MafiaMan Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Wasn't that a USFL team? Or was that Arena League? USFL - the Houston Gamblers, whose QB had the greatest football nickname ever: Jim "Machine Gun" Kelly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 This brings to mind an old movie called the "The Dream Team". You aren't getting a ride to the game in a Dodge van with other patients driven by a psychiatrist with Stephen Furst mimicking a sports broadcaster are you??? Great movie by the way but those guys never made it to the Yankees game that day. This might just be the greatest reference in the history of histories on here. The Dream Team, gotta love it. I still laugh any time I see that movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 It's funny you mentioned that... I have that on my bucket list. There are about 5 other plays I have on the chalk board. But as Kenny says, "you gotta know when to hold them" ...I'm not saying I will ever do them. I have ambitions and ideas of how to make a move on this. I would think there are others. Life gets in the way. You need time, money and allies and I will tell you I have been making some good progress on all three. I'm not there yet but I will continue toward that goal. I take the lead from people like coach Hakstol in the way he works toward a goal. Every day try to take a step forward- improve. If there were 10,000 of me in the name corner we would not be in the horrific spot we find ourselves in today. For Christ's sake we had/have the truth on our side. The opposition, the whole lot of them, has nothing more than a house of cards supporting their mandate. It is reprehensible that we are in the place we are. Mawkishly cowering onto a new name, mandated by those who failed us with thier-at least apathy, but more appropriately opposition- to what they should have advocated. The fact that they still lead us is pathetic in and of itself. And yet here we are. Is all we have in us is a resolve to condescend those who chose not to surrender. You all are so good at throwing stones there. Yet conversely, not one person had posted re the incendiary words the chancellor wrote in president Kelly's Performance evaluation. In ANY rational society that man would be fired for writting such a propagandized bunch of lies. But nay not so, only comments charged against people who say the things I do shunning every word as if it the cure to cancer. The funniest thing is I will go and watch the Fighting Sioux open up a can of whoopass on the Pioneers this weekend and personally witness thousands of Sioux fans yell out, "home of the Sioux" wearing their Sioux gear. Only then do I see the truth that I am not alone. Sioux yeah yeah!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaroundsioux Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 GO AWAY! You stinking bisson troll! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I cant link articles but sounds like a rough draft of process has been decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Another committee will be picked can submit names (UND is an option) Public can Vote to get to top 5 names. committee of 10 will decide the name from those 5. soft timeframe of 2 years. Some high points from GF Herald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodak651 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Another committee will be picked can submit names (UND is an option) Public can Vote to get to top 5 names. committee of 10 will decide the name from those 5. soft timeframe of 2 years. Some high points from GF Herald What a joke. Everyone knew a bs committee would decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodak651 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Another committee will be picked can submit names (UND is an option) Public can Vote to get to top 5 names. committee of 10 will decide the name from those 5. soft timeframe of 2 years. Some high points from GF Herald You forgot to mention the screening process by the "legal council " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWSiouxMN Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 You forgot to mention the screening process by the "legal council " Whoops. What I get for typing on my phone and not linking article. A committee to form a committee.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 2 years!? We're going to have president Kelley for another 2 years!? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 2 years!? We're going to have president Kelley for another 2 years!? By far and away the worst part of this whole nickname process. Give me Sun Dogs today if he is gone by tomorrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Sorry to put urine into yababy8's Fruity Pebbles, but ... "There are people who still think we can go back, but we can't," task force co-chair and UND alumna Sheri Kleinsasser Stockmoe said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Now, to those thinking we can sit in this limbo forever, Task force member and UND professor Jim Mochoruk said after extensively examining the settlement, he felt they had no other option. "We actually have a legal obligation to move on, I think," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 You forgot to mention the screening process by the "legal council " Screening, or clearance. Big difference, there. http://www.foley.com/intelligence/detail.aspx?int=8593 Pick an original name, and there are no problems. Pick something that everybody and their brother is using, it will all come down to having a distinctive logo/mascot and even then, you could still have problems. Not to mention the lack of decent domain names. And therein lies the problem of a "public" process; you