nodak651

Kelly Howe. Easy! Everyone knows him, well respected both as a person (I assume) and in regard to his evaluation of the program, former player, has passion, lives locally. Doubt he would quit his job, but I think an NIL group could be successful if someone else worked on it full time while having Kelly involved in the decision making process. Would add a lot of credibility I'd think.

Pschh. So it would be a little small no big deal! Also not a big deal if the NCAA doesn't know about it! I guess, that was until "super evil pathetic sleezball" Rob Port reported on it. (kidding, the hockey team would be much better than they are). On second thought, would a company that does nothing but sell licensing rights technically be classified as a distributor or manufacturer? Looking at the definitions of each, I'm not sure such a company would fit either definition. Regardless, assuming the NCAA would classify it as such, UND could just pay Nodak LLC an annual Licensing fee for the right to use NODAK as an official UND logo. If Nodak LLC were to make NIL deals to increase the value of their trademark, so be it. Completely legit - the business deal between UND and Nodak LLC would be completely justified by UND's greatly improved merch sales. For the record, this is just about a guess about a guess regarding the original intent of trademarking NODAK, which is probably wrong. Given that UND never paid Nodak LLC for usage rights, and given that Nodak LLC never actually utilized it's NODAK trademark (that I'm aware of), it's pretty clear that there was zero follow through even if my guess were to match Nodak LLC's intent, and I'm not making a guess or an accusation that this hypothetical NIL scenario actually played out in real life.

Hypothetically, my guess could have been the intent, and your response could explain why Nodak LLC never actually used the trademark. However, would it be within the rules for a school to have a sponsor on the front of the jersey? I think it would. Given that Noadak LLC is a private company without any official affiliation with UND, could they have paid UND for official jersey sponsorship rights in exchange for UND placing Nodak LLC's logo on the front of their jersey? For example, if a company like Hollister or Abercrombie wanted to pay a school to use their name on the front of a jersey (think pro soccer), would that be allowed by the NCAA? This would be the exact same thing. UND could still have the NODAK jerseys, and NODAK merch would all be licensed by NODAK LLC, with sales/licensing revenue being continually be reinvested into marketing expenses, such as sponsorship deals with UND and NIL. As long as UND wouldn't contractually require or negotiate NIL deals with Nodak LLC, I think that would be completely legit as long as the NCAA doesn't have a rule about corporate logos on jerseys, which they may (I don't recall seeing one anywhere). Given that UND wouldn't technically be able to negotiate with Nodak LLC in regard to anything NIL related, they would need to make sure they can trust who they're working with, luckly for them, the owner of Nodak LLC is the coaches daughter! Obviously, this is pretty sketchy, but this hypothetical scenario could be another explanation as to why NODAK was trademarked by the coaches daughter and why Nodak LLC never actually used the trademark (I think?), and it would also explain why nobody at UND wants to talk about it. That is legitimately a full on guess and I don't know anything or anyone with any "back channels" like others here seem to. Just kind of playing devils advocate and arguing to support my guess, assuming good intentions. I highly doubt my guess is accurate, for a number of different reasons, but I do think my hypothetical scenario could work if the NCAA doesn't restrict sponsorship names on jerseys (which they probably do, but I'm not certain and this was just a guess).

If we guess and assume good intentions I'd guess the intent was NIL related with players getting a cut of NODAK merch sales.

Sorry. completely off topic... is this you? https://benthebaker.com/

At the same time, people's main question right now is "why"? Who, what, when where, why? Without knowing all the info, people will continue to wonder. If everything was kosher, shouldn't that be a simple question to answer? The lack of details or any answer here obviously causes people to wonder why such a simple question isn't being answered, because, logically, one would think that UND, BB, and Nodak LLC would want to quell discontent. I'm not making any accusations and I dont think most of the others who still have concerns about this are either. Asking a question/s does not equate to an accusation. The information that we've been told just doesn't really add up - given that BB has, so far, chosen not to answer questions or address this publicly and with UND being so quick to say "nothing to see here", the appearance is that BB is worried about self incriminating himself or his daughter and that UND employees are afraid to look like they were incompetent or out of control. People who still have questions aren't being unfair and they aren't conspiracy theorists. The facts that we've been told don't align with BB pleading the 5th (for the lack of a better term), and this isn't the fault of Rob Port or fans who are still concerned about this. Also, people can rip Rob Port, but he reported on something that, according to Armacost, was an issue, and the publicity from his reporting is what spurred change. Are people really criticizing him for going to print without the whole story when the parties involved were (and still are) unwilling to answer simple questions about their side of the story?

