jdub27

Who is the one turning their back on heritage? In one breathe you say UND would be doing it to change the nickname, in the next you are saying you don't care about what happened if it happened before you were born? You obviously don't care about history and heritage unless it was from your lifetime. Newsflash for you, the traditions and pride of the University of North Dakota started well before you showed up and they will continue to go on and become stronger as time goes on, no matter what nickname or logo they use. You are the last one who should be trying to lecture people about respecting traditions and pride in something when it is obvious that your end game is one that benefits whatever makes you happy, not what is best for the University of North Dakota.

And this is why people don't take you seriously. Which part of the name came first? The University of North Dakota or Fighting Sioux? Which part of the name has never changed? University of North Dakota or the nickname that comes after it? Which part of the name will always be the same? (Hint, the answer is University of North Dakota for all three). The fact that you continue to think that changing a team's nickname means that it ceases to exists despite nothing else change is absurd. Again, UND won titles as the Flickertails and those are still counted the same as those won as the Fighting Sioux. How many NCC football titles do you credit to the football team? 22 or 24? Or should it be split again since some of those 22 were won as the Sioux and and some as the Fighting Sioux? Just because that happened before you were alive doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is infinitely times bigger than you and what you stand for, quite trying to pretend it is not.

People might had similar feelings as those two, but the difference came when there started to be actual evidence of harm. This is what seemed to change most people's mind. The two you cite have openly said that they would rather lose the athletic department than the nickname and most people realize that is a very extreme position that a rational person would not support. Knowing when to cut your losses is not a hypocritical stance. When actual evidence of harm comes forward rather than vague possible actions, a change in opinion is defendable.

First off, having the athletic department alive and well is what is important to people, not the nickname. And historical references will continue to be around, there will be no turning of backs on UND's proud history. I have not once seen an instance where the NCC titles won as the Flickertails count less than those won as the Sioux or Fighting Sioux. Can you show me an instance where that is the case? As for your analogy, it is not even close. No one is telling UND they can't play football, basketball, hockey, etc (rock music in your analogy). No one is forcing them to change what they do or who they represent. They saying it is best for them to change names. This has nothing to do with what they do. Things change, accept it.

Fixed.

Spoken like someone who lives in their own reality and only cares about what immediately impacts them personally with no regard for others.

And people would laugh at UND for trying to stand up to an organization of which they are a voluntary member of. The sanctions and penalties are and where clearly spelled out. People wouldn't and shouldn't feel sorry for UND for having to forfeit if they clearly went against what they agreed to and knew what would happen if they didn't follow that.

And then what happens when you find out they weren't bluffing? It would be pretty easy for them to say "We told you multiple times what would happen, how dumb are you?" UND would look pretty stupid in that situation, sacrificing college athlete's collegiate careers over a nickname and logo? That would really encourage recruits to come to UND, a school where to certain fans, what is on a jersey is more important than the student-athletes and the University the represent. Great message to send.

So if the team would have been the favorites like last year, it would have been a bad idea? You are so absurd on your thoughts on this it is almost unbelievable. I didn't hear you advocating for this before hand, weren't you just fine with them wearing alternate jerseys as long as you could watch them play and cheer them on? Now that the season is over, it is pretty easy to throw the team under the bus and say they should have forfeited. Some fan you are...

Which is it? Is it about right and wrong or is it about being fine and living with the sanctions? They are completely different arguments and you are trying to use both of them. If it is about right and wrong, then UND should continue to wear the jerseys and use the nickname, despite what the sanctions are, even if this means forfeiting games. If it is about living with the sanctions, then it isn't about what is right and wrong. You aren't standing up for the nickname and logo, you are doing what the NCAA says is OK to do and that means not using the nickname and logo. You aren't standing up to them and proving anything. For the record, I'm not on board with either of the above opinions. It is best for the University to move on and knowing when to cut your losses to prevent even greater ones in the future.

If it truly is about "what is right," you should have been supporting a decision for the hockey team to wear it's regular season jerseys during the regionals, not the new ones. I didn't see any comments from you regarding that. So is it about "what is right" or is it about "what is right as long as it doesn't effect the hockey team" that you happen to be supporting? Nothing would have made more of a statement about this whole situation than the hockey team coming out with jerserys on that have the logo on it, making a very public statement about the NCAA's stance. But the majority of those saying the name/logo should stay showed a pretty hypocritical side during the regionals. It wasn't about what was right or wrong anymore, it was whatever didn't hurt the hockey team. Now that hockey is over, it is about right and wrong again. Make your mind up on your arugments and maybe someone will take you seriously.

