[The Sicatoka]

Other schools have to protect their (tender? young? immature? mindless? soulless? freedom-less?) student bodies from different words and different ideas, so much so that they'll censor them from campus.

Campus, the place where the courts have deemed the 'free-est' of free speech must live.

To me this isn't about an adjective and a noun.

This is a First Amendment case.

[ScottM]

Quote

“If the NCAA determines UND is in compliance with their wishes,” Maturi said, “I'd go back to the committee and ask permission to go forward - but not until that happens.”

Simple, beat, or favorably settle with, the NC$$ in court, and the issue goes away. After all, I'm sure the consecrated schools like CMU and probably FSU would be okay, and it would be fun to see Chief Osceola put a lance in the big M.

Moreover, this is only grist for the discovery mill if it turns out Brand et al. having been meddling with UND's D1 plans by leaning on other schools possibly outside of NC$$ rules. "Hello, antitrust."

[GeauxSioux]

ScottM, on Dec 19 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

Quote

“If the NCAA determines UND is in compliance with their wishes,” Maturi said, “I'd go back to the committee and ask permission to go forward - but not until that happens.”

Simple, beat, or favorably settle with, the NC$$ in court, and the issue goes away. After all, I'm sure the consecrated schools like CMU and probably FSU would be okay, and it would be fun to see Chief Osceola put a lance in the big M.

Moreover, this is only grist for the discovery mill if it turns out Brand et al. having been meddling with UND's D1 plans by leaning on other schools possibly outside of NC$$ rules. "Hello, antitrust."

I like the way you think.

[jimdahl]

sultan, on Dec 19 2006, 08:51 AM, said:

I love the Fighting Sioux nickname but with all the constant negative press and responses of potential opponents stances on the issue it is time to find a different logo that we can all be happy with . It truly just isn't worth it. It will just get worse. It's isn't going to go away. Even though I totally disagree with the hostile and abusive attitude out there, it is time to move on. The only thing hostile and abusive out there is way OTHER schools fans and administration treat us. But that is the way it is so let's continue to take the high road and put it behind us. I will continue to totally support UND athletics no matter what our name is. We need to be the mature adult on this issue and not behave the way OTHER factions do.

I've said it before -- keeping the name if we remain on the NCAA's "hostile and abusive" list is insanity. I don't think the NCAA was right in creating the rule, but I also don't think we should cut off our noses to spite our faces. Standing on principle if it disadvantages our athletes, in the playoffs and in scheduling situations like this, just doesn't make sense to me.

I know a lot of Sioux fans are hoping the lawsuit is the solution; it may be, though I worry that it may not make problems like this go away. The one graceful way out would be some sort of agreement that creates NCAA-recognized tribal approval (which would placate the Minnesotas and Wisconsins we desperately need to play). However, if that were easy, UND would have done it by now.

One way or another, I think we need to get ourselves off the "hostile and abusive" list early in our D-I transition.

[sultan]

Win or lose the lawsuit it is NOT going to go away.

[Sioux-cia]

No one wants to be perceived as 'hostile or abusive'. The NC$$'s decision to be the moral conscience for college athletes, students, fans and institutions is NOT RIGHT. The people in this country have overwhelmingly agreed with UND and not the NC$$ regarding UND's decision to fight this. By agreeing to change our name and logo, we would be agreeing, 1) our name and logo is 'hositle or abusive' and 2) the NC$$ has the authority to dictate to it's membership what is right or wrong in areas outside their jurisdiction.

Those institutions that have policies regarding the name and logo have not affected our athletes in the past and I don't believe it will until after the court case and only if the court rules in the NC$$'s favor. The name and logo may change in the future but that decision should be the University's decision not the NC$$'s.

As the judge pointed out when he granted the injunction, this is not a court case to determine whether the Fighting Sioux name and logo are 'hostile or abusive', the court is to determine if the NC$$ acted beyond it's own rules, policies, regulation, etc.

[HockeyMom]

If you just give something up because someone says- that's the way that it is so you should just give up, even though it may not be fair. Why on earth would you just give up? That's like telling someone with cancer that they are going to die from it so they might as well just stop living. I just don't buy it.

Giving up now is not an option. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a decision favoring the NCAA, then it is time to look for another nickname and logo, or choose not to have one......

You know dang well Myles Brand used to be the kid that bullied other kids in school, and took their lunch money.

There are sometimes when you need to stand up and say- this isn't right and you can't do this to me, and UND standing up to the NCAA is one of those times.

Fight the fight worth fighting.

