jdub27

Jayson Hajdu (UND Sports Information Director) and Mitch Wigness (Assistant Media Relations Director) started a podcast a few weeks back covering a huge variety of things related to UND Athletics and talk with various guests. So far their have been 4 episodes. They have been pretty entertaining and have had a lot of insight you don't get to hear normally. Available on SoundCloud and iTunes. Episode 1 - Dan Hammer, Mark Pryor (UND VB), Pat Sweeney Episode 2 - Danny Freund Episode 3 - Brad Schlossman Episode 4 - Bubba Schweigert, Brandon Anderson (UND FB OL), Kent Keys (UND statistician) Glad to see the athletic department taking the time and effort on trying something like this.

Guess those underlying numbers showing that their record was all smoke and mirrors (and unsustainable timely hitting) weren't too far off and Molitor isn't some magical being who willed the team to those wins in his first season. Not a huge surprise they've been struggling but seem to be dropping to the complete other end of the spectrum. It was fun while it lasted I guess.

All schools have their offseason issues, UND included, but that's the second NDSU player to have some sort of theft charge against them this offseason.

Season tickets showed up today. Got my tickets to the game down at the FargoLoaf as well. Tailgating upgrades nearing completion. Ready for the season to start.

10 years since the policy was put in place but the fight has been going on for decades. Your last point is spot on.

I asked you the most likely outcome. And you seem to have no problem speculating on what the NCAA would need to do in order to enforce sanctions (which also are already known). Your long winded non-answer is pretty telling on what you think it actually will be despite your refusal to admit it. The NCAA using the words "very likely" should have been a tip off considering the actions that will trigger that are going to happen with 100% certainty.

Simple yes or no. From the information now known, what is the most likely end result to the question "Will the NCAA Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname"?

Quinnipiac, Michigan Tech and St. Cloud didn't get seem to mind when it happened during the Regionals....

You specifically asked if there has been comments from UND or the NCAA on whether choosing "no nickname" would result in sanctions. There is a statement from Peter Johnson stating the NCAA has said that it is very likely if UND chooses "no nickname" and the fans continue to use Sioux and Fighting Sioux (which there is absolutely zero doubt that they will). Your question was answered when it was stated UND was very likely to face sanctions (because it is a foregone conclusion on what the fans will do). And yet somehow, out of all that, what you get is that UND will not face sanctions? I get you're just playing a bit here, but being intentionally being dense to muddy the waters does no one any good.

To the first part: nothing. By all appearances, UND will have done everything in its power to move on, similar to my guess as why they haven't done anything to date (and is backed up by the NCAA stating that they feel UND has done everything in its power to comply). As has been previously stated, when part of the crowd that is publicly pushing for "no nickname" continues to simultaneously push Fighting Sioux Foreever, UND picking "no nickname" can easily be tied to them being OK with and encouraging Fighting Sioux being the de facto nickname. The difference between now and then would be UND would officially be taking a stance that they are fine with it as they would have "completed" the nickname transition. To the second part, it is a crapshoot to where the people who complained came from but I'd guess that there were multiple other schools that did (SCSU comes to mind along with the B1G scheduling policies), not to mention people within UND and others that have no affiliation with the school.

Guess you got your answer yet somehow it has not seemed to change the minds of those who are convinced nothing bad will happen. Seems very similar to the group that was convinced the NCAA would never force UND to drop the Fighting Sioux name, even if it was "voluntary".

Interesting catch-22 the NCAA has laid out. If the Fighting Sioux Forever crowd wants to continue to wear and yell Fighting Sioux related things, then the only way to do so without a very likely possibility of sanctions is to actually pick a new nickname. If they hold fast, insist that it is all about being unique and keep pushing for "no nickname", then they really will have to follow through and support "no nickname". I personally don't see the second scenario as plausible. There are way too many people that have it entrenched in their mind that the University of North Dakota can only be known as the Fighting Sioux (and the NCAA knows this). They aren't going to force UND to pick a new nickname, just like they didn't force them to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname. However, they have no issue letting the possible (and very likely) consequences be known.

