jdub27

2 point game!

39-33 UTPA with 14:43 to play. Making a nice little come back after being down 16.

UND running off a few points, lead is down to 10 with 16:30 to go.

No real big surprise but expect to see Dell in net tonight and UND playing shorthanded as Dickin won't be in the line-up (per Hakstol at the Booster luncheon today).

While it is a UND announcer, sounds like there's a handful of calls that have not went UND's way during the UTPA run. 37-23 at the half, no baskets for UND in the last 8+ minutes. Gave up 20 in a row to end the half.

16 in a row for UTPA, down by 10 with about 2:30 to go in the half.

8-0 run by UTPA puts them up by 2 with 4 minutes left in the half.

Free audio on Fightingsioux.com (UNDSports.com) for those of you needing something to listen to in order to get through a Friday afternoon. Sounds like Huff is having a great all-around game. Few big 3's by the other guards as well.

Can't say I've ever met someone related to UND that has got "huffy" about that statement, it seems to be the one that bothers NDSU folks. Not sure why someone related to UND would be upset about it?

You forgot the part where he would rather have the teams (and athletic department) disappear than change the nickname.

He was forced to say it and still came up with very reasonable and logical reasons of why it made sense to move on? Pretty convenient for him.

False.

False. It is. UND won titles with no nickname. They won titles as the Flickertails. The won titles as the Fighting Sioux. They will continue to win titles with no nickname or whatever nickname comes next. They all count the same. They were all won by the University of North Dakota. Also, does a team cease to exist if their logo changes or is it only their nickname? Or does it have to be both? I'm just curious because your web of (il)logical thoughts intrigue me.

Loss of revenue is a good starting point. Less seats to sell plus rental for the facility. Maybe some day the exhibition game would be held elsewhere, but there isn't a venue with even close to enough seating to make it worthwhile.

But they were still the Raiders. I thought the name was all that mattered, not the players or the location?

Unreasonable demands? Like shutting down the whole athletics department if you don't get your way? Pot, have you met kettle? You logic has so many holes in it and it is continuously pointed out to you, yet you continue on with it. I'm have no problem with people having their own opinions, but it is tough to take someone serious when their logic is so flawed.

Pretty sure this is your answer. You won't get a concrete answer because then there is a benchmark for being proven wrong. As long as they can keep moving the goalposts back, there will always be the "we haven't lost enough, the fight is still worth it" crowd. Doesn't help that there are those that say it is worth losing the athletic department over, though at least they have made it clear where they stand.

Did you read the article? The had the same situation in 2009 against Mankato. Seems that it doesn't matter the opponent, but whatever fits your narrative I guess.

The sad reality is that you won't win with those that don't care about the University or the sanctions/ramifications that the athletic department have and will continue to face. It will be a continuously moving target as we have seen already. First it was "other schools are bluffing, nothing will happen". Since that statement has been proven false (Iowa WBB, Iowa track, MN and WI hockey, etc), it has changed to "those aren't that big of deal" or "it is only a few schools". As it becomes more and more prevalent, the target on "what is worth it" to those that don't care will continue to move until it is too late, because that is the thing, they don't care what the ramifications are as as they can keep a nickname/moniker.

I was just thinking that its unfortunate that this guy is serious. Otherwise this would have been one of the more epic troll jobs I've seen in a long time. I am convinced that there is some relation to JohnboyND7, brothers or cousins perhaps?

I hope you are joking. If not, you have a lot of reading and understanding to do. I would prefer the University of North Dakota be associated with other Universities like Montana, Montana State, Cal-Poly, UC-Davis, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. A game is not a game. Playoff guidelines for sports are very clear about that.

No. And yes, know her quite well (personally, not professionally). What's your point? You are kind of all over the map. Very few here are happy about changing the nickname. But, at this point it is what is best for the University. And that is unfortunate that you don't want anything to do with talking about a new nickname, but most of us are concerned and know that the choosing of a new nickname can't be put in the wrong people's hands.

Most people feel this way. And like Hakstol, Faison, Kelley, O'Keefe, etc, most people also realize that keeping is not worth the known and potential costs to the student-athletes, athletic department and University of North Dakota.

What you should say is "you stopped the rivalry before we did" excuse. If UND wouldn't have dropped the rivalry when they did, NDSU would dropped it a few years later once NDSU was in a conference and didn't have have as many games to schedule. They weren't going to keep playing UND when it didn't help them out. UND would not still be on NDSU's schedule if UND wouldn't have dropped the game (which at the time, was to UND's benefit to do because of how the playoff selections worked).

Someday NDSU will figure out dynamic pricing for single game tickets. It won't replace all the lost income, but it would make up for a chunk of it.