ShilohSioux

idaho getting hammered by Bowling Green, 30-7 at half, in Moscow. I'm surprised.

Actually, if you look back at all the comments, there were many (probably a majority) that were critical of Al and this move, saying it was too late and asking where he and the Legislature were a few years ago when it might have done some good. Many on this board rightly stated the move was either naive or a cynical political ploy. I don't recall "a lot" of people on this board lauding Al....just a few. For those in Fargo, how will this impact Al's political future? Any chance he'll be challenged by another "R" in the primary, or that he could lose his seat?

Yep, a whole 30 people! There are tens of thousands of UND alums and fans so 30-22 is not a representative sample....just a sample of 50 passionate folks. Overall, it doesn't matter what the few hundred of us on this forum or board think. A new nickname is coming even if every member of this forum said it shouldn't. You can help choose it, or let someone else choose it. Your choice. But no-nickname is not an option after some short cooling off period. We will have one in two years - tops. I realize you don't like that but that's the way it is.

No. It's just very naive to believe the university won't adopt a new one so let's all get involved and help shape that. If we don't, one will be picked for us.

I understand the hurt and pain behind the "no nickname" comments, but there's no such thing as a "nickname or no nickname" debate. We WILL have one. The only question is how long the cooling off period and the selection process will last. At the latest, it will be here for the 2013 fall sports seasons, maybe earlier. So, the real choice is: I (don't/do) want to participate in selecting the new nickhame/mascot that will be associated with my university and sports teams for decades to come. This discussion over no nickname is a fool's errand. Sorry if that rubs some of you raw, but that's the truth.

Saying we won't or shouldn't have a nickname may make us feel good, defiant against those who stole the Fighting Sioux one even, but one's coming whether we want it or not so we might as well be part of the process to choose it. Otherwise, others will force it on us.

The sad thing about this is the will of a majority of Native Americans living in North Dakota was thwarted (fourwindsboy, you are in the minority here); a logo and nickname that actually brought visibility, honor and respect to the Sioux will now vanish, and there will be a backlash against the Tribes all because leaders from Standing Rock wouldn't allow their members a vote. You should be proud of your "victory."

Idaho is much tougher than some of you are giving credit. We will have to play perfect to stay in the game with them, and a 30-point loss is not unreasonable, nor would it signal a bad season for UND. Akey has some collected some young talent that buys into his system that will replace those who graduated. And they have half their starters back. This is going to be an awkward season to gauge. After four games, we'll likely be 2-2, with the possibility that none of the games are close and no real feel for what kind of team we have. In my view, that Oct. 1 game at Southern Utah is huge. That will be the first opportunity to know how good (or bad) we are and how we are likely to fair next year in the Big Sky. In my view, this is a five-game season (Southern Utah, Cal Poly, Northern Colorado, UC Davis and South Dakota). Our record against those five will be telling. The other six games are meaningless from a judgment standpoint, unless we lose to one of the "little four" or pull a huge road upset against one of the two FBS opponents.

While it wouldn't change the final result, bringing Spirit Lake representatives might at least get the NCAA Gestapo to stop clinging to the "hostile and abusive" accusation. In the end, this meeting might actually do some good as Carlson and others will get to hear the NCAA tell them "drop dead" rather than blame it on Kelley, the AD and others, and they'll move quickly to reverse this disaster before the Big Sky says farewell.

Uh, that's because they were two different teams. The Colts (a business), moved to Indianapolis. The Ravens are the former Cleveland Browns, who moved to Baltimore in the 1990s. The Wizards-Bullets analogy is spot on.

Yep, Herd is throwing around personal wishes as facts AGAIN. "95-percent of the people on this board" is nowhere near the correct number! If anything, during the run-up to the state House and Senate votes, the number of people commenting on this board about the proposed legislation tilted slightly against it (number or posters, not posts. The save the nickname supporters may have the edge in total posts). While most of us want to retain the nickname, many of us saw this coming and said so. A review of the posting strings would show that, but it's easier for Herd to blow smoke and claim facts. Disgusting!

Herd, I challenge you to go back and re-read the posts during this whole process. I don't think you'll find many here who played both side of the fence. Many here who are essentially saying now this was ill conceived by Al and others, if well-meaning, were posting here before the legislative vote saying this was destined to cause problems. I challenge you to find more than those you can count on one hand who urged Al & Co. along then turned on him now. Better yet, stay on Bisonville and comment on things that concern you and NDSU if you can't bring anything constructive to our board.

Ok, we get it. But since this isn't an option, some of us would like to try and influence the new name. No one says you have to participate, but thinking we can go on without a nickname is naive.

That's a shame. We will miss you. Old Nickname = no conference affiliation, trouble scheduling games, a serious decline in ability to recruit, and ultimately the demise of UND athletics.

The WAC, without Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State and Hawaii, is less of a conference than the Big Sky. They are so desperate they are looking at Lamar, Sam Houston, CS Bakersfield and Utah Valley. They've been turned down by lesser teams than UND. LaTech will bolt at the first chance. The WAC should not be a consideration, IMHO.

It ain't gonna happen. So, we can either decide we're going to be part of the solution -- lend our voices to determining the new nickname -- or we can let others decide for us. I choose the former.

Sadly, neither of those are an option.

I think most of us can agree that nearly all UND supporters would choose to retain the Fighting Sioux name. But, as this week's Big Sky warning letter indicates, baring an unlikely reversal at Standing Rock, we likely won't have that option without repercussions from the Big Sky Conference as well as the NCAA and other universities. We are now potentially facing being expelled from the BSC if we persist, which would be the deathblow for UND sports other than hockey. Now, we can sit back and let others choose our new name, or we can take the offensive and help take charge of our future. What name do we prefer?

Agreed Hambone. As I said on another thread, the Big Sky doesn't need UND but UND desperately needs the Big Sky (unless all you care about is hockey). This admittedly is painful, unfair and wrong but for the sake of our future, it's time to move on and retire the name. If we can get beyond this, UND has a very, very bright and exciting athletic future as a member of the Big Sky Conference. If we can't, our athletic future is in doubt -- our ability to compete and recruit will be heavily compromised without a conference.

Agreed. The time for the legislature to act was a couple of years ago. This has just made things more difficult. The Big Sky doesn't need UND but UND desperately needs the Big Sky (unless all you care about is hockey). As painful as it is to some, and as unfair and wrong as this thing is, it's time to move on and retire the name, and embrace what COULD BE a very, very bright and exciting future for UND sports.

Amen!

This is a surprise?

I'm not saying a reassignment wasn't justified. But the way it was done was abhorrent. Particularly since there was nothing in the file or no history of documentation of poor performance. The people who did this should be ashamed. I, for one, don't feel the love for an institution that treats its own this way.

But it often doesn't happen this way and it never needs to. Even a short-timer and poor performer deserves the respect of a conversation and explanation. The old Golden Rule really needs to be applied here. I'm guessing when she gets the ax someday (hopefully soon by UND), Lori Reesor would like the news delivered more personally and compassionately, with acknowldgement of her contributions (assuming she makes some) and encouragement about her future. Again, I say "this is not the UND I know."

I don't treat people who work for me six months or have a trail of documentation of poor performance this way, let alone professionals with 37 years who had nothing but positives in her file. This is absolutely disgraceful. To hand someone a letter and not even have a conversation with them about the reasons, then give them an hour to gather their stuff and get out. Unbelievable. This certainly is NOT the UND I know. If this was this individual's style, she needs to go. If it's condoned by the President or top brass, they need to be shown the door -- NOW.