Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BIGSIOUX

  1. What if Kelley selected a group of people who took this job seriously and that included a variety of perspectives, professions and beliefs about the names.  Then that group was put in charge of narrowing down the list of names.  I personally think that would be the best way of getting names narrowed down.

    I see what you did there

    • Upvote 1

  2. Old Name: Fighting Sioux

    New Name: North Dakota


    I'm not saying it is THE option, but it is my preference. I think everyone who is anti-no nickname (which I understand) is trying to use a single ambiguous word in the legal agreement to support their own opion. A single ambiguous word, which they have no real clarity on that would deter the use of University of North Dakota. I have to believe that the committee and the University of North Dakota (yes that is the name of the school) has more insight on the subject than the posters on this message board. If they say it is still in play, then they probably know something that you don't.


    Now, that doesn't mean we won't have another issues a few years down the road in some people wanting a nickname. BUT I am sick of people using the same tired argument, for which they have no real backup, to support their opinoion. Just say your opinion is to adopt a new nickname, and leave it at that..

    nope, I just think it's monumentally stupid to not have a nickname and mascot.

    Carry on.

  3. Lol really? I needed to clarify I meant the selection process and not the actual nickname?



    And I'm definitely in that. I'm all done with it, too. Fair enough. Cut bait is fine, I just don't like the lack of accountability that I see him slithering away from.

    Thats fine, but why would there be questions about the selection process?  ONce a name is picked, no amount of pissing and moaning is going to lead to a redo, even if the opponents don't like the process.

  4. Rallying/Unifying the fan base and finding something tolerable are two entirely different things.  If this process produces four garbage results the alumni base is going to feel left out of the process.  More harm can be done by forcing a square into a circle than leaving the status quo as is for now.  


    Ultimately in the no-nickname era we have gone to an NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament, appeared in a few frozen fours, saw our football program begin to turn around.  Academically enrollment continues to climb, and three of the major colleges on campus are either relocating into new facilities or are being updated.  


    It's not like the sky has fallen going by North Dakota.  Why risk alienating your alumni base for the sake of adding a tolerable name?

    Do you honestly think supporting alumni will be alienated and stop support because of a "tolerable name"?  I think all of this verbal diarrhea is a waste of time.  A new nickname is coming, and it wont be just 'North Dakota'. 

    • Upvote 4
    • Downvote 1

  5. I thought 8 looked like he had way more jump tonight. Great weekend for the Gaarder line. Stetcher is our best d. and I don't think it's close. Aggressive pinching by 24 kept a lot of plays alive, did cost us on the first uno goal. 2 great games. I think we out played em both nights.

  6. cue the romeo and Juliet references........

    who gives a &#33;@#&#036;, if your a real fan of UND you will support whatever stupid &#33;@#&#036; they come up with. Good or not.   If not, apparently your time at UND didn't do much for your critical thinking and decision making skills.

  7. its about supporting small business in ND.  What do you want it to be....id rather pay a few extra bucks and know that money stays in Grand Forks/ my hometown to continue to be spent in the local economy, not to corporate headquarters in Arkansas.

    • Upvote 1

  8. Coach Roger Thomas' induction into the UND Hall of Fame would be another good marketing point to the average fan in Grand Forks to get out to the game on Saturday. 


    Haven't seen to much of that printed or covered this week.  It would make for a nice front page story from the Herald.

    good scoop, Roger!

  9. Sorry that you feel my attitude is ruining this country but every tax paying citizen should have a voice. I realize that anyone that built just south of town should have realized a bridge will be going somewhere eventually. I moved further out of town for this very reason. But you can't expect the people whose properties that are affected to just be ok with it.

    It's my opinion that it's not this attitude that's ruining the country. It's more of a big government ruining the country. But just my opinion:/

    I agree that everyone should have a voice, do you think the minority (southside land owners) should be able to dictate the majority?

    I guess I just don't agree that bridges and roads are "big government", otherwise I agree with you.

  10. Maybe it would help a sell price. But should a family be forced to sell and move because of a road? If this was being done outside of town, in my eyes it would bring my personal value of the property down. The traffic would bring noise and additional danger no way around that. And if the property was used at all for hunting, this may no longer be an option on this property.

    Now if this were to happen in town I wouldn't have quite the same feelings. If you bought a home in town then you should have almost expected something like this to happen in the future. There's no hunting going on in town and the noise is already there to a certain extent. But put yourself in a certain family's shoes, who built after the flood off Belmont and 32nd ave so....would you want a bridge right there connecting you to the south side of egf?

    Consider me in the nimby crowd I guess! Even though we may be in the minority on certain specific issues, if we happen to be the property owner who is affected by one of these decisions, who should have the final say? Just because the majority is for it it doesn't make it right.

    That is the exact attitude that is killing this country.  Those people that built homes just south of Grand forks knew damn well that an arterial connecting the cities was a possibility this discussion has been ongoing for 25 years.  It grinds my gears when people get pissed because of an apartment complex/go cart track/park moving in next door to them......It's been zoned that way!!  Nobody is forcing your hypothetical family to do anything, just because they bought a house just outside of town to be free, but still use all the services of the city, doesn't mean they get that freedom for perpetuity.

    • Upvote 4

  11. Count me in as against the half shield. The reduction in vision is more mental than acutual, I use to have a study that backed that up, but have lost it.

    Also, there is this.....http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/1/27.abstract?sid=374eeb4f-6553-46eb-9e3e-6427e15b6a6a

    Seems enough reason to me to mandate the full cage, especially in young developing brains.

    I take care of eyes for a living, ive seen the ugly of some of these things, and although I do respect a person's free will, i think organizationally, the NCAA, USHL, etc..has a liability to take care of these players, and ultimately that is why you wont see it change.

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...