jdub27

There would have to be a long paper trail for your "source" to be correct, including usage agreements, all which would be available with a FOIA request. The GF Herald has requested quite a bit of stuff and hasn't come across anything similar to that and I'm sure they'd be happy to drop that bombshell if true.

This guy might be on to something... What benefit is there for the NCAA to take a stand on a hypothetical situation? There literally is none. They have no obligation to UND other than to point at the signed settlement agreement (which does state UND must pick a new nickname but the interpretations of that have been debated enough).

Not to mention they also have the power to change them as they go along.

What exactly did he "prove"? Seems to me that the only thing that was proven is that despite the nickname debacle, the UND football coaches are able to get recruits to buy in to what they are trying to do. Not sure how you can claim it isn't reality? UND coaches have admitted to having to battle it. Opposing coaches admit to using it. Is it measurable? No. But it is real despite what you try to argue. It is one of many things that UND continues to have to face because the issue isn't resolved and having "no nickname" continues down that path. At what point do all these "little things" that the "no nickname" crowd keeps dismissing as having minimal impact add up to be enough to make them realize that moving on is the only true way to distance UND from the net negative the nickname situation is?

Are you trying to argue that the nickname debacle (in the past and currently) has had absolutely zero impact on recruiting? I don't think anyone has claimed that there is any way to fully know or measure exactly what impact there has been as it is one of hundreds of things that comes into play throughout the recruiting process, but to claim that it hasn't been or isn't brought up and gives some recruits at least something extra to consider is just being naïve. It isn't exactly generating positive press either. Why continue to give opposing coaches an extra arrow in their quiver?

I don't think there is any issues on people saying what they've "heard" or what might happen. That's a long, long ways from claiming its been signed, sealed and delivered for months and a done deal.

I think I've heard "the fix is in" on at least 3 of the final 5 nicknames from various people "in the know", not to mention one or two that "had already been chosen" before they were eliminated in prior rounds. Sad thing is, at least of couple of those people will end up being accidentally right.

You're assuming it stopped. Sicatoka's post is pretty spot on. Not as effective now as it was when the sanctions were looming and it was a hurdle to possibly getting a conference, but it is still pretty easy to spin the dumpster fire this has become into a negative that gives a recruit something a little extra to think about.

If only there was a place to discuss that with people who cared.

You claim they are speculative yet every single one of them has already happened in the past. Seems like a pretty good basis to assume they could very easily happen or in some cases, most definitely are still happening, going forward. And not sure what the shot at the football team is about? There were multiple issues, some of the ones mentioned included, but a large part of it was coaching and by all appearances appears to be on the upswing. Agree 100% and I've inferred the same point a few times.

I think the amount of blame that will continue to be projected on UND for anything that is even remotely controversial and related to Native Americans is being significantly understated. We just saw this recently with the "Siouxper Drunk" shirts. In that instance, there was maybe 1 or 2 out of the group that were actually UND students (with most of them being from Fargo) and it wasn't a UND sanctioned event. Yet UND ended up taking the brunt of the backlash. With no nickname in place, it continues to be very clear that there is a large group filling that void by hanging on to the Fighting Sioux nickname and UND has no defense for that blame. Picking a new nickname and showing the outside world that they have done everything in their power to move is the only way to deflect things like that. I'm sure there will still be some things that arise, but the difference in reaction would be significant. People may actually look at the individuals doing the idiotic things instead of going straight to blaming UND. Not to mention there are multiple groups more or less licking their chops for UND to go with "no nickname" because of the perception that having "no nickname" creates an environment where Fighting Sioux remains the de facto nickname. These groups seem to only be able to get their name or message out when controversy arises and they would love nothing more than for UND to make a decision that helps get them back into the public's view. It's honestly tough to argue with their point on the perception being created when people show up to a "no nickname" rally in Fighting Sioux gear, Sioux Forever signs and chanting "Let's go Sioux".

The BSA is going to have less seating than Fargo's USLH team's arena. What's your point?

Not sure but I know that 346 out of 346 other D1 schools think that having a nickname and logo is a good idea. But to address your question, I question the relevancy. I haven't seen any baseless claims about what dentists prefer like there have been for students and student-athletes even after their chosen representatives voted 3-1 to get rid of the option.

So if UND had the option to bring back Fighting Sioux, we shouldn't because we need separate ourselves from the herd?

1 out of 4 student representatives had that opinion. The minority. The two actual student-athletes on the committee who were picked to represent the other student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname" and other than some hockey players, I haven't seen any student-athletes publicly disagree with that decision.

But remember, the student athletes don't want a new new nickname... kat reller‏@katreller 2h2 hours ago @cglass11 @UNDSID more athletes at UND that want a new nickname, then there are that don't, which is mainly the hockey players..

So what you're saying is that the only way that group of people will be happy is if Kelley declares that UND will go forward with "no nickname"?

So because one committee member says what he thinks (and many others would agree with) and somehow it came right from Kelley's mouth? And then to top it off, Kelley backchannels to deep six "no nickname" through the committee process only to place it back under possible consideration two days later? If he wanted it gone, he got what he wanted and didn't have to deal with it anymore.

And how do the ratings for those games compare?

Per Tom Miller: UND received its first verbal commitment of 2016 from Isaiah Secrest. RB of Rice Lake, Wis. 5-7, 160.

Both student-athletes voted to remove "no nickname". Of the student representatives, it was 1 for and 1 against. Total student representative vote: 3-1 to remove "no nickname".

So Kelley forced the committee to drop it and then potentially brings it back? Since we're playing hypotheticals, during the June meeting if two committee members had changed their mind this discussion isn't taking place right now and "no nickname" doesn't make the final 7. It was the lowest remaining option then as well.

The nicknames I preferred were dropped long before the final 15 or whatever the number was and I was felt the same before and after they did that. The committee followed the processes laid out for them, that's why I have no issue with them. They ranked the nicknames at least twice with "no nickname" being the lowest scoring of what remained, I'm not sure how keeping it on the list at that point made sense. My issue with how Kelley handled it is that he openly undermined the committee. I guess I didn't think about the fact that the process did state he had the ability to add names to the final list, but to add something that saw more debate than anything else, scored consistently low from the committee and was voted out isn't quite how I saw him using that power. When the Fighting Sioux nickname was dropped, a group of people that fully knew the sanctions that would be placed on UND, did not care and chose to insist that the Fighting Sioux nickname be kept (and some continue to this day). That is not someone who can honestly say they support the University of North Dakota. To claim to be a fan and then voluntarily and intentionally supporting something that places the school at a disadvantage is mind-blowing. I do understand what you're saying, I just don't have the same opinion. I want the University of North Dakota to have every advantage possible.

Those people are not supporters of the University of North Dakota, they are supporters of a retired nickname and logo. There is absolutely no other way to put it. They also probably overlap with same group that threatened to quit giving donations when Fighting Sioux was retired. The result? Record year of donations to the Champions Club the following year.

I have no issues with how either committee did its job, they did exactly what was laid out for them and were open about it whether you agreed with them or not: 5 However: Including and listening to consultants: 0 Kelley undermining the committee: 0 Dating back decades: 0 This entire debacle has been and continues to be a joke and an embarrassment.