jdub27

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.

Once you've signed it, you can't go to another college unless you are released from it and the school can put conditions on it.

Yes, but the difference will be that it will end up being one of the upper bowl sections, not one of the lower bowl. NDSU students lost their best section in the deal but got $100K/year in student fees back along with priority for SRO tickets.

I'd really like to hear what you consider "talks" and who was doing the talking because I'm pretty sure it's absolutely false. Message board theories are much different than actual "talks". On top of that, even if it wasn't, the B1G would monetarily have to make it worth it to UND to consider joining since their would be a large buyout from the NCHC and UND gets conference distributions. The B1G has zero history of paying associate members in the few instances they have added them. UND is (rightfully) not considered a peer to the B1G schools which is already a big strike and the non-hockey schools have no incentive to give away TV money to a school that will not add to the overall bottom line for the conference if they could even move the needle at all.

This is a fair point and I agree that kids are getting recruited too young. Because schools know that all of these kids aren't going to develop, it leads to over-recruiting and leaves kids scrambling. However the way it's presented using the term Minnesota's "short list" comes off as arrogant. Couple that with stating they will no longer recognize any verbal commitment made before a kid is 17 just screams "we are better than you". Not saying that UM isn't one of the top schools kids have to choose from, but to specifically tell players to tell other schools that they will reserve the right to ignore their previous commitment the day the turn 17 to commit to UM is presented in a pretty smug way.

So not only are we making up events that have never had an inkling of being true (UND being invited to the B1G), now we're also making up what people's thoughts on those fantasies are?

Probably fair to point out that UND did take a section of hockey seats away from students a few years ago but they took away the least desirable one and have used it for single game tickets instead of the most desirable ones and converted it season tickets.. Will be interesting to see if there is any reaction from the students. Seems like the athletic department got the money they were looking for last year when they asked to raise student fees for "travel and equipment" (not budget cuts ) by just taking seats away and selling them to season ticket holders.

That also doesn't include the junior who decided to pass on his senior season to go to med school.

Stecher had 2G/9A and 3G/10A his freshman and sophomore years. Caggigiula was a bit better going 8G/8A and 11G/13A. No doubt the sophomore class needs to step up its game but Mismash had 9G/13A, Kawaguchi had 5G/14A and Adams had 5G/3A (playing 12 less games than the other two) as freshman. All of those compare pretty favorably. Rodwell, Pattyn, Olson are all guys who made a pretty big jump from underclassman to upperclassman years in terms of production. There are others, but those are the most obvious examples.

Yet the plan to fix them have been in the works for a couple years. There are only so many projects that can be done in a year and there hasn't been a lack of large ones that have impacted traffic recently.

How is that possible?? We were just told UND is getting spanked by UMD and Denver in the attendance department. I guess if you combine their attendance then they outpace UND 11,475 to 11,408, maybe that's what we're missing.

Not even close to the worst in town. There's a couple roads (Cherry St in particular) that I will voluntarily take Washington instead of.

I don't have a narrative, I'm making observations on people cherry picking results and ignoring other things that don't tell the whole story. Sandy won a title the first year the Amsoil opened. Then he lost in the second round of the tournament and followed that up by missing the tournament years in a row. That was preceded by making the tournament two years out of ten. Yes, missing the tournament is a weakness. However they finished 14th in the pairwise which gets them in every year since 2008. Losing multiple players earlier than expected, leaving unexpected holes or accelerating players also caused issues. Look at the number of players that have left UND early compared to UMD and then couple that with those that left a year or two before they anyone thought they would.

That seems to be why everyone is chasing Berry out of town so it seems relevant. I think they are both good coaches but I'm not going to ignore the weaknesses in Sandy's resume they would have had people caging for his head if he did the same thing at UND, just pointing out the hypocrisy in it.

And missed the tournament twice.

None of those are close to being top 10 smallest in terms of enrollment.

Pretty subjective observation especially if you're going to ignore half of his coaching career.

Not mocking them, they've had a nice 3 years or 8 I guess, but that includes two missed tournaments. But people are losing their mind over one year here, it's fair to look at his whole resume. Not a chance he would have lasted at UND long enough to get where he is, yet people want Berry fired after 1 semi down year, where UND ended in a position that has made the tournament the last 10 years. Also fair to point out how thin the line between winning a title and missing the tournament is. Duluth was pretty damn lucky to make the tournament this year.