jdub27

They also had down seasons that were completely different from anything Hakstol has ever had.

And before the went on their recent run, they were on a 21 year title drought.

The Betty has this for basketball teams. Execution is slightly lacking since they didn't redo the banners to be uniform, they just used the original ones so it looks a little sloppy. I am in favor of the idea though, especially since the new ones at the REA will vary from the ones currently hanging.

I'm confused how a new nickname would take away pride, tradition and history? I guess I associate all those with the University of North Dakota, not whatever nickname or logo they happened to be going by or wearing at the time. Did UND have to start from scratch each time they changed their nickname or logo in the past?

Is it because outside of Jerry York, no other coach has been able to get their team to the Frozen Four at even close to the same pace? Criticize Hak's Frozen Four record but ignore the frequency that he has got UND to that point? Seems odd.

You are the one claiming that some fans are somehow "settling" because they are enjoying the success that they have had even though it doesn't including winning a national championship.

Who's settling? One can be disappointed that the team hasn't won a national championship while enjoying what they have accomplished. It isn't one or the other despite what you seem to keep insisting.

They have started pouring concrete for the floor. After that is completed, the turf will go in, followed by the track. I believe they are hoping to have the concrete portion completed in the next few weeks.

Lots of comments on other people's excuses but nothing on gfhockey not being able to convert in a big game GDT.

To me it seems that the underlying assumption has more than proven true. Attendance at any hockey game that UND has played in this year is pretty clear evidence. And don't be dazzled by the words on the page? They seem to spell out pretty clearly the steps pretty clearly, seems that you are reading much deeper into something that isn't there. If the NCAA decides tells UND they are in violation of the settlement agreement of either getting tribal approval or moving to a new nickname, therefore they are now subject to agreed upon sanctions, UND doesn't have a leg to stand on. The NCAA doesn't have to sue to place agreed upon sanctions on UND. The NCAA doesn't need to sue, doesn't need to prove damages, the agreement already spells it all out.

Placating the vocal minority? I guess technically it is an option but there are consequences that come with it. My understanding from people I've talked to is that even if it is a true option, its not a good one. I don't expect to see it on any final list.

In the settlement agreement, UND and the NCAA agreed that UND would be subject to sanctions if they did not receive tribal approval or move to a new nickname if they were unable to. Not sure why you keep adding an extra step about the NCAA suing and monetary damages. UND isn't in compliance and if they aren't in compliance, they agreed they could be subject to the sanctions. Almost identical if UND would not have dropped the nickname, they wouldn't be in compliance and the sanctions could be applied.

You're arguing with a guy who comes from and supports a school where student-athletes think that copying names out of a phone book and placing them on petitions that allow ballot measures to be voted on by the general public is OK. Controls and accountability are of no concern as shown by the lack of discipline issued to the players. They had clearly been through enough.

UND is in violation of an agreement that had defined consequences. The agreement stated that if UND was not in compliance (and replacing the nickname with a new nickname if no tribal approval was received was part of the compliance), they could be placed back on the sanctions list. Why would the NCAA need to sue to enforce the back-end of an agreement that already spells out everything? They aren't fighting over anything new.

I would guess that the comments about possibly petitioning for an extra year would have to do with the year he sat out to play at UAB and then them shutting down their program. Don't see it being a real solid case but weirder things have happened. Not sure he is pursuing it at this point.

You know, those vague comments that can't be proven right or wrong. Haven't been much on anything solid since we were told the ink was drying on Kalen DeBoer's contract.

Except that DIII is still under the NCAA umbrella...

Saw that one coming a mile away. Well played Mauer.

I don't necessarily disagree but the entry level donation to the Champions Club is $135 and its 100% tax deducible if no ticket benefit is taken from it. Anywhere there is an article on anything relating to the old or any sort of new nickname, there are countless people who claim to have taken the bold stance to quit giving donations if the Fighting Sioux nickname doesn't come back. Amazing how the Champions Club continues to set donation records with all these people who have "quit" donating. Not sure I 100% agree with you on Hakstol's stance, but your opinion on the matter is pretty telling on the dividing line of the issue.

Big surprise that despite being a self-described lifelong fan, the author's name appears nowhere in the Champions Club member list. I'd be willing to make a wager that some of the loudest critics do not put their money where they claim their support is. And I agree 100%. LS bleeds more green than this guy could ever dream of.

At this point there is no alternative so it is the easy thing to do. Once there is one, I feel pretty confident the majority will be able to move on. History has shown that to be the case at numerous other schools. It may take a little time, but I don't really UND being different. That doesn't mean you still won't see Sioux gear (myself included) but there will be a noticeable change in the tide.

He won't and has publicly stated so multiple times. Terrible strawman argument. The reason a new nickname needs to be chosen is because the majority of those that want no nickname prefer that so they can continue using Fighting Sioux unofficially. If that's not a direct violation of the settlement agreement (debatable) it is certainly against the spirit of it.

Word on the street is that UND got around 3,000 ticket requests.

Bierman is still a beast.

Not to mention the seven figure or so buyout...