jdub27

Yes, the guy who's job is to literally deal with this every day is making all of it up to pass time on a Friday.

What's my timeline to start and end at? And are we talking about the only the process itself? I only ask because I have considerably different opinions on various parts of it. And I can guarantee you the score didn't go up this morning...

Picking "no nickname" is not moving on, it is kicking the can down the road. UND's SID, who job actually entails dealing with this, posted that exact sentiment. It isn't some message board scare tactic or whatever today's deflection buzzword is.

No one is flip-flopping. Kelley had zero to do with what happened Tuesday, no one was praising him for the committee making the right decision. The committee had zero to do with what happened today, no one is condemning them for Kelley appeasing a vocal group of people, many who threw public temper-tantrums.

I have to admit, I am very impressed with Hadju's opinions and his willingness to very openly share them on this matter.

UND always has always been, currently is and always will be North Dakota. And you realize this is about a nickname/logo right? Its in inanimate object that people are treating like a deity. So many people are stuck in the Denial and Anger stages of grief and don't realize it. If they took a step back and realized it, things would be a lot easier for them.

UND students approved the fees to support athletics. On top of that, you're so absolutely clueless on how athletic department funding works its not even funny.

Yes, this all on Kelley, who became president after the settlement agreement was signed and multiple decades after the issue arose.

Because UND actually offers proportionate opportunities for women's athletics. It's a novel idea, maybe NDSU will join the 21st century at some point and do the same. And with the "accounting" that goes on at Fargo U, I wouldn't beat my chest too hard about how college finances are reported.

We all underestimated the consultants and misunderstood their role.

The "no nickname" crowd is going to have a hard time convincing people its a different than the Sioux Forever crowd when the organizer of Friday's protest decides to give an interview on the news wearing a Fighting Sioux hockey jersey...

So.......

You'd think if they had been paying attention they would realize Fighting Sioux isn't coming back either but letters to the editor, tweets and Facebook comments sure indicate that one hasn't sunk in yet. Guaranteed there will be people complaining when the new banner is unveiled.

But don't worry, he totally had the University of North Dakota's best interest in mind....

I'm not the one that has an issue with it, the entire Fargo University graduating class of 2011 is. As previously stated, this thread has definitely lived up to its name. And the NDSU/UND game thread has been closed.

How many posts did you just spend making up a bunch of "facts" and talking about a hypothetical game in MSP? What does that have to do with the 2015 game?

Boy are the hockey fans going to be pissed when they see the new conference banner that goes up this fall...... I'm sure he will be branded a traitor or there will be claims that he was strong-armed just like what happened to Hak when he came out supporting people to vote to retire the Sioux nickname.

The exchange I posted was 12 hours ago. The meeting (and tweets you're referencing) were 36 hours ago. They are not tied together nor did the question I posted have anything about Kelley being at the meeting. Someone point-blank asked Schlossman if the rumor of Kelley threatening to disband the committee was true. It isn't and he responded with that exact answer.

Wrong. Peter Simon ‏@Pistol66 11h11 hours ago If rumor is true Kelly threatened to drop committee if they didn't drop it. Why have a Committee? @SchlossmanGF Brad E. Schlossman‏@SchlossmanGF 11h11 hours ago @Pistol66 Not true.

Unless you have new information, you're repeating something that has already been debunked multiple times. Schlossman, among others, have confirmed that this is false.

Schlossman wrote two articles yesterday alluding to the exact the same thing. I see similarities across my social media feeds from people I know. Its not all hockey fans, but I don't feel in the wrong saying that the majority of the people having the hardest time with "no nickname" being eliminated (and changing nicknames at all) are hockey only fans. To be honest, it makes sense. Those that only have ties with one part of the University aren't going to care much about the rest of it. The hockey team has been incredibly successful, it makes sense they have a large, otherwise unattached following. Look 70 miles south to see almost a mirror image with a football team. Tons of fans who follow football and the majority could not care less about the rest of their athletic department, including a basketball team that has been very successful in its own right.

Nor 19,000 in Texas in 2013 considering they played Sam Houston State.

You're right, I missed it. Apologies to Teeder.

Surprised no one has posted Jayson Hajdu's tweet:

I think they've followed the directions that were laid out for them. I'm not going to throw stones at a group of people who took on an impossible task. The biggest farce in the whole thing has been the consultants. Their meddling has caused more problems than anything else combined. In terms of using a scoring scale, "no nickname" was the lowest scored remaining option in each of last two polls done by the committee. Its now eliminated. Seems fairly straight-forward whether you agree with it or not. The change in some of the other remaining options from one poll to the other is interesting though.