jdub27

Just want to make sure I understand your stance: You are basically saying the only nickname that should ever be acceptable to be used at the University of North Dakota is Fighting Sioux and if that isn't possible there should never be another one chosen?

"No nickname" was 2 votes out of 11 from being completely removed from consideration, it is possible that there is hope it just goes away naturally and there is no need to get the NCAA involved in the situation at all. And honestly, if the NCAA has spoken on the matter and given their blessing for "no nickname" (and I personally don't think they have), what's the best case answer they could actually give - "Sure, its fine today but we continue to reserve the right to change our mind and policies at any point".

I'd rephrase it to "Why don't you want a nickname?". UND always has been and always will be North Dakota regardless of what nickname is chosen.

I guess I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you. Hakstol seemed to understand it when he came out publicly in favor of retiring the nickname because of the challenges it caused for the athletic department, some of which still continue to exist because the issue still isn't resolved. Hockey is one of the sports that would be least affected by any issues and even so, they have a $100+ million state of the art arena to fallback on. You aren't comparing apples to apples. Just because it doesn't have a huge effect on hockey doesn't mean it isn't an issue within the rest of the athletic department. But I guess the other programs just need to recruit better. You know what would make that easier? Not having to deal with the nickname issue in additional to the typical BS stuff they (and all other coaches) go up against.

There is an opposing coach on record saying that it was used against UND. There is a former UND head coach saying it was used against them. Your argument is that since no one has said anything in the media the last couple years that means it has stopped despite the nickname issue still being unresolved? UND coaches aren't going to continuously bring it up because all schools have various things used against them in recruiting and this is part of the hand they've been dealt (though on the surface, it should be a resolvable one). I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of proof of it and whether or not you want to believe it or just pretend it doesn't exist is your prerogative. But if someone is going to claim that the nickname issue hasn't, doesn't or won't have any bearing on what happens on the field, they are wrong.

Are you looking for a yearly update from opposing coaches saying "Yep, still bringing up that train wreck of a nickname mess"? Or are you going off the assumption that that since once the nickname was dropped, that clearly resolved the issue and every opposing coach decided it wasn't worth bringing up anymore?

It is continuously used against UND on the recruiting trail. Whether what opposing coaches are telling recruits is true or not doesn't matter, what matters is it is another way to put doubt in recruits mind that there could be some sort of instability or future consequences down the road. This was especially true when UND didn't have a conference and was looking for one or were facing possible sanctions, but have continued on because the matter isn't settled. It will continue to be so until the nickname issue is put to bed. Choosing "no nickname" doesn't do this.

Last I heard, they were actually still a little short on Phase 1, but enough that the UND Foundation was able to guarantee it. The amount did not seem to be a huge concern and was small enough that they felt comfortable going ahead and starting the process of having Phase 2 approved.

Not sure what misconceptions there is about having the 8th worst women's participation rate out of 347 Division 1 schools. But I guess they add the caveat "NDSU Offers a wide variety of athletic opportunities for its students at the varsity, club, intramural and recreational levels. NDSU diligently monitors its students’ athletic interests so its athletic offerings can continue to meet its students’ needs." Weird they feel the need to preemptively defend it...

Would you feel the same way if UND was still able to use Fighting Sioux? Or should we only be "unique, confident, self-identified" if we can't have a nickname that people seem to have an irrational attachment to?

I posted about some fairly common examples I've seen on social media of people's claims, I didn't say that everyone who is in favor of no nickname was going to quit donating or quit cheering for UND, that subset of people don't have UND's best interest in mind regardless. There are people that have other reasons for wanting "no nickname" but from conversations I've had and reading social media, the large majority of those I've seen advocating for "no nickname" are doing it so they can keep the Fighting Sioux nickname as the de facto nickname. Its not like its a big secret or something only I'm thinking: -"Saying we're going to be North Dakota to me means saying we're going to stay the Fighting Sioux" - Nickname committee, Chelsea Moser -Majority of public wanted North Dakota as nickname but many are just mad about Sioux logo retirement. - Nickname committee member Carla Christofferson -“I like North Dakota because we're indefinitely the Sioux,” said another UND student

No argument. Was just paraphrasing as pretty much all of the comments I've seen have just stated they'd quit giving to UND. It is possible that some of those making the comments/threats currently donate to other parts of the University and not the Champions Club and they would drop those donations, but I'd think that generally speaking, the nickname wouldn't be as big of an issue to someone in who falls into that category.

