jdub27

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.

They have been straightforward with process as they have went along. The first committee outlined how the second committee would be formed and operate. The second committee followed those guidelines. Not sure where you are getting your info from or claims of misleading the public.

Nothing like being ranked 340 out of 347 in D-1 in women's participation, definitely something to be proud of. Glad you continue to support the exact ideals that Title IX was implemented to prevent and participation opportunities that would have been embarrassing decades ago.

So reading the petition and their demands, a process was picked by a committee and then carried out by another committee (made up of representatives of all groups of identified stakeholders) and has taken almost a year to complete and now they don't like the results they want everything scrapped and it put to a public vote of UND students, ND residents and alumni. What a brilliant idea all around. I can't see anything that could go wrong with it.

I'll take partial blame for it but this thread is most definitely a dumpster fire and is going nowhere fast, do it wasn't going to be derailed further. I still stand behind my reasoning though, if people are going to talk about NDSU and explain/defend how they spend their athletic dollars and what is and isn't a priority, pointing out the huge disparity in their participation rates is fair game. That being said, I didn't intend it as a shot at you personally, I do appreciate your contributions and comments as a rival fan.

I'm aware and I agree. I think my point still stands though.

Nothing shows true conviction like waiting a full month to have your protest.

Or apparently a proportionate amount of women's sports but that's a completely different topic...

Lowell voted against removing "no nickname" alive despite his earlier comments because he thought that it should have a further opportunity. And again, the committee was picked to represent different groups of stakeholders. Those representatives were contacted by many of those stakeholders to have their voice heard. This wasn't a randomly selected group of people making the decision, not sure why people keep trying sell it like it was. Its also been the default option for the "Sioux Forever" crowd who are by far the most vocal party in all of this outside of the groups who wanted the Sioux name removed. As someone previously stated, if social media or message boards were a true representation, than I highly doubt the voting public of ND would have voted to retire the nickname by 2:1 margin.

Its already circulating on Facebook. The #hottakes are about as spectacular as you'd expect.

Playing an "event" game in the heart of both schools major alumni base makes plenty of sense. I also want to be clear that I didn't say it was likely to happen, just saying I that from what I know, I think that it is much more likely to happen than an NDSU/UNI game in MSP.

For those claiming that students and athletes overwhelming supported "no nickname" it should also be pointed out that it was dropped by a vote a 7-4 and only 1 of the 2 current student and neither of the student-athletes voted to keep it alive. One of the no votes was someone who didn't believe it should be chosen but was of the opinion that it should remain an option. Either the support for "no nickname" isn't as strong as claimed or 3 of the 4 committee members appointed to represent the students and student-athletes didn't get the memo.

Just so there can be some record of what actually happened: "President Kelley, if we send him North Dakota, no nickname, I think he could just disband the committee or just say we could start over or he could just veto it," Bridewell said. As already stated, Kelley was not at the meeting nor was any commentary from him read. The comment was strictly an opinion put forth by one of the committee members stating why he felt the committee tasked with picking a new nickname should actually pick a nickname.

I didn't get my way, my top choice was eliminated long, long ago. Ask and ye shall receive. Source here. There is also a handful that changed to a variation of "Hawks" that previously didn't have a NA related nickname that is not included on the list below. Not to mention Hawks (or some variation of) is used by 28 other 4-year schools, the 8th most popular.

Have you not been paying attention at all? That's exactly why the first committee set forth the criteria to form this committee and how the members were chosen. Everyone on it, including multiple students / student-athletes, was picked to represent specific groups of stakeholders. And I absolutely think that someone who threatens to drop their donation and support of UND is punishing student-athletes. Not sure what else you would call it? Each person is free to feel what they want with their money, but let's call a spade a spade. All of the sudden people don't get their way and the committee "had an agenda" and "it was all a show". I challenge anyone to contact some of the members of the committee and ask them those questions.

You mean the petulant, vocal crowd that are finally seeing that Fighting Sioux is actually not coming back? The ones threatening to punish student-athletes by dropping their donations and support because of decisions not made by them? I don't consider those people fans of the University of North Dakota. They are fans of an inanmate logo that was retired a few years ago.

I agree that I was hoping something unique and great would have come out of the selection process, but I think everyone, myself included, underestimated how far the consultants would dull everything down. My favorite choice was Nokota and that got cut for the asinine reason that it "might sound Native American related". I don't think the majority of the finals is all that shocking. Roughriders has been a popular and obvious choice since long before this process started. The PC crowd has been pushing Sundogs for a decade. The consultants were going to get <adjective> Hawks in. Nodaks is terrible and so uninspiring and unremarkable that I think it kind of just keeps trudging along because it doesn't draw any emotion. North Stars would actually be OK but being that it is the state motto of Minnesota, I just don't get it. In early May, I predicted "Roughriders / Stars / Flame/Spirit/Sundog/inanimate object" as the final three. I wasn't too far off. I didn't mean to pick specifically on your posts, they just happen to highlight exactly the point I was trying to make, that there are people calling out someone that has done more for UND than any of them ever will, is incredibly well informed and has UND's best interest in mind.