jdub27

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.

The part where is says "provided the University remains in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Amendment"? I don't see anything that would supersede the original agreement that UND has to transition towards a new nickname. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. I also really don't care to watch UND test the NCAA again and find out where they really stand.

UND was removed from the sanctions list because it announced and started the process of transitioning towards a new nickname, which was agreed upon in Section 2.g. of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement did not state that UND had to have the transition completed before being removed from the sanction list.

All that may be true but I'm not sure its relevant in this case. UND and the State of ND signed a binding settlement agreement that that UND could be placed back on the sanctions list for not complying with the settlement agreement, regardless of what other rules there may be. By signing the settlement agreement, UND and the NCAA agreed to a new set of rules. I guess UND could turn around and try to sue them again if they think it is unfair but we saw how well that went the last time, and honestly, just moving on would be incredibly easier and we wouldn't have to have these round and round debates.

UND not choosing a nickname is basically telling the NCAA they are fine with the continued "unofficial" use of Fighting Sioux and make no mistake about it, that is the main reason for the support of no nickname. As long as UND can show its progressing towards a new nickname, the NCAA has nothing to gain by threatening or imposing sanctions. If UND changes course and challenges the NCAA (again), I fully would expect the NCAA to impose sanctions (which is acceptable in the mutually agreed upon settlement agreement). Because the NCAA hasn't found the proper violation from a P5 school that requires that sort of distraction yet. Or they see UND has moved forward in good faith within the terms that were put on them by outside controls (state legislature). Again, the nickname issue continues to be nothing but a net negative for the University as a whole. There is no measurable way that any positives outweigh the negatives for the University, athletic department or student athletes. Moving on is the only way to fix that.

The Herald must be seeing the writing on the wall that they are going to lose a good amount of hard copy space and online clicks as the nickname debacle finally (hopefully) winds down. Now they are just openly trying to get people riled up again...

Don't underestimate DB's arrogance.

Bubba was on Tim and Swyg this morning. Sounds like pretty much the whole team plus around 10 incoming players are going to be in town for the summer. Glad to see those numbers at where they need to be.

Also, Will Ratelle just looks like a beast.

Last I checked, the credit earned for winning a play-by-play game is the same as a win in any other round. Not all bad if your going to be a low seed.

Boosts attendance. People can plan ahead because they know their team will be there. Don't agree with it but I understand it.

Iverson has been playing some TE to go along with FB They are trying to find ways to move Fiedler around outside of just the TE spot to create mismatches The WR group has been the group that has made the most strides and surprised the coaches the most despite the injuries they've had. Cerriteno, who had quite a few drops last year, got some new prescription contacts and it has made a world of difference for him, catching almost everything now. To no one's surprise, the OL is still up in the air and the QB battle is far from decided.

I'd assume that since UND rents the Alerus Center and doesn't own it nor run the concession stands, there is some sort of concessions profit sharing. I'm sure its a nice add-on but I doubt the it is big enough to significantly move the needle.

Not sure why the finger would be pointed at any of the local media when UND themselves aren't doing much to promote it. I know its partially by design because of the circumstances and it isn't even a true scrimmage but it is still disappointing.

They have a strong women's club hockey team, so clearly there is interest and ability there. They'd be admitted to the WCHA easily. Despite the outcry, that seems more likely than lacrosse does. At the moment, I don't see anything being added until students start showing more "interest". Or at least that's my personal opinion.

Tailgating will be allowed in the same fashion as it is at the Alerus in the designated parking lots. Port-a-potties will be available in the parking lots and inside the stadium.

You're ruining a lot of good conspiracy theories and hot takes with stuff like that.

I agree on that the staff isn't hiding anything but the Champions Ball was scheduled well before spring practice dates were announced. I'd assume if they wanted to, they could have adjusted spring practice one way or another. No clue if it was to inconvenient or why they choose not to? I don't think there would have been any issues with finals or anything like that if they would have started one week later.

Yeah I heard he got all the votes.

And I'm not arguing with that. What I'm questioning is whether you actually had the voting numbers. When you use a the word like "landslide" and "refer to this as an overwhelming victory", you are insinuating you do because you are referring to how the actual vote totals came out. It is now obvious you didn't. It was a poor choice of wording.

Where did I say anything to the contrary? I'm asking about the vote total, which no one has seen but you claim was a landslide. I'm curious about where Zane finished and how close it actually was. Wondering if there was any splitting of the votes from the East coast teams. You could have said that something about him being the overwhelming favorite or there was little doubt that he would win but you referenced the actual vote total by stating he won in a landslide without being able to actually show it. Your article even has a link to "landslide". Maybe it was just a case of poor wording, but your article without a doubt infers that the vote total was heavily slanted to Eichel, which while very plausible, is something you apparently don't have the numbers to verify actually being true.