I see the dissenting judges saying that at this time that no harm is being done to anyone. If the law is struck down in June, they do not have to get in the middle of Carlson's fight with the SBoHE (at least yet) and start making legal precedents that will be much more far reaching than the nickname fight and is what Carlson was hoping for all along. Those judges do have a point, that being “you waited for almost a year to bring this up, now you want us to jump right on it." While I haven’t read the whole thing, it appears to me that it can and will be revisited if necessary (referral vote passing in June would be a good guess). Not the results I was hoping for but it definitely could have been a lot worse.

If the report was right in the Herald/Forum, does this now mean that single-game attendance records for 3 different sports at NDSU have been set in the last 2 years against UND? Basketball, volleyball and now baseball. Interesting tidbit for "the rivalry is dead" crowd.

NDSU scored one on an error by the SS with two outs. NDSU up 1-0 after 5 1/2.

Don't forget the signs that were brought all the way down to Texas that had UND references.

They were still depressed from getting beat by Big Sky conference member EWU. And whether they did or not last year, there was a handful of them that went down to the lower level of the REA to do it this year, they just didn't get the chance. As for what Jones said after the game, I bet he'd take that back knowing what he knows now. Wins over SDSU and Montana were bigger than over the smokescreen that was NDSU basketball this year.

Only about 1200 less than how many showed up for the first playoff football game in the Fargodome's history and the first football playoff game in what, almost 20 years in Fargo?

The only similarity is they both say North Dakota on the front. Multiple differences including three stripes instead of one, number on the front, coloring and logo patches on the shoulders and laces on the neck. I think everyone would prefer we could wear the other jersey's but these are definitely better than the ones from the mid-90's.

Do you also want them to include the part that some Native Americans also filed a lawsuit against the school to have the nickname removed? I mean you wouldn't want to leave out any part of the story now would you?

Jay Daggett, a WR from Naples, FL --> I would guess a relative of graduated WR Drew Daggett (cousin most likely) Pat Brown, a WR from North Pole, Alaska Article about walking on (ran a 4.5 40 in his tryout) High School Highlights

After a quick glance through, the names that seem to be missing that were on last year roster are Javen Butler (DB), Payton DeCoteau (RB), Derrick Dulaney (LB) and Ekenna Anya-Gafu (DL). All four were either Freshman or Red-Shirt Freshman last year. I believe that is was known a while ago one or two of these players were not going to be back, not sure if anyone has any more info than that.

But if it is morally and ethically right (your words), why should they wait to show Fighting Sioux gear. Isn't that running from the problem and letting the NCAA win? Why not advocate taking it head on? Why not make the statement upfront and come out with the logo on right away? Following the NCAA mandate and being expressive about how they disagree with it are complete opposite things. If they follow the mandate, you won't see any logos. If they express how they disagree with it, you will. You can't have your cake and eat it to. They hypocrisy of saying how it is moral and ethical to fight the fight and then say that they should follow the mandates until after the tournamnet is over is nothing short of amusing. Again - I am in no way, shape or form advocating that UND should wear their regular season uniforms and make a statement. It would be unfair to the fans, University and more importantly, the student athletes.

If you truly believed this, you would be advocating for the team to wear their normal jersey's this weekend and the University make a very public statement by doing so. Where do you really stand on this? Is it the ethical and moral thing to do like you claim or it is the ethical and moral thing to do unless it causes actual harm, like forfeiting a game? If you say the latter (which is what I'm guessing), then all of your rambling nonsense is just that. You support what you say is the "right thing to do ethically, morally" until it comes time to deal with the consequences of doing it. The majority of people around here understand that consequences are not worth keeping the name and logo whether it is the right thing to do or not. Most people know when to cut their losses. Others keep yelling that there will be no losses, but when they show up, just pretend they aren't a big deal and they just keep hoping that something might change despite no evidence indicating they will. If you really believed it was about ethics and morals, then you would be calling for them to wear their regular season uniforms and accept the consequences. Note - I am in no way, shape or form advocating that UND should wear their regular season uniforms and make a statement. It would be unfair to the fans, University and more importantly, the student athletes.

Frozen Four vs. Regionals maybe?

The other sports have more serious issues than jerseys. Hosting a home playoff game is more important than what logo is on the jersey you are wearing.