jdub27

I guess I don't know how you define the sky falling but the number of negatives associated with going forward with "no nickname" continues to grow, regardless of how small or unrealistic some may perceive them to be. They are real. People on the committee admitted it. People that work for UND, including in the athletic department, admit it. Players and coaches admit it. There are real consequences and issues that "no nickname" brings that the five options that are officially left don't. Why voluntarily put any of those in play when there is a simple solution to it? So that people can selfishly hold on to an inanimate object? Or because they somehow think it will be "sticking it" to the NCAA, when in reality they are only putting the University of North Dakota at a disadvantage, regardless of how small or large it may end up being? The biggest issue is that "no nickname" does not resolve the nickname issue one bit. It is what the committee came to understand in their hours of work and why it was eliminated. It will continue to waste time, resources and money that could be much better spent elsewhere.

I think we are all in the same boat on that but as much as we all would have like it to, it was never going to happen. The disagreements on the names submitted were just as much as they are on the finalists. You aren't going to come up with something unique and then have a majority buy in because everyone has their own idea of unique. Add the consultants into the mix and you see what happens. If they would have had 100% say, I doubt that Roughriders or Sundogs would have made it this far. It doesn't fit <adjective> <unoffensive animal/object>. I guess I'm not sure what your reference to what the PC folks are doing means but even though I'm fully in favor of choosing a new nickname, I have zero intention of hiding from or being ashamed of UND's past. I will display my Fighting Sioux memorabilia next to whatever is chosen. It's not that I (or many other) want to move on from the past, it just happens to be what is best for the University of North Dakota for many reasons and on many levels.

I think it will be an interesting match-up between UND's front seven and NDSU's line. Schmidt will likely be aggressive to try to force NDSU into making mistakes and the 3-4 defense can bring pressure in a lot of ways and can be quite a bit different from the normal 4-3 defense that they typically see. UND's secondary will have to be solid as they will likely see some 1-1 coverage in those situations and Wentz can get the ball there in a hurry. If UND can get pressure on Wentz (tough task with a strong line for NDSU), it seemed last year he was more apt to tuck it and run rather than step up in the pocket and continue his reads. When he's running, which he's very capable of, he has a tendency to not secure the ball very well and also go for contact instead of sliding. Those two things are fixable and it could be a non-issue but it was noticeable last year. If they still hold true, UND needs to be ready to get a shot on him and go after the ball when he's running. I have no clue what will happen when UND has the ball. UND started finding a rhythm running the ball the end of last year and the OL coach has done a really good job of molding the lineman he inherited into a solid group. The QB and RB however are both big question marks. On the flip side, NDSU is losing a lot, especially right up the middle. I'd assume the returning strength of their defense is the CB position, which probably doesn't give them a huge advantage as I don't think UND has one stand-out receiver, more of just a committee approach, no one particular guy to focus on.

So even though you're in the "no nickname" camp, you are still going to hold on to the Fighting Sioux nickname. This one of the many reasons that "no nickname" is not an acceptable option, it continues to leave Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname. The good thing is that at least it is becoming more and more obvious to the general public and the vocal supporters of the "no nickname" crowd are doing more harm than good for that cause.

If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?

Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3). Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?

Scenario 3 is most likely. UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "We don't take stances on hypotheticals".

Again, that is because at the time UND had announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname and logo (albeit at an incredibly slow pace). The exact scenario in which the Settlement Agreement stated would put them in compliance. Why would the Addendum state anything differently outside of the REA being out of compliance with the original settlement agreement's imagery guidelines? Your interpretation of single paragraph in an Addendum that was drafted for the sole purpose fixing that and allowing the REA to have more imagery does not magically make the original Settlement Agreement null and void.

And you are free to provide your speculation and conjecture as well. However you forgot an important part of the Addendum: "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" The original Settlement called for UND to be removed from the sanctions list once it announced the retirement of the Fighting Sioux nickname and started on transition towards a new nickname and logo. That was the situation UND was in when the Addendum was signed. What benefit did the NCAA have to punish UND when they were showing that they were doing what they could in their power to work towards transitioning to a new nickname and logo? The NCAA also continues to have the power to punish or change their policies to punish UND as they see fit. What would stop them from putting a new policy in place to prevent a University from going with "no nickname" because it fosters an environment where a nickname that was previously deemed hostile and abusive is encouraged to be used.

I know you know, but the Addendum to the Settlement Agreement was strictly done for the purpose of amending what imagery can be displayed and whatever it is you're trying to cite has nothing to do with its purpose. And what happens in the event that the NCAA declines to take a stance?

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.