The Sicatoka

Are they sure ... ? http://chzupnextinsports.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/funny-sports-pictures-quadruple-facepalm.jpg

You sure are mister positivity when it comes to UND.

Are we sure that DaveK isn't using this as an excuse to abandon UND and finally fully embrace his dark side and become a full-time Minnesota fan?

Yes, but you need to add one caveat to your first paragraph statements: The NCAA asked for affirmative approval from the respective tribes after their Aug 5, 2005 moniker policy announcement. Namesake tribes did that (for FSU, for Utah, for CMU) in 2006. Spirit Lake did not respond and confirm their 2000 action to the NCAA in the timeframe from Aug 5, 2005 to date of the settlement agreement. If Spirit Lake would have even sent a memo from the tribal office to the NCAA in 2006 saying "our 2000 action stands", that would have sufficed and one tribe would've been enough. Two tribes came about as part of the settlement with UND.

OK legal-types, what does this mean? http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230223/

OK. South Dakota State has stated concerns about the return of the Sioux moniker and has made noise that they may pull out of the 2013 football game.

The Texas Tech game program flap ...

It's come to be expected. No one has answered this. I'm not surprised.

I (using Pontiac as the example) pointed out why "Hawkeyes" wouldn't be sanctioned by the NCAA, namely, the NCAA seems to be OK with derivatives from names of chiefs. You took my comment to relate to corporate sponsorships (and went to Kraft). harrangue - a speech addressed to a public assembly ... (my poor typing / spelling admitted)

No, you haranged Iowa for allegedly deriving a moniker from a chief's name. I pointed out why the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it (using the NCAA/Chief Pontiac example). You moved beyond to Kraft Foods. (Were you hungry?)

You shouldn't be surprised. The Pontiac logo during the NCAA sponsorship was an arrowhead. Before that ... The NCAA is a private organization. They can be as arbitrary and capricious in their rules making as they choose. Don't like it? Then don't waste your time here and instead find a way to win a suit against them proving them to be a state actor. (I've said that here about (hyperbole alert) a billion times.)

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.