jdub27

Agree to disagree I guess. UND only has no nickname right now because they were not allowed to choose a new one when the old one was retired. Had that restriction not been in place, this process would have taken place in 2011/2012 and your point about them continuing on with no nickname as they currently are would not have existed.

Except this time it would be by choice instead of force. UND was prohibited by law from replacing Fighting Sioux when it was retired, they no longer have that restriction in place. There is a material difference in the two.

If they could do a basic practice facility that would replace the functionality that the BESC currently has, it is a no brainer. Doesn't have to be anything fancy at all, just room for a handful of courts that could be utilized in the same way the BESC often is. I agree that it wouldn't be that hard or probably even that expensive (relatively speaking), it is just replacing the space that has now been lost. Again, that doesn't prevent some of the basic upgrades (scorer's table, videoboard, etc).

I stand by my statement, particularly because how donations have continued to increase despite all of this. People may claim to use it as an excuse but picking no nickname will not be a tipping point. If your do have some truth to it on the flip side is that there are also people who didn't agree with the Fighting Sioux nickname and didn't donate because of that. I don't know a single person who has adjusted their donation because of the nickname issue. I give my personal donation to help student athletes, I'm not going to punish them for something they have no control over. The source of where the "majority" or these "thousands" of people who want to keep it North Dakota comes from continues to elude me (an earlier post, not yours). Regardless, North Dakota is not a nickname. It is the name of the school and it will still be that when UND decides on a new nickname in the near future. For those that don't like it, no one will stop them from wearing whatever they want, including the interlocking ND or Fighting Sioux gear. What they won't be able to do is use "Fighting Sioux" as the de facto nickname because there will be a new one put in place. It may (and likely) will not be popular immediately but people will soon realize that the nickname didn't make the school or student athletes. There is no official statement from the NCAA on what they would or wouldn't do if UND choose no nickname. All that is on record is that they have and will continue to change their mind with no notice and hand out punishments that they see fit, despite the fact that they are not doled out fairly or consistently. With UND's past history with them, I have a hard time ruling out anything the NCAA can and will do. As for the Dacotah Legacy collection, the last (and only run to date) was something like 100 shirts. They will continue to do it in a very, very limited fashion to keep the trademark. I wish they would do mass releases, but they won't.

Not sure if you can tell, but how many people actually use the front page? I very rarely, if ever do. Most stories of importance make it into the forums one way or another.

UND is in the middle of fundraising for the completion of Phase 1 of the HPC and getting a jump on Phase 2 (locker rooms, coach's offices, weight rooms). Not saying that isn't stopping them from making what are realistically minor upgrades to the BESC, but UND isn't stuck in neutral. The HPC benefits basically every sport on campus. Upgrades to the BESC help three and to nowhere near the level of the HPC will.

Its such a great idea, I can't believe no other university has thought of something like this and pursued it! The "shed our history" thing is a complete farce. UND has changed its nickname before and its logo multiple times. I don't seem to see anywhere history that was disregarded upon doing so. UND has used the interlocking ND in conjunction with many other logos and will continue to do so in the future. However it'd be nice to have another alternative mark that isn't confused with Notre Dame's.

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?