jdub27

No argument. Was just paraphrasing as pretty much all of the comments I've seen have just stated they'd quit giving to UND. It is possible that some of those making the comments/threats currently donate to other parts of the University and not the Champions Club and they would drop those donations, but I'd think that generally speaking, the nickname wouldn't be as big of an issue to someone in who falls into that category.

This isn't direct at you specifically, but there is no possible way you could convince me and many others that that anyone who is still advocating for the Fighting Sioux nickname has UND's best interests in mind. I have no issues with people having different opinions but the crap that is out there on social media is mainly uneducated garbage. I take issue with people that claim they will quit donating money to UND (when most don't do so in the first place) or people that are going switch their loyalty because of nickname. I'd love to hear the explanation of how those people have UND's best interest in mind.

Nope, sorry if it came off that way. Unless of course one of the comments I used was yours, otherwise you're safe However, the two opinions you just used seem to me to be the most extreme but also seem to appear the most often.

Here you have people explaining why they think choosing "no nickname" is a terrible, short-sighted decision and could actually tell you why UND is where they are. Seems to be more logical than people who don't appear listed on the Champions Club list threatening to rethink their season tickets or the guy who said he'll go back to rooting for Minnesota or just bring back Fighting Sioux, nothing will happen, etc, etc, etc. Typing Fighting Sioux Forever isn't going to bring back the old nickname and logo, but that message apparently hasn't been spread on the internet yet. The unfortunate part of this is the large majority of people now wanting to move on were those fighting to keep Fighting Sioux when there was still a chance but are now labeled as not caring about history, tradition, etc. and it couldn't be further from the truth. People have a hard time differentiating between that and realizing that most of those people looking out for what is best for the University of North Dakota, its athletic department and student athletes.

I get that and agree 100%, though I'd argue that Jones recruits Minnesota more than Saul or Richman have. I'd also rather have a local kid with height rather than digging through the JuCo ranks which unfortunately has not worked all that well for UND that past few seasons. My point was more referring to that he spent more time playing JV than Varsity and averaged 2.7 points and 2.3 rebounds while playing under 10 minutes a game for a team that was 9-15. I get he was only a sophomore but their offer looks to be based on potential, similar to the commit they have from the kid from Fargo. In no way am I saying that he can't won't develop into a player at all, just surprised that NDSU offered this early from what I've heard about him. Depending on how scholarships shake out with transfers, etc, it looks like UND will have somewhere between 2-4 available that year. If not for injury, I think Brekke would be another very good example of developing a local talent, though he probably wasn't quite as much of a project.

Seriously? Who would they submit the petition to? UND? I can't imagine other than symbolism, it would carry any weight.

I've heard his talent level currently isn't at a D-1 level and he'd be a project player, but haven't seen him firsthand. On the other hand, you can't teach height like that, especially in-state. I'd assume he's on the radar.

Have you seen what happens to anyone who supports anything besides "no nickname" or somehow magically bringing back Fighting Sioux on any of those threads on Facebook? Going against the grain there is pointless, the comments overall are the most uneducated takes I've read on the situation, absolutely laughable. Facts being optional would be an improvement. And I guarantee you'd be lucky to find 2% of those people on any donation or season ticket list, you know, people having actual skin in the game.

What's funny about it is that it will actually be cited by places that supposedly have some sort of journalistic standards.

Your post must have alerted the "no nickname" crowd. There was over 1,000 votes cast overnight with the majority of them going for "no nickname" to get it back in the lead by a few percentage point.

When you give everyone a voice and try to make sure everyone is happy, that's what you're going to end up with. I thought there were some really good ones that had a lot of potential but getting something unique and instantly liked/accepted out of this process was never going to happen, which is unfortunate but reality.

I really didn't expect anything more. It is what happens when you try to be all inclusive and let everyone have a voice.

They really, really, really don't mean that much. As I stated earlier, I saw people commenting on how many times they voted for "no nickname" and encouraged others to do the same because: "Fighting Sioux!". Most definitely did not see that kind of manipulation for the other choices. Again, exactly why any public vote needs to have very tight controls.

