639 replies to this topic

[ScottM]

Gma loves hockey, on 17 April 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

I guess I was thinking it would prove that UND and the local area is trying to follow NCAA regs and the rest of the state, that may not be following the situation, is putting UND between a rock and a hard place. In that situation, it would seem like the ones fighting against the NCAA should be also sanctioned. It is not a matter of going to UND games, it is a matter of politics, semantics, and personal preferences.

UND and the board have done what they can to retire the Sioux moniker, But the people of North Dakota, by and through their political process, seek to keep the Sioux moniker hanging around UND's neck. And that's why if the state votes for UND to retain the Sioux moniker, the entire state should be subject to same state-wide sanctions that the NC$$ has imposed on Mississippi and South Carolina for their various displays of the Confederate flag.

[XCheck]

Why is everyone so certain that the NCAA could not be persuaded to change their position if the majority vote from SL and SR are in favor of keeping the nickname. (Conversely, if SL and SR vote against the nickname...end of discussion.) If the vote from those two reservations is in favor of the name, the NCAA would have a difficult time explaining why their policy should not be reversed. How could the NCAA rule that the name is hostile and abusive if those two groups (Spirit Lake and Standing Rock) voted in favor of keeping the name. The NCAA would be offending the very people they were thying to "protect". This has alwasy been about what Native Americans in North Dakota think about the issue and theirs is the only real opinion that counts. This board is full of opinions both for and against the name, but nobody has tried to find out definitively what Native Americans think.  Some tribal members indicate feel left out of the process....the Tribal Councils do not necessarily reflect the opinion of their members (a fact lost on the ND delegation that signed that agreement with the NCAA).  One or two opponents on the Council can decide the whole issue which affects so many people.

Even the referendum is flawed...somehow we needed to get the the tribal members vote, not all the white people that includes a bunch of hostile Bison fans.  the while people shouldn't be telling Sioux tribal members what they should consider "hostile and abusive".  It will be great to have this settled because this debate is really getting stale.  The referendum, as it stands, is a lose, lose situation for UND.

The way this issue was handled from day one by all the key stakeholders was most unfortunate....they did not come up with a plan and execute that plan that gave UND the best chance to keep the name. I think all of us could accept dropping the nickname and logo if we feel it had been handled more thoughfully and skillfully. There was a lack of effective leadership on this issue. If the UND athletic teams competed with game plans this weak, they would never win any games. Boy do I miss Tom Clifford...he wouldn't have let the ND delegation get painted into a corner that left UND with few cards to play. However, that is old news...the process used to respond to the NCAA policy was not very good at all and we can't go back and change that.  A University, in part, teaches students effective problem solving, but UND did not set a very good or convincing example in this case.

It sounds like the name is pretty much dead and the school will have to make the very best of a bad situation.

[Bison Dan]

ScottM, on 17 April 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

UND and the board have done what they can to retire the Sioux moniker, But the people of North Dakota, by and through their political process, seek to keep the Sioux moniker hanging around UND's neck. And that's why if the state votes for UND to retain the Sioux moniker, the entire state should be subject to same state-wide sanctions that the NC$$ has imposed on Mississippi and South Carolina for their various displays of the Confederate flag.

Nice logic.

[UNDBIZ]

XCheck, on 17 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Why is everyone so certain that the NCAA could not be persuaded to change their position if the majority vote from SL and SR are in favor of keeping the nickname. (Conversely, if SL and SR vote against the nickname...end of discussion.) If the vote from those two reservations is in favor of the name, the NCAA would have a difficult time explaining why their policy should not be reversed. How could the NCAA rule that the name is hostile and abusive if those two groups (Spirit Lake and Standing Rock) voted in favor of keeping the name. The NCAA would be offending the very people they were thying to "protect". This has alwasy been about what Native Americans in North Dakota think about the issue and their's is the only real opinion that counts.   They feel left out of the process....the Tribal Councils do not necessarily relect the opinion of their members

Most of SR is in South Dakota.  The NCAA wants approval from SR, not Sioux County (the portion of SR in North Dakota).  Is it fair?? No.  Does the NCAA care?? No.  The NCAA wants official word from the SR Tribal Council on the approval of the name.  Even if the vote in Sioux County is in favor of the name, the SR Tribal Council doesn't appear willing to extend such approval.

[UNDBIZ]

Bison Dan, on 17 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Nice logic.

I agree.  Great to see we're all on the same page now.

[The Sicatoka]

Folks, it's time to end the "coulda-woulda-shoulda".

It's time to live in present realities.

