account has had to correct a flat out lie on social media by pointing them to very accessible correct information because apparently facts don't matter when you're still fighting a battle that was lost over a decade ago. They also have to overcome the constant negativity coming out of that group, which takes more resources than if people would accept reality and move on or at least accept reality and quit with the negativity towards the University they support because they don't agree with a new nickname and logo.

Because they are undermining the efforts UND is making to finally move forward and quit wasting time and resources on a fight that was lost a decade ago?

You're really grasping at straws if you're trying to use social media comments as some sort of scientific evidence to back up your claims, especially considering the majority making those comments never have given a penny to UND or attended. Talk is cheap, people love to hear themselves complain and judging from the comments, apparently have no concern for actually accuracy while making those claims. When you see people's argument against spending $35K on a mascot (from private, donated funds) is they should instead use the money to bring back the $2MM/year black hole that was women's hockey, you can have them on your "side" all day long. Their opinion has no bearing on the actual situation or reality for that matter, but you can continue to count them in your "97%" since that apparently makes you feel good about yourself and stance that continues to be further and further in the rear view mirror.

I mean, yeah. They are the ones literally booing their own team's mascot at every mention at the REA and posting the continue negative comments on social media...

Other than at hockey games, we'll have to agree to disagree. For how much everyone keeps repeating how no one will accept it, I've been surprised at the amount of FH gear that I've seen in public and at community events. Parents are even dressing their kids in it!! Also, I'd like to know where all this free stuff is handed out at so I can get some as well. Other than Junior Champions Club (which has always given out free shirts and paid for by a sponsor business), I can't think of any great examples of mass amounts of free gear being given out or at least anything outside what was previously done.

I'm confused why people are so surprised about a bird logo and/or mascot looking like a bird.

Yep, really tough to distinguish bird feathers from ones that look like some sort of a headdress.

Predictable responses on social media. I think everything was covered in the first 30 minutes of the designs being released: Sioux Forever (just need a little more time to move on I guess) Waste of money, should be used to bring back women's hockey (math must be hard) Local company should have gotten the work (lot of those around ) The right group of people didn't get input (still working on finding that right combination) I think they did a decent job. It looks like a bird. The clothing is interchangeable. The committee wanted to make sure all three had fairly neutral clothing during the voting process so it didn't influence anything (hockey jersey, football jersey, etc). It clearly states on every single on that the attire can be changed. Biggest difference between them is the head shape/design and leg color, otherwise they are pretty similar.

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.