UND-FB-FAN

Very good point

It's all $$$. UND was dominant in DII because money wasn't an issue; majority could still go to hockey without issue. Now in DI, with hockey still taking up the vast majority, funding is spread far too thin for realistic DI success (especially at the level of what UND football was during DII).

Too late. Of late, NDSU is academically and athletically the most prevalent school in North Dakota. Enrollment up, particularly in-State, and more programs added. Athletic accomplishments go without saying. Hate to say it but it is true. It's completely different from even 10 years ago (sports do make a difference) .

NDSU Basketball isn't the #1 sport, but yet they get those kind of news stories and even a new arena? Hmm ... doesn't quite sound like the same level of treatment as what goes on at UND.

Yes, so, so much potential. The UND athletic department funding plan cannot afford an overly stagnant and conservative stance on its direction, despite what many around UND and Grand Forks feel comfortable maintaining.

He needs $$$ (HPC phase II, better coaches via better salaries) to make it happen on the field. Do you fire a lumberjack for not cutting down trees fast enough when all he/she is provided is a handsaw and everyone else (other programs) has chainsaws? UND now is trying to recruit players to 90 year old locker rooms and coaches to 90 year old offices and meeting rooms with outdated salaries to boot. It all comes back to emphasis and support, which UND football needs more of within the hockey climate of Grand Forks.

... with a $100 M gift aiding hockey. Hockey received investment. UND football currently requires it. It's not an even playing field when one simply compares the programs with attendance. UND Hockey could have a mediocre team (like last year's team) and still lead the nation in attendance; why? The REA. UND football cannot afford that (both a better facility and mediocrity on the field). When UND wins most of their games (e.g., 2016) they still struggle to sell out the Alerus Center. No issue like that for hockey with the REA. Now, does that mean UND football must have a $100 M Stadium? It's unrealistic so no; but at UND, hockey got the big-money stadium whereas most everyother DI school in the Midwest puts their big-time donation into a football stadium. UND is an outlier. Not necessarily a bad thing to be unique but people have to realize this situation. It puts UND in also a unique situation for making overall funding work.

It does not take much for one to notice those who simply interpret decision-making competence through net worth. Engelstad McGarry may have the money (ability to donate), but she does not necessarily have the right ideas. In fact, she wasn't even the one who made the mega million dollar donation (that distinction goes to her father). It seems, though, that folks around UND and Grand Forks just do not want to see through the dollar signs and actually consider deficiency within the current arrangement. It's always more comforting and simple to equate a single factor ($) to everything. REA was and is a tremendous gift, but should it grant immunity towards reassessment and adjustment?

Of course REA did ... Got to love that entitled 52% ...

This is one of many, many inequalities amongst the programs. It doesn't help anyone to be "careful" and caution against criticizing UND's untouchable hockey program. The inequality is so obvious it is disturbing. We shouldn't stand for it just because "UND is UND and hockey is UND". It needs to change some in light of UND's division I aspirations.

His brother is on UND team currently.

Happy about Chaves. Great AD and better man.

This just confirms all the conjecture on this topic previously. UND football is grossly underfunded and I will continue to maintain my stance on this despite what others (mainly hockey goons) have to bitch about. When HPC phase II is funded and construction started maybe I'll step back a bit.

There's no question the current offensive philosophy needs a lot of work. It's far too reliant on a basic inside running game, that quite frankly, when you have average at best offensive linemen, will not work. There needs to be a greater emphasis on the passing game. I'm not saying open this thing up like Sam Houston State does, but the quarterback position and offensive formations/calls associated needs to open up some. People joke that all three RBs should be on the field at the same time; I don't think that's a joke at all. I seriously think an innovative offensive coordinator would find a way to have that happen consistently for UND's offense. Swallow your pride for wanting to be this "basic smash mouth team" that you aren't and actually put a little thought into the offense. The best players need to consistently be on the field. I really question if this offensive staff can do that.