Reality:
- UND is under sanction
- UND will not be allowed to host an NCAA playoff game even if earned
- Minnesota won't play UND
- Wisconsin won't play UND
- Iowa won't play UND (and has uninvited UND from a competition previously planned)
- the Big Sky has stated concerns about UND's viability as a conference member under continuing sanctions

Folks, the NCAA has cut UND.

The choices are:
- act to stop the bleeding
- bleed out

If SL v NCAA goes SL's way, that'll be the new reality. Deal with it then.

For now, stop the bleeding.

[fightingsioux4life]

The Sicatoka, on 17 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Folks, it's time to end the "coulda-woulda-shoulda".

It's time to live in present realities.

Reality:
- UND is under sanction
- UND will not be allowed to host an NCAA playoff game even if earned
- Minnesota won't play UND
- Wisconsin won't play UND
- Iowa won't play UND (and has uninvited UND from a competition previously planned)
- the Big Sky has stated concerns about UND's viability as a conference member under continuing sanctions

Folks, the NCAA has cut UND.

The choices are:
- act to stop the bleeding
- bleed out

If SL v NCAA goes SL's way, that'll be the new reality. Deal with it then.

For now, stop the bleeding.

Well put.

[82SiouxGuy]

XCheck, on 17 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Why is everyone so certain that the NCAA could not be persuaded to change their position if the majority vote from SL and SR are in favor of keeping the nickname. (Conversely, if SL and SR vote against the nickname...end of discussion.) If the vote from those two reservations is in favor of the name, the NCAA would have a difficult time explaining why their policy should not be reversed. How could the NCAA rule that the name is hostile and abusive if those two groups (Spirit Lake and Standing Rock) voted in favor of keeping the name. The NCAA would be offending the very people they were thying to "protect". This has alwasy been about what Native Americans in North Dakota think about the issue and theirs is the only real opinion that counts. This board is full of opinions both for and against the name, but nobody has tried to find out definitively what Native Americans think.  Some tribal members indicate feel left out of the process....the Tribal Councils do not necessarily reflect the opinion of their members (a fact lost on the ND delegation that signed that agreement with the NCAA).  One or two opponents on the Council can decide the whole issue which affects so many people.

Even the referendum is flawed...somehow we needed to get the the tribal members vote, not all the white people that includes a bunch of hostile Bison fans.  the while people shouldn't be telling Sioux tribal members what they should consider "hostile and abusive".  It will be great to have this settled because this debate is really getting stale.  The referendum, as it stands, is a lose, lose situation for UND.

The way this issue was handled from day one by all the key stakeholders was most unfortunate....they did not come up with a plan and execute that plan that gave UND the best chance to keep the name. I think all of us could accept dropping the nickname and logo if we feel it had been handled more thoughfully and skillfully. There was a lack of effective leadership on this issue. If the UND athletic teams competed with game plans this weak, they would never win any games. Boy do I miss Tom Clifford...he wouldn't have let the ND delegation get painted into a corner that left UND with few cards to play. However, that is old news...the process used to respond to the NCAA policy was not very good at all and we can't go back and change that.  A University, in part, teaches students effective problem solving, but UND did not set a very good or convincing example in this case.

It sounds like the name is pretty much dead and the school will have to make the very best of a bad situation.

The NCAA will not change their policy because they don't have to.  They are an independent organization, membership is voluntary.  Therefore they can make their own rules.  If you don't like the rules you can leave the organization.  They are not subject to the opinions of North Dakota citizens.  They have a signed agreement with UND and the state of North Dakota saying that approval by both tribes was needed by November 30, 2010.  That approval was not obtained at Standing Rock.  So it doesn't matter what happens now.  The Standing Rock Tribal council could vote unanimously in favor of UND using the nickname and it wouldn't matter to the NCAA.  The NCAA told the delegation from North Dakota that the settlement date had passed, so nothing that happened after that date would change their position.

The NCAA chose to follow the wishes of the Tribal Councils because they are the official voice of the tribes.  It would be like someone coming into North Dakota and following what the state government told them rather than taking a poll of the citizens.  That is the way business is done, you deal with the government policies rather than choosing to go against those policies because you think that's how the citizens feel.

If you don't believe that the NCAA will maintain their position just look up the NCAA versus South Carolina and Mississippi on the Confederate flag issue.  In South Carolina they are punishing the entire state because of a single flag flown over a war memorial.  That flag was put into state law.  So the NCAA no longer allows any NCAA tournaments in South Carolina that are scheduled in advance.  This has been going on for a decade.  The people of South Carolina support having the flag.  The NCAA is not backing away.

[ScottM]

Bison Dan, on 17 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Nice logic.

Thanks.  So we can count on your vote to drop the moniker?