I don't know why people are putting this on BB. Yes, it was stupid, etc. but our athletic department shouldn't have rolled out a huge NODAK campaign without figuring this out on their own. Literally, all they had to do was search a database for the word NODAK. You would think that if Brad Barry's daughter filed for trademark rights that the UND athletic department would be competent enough to at least think about it, especially considering our history with the ND logo and Notre Dame.

What percent of those were walkons I wonder.

I'm just guessing. But if they are already working on the suites and press box, maybe they are reinforcing the roof to the suites along the entire sideline? Maybe this would allow them to have a new ticketed space up there, or additional media could go up there, allowing the bridge decks to be opened up 100% percent again as they used to be?

Has UND been getting paid a licensing fee for sales of NODAK gear at Scheels and Sioux Shop and Fanatics?

Can you explain this to me like I'm a Bison fan? Not sure what the significance of that difference is.

Ha. Kinda embarrassing but on my desktop I don't have a basic internet icon. Instead I have icons that are links to sioux sports or different news or procurement web pages. I click a random one each time I need to use the internet, look to see if there's anything interesting, then I go to my email or whatever web page it was that I was actually intending to visit. Not a good habit.

FYI, I was just posting my current thoughts at the moment. Literally saw the old Penguins logo today and I thought it was a really unique and cool way to do a bird logo. I in no way was saying those logos ARE inspiration for anything that is legitimately in the works. I know zero inside info about this, just to clarify. Would love if UND has the same thoughts though! Something in this direction is the only way to nail a new Hawks logo, imo.

Port did ask UND for a comment. Sounded like they chose not to comment, didn't they?

Alerus Center Suite Renovations https://qcpi.questcdn.com/cdn/posting/?group=1572704&provider=1572704

I don't have an opinion on this yet, just a lot of questions at this point. So, what IS Chaves position on this? Is this equivalent to the basketball court design fiasco? Who signs off on Jersey orders? Is UND getting paid any sort of licensing fee for NODAK jersey sales at the Ralph and other stores? What are Chaves thoughts on the apparel offerings at the Sioux Shop? Who is running the athletic department? Is there any oversight? Also, did plans for the NODAK jersey and branding have anything to do with UND taking it's multimedia/licensing rights in-house after the Learfield contract expired? What exactly IS "Fighting Hawks Sports Partnerships", like is it actually some sort of legal entity, or does that name just represent the existing/ongoing sponsorship terms between UND and the REA, as spelled out in the Usage Agreement? Since the unveiling of "Fighting Hawks Sports Partnerships" has anything changed, either operationally or financially, in regard to the UND/REA usage agreement? Now that Port wrote his article, I find these quotes from an Inforum article somewhat interesting: "The object is to have more flexibility and to capitalize on relationships," UND's associate athletic director for external operations Kyle Doperalski said. "After months of discussion, we came to the conclusion we could do those things ourselves. It will give us more flexibility and we'll be able to control our own destiny, so to speak, in a few aspects," Doperalski said. Two more questions: 1) what relationships was Kyle referring to, and 2) what did the "months of discussion" look like, and who participated in the discussions?

What I said isn't wrong. UND has two contracts, one with Adidas for apparel and shoes/cleats, and a second with CCM for hard goods, where UND wears exclusively CCM helmets, masks, gloves, and shin/elbow/shoulder pads. UND also gets a a deal on skates and sticks from CCM, but CCM doesn't have exclusivity with those two items (e.g. players can use Bauer sticks or skates if they prefer). Both contracts expire after the 2024-2025 season, but UND has two options to renew the contract for an additional year (two total years) with the existing terms, so the CCM deal could run until the end of the 2026-27 season. Not sure if you mentioned it or someone else, but I don't really see how the NHL jersey supplier is relevant or has any impact on who UND selects for the school-wide apparel deal, because other than for a different corporate patch on their jersey, it doesn't really affect hockey players since jerseys are all pretty much the same quality no matter who is manufacturing it.

Thank you! Have been trying to find it forever. Read a million articles - don't know why newspapers never link to direct sources.

UND still has a hard goods contract with CCM (skates, pads, sticks, etc). For hockey Addidas is just jerseys pretty much.

It's about both. UND is STILL raising money for the phase two and neither of our websites even mention it.

Same goes for alumni association to be honest.

Their website and social media presence are dog !@#$. Sorry. Still waiting for them to announce how much they raised last year.

There isn't a jersey with the current nickname. More like...

Inspiration for new logo.

I think that is too arbitrary simply because such a big factor in playoff success is luck in the matchups. If UND got placed in an easy bracket and won, would that really indicate they are any better?