I should have been more clear, I meant in the coming year. The word out of Fargo after the announcement in January was that NDSU would be paying FCOA going forward, though a portion of that was from the "fans" with all the inside information. Within the last month or so, NDSU pulled back on that and announced they weren't doing it yet and are still looking into it (as are many non P5 and G5 schools)

You finally get concrete evidence that there is very likely consequences to choosing "no nickname" and then proceed to downplay it. The NCAA also gave UND the green light to continue to use Fighting Sioux if they wanted.

Where did it specifically state anything about a new policy? It said that if UND chooses "no nickname" that is fine as long as fans don't resume using Sioux or Fighting Sioux or sanctions are very likely. Not that the fans ever stopped but the difference is that at that point UND has chosen to go forward and they can no longer be viewed as transitioning to a new nickname. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the sanctions occur because the NCAA says that UND didn't actually transition and is violation or because of a new policy. The end result is the same and not favorable. The NCAA played it perfectly, the same as they did when UND "voluntarily" retired the Fighting Sioux nickname.

I'm curious why semantics matter? If fans continue as they have, UND is very likely face sanctions. Whether its because of the Settlement Agreement or a new rule is both unknown and irrelevant.

UND is currently in the same position is has been for the last 3 years or so as they work towards transitioning towards a new nickname. If "no nickname" is selected and it ends up that "no nickname" actually is just a cover for fans to continue to use Fighting Sioux and not actually going with "no nickname", then it will be apparent that UND did not do everything in its power to comply with the Settlement Agreement and sanction are very likely.

I'd love to hear the logic behind this after the contents of the statement passed on from the NCAA.

Yet if UND goes with "no nickname" and fans continue to use Fighting Sioux, the NCAA will impose sanctions because it will have proved the UND did not transition to a new nickname. Whether they do on the grounds that UND didn't select and transition to a new nickname and is in violation of the settlement agreement because they are allowing/encouraging fans to use Fighting Sioux or they just flat out change the rules to state that all member institutions must have a nickname does not matter. Selecting "no nickname" will result in sanctions.

I get what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that they could have done it the last few years with season tickets sold out and they didn't. Coincidence? Maybe. Contributing factor? Likely.

I think the RB battle will be interesting, more so to see if Oliveira and Smith both get their shirts pulled. Smith is really young, an extra year of development for him would be nice but if he can contribute right now, go for it.

But my point is that they didn't and they have had a couple years of sold out season tickets to do so, so I'm don't think its as "easy" as you state it would have been or they would have done it. And regardless of how NDSU is doing (in this case extremely well), they would have charged more for the UND game, just look at any other sport that the two have played in for proof. The UND ticket price has always been the highest single game on the schedule (UND has done the exact same thing). I'm not sure if there is a difference in season ticket prices, but when you're talking 15-20 games vs. 6, it is not quite an exact comparison.

Only if "no nickname" is chosen. If UND moves forward with a new nickname, then they have continued to do everything in their power to comply with the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA won't lift a finger, they will have finally got what their ultimate goal was, replacement of the Fighting Sioux nickname. I do however see this misdirection being used by some in the "no nickname" crowd to muddy the waters saying that the NCAA is going to do it regardless.

I didn't think the NCAA would issue a statement ahead of any action by UND but the end result is the same, UND ends up back under sanctions and the NCAA has clean hands. You last point is dead-on. UND's only way out of this is to pick a replacement. If they do, the NCAA can't or won't do anything about what people wear or cheer. If they don't, they have effectively said that UND is fostering an environment where a retired nickname is being allowed to be used as a de facto nickname and the consequences will be the same as if they were officially using it.

They were pretty quick to state that they would be offering it after the original FCOA announcement and then a few months later stated they wouldn't be offering it. There have been comments from Larsen stating they are still looking into the costs and where the funds would come from. So are you claiming that the NDSU athletic department doesn't know what they are doing? That's the only logical explanation if it was as easy to do as you claim. They finally had a simple reason to increase season tickets and they did. Last year Montana was on the schedule along with "rival SDSU", yet ticket prices didn't go up. This is also the highest aggregate total that a whole season worth of single game tickets cost. Not coincidences.