[Goon]

XCheck, on 17 April 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Why is everyone so certain that the NCAA could not be persuaded to change their position if the majority vote from SL and SR are in favor of keeping the nickname. (Conversely, if SL and SR vote against the nickname...end of discussion.) If the vote from those two reservations is in favor of the name, the NCAA would have a difficult time explaining why their policy should not be reversed.

The only vote that matters to the NCAA is a vote that is sanctioned/approved of by the Standing Rock Tribal Council; that’s not going to happen because the members on the Standing Rock Tribal Council aren't letting their tribal members vote on the matter.

The NCAA doesn’t care if the Standing Rock Members vote to approve the Fighting Sioux nickname en masse in the state wide election; it’s not going to sway them. The NCAA outsmarted the AG when they got him to agree to the surrender agreement.

[ScottM]

Goon, on 17 April 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

The only vote that matters to the NCAA is a vote that is sanctioned/approved of by the Standing Rock Tribal Council; that’s not going to happen because the members on the Standing Rock Tribal Council aren't letting their tribal members vote on the matter.

The NCAA doesn’t care if the Standing Rock Members vote to approve the Fighting Sioux nickname en masse in the state wide election; it’s not going to sway them. The NCAA outsmarted the AG when they got him to agree to the surrender agreement.

Actually, none of the votes matter to the NC$$.  That time has long since passed.  SL and SR could vote unanimously that UND should keep the Sioux for 1000 years and it would not impact the NC$$ or the settlement agreement that binds the parties.  Same goes with the SL litigation.  Even if they win fat chance the NC$$ has no obligation to release UND from its settlement agreement.  

[JohnboyND7]

ScottM, on 17 April 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

UND and the board have done what they can to retire the Sioux moniker, But the people of North Dakota, by and through their political process, seek to keep the Sioux moniker hanging around UND's neck. And that's why if the state votes for UND to retain the Sioux moniker, the entire state should be subject to same state-wide sanctions that the NC$$ has imposed on Mississippi and South Carolina for their various displays of the Confederate flag.

I've said it before.  Go for it.  It wouldn't really hurt anyone.  UND and NDSU aren't going to be hosting many NCAA or Conference tournements (that is what the sanction is on Miss. and SoCar).  Playoff games earned by merit still are awarded.  An example being Wofford (in South Carolina) has hosted playoff games since that policy was put in place.

[UNDBIZ]

JohnboyND7, on 17 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I've said it before.  Go for it.  It wouldn't really hurt anyone.  UND and NDSU aren't going to be hosting many NCAA or Conference tournements (that is what the sanction is on Miss. and SoCar).  Playoff games earned by merit still are awarded.  An example being Wofford (in South Carolina) has hosted playoff games since that policy was put in place.

I've said it before but I'll say it again.  Just because the NCAA applied sanctions in that fashion against SC doesn't mean that's how the sanctions would be applied against North Dakota.  However, I still think there is little to no chance the NCAA applies sanctions against the entire state of ND, even though it would be fair....

[ScottM]

UNDBIZ, on 17 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I've said it before but I'll say it again.  Just because the NCAA applied sanctions in that fashion against SC doesn't mean that's how the sanctions would be applied against North Dakota.  However, I still think there is little to no chance the NCAA applies sanctions against the entire state of ND, even though it would be fair....

Oh, I don't know.  I was wondering how Jesse, Ron, Russell, etc. would feel if the Sioux moniker was retained after a state-wide vote and all of their "hard work" of the past to erase it from UND as rendered useless by an electoral process.  I think they'd find a pretty receptive "academic" audience in the NC$$ Executive Committee that North Dakota is maintaining a "racist" symbol in the moniker.  As a practical matter, a state-wide sanctions policy could also be a backdoor way for the NC$$ to advance its agenda against other schools who are not currently on the H&A list by broadening the scope to target states versus schools.

[UNDBIZ]

ScottM, on 17 April 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Oh, I don't know. I was wondering how Jesse, Ron, Russell, etc. would feel if the Sioux moniker was retained after a state-wide vote and all of their "hard work" of the past to erase it from UND as rendered useless by an electoral process. I think they'd find a pretty receptive "academic" audience in the NC$$ Executive Committee that North Dakota is maintaining a "racist" symbol in the moniker. As a practical matter, a state-wide sanctions policy could also be a backdoor way for the NC$$ to advance its agenda against other schools who are not currently on the H&A list by broadening the scope to target states versus schools.

I'd love it if they came out and said they were going to do this before the June vote, I just don't see it happening though....

Edit: by "they" I mean the NCAA, not Ron, Russell, etc.

[ScottM]

UNDBIZ, on 17 April 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

I'd love it if they came out and said they were going to do this before the June vote, I just don't see it happening though....