Unfortunately, in this case, public perception is not always the truth. Some things go on behind the scenes that would upset many ignorant to the reality of DI college football.

The coaching staff and program (salaries, facilities w/o HPC phase 2) is mediocre at best right now. It is what it is. I wouldn't put too much stock in this one deflection though.

That's your opinion. Your ability to articulate it surely leaves something to be desired. I personally know several people who have started to taste "chicken salad" after a year of time to digest the reality of the logo and nickname. And, once again, the fact such a divide regarding the nickname/logo even exists is detrimental to UND athletics in general. It's a fight that takes valuable energy away from potentially more focused, unified goals and accomplishments.

UND, as is most of North Dakota and the Midwest, is surrounded by folks who need A LOT of time to digest everything and move on. Traditions run deep. As such, the nickname/logo acceptance and utilization situation really is just a situation that requires more time. I think the process would be expedited if the Ralph Engelstad Arena would showcase the logo and new nickname more, as their implied resistance undoubtedly influences the conservative crowd that denies change. Unfortunately, a large number of the people who dislike the new logo and nickname do so in context of the old logo and nickname, which just isn't coming back. Only time (and subtle influences to soothe the unconscious bias) around the new logo and nickname will change this. A more detailed Fighting Hawks logo would not completely solve the current issue with acceptability and utilization of the new nickname/logo, but it could help. Many would certainly be disgusted with any amount of additional time and money spent on further logo development.

I'll just repeat my previous post because it again applies. Sounds good in theory, but what happens when everybody dislikes the second logo and inevitably has critical things to say about it. There undoubtedly will be people who are in uproar about the costs of adopting a new logo. The subjectivity of logos leaves this really as a no-win situation; at least until general support comes around like it existed in the good ol' days. Continually swapping out logos for something new is not the answer. Perhaps an alternative logo could help.

Man, people just don't care anymore. Apathy has set in.

Sounds good in theory, but what happens when everybody dislikes the second logo and inevitably has critical things to say about it. There undoubtedly will be people who are in uproar about the costs of adopting a new logo. The subjectivity of logos leaves this really as a no-win situation; at least until general support comes around like it existed in the good ol' days.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Nice try though. You honestly don't care about UND, despite what you say. This "Everyone who even remotely is associated with UND needs to mindlessly worship the symbol of mediocrity, or a few of us will relentlesly insult them until they do, untill then we all lose." is completely insane and not something I would even slightly word. Despite what you think, the present problem is there is not an overwhelming consensus against the nickname at this point; more people are coming to terms with the nickname all the time. The alternatives of "no nickname" or "Fighting Sioux" aren't options, so what is the true alternative then? Thus, we find ourselves at a crossroads: Do we dump the logo and the progress made or do we continue to market the new logo and nickname and hope more and more people realize general support is what is again needed? If you feel leaving the Fighting Hawks logo/nickname and going through another nickname selection process is the best for the University, you purely do not understand collegiate athletics nor what is best for UND. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think you could care less about what happens to UND athletics (especially non-hockey) moving forward. As such, I have a hard time even listening to your opinions.

So spite the school, current and future student-athletes and all those who do want to support it? This mindset is troubling. It perfectly expresses the current state of affairs as far as UND support goes. It is certainly less than ideal. There needs to be a consensus amongst UND supporters; until then, we all lose.

Tremendous point; no sense of bias or subjectivity at all with this statement. This answers the mid-field/mid-court logo concerns entirely; please, everyone, cease debate immediately. The fact there is so much division within the fan base regarding the school's sports emphasis and how the logo can't end up on mid-court/mid-field/mid-ice is certainly a concern. This type of divisiveness should not exist to begin with, but, it does and that is a huge issue. It hurts UND athletics. The sooner this is resolved, the sooner we can all be a united fan base (which is normal for collegiate athletics) and actually see UND accomplish big, new DI things.

If that accomplishes #1, I agree.