zonadub

And you could nickname the REA the Thunderjug.

Funny you should mention Trailblazers. It was one of the second pair of names I submitted (when the nominations opened).

Best: Roughriders Good: Cavalry (also ok with Calvary ) Could live with: Explorers (though not conducive to cheers) Sundogs (has grown on me in light of available choices. sorry Goon) Not a fan: Fighting Hawks Green Hawks North Stars Kill me now: Blaze Fighting Green(ies) Force Nodaks North Dakota Pride Spirit Thunderhawks

Not sure Jones could handle the 93 Bulls and keep them from just 'ballin. On the other hand, you are not talking about the same level. (Pros vs college, to make things a little more clear)

Boy, this thread has died... What is going on with the committee? Are they on summer break now?

So it really boils down to being able to coach the players you have. If Rocky Hager, or in the case of UND Chris Mussman, have a problem winning because their third choice players are lining up on the other side of the field and beating those coaches, it is not a scholarship issue. Another way to look at it, using the example of Duke having 5 bb scholarships- let's say Brian Jones signed Coach K's top 5 recruits, and Duke went out on the court with their send five, so to speak. Do you think Jones' team, even with Duke's top 5 recruiting targets, would be able to beat Krzyewski's team? It's not only a recruiting/scholarship issue, it's being able to get the production out of the players you put on the field.

If they are all NDSU employees, then the next two questions should be: are any of them enrolled members of either the Spirit Lake or Standing Rock tribe? Or are they just another block of enlightened bleeding heart PC liberals?

Remember, all it took was one yes vote from anyone on the committee to move a name to the next round. Out of the 63 names still on the list, a guess would be that not more than 7 - 10 names on that list make the next round. Hopefully it takes more than one no vote to stop a name. I'm thinking about you, McDonald.

I could not disagree more Now Spirit, Force, Blizzard, etc on the other hand...

That is the crux of the situation - all it took is one vote to move those names to the next stage, and yet, others were eliminated immediately and didn't even have an opportunity to receive any votes. This whole thing is a poorly designed process but the hope remains that the end result will not be something lame like Fighting Greens moves forward from here. (sounds like a salad making stomach noises to me)

Have not read the book and don't know any more than the synopsis on Amazon, but always suspected that the Cherokee were jealous and the ones actually behind the uproar over the Fighting Sioux name. Lived in Bismarck for a while and the Lakota I knew there did not have a problem with the nickname.

What's right from my point of view is to select the best available nickname since Fighting Sioux has been retired. No nickname, Nodaks or North Dakota is not the right choice, in my humble opinion. Roughriders is the best choice, again in my humble opinion. And the argument that the Roughriders regiment was not within the borders of North Dakota does not matter to me. Nokotas, Wolves or Cavalry would also be good choices. Again, just my opinion. Not that my opinion matters to Kelly or the committee. I understand your opinion is different. The one thing we can (all?) agree on ... no nickname will be as good as the Fighting Sioux name, but that just goes without saying.

Yes, I also have no problem with North Dakota Wild Nokotas or even North Dakota Charging Nokotas. Would you prefer North Dakota Nodaks?

So, how many Spartans were from Michigan? How many Trojans from Southern California? For that matter, I thought the 'Rebs' were from the Confederacy, not Las Vegas, Nevada. How many Seminoles are there in Fl... oops, my the NCAA's bad. It does go with the state's marketing program, and is like the Tennessee Volunteers, the Oklahoma Sooners, the Kansas Jayhawks... Need I go on? 1. Roughriders 2. (Charging) Nokotas 3. (Grey) Wolves 4. Cavalry

fyp... As in Robert Kelly. ?

Maybe you'd prefer Bison Ball Busters?

OK, cute little weasel, but why, if UND goes with a rodent, not just go back to Flickertails?

Nice logo, but doesn't look like an Ermine to me.

Same can be said for Roughriders.

Probably not. Definitely no recognizable D-I schools. Maybe chess teams or debate teams. ?

For those who: A) Say having no nickname will be unique B) Say a nickname is required Here is a list from smargon.net/nicknames

and that is your "take" on the situation. Why are you so adamant that UND remains nameless?

and I ask the question: is remaining nameless what the student athletes want or what a bunch of old farts want?

"They filed for arbitration" ... The NCAA threatened to put UND on the 'naughty list' "Without request for payment" ... Without pursuing sanctions against UND while the legislated cooling off period is underway "Neglected to respond" ... UND has not yet adopted a new nickname A bad attorney or not, the point is that you claim the NCAA cannot sanction UND because it has not yet sanctioned UND. My point is that there is not a time limit on when they decide to impose their side of the agreement that was signed by North Dakota's Attorney General, even though it was signed years ago. I am not saying the NCAA will definitely put UND on the sanction list, but that the NCAA has reserved the option to do it if they feel UND has not complied with the agreement that has already been signed (such as my arbitration clause). The NCAA may be allowing the state law to run its course rather than challenge the legislative action while they have bigger problems on their plate. It's anyone's guess if they will or won't exercise punitive measures if the status quo continues indefinitely. You may be an attorney and more familiar with this type of agreement and the position of the NCAA but I will stay at a Holiday Inn Express next week, so I'll know more soon. ?

Without getting too specific, a former employer let an issue remain unenforced for 3 years, then filed for an arbitration. 2 years after the arbitration hearing, without a request for payment or any other notification, they went to court for a judgement (by this time, 5 years have expired). The judgement will remain on my record for 5 more years, even though it is now closed. It appears that a party can indeed sit on their rights, and wait several years to seek enforcement of a ruling (contract).