Edit: by "they" I mean the NCAA, not Ron, Russell, etc.

No, they'd wait until after either/both elections.  And I doubt there would be much fanfare beyond a press release, sort of how they dropped it on MS and SC.  Moreover, I don't see the bedwetters who originally pushed this issue accepting the situation if the state effectively mandates that the moniker remain at UND.  In fact, I find their relative silence of late on this matter to be interesting.

[UNDBIZ]

ScottM, on 17 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

No, they'd wait until after either/both elections.  And I doubt there would be much fanfare beyond a press release, sort of how they dropped it on MS and SC.  Moreover, I don't see the bedwetters who originally pushed this issue accepting the situation if the state effectively mandates that the moniker remain at UND.  In fact, I find their relative silence of late on this matter to be interesting.

Good point.  It'd sure be easier if they threatened the statewide sanctions now though.  Wouldn't have to worry about either vote handcuffing UND.

[Chewey]

ScottM, on 17 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

No, they'd wait until after either/both elections.  And I doubt there would be much fanfare beyond a press release, sort of how they dropped it on MS and SC.  Moreover, I don't see the bedwetters who originally pushed this issue accepting the situation if the state effectively mandates that the moniker remain at UND.  In fact, I find their relative silence of late on this matter to be interesting.

One thing that probably has been done right is that the SBoHE, Alumni Association, et al have probably said "We'll work with you now.  Just shut the hell up for awhile."  Having a chorus of the usual "academics" chiming in would only stoke things in a way the SBoHE would not want them.  Eastern ND academics (maybe the East generally? East Dakota and West Dakota instead of North and South?) have generally be held in low regard in Western ND and that sentiment was really smoked with Measure No. 6 in 1980.

On another note, it looks like someone is trying to find a voice prior to June as my mom and one other (both signed the petitions) received phone calls addressing the following:

• How will you vote
  
• Do you think the logo should remain the same
  
• Who has the power over the logo - legistlature, State Board of HIgher Ed, citizens, UND
  
• Who would you be most persuasive to discuss the hardships of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND Student-Athletes, UND Students, UND faculty staff
  
• How credible to you find as to the adverse effects of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND faculty staff
  
• There were questions of tribal relations

Looks like the lists of names with respect to the petition are the starting point for now.

[UNDBIZ]

Chewey, on 17 April 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

On another note, it looks like someone is trying to find a voice prior to June as my mom and one other (both signed the petitions) received phone calls addressing the following:

• How will you vote
  
• Do you think the logo should remain the same
  
• Who has the power over the logo - legistlature, State Board of HIgher Ed, citizens, UND
  
• Who would you be most persuasive to discuss the hardships of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND Student-Athletes, UND Students, UND faculty staff
  
• How credible to you find as to the adverse effects of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND faculty staff
  
• There were questions of tribal relations

Looks like the lists of names with respect to the petition are the starting point for now.

Well it's good to see something is happening.  UND/SBHE needs to find out how to convince the masses this is terrible for UND, its students, and the state of North Dakota.  They need to find out how to convince the masses that UND and its students are more important than a sports team logo.  Hopefully the phone surveys (if they are being conducted by UND/SBHE) give them some good intel on how to go about accomplishing these things.  North Dakotans are a stubborn people, but I like to think we can be wise as well.

[TRex]

Chewey, on 17 April 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

One thing that probably has been done right is that the SBoHE, Alumni Association, et al have probably said "We'll work with you now.  Just shut the hell up for awhile."  Having a chorus of the usual "academics" chiming in would only stoke things in a way the SBoHE would not want them.  Eastern ND academics (maybe the East generally? East Dakota and West Dakota instead of North and South?) have generally be held in low regard in Western ND and that sentiment was really smoked with Measure No. 6 in 1980.

On another note, it looks like someone is trying to find a voice prior to June as my mom and one other (both signed the petitions) received phone calls addressing the following:

• How will you vote
  
• Do you think the logo should remain the same
  
• Who has the power over the logo - legistlature, State Board of HIgher Ed, citizens, UND
  
• Who would you be most persuasive to discuss the hardships of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND Student-Athletes, UND Students, UND faculty staff
  
• How credible to you find as to the adverse effects of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND faculty staff
  
• There were questions of tribal relations

Looks like the lists of names with respect to the petition are the starting point for now.

I've heard from a credible source that the Odney Advertising Agency in Fargo has been hired to conduct research polls on  people's attitudes on the name change, SBoHE, the ND Legislature, UND, and relationships with the sovereign tribes.  I'm guessing that is probably related to the phone calls.

Seems like there is a plan to combat the hysteria out there.   I would love to see the poll numbers, but I'm sure those will be kept private.