I think it'd depend on who was allowed to vote (and how many times). The last two polls (while a small sample size and very unscientific) have Roughriders as the favorite. It would also depend on what other names and how many are put on the ballot, splitting the vote for those that do not want "no nickname".

Didn't even catch that, but you are correct. Still an incredibly inaccurate headline but yeah, just trying to generate page views.

I still haven't figured out his angle on this but his headline that "Newspaper Readers overwhelmingly Oppose New UND Nickname" is absolutely classic. The poll was absolutely trash but regardless, 66.4% of people voted for a new nickname. That seems to be quit opposite of his headline. Math must be hard.

The speed at which "no nickname" went from losing by 12% or so (37-27) to up by 8% (40-32) was confusing until I ran across a couple "Fighting Sioux Forever" Facebook posts with people proclaiming about the tons of votes they had entered and encouraging other to do the same. But don't worry, it will get passed as legitimate by the Forum and apparently Rob Port. This is exactly why if there is any sort of public vote that it needs to have significant controls. Also, Facebook comments must be where all the intelligent folk moved on to after the GF Herald and Fargo Forum shut down their comments section. Uneducated hot takes galore!!

I think it was in reference to how the committee scored it, those are the only two that didn't receive a negative score from any of the members.

Some interesting tidbits that mean absolutely nothing: One of the highest on North Stars (+7) also hated Roughriders (-2, only negative score) The two highest on Green Hawks (+7) were not huge fans of Fighting Hawks (+4, +2) Two of the four highest on Fighting Hawks (+7, +5) did not like Green Hawks (-1, -1) "No Nickname" was the only choice that had three scores of 0 or lower, Green Hawks and North Stars were the only other options that had at least two while Nodaks and Fighting Hawks had no negative scores 5 committee members gave out no score of 0 or worse, 4 had one, 1 had two and 1 had three Using an arbitrary score of "6" as strongly in favor of, Roughrider had the support of 5, Sundogs and North Stars had 4, No Nickname, Fighting Hawks and Green Hawks had 2 and Nodaks had 13 If you change that to a score of "5", North Stars had the support of 7, Roughriders and Sundogs had 5, Fighting Hawks and Green Hawks had 4 and Nodaks and No Nickname had 3.

I thought KG said that Spirit was something he liked? I didn't see anything that he openly supported Sundogs, but even if he does, looking at the vote totals, he clearly isn't the only one.

Someone needs to e-mail PadillaCRT the link to Sundogs from urbandictionary. Interesting, but not surprising, that they took the time to check out Roughriders but nothing else.

Pretty original too. There are 9 other colleges at various levels who had a Native American related nickname and now have some variation of "Hawks": Chowam Hawks - formerly Braves (2006) Dickinson State Blue Hawks - formerly Savages (1972) IUP Crimson Hawks - formerly Indians (2006) Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks - formerly Indians (2006) Miami RedHawks - formerly Redskins (1997) Ripon Red Hawks - formerly Redmen (1985) Southeast Missouri State Redhawks - formerly Indians and Otahkians (2005) Seattle Redhawks - formerly Chieftains (2000) Stonehill Skyhawks - formerly Chieftains (2005)

Choosing "no nickname" will be the opposite of unifying. There are groups already sharpening their claws if it happens because they, all along with anyone paying attention, realize "no nickname" is just a cover for Fighting Sioux.

They were two votes away from basically ending this circus but only 4 people on the committee had the guts to remove "no nickname", short of the 6 needed. Not like they were going on a limb either since it ranked 7th out 9, coming in slightly behind the powerful Green Hawks and Fighting Hawks. Despite that, there were a couple relevant quotes from last night that at least gives me hope that there are some on the committee who "get it": -Carla Christofferson: "Majority of public wanted North Dakota as nickname but many are just mad about Sioux logo retirement". -Chelsea Moser: "Saying we're going to be North Dakota to me means saying we're going to stay the Fighting Sioux" -On keeping North Dakota, Lowell Schweigert says "What is popular is not always right. Have courage."

I'm not positive but I believe they are 10'x20'.