KSSioux

The hockey team used the interlocking ND on their shoulders for many years in different variants. The football team did not use either Sioux logo in any prominent way on their jersey, nor did men's basketball team. So I would say the hockey team has been more of a "team" player than any of the other UND athletic teams. We are still the University of North Dakota, so if they want to stay with the prominent "North Dakota" on their sweaters for hockey, so be it.

Why is it such a shame. Please understand some logic as the football team only used the Sioux logo in very, very minor ways over the years. As President Kelley said when he started. They play as the University of North Dakota, so if a team wants to just have North Dakota on their jerseys, it should be OK for everyone. Their decision.

The only way this works on anything is if the helmet is gray or black. Even the Black will distort the small amount of black in the logo. THis process only has grown worse. As I stated, this logo cannot work on anything green or white without some kind of border.

The logo is far worse than I thought it would be. How can this possibly be put on a green or white jersey? As expected the football team will embrace it and it will go on the gray helmets, which is not one of our school colors. So glad they are embracing it since in past memory they never had a Sioux logo on their helmets. Those that said this is needed for marketing should be outraged as well. The only thing this will go on is a black or gray hat. There is no way on earth the hockey team, or any of our teams should use this logo on a jersey or sweater that is green or white. Glad the hockey team already got their jerseys and we will not have to look at these on those jerseys. This is the true definition of "epic fail".

Chyzyk

Chyzyk

Please quote me correctly. I never said they were 100% funded, only funded to a great degree, in fact I mentioned the fund drives in my quote. Not sure when you went to school, but I went there in the mid-80's and it is not the same place. Did not have interaction with the frats or sororities to any degree, so I will not reference any of those changes. I also never knew that a loan was sponging, unless you never pay it back. Last I checked there was still interest on what you pay back, so the government actually makes money on that.

Universities are getting more and more progressive and indoctrination is a serious issue. Your comparison of Rush is a joke since you can choose to listen to Rush, you pay for an education and you should be free to voice your thoughts and not get entwined in having to feed back a professors opinion to get a grade. The idea of a university teaching and creating free thinkers is an issue. There has been more and more research on what the value of higher education actually is compared to what it used to be. I will qualify that I am not a Rush fan and listen to him rarely. There would be progressives that would be his equal if they would get the money from advertisers. Progressives also have liberal leaning PBS that I will mention the tax payers also fund to a great degree. There are arguments on how that should have equal time due to taxpayers not having a choice in its programming other than some fund drives. It would be interesting how you see the frats and sororities being right leaning. Have not heard that to be the case, but you might be right that they may be further right than other students.

Gardner

Friday: Boeser Saturday: Luke Johnson

I will echo a particular poster that a bird logo will be a bad idea and another form of hawk, such as a plane is the only thing that will give the least resistance from the fan base. No form of a hawk is the state bird (see meadowlark) and "hawks" are not unique to North Dakota. If you can possibly do what the nickname committee failed miserably at in "uniqueness" you may be looked at positively.

Friday - Poolman Saturday - Chyzyk

Luke Johnson

I see no need to change the name of the site. It is not affiliated with the school, so there is no issue, and it fits the historical aspect of continuation of the name. You could have a blurb below the title to state that it is about the UND Fighting Hawks.

Austin Poganski

Boeser

Well, if I can guess what is going to happen based on the politics that Kelley has used in this, just wait for Friday (likely afternoon, but anytime of day will let him escape). He will say there is a major outcry and he will return to the original plans. He did this with the "North Dakota" option, as I never did think he was going to add it to the list. That is unless he really wants "Fighting Hawks", and this gave him the perfect opportunity to virtually guarantee that unless there is a great increase in voters due to this debacle. I would love this to bump up the voters, which could cause his plans to backfire if he leaves it at three, but do not think the odds are with that option.

You really do not get it do you. I was predicting what Kelley would say why he did this. Please take your sarcasm elsewhere. I am the probably the most against "participation" awards as you can get. My comments were about how pathetic president Kelley was in this and my prediction was correct. Please attack someone else.

My point was the lack of participation and the closeness of the 2 vs. 3 vote and I was predicting why Kelley did that. Please look at the just added justification and see that I am right in my prediction. I do not want participation, just a real majority vote to win. Please stop degrading people, especially if they are right in their prediction.

I had posted earlier regarding the likely low voter turnout and it was pathetic, at less than 25000. That is how Fighting Hawks made the top, and any of the five would not have surprised me. To change the rules midstream does not surprise me as well, although the closeness of the 2 vs. 3 makes it hard for them to not go with three, especially since Nodaks was the 3rd.

Poolman

I have no arguments with you or JDubs statements, but just wanted to state what Illinois argued was their reasoning. I had friends who went to Illinois that laughed about what they did to the NCAA. In fact, please look up that they have used Chief Illiniwek in homecoming parades since this decision and the NCAA has looked the other direction. I am sure the university would say that they did not approve of it, but it was used in a university sanctioned event. I wanted to point out that they are very different from Utah, as the Piute tribe gave them approval to use Utes.

Actually there was no Illini tribe at all, which is why they got a pass from the NCAA because they could not get acceptance from them since they did not exist and argued that Illini was "all Illinois people". The NCAA said fine as long as you get rid of Chief Illiniwek we will take you off the list. I personally hated that decision since there were a group of Representatives who was going to introduce a bill which would have likely stopped all of this PC nonsense at the very beginning. Just making sure the facts are out there.

It has been interesting to see the comments in this category around their nickname choices, but I want to switch gears to see what people think regarding the voting numbers. We already know that there are just over 80000 eligible voters. I had guessed 75-100K so I hit that close. My issues are what people may think will be the percentages, and actual voters, on the first ballot. Here is my guess without putting the names attached to avoid that criticism. This is just about the vote total. I will give my reasoning afterwards. I think there will be 40000 voters. Nickname A: 27% Nickname B: 24% Nickname C: 20% Nickname D: 16% Nickname E: 13% I personally think 40000 is a generous number and would not be surprised to see 28-30K due to apathy regarding the drop of the "no nickname" option. Obviously, I feel none of the existing nickname options will get close to 50%, and I think the top two put together will barely eclipse that total. This means that there will be less then 2000 votes separating the #1 from #2 and #2 from #3. This should send shivers up the back of any person that is extremely attached to any of the names, as I feel any of the names could end up in the final two. I have my guess what the final two will be, and based on that I believe the second round of voting will actually have as many, if not a higher total voter count than the first round. There is no stipulation that you must vote in the first round to vote in the second round. What bothers me is that decisions that were made have created more apathy to vote than the nicknames being so good to get a high voter turnout. I know this will be spun like this was not a big issue to the fans by the media, but that is not the case and this is why this process has been so bad. I hope the media reports on this and actually gets voter opinions and actually numbers to back them up.

Goon got the statement from a NCAA spokesman and Pete Johnson with UND admin verified. There is no reason to waive anything in the agreement, because not having a nickname met the requirement, unlike what some folks had been pushing. The reason for this all along is because the NCAA has nothing in their bylaws requiring a member university to have a nickname. This is all moot now because it is not an option.