pretty much have to buy up dozens of domains before the list goes public or else the cybersquatters will have a field day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Here, in a nutshell, is why the old name is not an option: After the names that simply aren't an option for legal reasons are removed from the list, ... There is a settlement that makes the old name no longer an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Two years ... < facepalm > ... http://www.grandforksherald.com/news-education/task-force-outlines-plan-pick-new-nickname-3631898 This should be done for a decade by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The final plan will include a recommendation that the stakeholder groups take diversity into account when choosing committee members and that special consideration be taken to try to include a member of the Sioux Nation. For what reason? If we aren't the Fighting Sioux why do they need to be involved? I wonder how the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe feels about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 For what reason? If we aren't the Fighting Sioux why do they need to be involved? I wonder how the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe feels about this.Good question...maybe they need a couple more committees to address this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 For what reason? If we aren't the Fighting Sioux why do they need to be involved? I wonder how the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe feels about this.How about we make sure some ethnic Czechs from Beach and Ukrainians from Dickinson have a fair voice in this process as well? Maybe President Kelley can just hire a new vice-president of nickname selection and pay them $100K a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 How about we make sure some ethnic Czechs from Beach and Ukrainians from Dickinson have a fair voice in this process as well? Maybe President Kelley can just hire a new vice-president of nickname selection and pay them $100K a year? Make sure we get that guy a driver too for 80k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 This is where statistics and reporting gets tricky. It says that "when asked if the plan is to end up with a nickname what should the timeline be" Answering this question doesn't mean you want a new nickname, you could answer this question and still be among those who don't want a nickname or want to keep the Fighting Sioux (a pipe dream) - the question was "If the plan is for a new nickname what should the timeline be?". Later it says responses were divided among the three options (interesting that they didn't provide specific percentages just a general "responses were divided." I wonder how they were divided?). Looks like it was a combination of the two and the groups did not overlap (assuming this reporting is correct): The task force reacted favorably to Mochoruk's suggestion of aiming for a realistic soft timeline of releasing a final name in about two years, since their survey results showed 59 percent of respondents would favor moving forward as quickly as possible or within a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Can someone breakdown what the "stakeholder group" is that is going to oversee the actual "name-picking committee" of 15 people? Excedrin Migraine, please. So there will have been three committee's by the time this thing is done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Make sure we get that guy a driver too for 80k. Now, now, darell, we can't be wasting taxpayer money and it's much easier to get around in GF as opposed to Fargo... ...so only $70K will be allocated for a driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 For what reason? If we aren't the Fighting Sioux why do they need to be involved? I wonder how the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe feels about this. This^ The other parts of the article didn't surprise nor do I have a big problem with. Although, I think this 2 year time table seems to be way way too drawn out. But what you mentioned is what raised my eyebrows too. If we are not picking something to do with Native Americans, they need to have a special place at the table, why? As someone already mentioned what about other tribes or people of different ethnic descent...this opens up a whole can of worms- to me that statement is really bizarre, I have no idea what their thinking is on this. And this isn't because I harbor some hostility for not granting us the right to use the Sioux name- it's really about, why would you even want to open up that can of worms about giving some groups other than alumni and students special treatment at the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 This^ The other parts of the article didn't surprise nor do I have a big problem with. Although, I think this 2 year time table seems to be way way too drawn out. But what you mentioned is what raised my eyebrows too. If we are not picking something to do with Native Americans, they need to have a special place at the table, why? As someone already mentioned what about other tribes or people of different ethnic descent...this opens up a whole can of worms- to me that statement is really bizarre, I have no idea what their thinking is on this. And this isn't because I harbor some hostility for not granting us the right to use the Sioux name- it's really about, why would you even want to open up that can of worms about giving some groups other than alumni and students special treatment at the table? Could the natives agree on a NA nickname that is user friendly? That would be the only reason they would have at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.