jdub27

You forgot this one as well.

There was rumors about the Washington Redskins doing this a while back. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24137527/could-the-washington-redskins-become-the-washington-bravehearts Just curious what kind of logo you'd use with it?

So another historical reference? Those are going to be the same regardless of what UND's nickname and logo is in the future. Keeping the hockey team from being at a disadvantage (with facilities/amenities) was more important to the staff than holding onto retired logos. Not sure why a group of "supporters" is so hell-bent on trying to put the athletic department at a disadvantage by not letting go.

Where was it stated that the above was the reasoning? Clearly the advantage of having renovated facilities outweighed the option of leaving up the retired logo in the majority of places and keeping the same facilities. There is obviously a group of people who wouldn't have made that decision, they would rather resist change even if it means harming the University, athletic department and student athletes.

Like I said, any reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is less Fighting Sioux gear being worn, unless you use an absurd argument. And with the band no longer wearing Fighting Sioux gear, you're going to need to some up with some new people that didn't previously wear Fighting Sioux clothing to offset it. Not sure what you mean by this. UND has retired the name, they won't wear it on the playing field ever again. In terms of its official capacity, it is already gone.

Maybe I should have said that it is pretty simple to observe that people are wearing the new jersey and clothing with the interlocking ND logo and any reasonable person can easily come to the conclusion that because of that, since the same amount of people are in the building, mathematically there has to be less Fighting Sioux gear being worn? Unless of course you are going to make the absurd argument that not a single one of them previously wore Fighting Sioux clothing to the game or no clothing at all.

Pretty simple assumption since there are people wearing the new jersey's and other clothing with the interlocking ND. Unless those people weren't wearing anything before, then by default, there is less Fighting Sioux gear being worn.

I don't doubt your sincerity on the reasoning for wanting no nickname but until it is actually replaced and the void is filled, Fighting Sioux will continue to be used and UND will continue to have to address the issues associated with it. A new nickname isn't going to be universally like and will take time to grow on people, that is painfully clear, but even Fighting Sioux wasn't universally liked, which is how UND got into this mess in the first place.

That article made me disappointed. Those "supporters" of the University of North Dakota should check their diploma and see what it says (and doesn't say) on it. And to the student who is now contemplating on moving out of Grand Forks because he doesn't want to see a new logo and needs a logo to give him confidence to face his challenges, the real world is going to give you one heck of a wake-up call.

Fighting Sioux is another example. Also the reason that you see unofficial/unlicensed clothing that will say "Sioux" but not "Fighting Sioux" as the former is not considered a violation.

There has only been the original release. There will be more in the future. Does their logo look very similar and easily confused with a larger, more recognizable college such as Notre Dame? Probably doesn't hurt that those schools themselves are recognizable on a national level like Notre Dame either.

http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=209221876

And focus energy and resources on something positive? Count me in.

This. There's a group that will throw a fit regardless but hopefully some will actually take some time to actually read how the process will play out.

One of his childhood friends from back home in Sweden is on UND's team. Choosing UND had nothing to do with them playing Wyoming this year.

At what date was UND "in compliance"? To "remain in compliance" at the date of the addendum (which was only in relation to imagery at the REA and BESC), they would have had to previously be "in compliance". Yet you also claim that the addendum removed UND from the sanctions list and put them "in compliance". How can it be both? And because UND was outwardly doing anything that appeared to be transitioning to a new nickname does not mean that there weren't internal workings that were shared with the NCAA. By publicly moving towards a new nickname, they would have been in violation of the state law. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything going on within.

My take: UND was in compliance with the purpose and intent that was the basis for the settlement agreement but due to outside forces beyond their control, the time line portion of it was thrown off. Because UND continued to show they were working towards transitioning towards a new nickname (and had dropped the previous nickname and logo), the NCAA used its discretion to continue to (at the time) overlook the dates and leave them off the sanctions list knowing that they had the power to put UND back on the sanctions list if things didn't continue to progress. I get your point about the timeline. I don't think the NCAA had much to gain by punishing UND for the ND State Legislature's actions and choose not to because UND appeared to be trying to adhere to the intent of the settlement agreement.

You have a pretty broad and liberal interpretation of how an addendum that was done specifically to clarify the imagery allowable at the REA and BESC modifies other terms of the original settlement agreement even though they aren't mentioned or specifically laid out. Like I said, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. If the NCAA truly just wanted to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and didn't care after that, why wouldn't they have used to that language instead of specifically saying UND needed to transition to a new nickname?

Bubba's comments on the radio yesterday made it sound like they were still appealing it but not 100% and not sure how successful they will be if that is the case.

Highlights from Saturday's game/scrimmage: http://www.undsports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3990798

Pretty sure UND had already or was on the way to being removed from the sanctions list. UND quit using the nickname on 12/31/11, almost a full year before the addendum. The state voted in June of 2012 to officially retire the nickname. The addendum did not remove them, it clarified some things regarding imagery in the REA and the Betty. You also quit your quote halfway through a sentence that finished with "if it has not already been removed from such list, provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement."

Yet you claiming people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname when that has nothing to do with anything makes sense?

Your claim that people wanting to move on because they despise the Fighting Sioux nickname is most definitely a straw man argument. That is not why people want to move on. They want to move on because it is what is best for the University of North Dakota. Now feel free to explain why continuing to fight for something that is gone and that will knowingly harm or put UND at a disadvantage is a good idea. And moving forward with no nickname falls into that category as it leaves Fighting Sioux as the de facto nickname and gives people reason to drag up this whole mess every time it is mentioned why UND has chose not to have a nickname.

Remains as they are continuing to work towards transitioning towards a new nickname which is why they were at the time in compliance. The action of retiring the old nickname and moving to a new one is what got them removed from the sanctions list and in compliance. While UND did not have a new nickname at the time, there were no intentions of them not choosing a new nickname, one of the points of the original settlement agreement that is not addressed in the addendum.

Straw man argument. What you continue to miss is that what is more important to people than a nickname is the University of North Dakota, athletic department and student athletes. The nickname has become a net negative to all of those groups. Why people, who claim to be supporters of these groups, want to fight for something (as great as it may be) to would cause intentional harm or disadvantage them is beyond me.