This isn't direct at you specifically, but there is no possible way you could convince me and many others that that anyone who is still advocating for the Fighting Sioux nickname has UND's best interests in mind. I have no issues with people having different opinions but the crap that is out there on social media is mainly uneducated garbage. I take issue with people that claim they will quit donating money to UND (when most don't do so in the first place) or people that are going switch their loyalty because of nickname. I'd love to hear the explanation of how those people have UND's best interest in mind.

Nope, sorry if it came off that way. Unless of course one of the comments I used was yours, otherwise you're safe However, the two opinions you just used seem to me to be the most extreme but also seem to appear the most often.

Here you have people explaining why they think choosing "no nickname" is a terrible, short-sighted decision and could actually tell you why UND is where they are. Seems to be more logical than people who don't appear listed on the Champions Club list threatening to rethink their season tickets or the guy who said he'll go back to rooting for Minnesota or just bring back Fighting Sioux, nothing will happen, etc, etc, etc. Typing Fighting Sioux Forever isn't going to bring back the old nickname and logo, but that message apparently hasn't been spread on the internet yet. The unfortunate part of this is the large majority of people now wanting to move on were those fighting to keep Fighting Sioux when there was still a chance but are now labeled as not caring about history, tradition, etc. and it couldn't be further from the truth. People have a hard time differentiating between that and realizing that most of those people looking out for what is best for the University of North Dakota, its athletic department and student athletes.

I get that and agree 100%, though I'd argue that Jones recruits Minnesota more than Saul or Richman have. I'd also rather have a local kid with height rather than digging through the JuCo ranks which unfortunately has not worked all that well for UND that past few seasons. My point was more referring to that he spent more time playing JV than Varsity and averaged 2.7 points and 2.3 rebounds while playing under 10 minutes a game for a team that was 9-15. I get he was only a sophomore but their offer looks to be based on potential, similar to the commit they have from the kid from Fargo. In no way am I saying that he can't won't develop into a player at all, just surprised that NDSU offered this early from what I've heard about him. Depending on how scholarships shake out with transfers, etc, it looks like UND will have somewhere between 2-4 available that year. If not for injury, I think Brekke would be another very good example of developing a local talent, though he probably wasn't quite as much of a project.

Seriously? Who would they submit the petition to? UND? I can't imagine other than symbolism, it would carry any weight.

I've heard his talent level currently isn't at a D-1 level and he'd be a project player, but haven't seen him firsthand. On the other hand, you can't teach height like that, especially in-state. I'd assume he's on the radar.

Have you seen what happens to anyone who supports anything besides "no nickname" or somehow magically bringing back Fighting Sioux on any of those threads on Facebook? Going against the grain there is pointless, the comments overall are the most uneducated takes I've read on the situation, absolutely laughable. Facts being optional would be an improvement. And I guarantee you'd be lucky to find 2% of those people on any donation or season ticket list, you know, people having actual skin in the game.

What's funny about it is that it will actually be cited by places that supposedly have some sort of journalistic standards.

Your post must have alerted the "no nickname" crowd. There was over 1,000 votes cast overnight with the majority of them going for "no nickname" to get it back in the lead by a few percentage point.

When you give everyone a voice and try to make sure everyone is happy, that's what you're going to end up with. I thought there were some really good ones that had a lot of potential but getting something unique and instantly liked/accepted out of this process was never going to happen, which is unfortunate but reality.

I really didn't expect anything more. It is what happens when you try to be all inclusive and let everyone have a voice.

They really, really, really don't mean that much. As I stated earlier, I saw people commenting on how many times they voted for "no nickname" and encouraged others to do the same because: "Fighting Sioux!". Most definitely did not see that kind of manipulation for the other choices. Again, exactly why any public vote needs to have very tight controls.

I think it'd depend on who was allowed to vote (and how many times). The last two polls (while a small sample size and very unscientific) have Roughriders as the favorite. It would also depend on what other names and how many are put on the ballot, splitting the vote for those that do not want "no nickname".