jdub27

And how exactly does having a nickname change any of the bolded? Somehow preventing the Athletic Department from having another arrow in their quiver for marketing and brand identification/awareness is a good idea? And to your comment about thousands There is zero chance that picking no nickname will energize more donors. If people weren't donating when UND had the Fighting Sioux logo/nickname, having no nickname isn't going to magically inspire them to start donating money. And from a public relations standpoint, it would be a disaster. A press conference that is a big middle finger to the NCAA? I'm sure they won't mind, at least until they need a distraction from some sort of scandal at a P5 school.

Did I miss something? Athletic buildings can not be funded with public funds, they must be done with private donations. Clarification: The UND Foundation did bond a portion of what was left to be raised so they could get shovels in the ground, however the funds are guaranteed by the Foundation and repaid by the athletic department. No public funds there either.

I heard meetings are held at Jimmy Hoffa's grave. Care to confirm?

I get your point, but did you honestly think there were going to be dozens, let alone hundreds, of nicknames even a small majority of people would find tolerable? Look at the list of current college nicknames, most of them would be considered "terrible" by most measures but they have huge support from alumni in fans because people have had plenty of time to get used to them.

Probably a good thing for my pocketbook that the size is a little big for me. Nice jerseys though!

Interesting concept. Some that are eliminated but could apply to your theory: Reapers, Shockers, Wheatkings, Tomahawks, Revolvers, Arrows (arrowhead), Hunters (Orion). Ones that might still have a chance (stretching on a few of these): Aurora, Blazing Stars, Bombers, Charging Nokota, Fighting Green, Force/Force of the North, Green Bombers, Nodaks, North Stars, Northern Lights, Pride, Riders/Rough Riders, Warriors/Warriors of the North. Probably missed a few on both lists but just what I got after a quick glance and some of them are a stretch.

Per who or what guidelines?

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/2015/05/wmu_football_cb_logan_oce_to_t.html

Roster has been updated on UNDSports. Down to one running back (was pointed out to me by another poster).

I am a fan of Toews but I don't believe the bolded to be accurate. If you're referring to the new renovations, it was paid for by the Engelstad Foundation.

Well other than being years too late to the party and a settlement agreement signed by UND, the ECAC happens to be a NCAA conference so nothing changes. Not to mention that it is a completely east coast conference, so why in the world would UND want to join a conference like that and why would they want UND?

I agree with all of that, particularly your last two comments. The rules are different but I think she's taking it a step too far. I still think it is more of a general misunderstanding of the difference between the two more than anything. I wouldn't be surprised to see Nokota(s) slip onto the final list.

Yes, things that Schlossman already reported months ago is clearly good news. Good effort though. If you would have actually known, you would have downplayed it since it really isn't a big deal. Thought you had one this time though!

Schedule was released and IceBreaker officially announced. Swing and a miss again. Ouch.

Thanks for the clarification. Was roughly what I assumed though I wasn't aware that Evans was actually claiming they couldn't pick it because it sounded similar to something related to N.A. culture. I assumed she was explaining what the reasoning may have been and not actually defending the reasoning. As stated, makes no sense when Charging Nokotas was considered and made it through. Wish I could say I was surprised.

If you are talking about for the other schools in the conference, then yes.

That was a fairly confusing couple of paragraphs by the GF Herald. My deciphering of it leads me to believe they are going to look at the reasoning for why it was excluded from the vote and it may have a chance to move on. My guess is that McDonald was clarifying the difference and Evans was confirming that someone was clueless on it. Also not that it matters at this point, but interesting to see that "North Dakota" only received two supporting votes.

Already going back on what you said earlier this afternoon? Or just throwing more at the wall in the hopes of something sticking?

Per Dan Hammer: Berry's contract is 4 years with a base of $280,000 also incentives that cap annually at 45% of base For comparison, this was from an article about Hakstol's extension he signed in 2012: Hakstol's contract calls for a base salary of $300,000 with possible bonuses for the team's performance on the ice and in the classroom. The bonuses, capped at 45 percent or $135,000, and deferred income could potentially bump his annual compensation over $400,000.

Anyone have any idea of the Flyers will be paying any sort of buyout to UND on the remainder of Hakstol's contract? I can't remember if there was any language that allowed him to leave to the NHL with no monetary penalty to his new employer.

Berry's comments in his press conference indicated that very little would change outside of some minor tweaks though he admitted with bringing in a new assistant, they might provide some insights that would cause further tweaks.

So using that same logic, NDSU should be incredibly ashamed for all the Sioux jeers and taunts? Good thing they quit doing it when UND dropped the nickname...oh wait.

Berry alludes to the players being aware of Hakstol leaving but they were not able to tell them exactly where he was going.

So you are saying it is already a done deal?