jdub27

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.

Wow, the NCAA played it even better than giving "No comment". Basically said that UND is fine to do as they please but if the fans continue to use Sioux or Fighting Sioux in place of "no nickname" which the NCAA is fully aware happens already then all it would take is "other schools" to complain and sanctions are very likely. Basically put it on UND to replace it without actually forcing them to because they know exactly what will happen if "no nickname" is chosen and they keep their hands clean because there is no one to blame but the fans themselves. Well played NCAA. Also the NCAA believes UND has done its best to comply with the settlement agreement, which is what has been stated as the reason the NCAA has refrained from issuing sanctions, despite the dates on the original Settlement Agreement. If this clarification is true, I can't see any possible way that "no nickname" remains as a viable option. Despite the "no nickname" crowd who state they aren't in the Fighting Sioux Forever crowd, there are many who are and will ensure that this becomes an issue.

Figured it was something simple like that. Thanks!

Second this.

If Fargo U's athletic department "could have easily" done it and didn't, then they are pretty incompetent. But I guess money is no issue in Fargo, despite a decade old project still $1.5 million short or the current project having an enormous funding deficit that has caused some pretty significant cuts to the original plans.

As a fan of neither time, not sure how much weight your opinion carries.

It's hilarious how the "scheduling philosophy" keeps changing every time its proven to be false. And as others have stated, you are flat out wrong on the Weber State thing. Kind of like how NDSU fans claimed a few years ago that their athletic department wouldn't make more money on a UND game because they don't believe in dynamic pricing. Yet the UND single game tickets are far and away the highest and season tickets magically went up $20. Not like they haven't been sold out for 3 years or so, yet this is the year they coincidentally go up. Bubba got the game(s) on the schedule at all costs. The next round of negotiations won't go the same way, especially since Fargo U keeps tripping over themselves in their attempts to prove that this is "just another game on the schedule".

2019 is the next 12 game season with 2024 and 2025 being the ones after that. At this point, Iowa will still play NDSU, honoring the signed contract. I don't see them buying it out either with two guys with NDSU ties at the top of the Iowa athletic department. Even if it were to happen, NDSU would use the money to bring a team in instead of travel or a very slim chance of signing a 2 game contract with someone and play the away game that year.

Hipsters/millennials and their faux outrage seems to be a winning combination for Chipotle and their "creative marketing". Personally I think it is good, just can't get past the no queso thing.

Should have done it 7/21 around 9pm....

Have not had but it is now on the list to try. No queso is pretty much unforgivable.

Qdoba > Chipotle Also very interested to see how good Pepperjax's burritos will be.

I want to clarify that the people I spoke with did not know what the NCAA's stance was. That does not mean that the question hasn't been asked nor if it has been answered, it just means that the people I talked with didn't know. The feeling I got was that there had been some sort of inquiry but the NCAA did not respond.

Held offers from UConn, Hawaii, UMass, Rutgers and UCLA though I'm positive at least of few of them were grey-shirt offers. New Mexico and Morgan State were also listed as offering him. Went to the same high school as recent transfer Irvin-Sills.

Rest assured that this will happen. As I stated previously, there are already groups waiting for it as this type of controversy seems to be the only thing that gets them airtime. The protesters last fall from the Walk for Change or whatever it was called have stated as much if a nickname isn't picked and are a perfect example of what will continue to happen.

I've asked people within UND and they didn't know. They didn't specify whether that meant the question hadn't been asked or the NCCA declined giving an answer but the way it was presented, I believe the latter to be the most likely explanation. Take it for what its worth. There are people that should have a definitive answer on the question but to date, there has not been a public comment on it that I'm aware of, even if it is that the NCAA has declined to take a stance at this time. I agree fully that whatever questions that have been asked should be made public, regardless of the answers.