jdub27

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.

The NCAA not acting on that does not preclude them from doing so in the future. If UND was in communication with them (and quotes from Grant Shaft show they were) and outlining their processes and progress towards implementing a new nickname, the NCAA has little to nothing to gain by enforcing the sanctions until they feel UND is no longer following the Settlement Agreement. The NCAA had the pleasure of dealing with Al Carlson, they likely felt some sympathy for UND being held hostage by him and the legislature and again, had nothing to gain by imposing sanctions on UND when they were doing the best they could at the time. It is not a coincidence that the search for a new nickname started as the cooling off period was winding down.

remains in compliance with the Settlement Agreement if it has already not been removed Continuing to cherry pick words from an Addendum about imagery will not make it true.

No clue on the details, just what I heard about why the track wasn't in yet. A lot of that concrete has been down for a few months now. Glad they are making sure it is being done right instead of rushing it though, it is going to be a really, really nice track.

Track was scheduled to be completed before they moved in but there is some sort of issue with moisture in the concrete and they are trying to find the best way to make sure the track can be installed properly and without issues in the future.

I'm not concerned about legal consequences at this point, I'm concerned about the NCAA enforcing the sanctions as referenced in the Settlement Agreement, one's the UND is aware of and agreed to face if they are found to be out of compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

I'm pretty confused the wording in the release. Are these schools actually mpw part of the Big XII for wrestling or are they only invited to participate in the Big XII tournament so that it regains its status as a qualifying event? Are you really an affiliate member if schools aren't required to schedule you? UVU? LOL

The sanctions UND could face have been spelled out very clearly if they do not remain in compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

When UND signed the Settlement Agreement, it stated that they would be subject to sanctions if they were not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Not sure how that would be the NCAA arbitrarily imposing anything when it was agreed upon by both parties. It has nothing to do with whether there is a rule of having nickname or not, it is whether the NCAA deems UND choosing "no nickname" being in full compliance with transitioning to a new nickname.

So UND was in compliance from June, 2012 to September, 2012 but still on sanctions because an Addendum related to imagery in the REA had not yet been signed? If true, you think it would be one of the main bullet points as to the purpose of the Addendum, not one of the last things mentioned. And again, at that time UND had conveyed its plan to transition to a new nickname, the NCAA had no reason to enforce sanctions.

Was UND under sanctions and needed to be removed in September of 2012? Or was it just stating what was obvious to both parties with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment" meaning UND was in compliance because they had communicated to the NCAA how they were transitioning towards a new nickname, the second portion of being in compliance stated in the Settlement Agreement (retiring of Fighting Sioux being the first). homer posted quotes from Grant Shaft backing this up. An Addendum about more imagery being allowed at the REA and spelling out what everyone already knew and agreed to at that particular time is not a smoking gun.

I'm not sure why this has become part of the discussion but it doesn't specify the Brien Fighting Sioux logo. It obviously includes all Fighting Sioux marks as the first release of the Dacotah Legacy collection had the geometric logo on it. Had it not, UND would have been in violation by commissioning Fighting Sioux gear outside of the agreement. UND is required to keep all of them under their control.

You don't have new employees though. Adding additional "responsibilities" to something that currently exists in no way qualifies as new. Since you brought it up, Mathematics 101 states that 1-1=0, if you have something and take it away, you are left with zero, nothing. Are you honestly asking why the NCAA (and UND for that matter) would want to ensure that UND protects all of the related imagery (not just Fighting Sioux and the Brien logo)?

If you are supporting the University of North Dakota North Dakota, then yes, North Dakota is a nickname and redundant. Is that what your support is for?

Unless they are going to be the University of North Dakota North Dakota (which we all know is not what is being discussed), then it is not a nickname, it is choosing to not have a nickname. I wish the committee would hammered that point home a little bit more. The name of the University can not, by definition, be a nickname unless you want to be redundant. Then why include the comment about a required transition to a new nickname and not just state "The University of North Dakota is required to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname"? If you are correct, it seems like it was a waste of space to include the language about transitioning to something new. And how can you replace something with nothing and it be new? If I sell my car and don't get a new one, I don't have a new car. If the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux drop their nickname and become the University of North Dakota, they don't have a new nickname.

North Dakota is not a nickname. At least be accurate and state that the University of North Dakota currently has no nickname and that is what people are pushing for. They are not pushing for "North Dakota" as that has always been the name of the institution, they are pushing for "no nickname".