jdub27

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.

I'd expect to see the final choices for students to choose from released in the next couple days.

Don't do dumb stuff to get your name in the paper and you don't have to worry about consequences. That being said, it is a fairly minor thing, though definitely not very smart. They didn't try to beat anyone up or run away while they were handcuffed, so it could always be worse.

I used the actual 2016-2017 numbers for WT and WG, which combined for expenses of just over $500K. I just used the estimated budget of $1 million that was thrown around. I'd guess that UND's total expense would be slightly above average due to travel expenses, so that is probably a fair estimate. So you're looking at roughly an extra $400-500K in expenses while gaining somewhere around the equivalency of 5 more tuition units/year. That doesn't make up the difference in costs.

Las season, women's golf gave out 4.6 scholarships with 9 players on the roster, meaning they "brought in" around 4.4 "units" of tuition dollars while showing a Net loss of $171K. There was one ND player on the roster out of 9. Women's tennis gave out 4.4 scholarships and their were 13 players on the roster. They "brought in" 8.6 "units" of tuition dollars while showing a Net loss of $222K loss. 5 of the 13 players were from ND. Using your formula of offsetting losses with non-scholarship tuition dollars, I'd say both of these programs are actually doing pretty decent. Average NCAA women's lacrosse team has 30 players and they can give up to 12 scholarships, leaving 18 "units" of tuition they would "bring in". So you're cutting 2 sports to gain roughly 5 tuition "units", while the budget for lacrosse is at least double what women's tennis and golf are currently costing (combined for $513K in total expenses in 2017). I don't think the math pencils out on this one.

The setup had been the wishes of the head coach. If you want it changed, he's the one to talk to. However, I agree they should go back to the Alerus and make it more of an event. Nicer weather for some tailgating yesterday would have been nice, but can't really control that. Moving it out of town is a really bad idea for multiple reasons. Just to name a few: It's a big junior recruiting weekend, student athletes are still in class and they would either have to stay over night or be on a bus all day for a 2 hour event and miss classes, the support would be questionable.

This is where I'm at as well. I saw a few nice throws but some questionable decision making and poor throws as well. Not saying with more time, he can't improve, but I think Ketteringham has more to offer.

Well, obviously 6 years isn't enough for some people to move on. UND should probably just halt everything for another decade and see if they'll come around and accept reality that it's just a nickname and logo, not a deity. Life is full of changes, it is what it is.

I'm actually pretty sure that was one of the arguments made a decade ago. However the decision was made to keep them in the best seats in the house. I don't even recall who was on what side anymore but it isn't a new discussion.

The problem is, you only have less than half the amount of seats so you're going to have to convince people that have had their lower bowl seats for 15+ years that this it would be a good idea. Pretty sure this was a big discussion that went on for multiple years before and after the REA opened. There were many talks about moving the students and changing sections. The theory was always that they would have the best seats in the house and that's why they've stayed where they are. Maybe that mindset has changed. But I don't think you'll ever see them increase the amount of lower bowl sections they have.

We'll have to disagree on that. Not saying the comparison is apples to apples, but that isn't how the real world works. If your'e being compensated to represent someone/something, you shouldn't be publicly doing things that are the opposite of a stated goal. I'll agree that there is a difference between not embracing or showing apathy towards it, which would be fine, but continuing to push the Fighting Sioux stuff is something that I think is unnecessary from the team.

I get what you're saying but you're quite a bit of revenue from the Champions Club if you do that. They are already hamstrung trying to increase donations without more lower bowl seats to sell. Taking away 2 more sections doesn't help that at all. Unfortunately the demand for lower bowl seats is significantly more than the demand for tickets in general. People are willing to pay a pretty decent premium to be in the lower bowl.

I mean, yeah, it kind of is. The University is spending resources on branding (which was severely lacking the last decade, since there was no actually identity or brand to promote) and you have a group of very in-the-public individuals who are not only supposed to represent the University but are also getting scholarships and full cost of attendance from the University and they are basically publicly speaking out against that mission whether it be directly or indirectly. Not only that, but the public display of supporting the old nickname only encourages the general public who are looking for a reason to not move on and enables the "Sioux Forever" line of thinking because if the hockey team isn't going to move on, why should they?

Prepare to be disappointed. Designs should be released for a student vote over the next few weeks.

I mean if you don't think the continued hanging on to the Fighting Sioux nickname has gotten a little old and over the top, then I'm not sure what to tell you. The chants at hockey games and booing of the new nickname, responses to anything mentioning Fighting Hawks on social media by UND and non-UND accounts, continued comments by student-athletes about being Fighting Sioux when they were in junior high or younger the last time UND actually was known as the Fighting Sioux, etc. I mean, people get it, there's a large group don't like the new name or logo and that's fine. But yelling or proclaiming "Sioux Forever" every chance you get while making negative comments about the current nickname and logo isn't going to bring back the name or change anything, it just shows that they haven't grasped the reality of the situation yet. I personally don't care if people haven't moved on, but I don't need to hear about it every time the new nickname and logo is mentioned. I'd much rather spend time discussing the actual teams, the last decade plus of hearing about the nickname has been more than enough.

No I didn't. You're stating that it likely happened. It didn't.