Benny Baker

It's already in writing, my friend. On September 24, 2012, the NCAA signed the addendum to the settlement agreement under which it confirmed that "UND has retired the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname and logo; and . . . the University of North Dakota will be removed from any list of institutions not in compliance with the Policy." UND obviously did not have a nickname at the time. If the absence of a nickname violated the Policy, there would have been no reason for the NCAA to proactively remove the nicknameless North Dakotans from sanctions. Now . . . , cue the speculative counter-argument that the NCAA was waiting for the "cooling off" period to end! There is absolutely NO evidence to support this assumption other than the beliefs of some misguided internet posters. How do we know this? Because these posters cannot provide quotes or citations. They will rely purely on conjecture and speculation. Just watch and see.

Right. But by the sound of it, North Stars seems more likely than Cornhuskers.

I don't know. I imagine the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers might take issue with that.

Exactly, Darell! Keep it "University of North Dakota" instead of any new nickname!

Yes.

Exactly. I am literally appalled at some of the arguments suggesting that UND needs a different nickname because the media explains why UND's current nickname is "North Dakota" in sports broadcasts.

The overwhelming majority of the focus of UND sports broadcasts is on the team, players, event they're playing in, season, and school. That's putting it conservatively. The idea that UND should adopt a different nickname because broadcasters make note of the school's unique use of "North Dakota" during a multi-hour telecast is the most trivial excuse I have so far heard, and probably will hear, in support of adopting of a new nickname

UND needs a new nickname so its sports information director doesn't have to spend a handful of minutes discussing the nickname with broadcasters. I've now heard it all. God forbid the media give press to UND by talking about its nickname during a sporting event.

We've heard it all! UND needs a new nickname so its sports information director doesn't have to spend a handful of minutes talking about it with broadcasters. God forbid the media give UND press by talking about the school's nickname. If that's what this hoopla is about, I am more than fine sticking with North Dakota.

If UND's sports information director can't ensure that its student athletes' names are pronounced correctly on national television, I am not going to worry about the spelling of his name on an internet message board. Also, I never said it was "one of the student-athletes." I did, however, refer to a "student representative", who recently stated that: "I have several friends who are athletes, and not a single one plays hockey. They just want to stay UND, not to bring back Fighting Sioux." http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/education/3801860-undnorth-dakota-out-committee-forwards-5-nicknames-public-vote You do remember the student athletes, don't you, Jason?

No, Standing Rock was involuntarily dragged into NCAA/UND's dispute and forced to become the final arbiter when NCAA/UND punted in their settlement agreement. You're passing blame and judgment on the wrong person(s).

In defense of Standing Rock, this was an issue between the NCAA and the University of North Dakota. Although I really wish the tribal council allowed a vote, I hate to see Standing Rock labeled as the scapegoat in a dispute that did not even involve them in the first place.

Save the hyperbole. Didn't the student representative on the nickname task force committee argue that the student-athletes just want to stay "North Dakota". You do remember the student-athlete's, don't you, Jason? Going forward, maybe Jason can focus more on his job as UNDSID and ensure that Barry Melrose finally understands how to pronounce "Caggiula" next April.

Honest question: what do you mean by those "stakeholders . . . willingly gave up the opportunity to take control" and that the "stakeholders . . should have demanded control"? Practically speaking, what should they have done, in your opinion? The state of North Dakota sued the NCAA. UND was prohibited from adopting a new nickname for three years. It is revisionist history to say that efforts to take control were not made. Or, are you saying that those efforts delayed the likely inevitable (a new nickname) for so long, that it resulted in five underwhelming options for a new nickname?

That's too much of a generalized for me to answer. But twitter wasn't around until summer 2006, so that might be part of the problem.

Thanks for the correction. A publicly funded nickname process with volunteers who dismissed the will of the public. They were engaged and attempted to deal with the original cause. Wayne Stenehjem did not do a great lawyering job, however.

Right, but I don't think the current uproar involves the NCAA-Fighting Sioux issue. The gripe is that a publicly funded committee dismissed the will of much, if not most, of the public.

Those who are complaining were very much engaged early on in the process. "Fighting Sioux" and "North Dakota" were the overwhelming favorite choices from the public submittable process this past Spring. Many, if not the majority, of those who were continually engaged in the process were in favor of "North Dakota." Despite the clear favorability of "North Dakota" to many, if not most, of those engaged in the process, the committee still removed "North Dakota" as an option. That's what their gripe is about.

Ah yes, the unsupported opinion that after playing as "North Dakota' for the past three years, the NCAA will no longer allow that option.

Or Berry could lose 7 consecutive April games.

Except for his abysmal 1-7 April record. That type of performance will not "fly" in Philly nor anywhere else in the NHL. For recent examples, see Dan Bylsma, who coached for 6 seasons, had 6 winning seasons, reached the playoffs 6 times, won the stanley cup, and was fired. See Bruce Boudreau, who coached Washington for 4 seasons, had 4 straight winning seasons, had 4 straight southeast division titles, had 4 straight playoff appearances, had 1 president's trophy, and was fired 22 games into his 5th season with Washington . . . even though he had a winning record at the time. I wish Hak the best of luck, but this is a whole different ball game for him.

Figured Jordan would have signed a long time ago. You really think Nick is leaving? I cannot imagine him leaving whatsoever.

Opportunity cost. The shelf life of a pro athlete is short. Does LaDue want to wait until he's 25 until he signs his first professional contract? Sorry, I was probably vague. Kings have told LaDue that if he signs, they want him to develop in the AHL. So the question he's facing is whether to start making money as a 23-year old professional, but in the AHL for a year minimum, or does he want to play at least another year for his hometown team? I can definitely understand how he's struggling with the decision, particularly when a family member is pushing him to sign.

Coaching staff wants LaDue to stay. LaDue's dad is pressuring him to sign. Kings are also obviously pressuring LaDue to sign, but have also informed LaDue that they want him to develop in the AHL rather than going to the NHL right away. LaDue is conflicted.