The Sicatoka

I'm guessing the petitioneer was trying to claim this is about some higher principle like state's rights. They forget the NCAA is a private organization and that ND's constitution matters not to such an organization.

Before? Eh, whatever. But if they'd have done it after Aug 5, 2005, you might have a point.

And when Pontiac motor cars existed they were an official sponsor of NCAA events. Pontiac was Ottawa tribe chief's name. In light of that, you shouldn't be surprised.

You guys are thinking too small. Who knows what opportunities may open with the CUSA/MWC merger. Not sayin', just sayin'.

They're like Jell-o.

"Hawkeye" is not a "race, ethnicity, or national origin" based name. That's what the Aug 5, 2005, NCAA statement laid out. Yes, they're only targetting Native names ... at this time. But they left the door open, didn't they. Now if you'd be complaining about "IOWA" on the front of their jerseys you might be onto something. Iowa derives from the name of the indiginous Kiowa peoples of that region.

Hyper. Boil? Is that like a really, really, really big pussy zit? If there is hyperbole going on around here it's in the predictions of SL's chances of winning in any near-term timeframe.

If three significant NCAA members, not only by their size and conference membership but also by their geographic shadow over North Dakota, following "best practices" scheduling isn't enough proof, what is? Ten? Twenty? One hundred? All of Division I? All of the NCAA? Three majors of regional significance is enough for me to get the message. I point this out because if the three were Massachusetts, Washington, and UCLA with overt "best practices" policies I'm pretty sure they'd get poo-poo'd as "we'd never play them because that's too far away". We recruit in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Not having a means to have a presence there in competition is real damage.

... and the MAC and the Big Ten have a scheduling agreement so CMU falls under "conference mandates" portion of the UM and UW policies, just like the "conference mandates" portion allowed Minnesota and Wisconsin to play UND in the WCHA.

When UND played at TT a few years back the TT game day program had a scared looking Native on a pony being chased by the TT Zorro looking, gun firing mascot on the cover. It turned into a flap with the pure moniker hating crowd both here and there.

I don't get it Benny. "Keeping the moniker benefits UND" is by your statement "incorrect. " So why the other tangential concerns or arguments? Just bored and have a keyboard?

Again, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa follow the NCAA's "best practices" policy when it comes to scheduling. That means they won't schedule teams on the NCAA's "naughty monikers" list. FSU, Utah, and CMU are not on the "naughty monikers" list. UND is on the "naughty monikers" list.

That's one place that I'm pretty sure UND won't be seeing again after the FB game day program flap when UND was there a couple years ago. Schools don't have to have a stated policy. They can just choose to not schedule UND for "unstated" reasons. Their schedule. Their choice. Actually, I commend Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa for stating their policy. That takes some cajones and at least we know "who and why" when scheduling against them doesn't happen for UND.

Stay on topic Fetch. That belongs in the Football forum, not here. You claim there will be no ramifications for keeping the name. Ramifications: They're here. What say you now.

The athletic program hasn't played Wisconsin and Minnesota? Then who were the Lamoureuxs (Monique, Jocelyn, and Mario) playing this year? Nice try. And Benny, I thought you'd have more respect for UND's volleyball and tennis programs. Without the Big Sky Conference, they're toast.

http://mobile.grandforksherald.com/page/article/id/229087/ What do you think "reiterated this in formal terms" means? It means they sent letters (not phone calls) explaining their plans to void contracts, revoke invitations, and follow the NCAA "best practices" scheduling policy.

It was mentioned in the GF Herald article about Tim O'Keefe's letter saying the name needs to go.

Yes, because that soccer contract was signed in January when UND had dropped the Fighting Sioux moniker. Can the message be any clearer? PS - As the soccer date gets closer and if the moniker stays in place I'm betting the soccer match gets cancelled too.

And given that the damage is hitting here and now, UND must protect its enterprise first while the SL case plays out.

Same link as Philly:

From UND SID Jayson Hajdu's Twitter feed: First substantial proof that schools aren't threatening. They are acting.

This thread is for an accumulation of the negative impacts on UND Athletics of restoration of the Fighting Sioux moniker. Argue merits either way in one of the other (thousand or so) threads. Thank you.

Folks, did you ever stop to think that maybe part of the reason Faison, Hakstol, Mussman, Lennon (yes, Lennon) are all saying drop the moniker and stay off sanctions is that they see opportunities out there in this realm that we are not aware of?

Folks, this is no longer about monikers or respecting tribal wishes. That's long gone. This is about the NCAA having a signed agreement and the NCAA flexing their muscles. Pure and simple. We can argue about how we got here and what could've gone differently, but it won't change that fact. This is about the NCAA having a signed agreement and the NCAA flexing their muscles.

"Simply put, it will possibly diminish our hockey program slowly over time. In my opinion, it would be extremely damaging to all of our other sports on campus in the near future.'' -- Dave Hakstol, speaking about what happens if the moniker is kept