[82SiouxGuy]

I found this part interesting, it shows how strong UMTC's commitment is:

Quote

Maturi said he scheduled a game against the Central Michigan University Chippewas after conferring with the advisory committee. The NCAA first listed CMU as non compliant because of its American Indian nickname, but later removed the university from its list, citing the school's strong relationship with the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe.

“If the NCAA determines UND is in compliance with their wishes,” Maturi said, “I'd go back to the committee and ask permission to go forward - but not until that happens.”

[The Sicatoka]

Hey, cool! Goldie can fire their whole administration and save a ton of money!

The NCAA Executive Committee now runs the University of Minnesota!

[bincitysioux]

Quote from UMTC A.D. Maturi:

Quote

Maturi said he also regrets athletes from the two teams won't be able to play each other.

“I understand the policy, and I understand the procedure,” he said. “I feel bad because I think the kids are the ones who will be negatively affected. I'm all about competing and doing what's right for kids. But I understand that's the policy.”

Thank goodness we have an organization like the NCAA, and a body like Minnesota's Advisory Committee on Athletics to look out for the best interests of student-athletes.

[Northcountry]

How is this for burying your head and covering your ass at the same time? " Advisory committee chairperson, Melissa Avery, said the ... policy was discussed and reaffirmed but said she did not recall specifics of the discussion. She stressed that all scheduling decisions ultimately are made by the athletic director."

Way to take a stand Melissa - there may be some blowback from this so I want to make sure I have plenty of plausible deniability and you can't blame me because even though I made the decision, I don't make those decisions. Next we are going to hear that scheduling will be determined by what your definition of "is" is. Good grief, why is it not possible to see the total lunacy in all this?

Lest others begin to feel comfortable, does anyone else recall that 2 or 3 years ago the NCAA mandated a change from an all-leather basketball to the composite covered ball for their championship events? Their logic at the time was that with the composite version available, it would no longer be necessary to slaughter cattle for their hides to provide leather for basketballs. They were apparently appalled that it took so many cow hides to make basketballs. Of course we all know that most cattle are raised for the specific purpose of providing leather, since it is politically correct to have become vegetarian. Strains of "too much time on our hands" begin wafting over me.

Steven Colbert hit the right note when he started his new feature on people in the news with balls (and a brain attached).

[rochsioux]

HockeyMom, on Dec 19 2006, 12:17 PM, said:

You know dang well Myles Brand used to be the kid that bullied other kids in school, and took their lunch money.

Somehow I doubt "Myles" was the bully in school.

[mksioux]

I believe I bring a great deal of pro-nickname credibility to this post, so hopefully I won't get flamed too much. But this news out of Minneapolis today really hit home. I've heard about this policy, but seeing it in print strictly applied to UND really brought home the ramifications of the nickname in the upcoming DI era. Minnesota is not just a DI-A school, it is the DI-A school that UND needs in this transition. This is a big deal, and there's no way to sugar-coat it.

The forces of this movement are far greater than political correctness and are much more expansive than the lawsuit with the NCAA. UND is slowly but surely being boxed-in to a corner on this issue. I know it's tempting to "fight on principle" and to "fight to the end", but just know that fighting a battle on principle will be to the serious detriment of UND as an institution. We may win, but we'll still lose. As much as I've admired what UND has done up to this point, we may be at a point where it's time for a more practical approach to get out of this mess. I know I'll get flamed for "giving up", but I believe UND should take a serious look at settlement and see if there is a realistic way to get out of this.

I strongly disagree that winning the lawsuit will make this issue go away. It may prevent the NCAA from imposing post-season sanctions, but it will do nothing to force other schools to accept our nickname. Schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa are not going to play us just because we win our lawsuit with the NCAA. But they appear to be following the NCAA's lead on exemptions, which means they will probably play us if we settle with the NCAA's blessing.

Yes, these schools may be hypocritical and schedule FSU or CMU and we can all call those schools hypocrites, but in the end, UND is still being hurt. Moreover, the list of schools that will do what Minnesota is doing will only increase over time. Certain eastern non-conference hockey foes will undoubtedly follow suit. I predict the days of UND hockey playing schools such as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, etc. are very limited if the nickname stays intact. It could easily become an issue with conference affiliation as well. If the activists at UND haven't already contacted their activist counterparts at schools in the Big Sky, MidCon, etc., they probably will be soon. We need to know what we're up against and the forum in which it's taking place. UND is the main target in this war and nobody should think we've taken the other side's best shot yet. Things are going to get harder, much harder, for UND no matter what happens with the lawsuit.

