NoiseInsideMyHead

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/crookston-man-gets-13-years-slashing Question: does the penalty carry over from one season to the next?

I'm cheering for UND no matter what; I just hope they do the right thing and that we can all be proud. Not having a name presents marketing challenges, to be sure, and will inhibit licensing revenue, but it is certainly a unique approach that recognizes the Sioux legacy and at the very least shouldn't deepen any wounds. I could get behind it, although I think we need to think outside the box with respect to the "interlocking ND." Selecting a name, while inherently painful and almost guaranteed to result in a period of awkwardness and maybe years of adjustment, can be done right. Frankly, I'm more interested in my kids' reactions to the new name/logo/mascot than my own. This is a forward-looking process and, with apologies to Whitney Houston, the children really are the future. Picking a name because its the PC thing to do, or because some overpaid "consultant" said to, or to stave off retribution from the big, bad NCAA is not, in my opinion, 'the right thing.' Burying the past is also not acceptable. If the new name is not rolled out arm-in-arm with a solid plan for recognizing and celebrating the aforementioned Sioux legacy, I will be disappointed.

With all due respect, you are getting dangerously close to tin foil hat territory here. The name is officially gone. The University has said and done all the right things. (Personally, I'm surprised they retired the pre-game sensitivity video so quickly, but that's another issue.) What one or ten or a thousand people say or yell is beyond anyone's control, and will continue with or without a new name. A new rule mandating nicknames would likely have to go through some sort of Association-wide vetting process, will be subject to some form of legislative scrutiny, and would - it seems - be unlikely to be applied ex post facto. Even the sweeping 'hostile and abusive' policy ended up having a grandfather provision, for crying out loud. The NCAA has tremendous reach, and has proven itself to be irresponsible, arbitrary, and capricious, but there are practical limitations to its power. I would be truly disappointed if 'NCAA phobia' were relied upon by UND as the sole or dominant justification for selecting a new name in the face of a ground swell of support not to. Hell, if anything I hope they cave to the pursuit of licensing revenue. I'd rather bow to capitalism than to the NCAA. Greed > Fear. Principle went out the window a long time ago.

The settlement agreement is an imperfect document, and there is no way that the drafters could have anticipated the way this played out. The timeline for action in the agreement is particularly suspect, as there were significant delays occasioned by legislation, litigation, and God knows what else. Heck, the NCAA already allowed a huge concession with respect to imagery at REA, so who knows where things will ultimately settle? In light of events now passed, it is virtually impossible to interpret and apply the agreement literally. You have to go beyond the four corners to breathe some meaningful life into the document. The quoted clause about returning UND to the infamous "list" is meaningless because we are no longer engaged in conduct that would place us on said list. Loophole city! My take is that the parties just assumed that there would be a new name, but that neither party expected there to be even the slightest possibility that UND would seriously consider going nameless. The total absence (*presumed but not confirmed) of an NCAA rule affirmatively requiring that members have a nickname pretty much forecloses "sanctions." NCAA's only options if UND stalls out would then be to (1) let UND slide, (2) sue for a breach of contract, or (3) enact a new rule, which they might not even be able to enforce retroactively.

"Game Worn Pants." So...this is a thing? Can't we just worship our heroes from the waist up and call it good?

I suppose we could be grandfathered in if we got permission from two nameless people, although I'm not sure how they would sign the consent agreement.

Funny thing about "sanctions" at this point…unless there is an NCAA rule about having a nickname, I think the only recourse for the NCAA would be to sue UND for a breach of contract. It would be awfully hard for the NCAA to demonstrate "damages" in the traditional legal sense, and for some reason I don't see a court ordering relief as extraordinary as forcing a university to adopt a nickname.

Sonic implies planes which implies aerospace which implies arrows which were used by Indians, so no.

"Roomy"? Go on...

Brand new, multi-purpose arena generated some buzz. But if I remember correctly, they made some 11th hour cost-cutting decisions and hockey was significantly de-prioritized. Still a physical possibility for the facility, but D1 hockey seems further off now than before and during construction. There is still a lot of suspicion of AD Trev Alberts and his motivations for killing UNO's football program. If big N were to go forward in hockey and compete directly with UNO, that could get interesting.

Agreed. Are they not worried about burn-in?

Anybody heard whether it was contact or non-contact? I am hoping for the latter, as awful as that sounds. As a youth hockey parent, a cardiac event would obviously be easier to swallow than a blow or a board.

Dem Caucasian thighs...

Bonehead play by NAU QB not to just go down on 3rd down with 2 minutes to play may have cost them the game. Could have run a ton of time off the clock as UND was out of timeouts. Ended up punting into the end zone for a touchback. Heck, even running 10 or 15 yards straight backward or in circles wouldn't have hurt as much as clocking it where he did. That said, great composure by UND to snatch this one from the jaws of defeat!

Now you're talking apples and oranges. I, too, would be interested to know if there has been a demonstrable drop in donations that could be tied to the nickname issue. Keep in mind you have to balance that against new donors who were put off by the name. But I think the licensing revenue is an entirely different subject. Yes, there was almost certainly a bump or spike when the market was flooded in anticipation of a change and people bought up Sioux gear left and right for emotional reasons. UND is now in a valley with what I suspect are low sales of bland merchandise, and there are only two sources of new revenue: reactivating Sioux licenses for legacy goods, which has never been off the table, and launching a successful new brand. I agree that a poorly conceived name and logo is unlikely to reap tremendous licensing benefits. But in my opinion, any sort of product is better than what's out there now. You have to fill the void in the marketplace with something, and sales (and revenue) will follow. If the UND brand is even remotely appealing, I will be among the first in line to buy some stuff. My point earlier is that I don't think I'm alone.

I hear this place is pretty good.

I haven't seen numbers (any open records geeks out there?), but I think it's fair to conclude that post-"retirement" licensing revenues have flattened. Without a significant change in direction, you can extrapolate that into the foreseeable future. The current gear is just not appealing to me as a consumer. I warmed to the men's hockey sweaters over time, but frankly haven't spent a dime on anything else. My home is littered with Sioux stuff that for now will simply wear out and go un-replaced. Even a relatively unpopular name and logo (say, one with 40-60% fan support) will generate sales of merchandise. Especially for students, newcomers, families and young children less acquainted with the past. If you tie in a likable character or mascot, sales of kid-oriented stuff will absolutely skyrocket. If the colors change (gasp!), then ring the cash register. People will want to associate with the team -- I think that's human nature. Throw in a couple of Frozen Four runs or even a title, and revenue will be flowing like crazy.

Seen in the tickets forum: I have 7 tickets to the game tomorrow Section 204 Row U seats 3-4 Section 204 Row T seats 1-5 $25 for all 7 This may just be the most sad, indirect (unintentional?) commentary on the state of UND football I've seen to date.

OCP Headquarters. (back on topic for you)

Your head was definitely in the right place. …until the stupid safety, that is.

Good news for local shoe retailers.

FPD staking out men's rooms all across town.

Jennifer Saddler…okay, but we hardly know her.

This. Ended 8-4, and I can STILL hear those cow bells from section 311. First and only time I've ever heard the visiting fans overtake the Ralph.

Thought for the day…when the closeout store goes out of business, where does their unsold merchandise go? http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/around-town-closeout-store-closing