I don't know what kind of settlement UND would be able to obtain with the NCAA at this point. I don't know what kind of settlement would be accepted by those who have dished out money for the litigation fund (including me). Maybe we could somehow keep "Sioux" and the Ralph intact, while dropping "Fighting" and changing the imagery. I can only speculate on the specifics of possible settlements, but think I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that reaching the best possible settlement in the lawsuit and getting off the NCAA's "!@$! list" is essential for UND, and particularly a DI UND. Right now, UND with a preliminary injuction in place, has some settlement leverage with the NCAA. Now is a good time to use it and get out of this mess.

[PCM]

rochsioux, on Dec 19 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

Somehow I doubt "Myles" was the bully in school.

I agree. I think Myles probably philosophized his adversaries into submission. He's still at it.

[HockeyMom]

PCM, on Dec 19 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

rochsioux, on Dec 19 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

Somehow I doubt "Myles" was the bully in school.

I agree. I think Myles probably philosophized his adversaries into submission. He's still at it.

Well, then, little HockeyMom punched him in the face and took his lunch money.....so now he is the savior of all the little people and telling them what their opinion is.

[Stromer]

mksioux, on Dec 19 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

I strongly disagree that winning the lawsuit will make this issue go away. It may prevent the NCAA from imposing post-season sanctions, but it will do nothing to force other schools to accept our nickname. Schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa are not going to play us just because we win our lawsuit with the NCAA. But they appear to be following the NCAA's lead on exemptions, which means they will probably play us if we settle with the NCAA's blessing.

Say we win in court and it is decided that the NCAA can only enforce their postseason bans if they take it to a vote of all of the universities. Say that for some reason they elect not to try it or it doesn't get accepted. Wouldn't that mean that we would be approved since they have no authority to make a hostile and abusive list. If that were to happen, would we be in the favor of Minnesota? I think Wisconsin and Iowa don't play any noncoference games against teams with native american images ( including the approved schools like Florida St.) but Minnesota's policy sounds different since they scheduled CM. If we were not labeled hostile and abusive, would they play us?

[PCM]

Stromer, on Dec 19 2006, 02:03 PM, said:

Say we win in court and it is decided that the NCAA can only enforce their postseason bans if they take it to a vote of all of the universities. Say that for some reason they elect not to try it or it doesn't get accepted. Wouldn't that mean that we would be approved since they have no authority to make a hostile and abusive list. If that were to happen, would we be in the favor of Minnesota?

Minnesota can still have its policy, regardless of what happens with the court case. Wisconsin and Iowa had policies against playing schools with American Indians nicknames years before the NCAA came up with its policy.

[jimdahl]

PCM, on Dec 19 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Minnesota can still have its policy, regardless of what happens with the court case. Wisconsin and Iowa had policies against playing schools with American Indians nicknames years before the NCAA came up with its policy.

That's precisely the concern I expressed up in #1504, echoed and expounded upon by mksioux in #1513. Would winning the lawsuit completely undo the damage of the NCAA having labeled UND as "hostile and abusive"?

Many of us are concerned about the harm of the NCAA's rule that would prevent our playoff-bound teams from hosting games. That's the harm the lawsuit seeks to ameliorate.

However, other PC bodies and institutions are likely to follow the NCAA's lead. Having Wisconsin and Minnesota refuse to schedule UND would do us serious harm as we transition to D-I. Having the UND-haters or name-change activists use the "hostile and abusive" label to plant seeds of doubt in even just one or two Presidents of potential conferences would do UND massive harm.

We're entering a period where we're going to be seeking approval and favors from school presidents, ADs, other governing bodies, and the NCAA itself. We need the "hostile and abusive" label and stigma removed from UND, not just the post-season restrictions.

[jloos]

The MN policy is not new. All they are saying is that they will actually enforce it against UND. Of course they would never enforce it against Florida State because is would cause them to lose $$. WI is the same way, they enforce it when they want to, which means when it will not lose them money.

I think this country is getting sick of the PC nuts. I think UND should stand its ground out of principle. From my perspective the vast majority of the country supports UND's stance.

[mksioux]

jloos, on Dec 19 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

I think this country is getting sick of the PC nuts. I think UND should stand its ground out of principle. From my perspective the vast majority of the country supports UND's stance.

The vast majority of the country may support UND by paying lip service, but people don't care enough to do anything about it. Unless it affects them directly, people don't tend to take action on "PC run amok". People will just say "that's stupid", or "I hate PC" and then go on with their lives. Nobody in the UofM community, even the people who agree with UND, will do anything to change the policy. They just don't care enough. In reality, UND is on its own.

The people who care enough to take action -- i.e. creating policies -- are the people against UND.