engelbunny
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by engelbunny
-
-
Once again, very pleased with my ballot:
-
3
-
-
Tickets and Hotel have been taken!
-
Some people from our group have backed out, so I have 3 sets of tickets available for the Duluth Series. Tickets are in Section 224. Sioux shoot twice at that end. Face value is $80 per set - $240 total.
Also have an extra room booked at the Comfort Suites Canal Park (Double Queen with a sofa sleeper - sleeps 3 comfortably) that I could get transferred. I think the room is about $160 per night. The Comfort Suites is an easy walk to the Amsoil, and there are plenty of restaurants / bars in the canal park area.
PM me if interested.
-
I took a few days to really think it over and weigh the pros of cons of each the choices before I voted. Finally voted today and feel great about it:
-
6
-
2
-
-
If Rough Riders is chosen, UND could just use this press release as a template. Change Texas to North Dakota, and change names like Frisco, Plano, and McKinney to Dickinson, Medora, and Grassy Butte. Change the baseball references to hockey references, and we should be good to go.
-
There will always be two sides of the fence, but that doesn't mean both sides should be contemplated lengthily; that is why popular opinion is being tested here.
The vast majority of the people coming out of the woodwork on this issue are of the "hockey-only" crowd. If those individuals were truthfully passionate about University of North Dakota athletics, they would support all sports, not just one. Furthermore, it's their opinion that excludes the holistic approach to UND athletics.
Lastly, UND needs to worry about competing on the field of competition, by improving academic standards, facilities, and instruction/coaching, not how to politically deal with impulsive behavior regarding a nickname/logo. This is what is called prioritizing, and to the "hockey-only" crowd, their athletic priorities are biased drastically.
Please expand on what the definition of the "hockey-only" crowd is.
-
Maybe someone on here can explain this derision toward "hockey only" fans. First of all, give me an example of the typical "hockey only" fan.
Because the reality at UND is that the Men's Hockey team is the straw that turns the entire drink when it comes to donations to the Champions Club and then the purchase of tickets to all athletic events. As you well know, first you plunk down your Champions Club member cash and then you can buy tickets. How many people lay down the Directors, Emerald, or Diamond club level cash in order to secure the right to purchase just football, or men's or women's basketball tickets? Not very many. But those levels are sold out at the Ralph. (As is every other season ticket in the arena - hop on the waiting list!)
Then what do those Champions Club "hockey only" people do? They buy their tickets to football and basketball as well. It is all the same people. So get off it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Those did all they could.
They certainly did!
They pretty much ignored the tribes until the NCAA pushed the issue and then went begging for a favor. After beggin for a favor, they complained the favor wasn't being acted on fast enough. When one tribe acted on it in the affirmative, they said thanks, but we think we need to drop the name anyway so we can get into the Summit League, but then joined the Big Sky instead. Then 18 months into a 3 year timeline, they decided to move up the deadline for dropping the name up by a whole year. Then when Spirit Lake objected they told them to pound sand because they have no standing in the issue. I don't know what more they could have done! Handled the whole situation brilliantly.
(edited to add a missing word)
-
Why? We asked two neighbors for simple help. They didn't come through for me. Ignore me? Ignore you. Meh. So much for them.
By "two neighbors", I can only conclude you are referring to the UND administration and the State Board of Higher Education.
-
This is not true. There are always going to be people in the market to buy things. There are several thousand freshman entering UND each year. All of them have families. There are new people moving into Grand Forks each year, and some of them will adopt UND as a team to root for. There are people like myself. I own multiple jerseys, sweatshirts, tee shirts, sweatpants, etc. with the Sioux or Fighting Sioux names on them. I have purchased plain North Dakota goods. I will purchase goods with the new nickname. I purchase to support the University and to show my support for the University. I don't buy just to support a nickname and logo. I graduated from the University of North Dakota, not the University of Fighting Sioux.
There are plenty of people that will choose what merchandise to buy from what is available. If the only choice is to purchase merchandise with a new nickname and logo, they will choose to buy that merchandise because they want to associate themselves with the teams and the school. They might even want to support the school. But if they have a choice between merchandise with the new nickname and logo or choosing merchandise with the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, a significant number would choose to purchase the Fighting Sioux merchandise. It has history, is established and better known than a new nickname, and it is a desirable brand. Under your scenario those dollars would go to the tribes. That equals a negative sum of money going to UND compared to what could be going to UND. Again, I support what is best for the University of North Dakota, not what is best for a sports nickname.
The problem is your assumption that the world breaks down into hardcore Fighting Sioux fans (people that would only buy Fighting Sioux merchandise) and non-hardcore fans (fans that would not be interested in Fighting Sioux merchandise). It is true that there are people in both camps. But there is a large group of people in the middle. These people will buy what is available and what is more desirable to them based on looks, color, etc. That etc. could include the name and logo, meaning they would choose Fighting Sioux over the new nickname if they are given a choice, but would purchase new nickname if there is no Fighting Sioux available. These are the dollars that would be lost to UND every year under the scenario you are promoting.
I am firmly in the no nickname camp, and I explained why. My decision has nothing to do with marketing dollars, and I already explained that as well.
With regard to marketing money: Unless the NCAA somehow reverses it policy, UND will be forevermore prohibited from monetizing the Fighting Sioux brand. It cannot sell the trademarks or copyright nor can it license it in any way associated with the athletic department. It can do 2 things with it: Use it every so often in some non-descript way in order to maintain its copyright and trademark, or give it to a recognized Sioux Tribe. Those are the only options available, therefore it's value to UND is $0.00.
I understand that if UND gave the brand to Spirit Lake then potentially "those dollars would go to the tribe(s)". So what? They cannot market the name in conjunction with UND. UND will have their own name. I understand you are fearful that a new name may struggle to get traction if Fighting Sioux and the Brien logo are available elsewhere. I get all of that, but my consistent thought process starts from a different core point of view - what is the best way to treat the old name with the utmost respect and dignity? I still come down to 1 of 2 ways: Silently honor it by not picking a new name, or pick a new name and give Fighting Sioux back to its people.
-
1
-
-
82Siouxguy:
The Fighting Sioux Name and Logo are worth exactly $0.00 dollars to the University of North Dakota, because the University is prohibited from actively licensing them to captialize on any revenue stream. You are only worried about the potential competition to a new UND nickname, yet no one that is a hard core supporter of the Fighting Sioux name (no matter their motivation) is going to buy any of that stuff anytime soon. These people already have Sioux gear to last them years. Your point is moot.
-
Why do some current Marquette students still want to use Warriors? Marquette hasn't used the Warrior name for years. Why do some people still want Stanford to be the Indians? They changed the name in like 1972. Fighting Sioux was a good nickname and it is a good looking logo. People that weren't affiliated with the school in any way liked the name and logo. So obviously, people in the future would still like the logo, especially when you add the history associated with name and logo. Why would UND allow a competing name and logo to be used against them?
Your plan puts extra roadblocks in the way of a new name being accepted. The idea of adopting a new name has enough challenges by itself. Only a fool would add unnecessary roadblocks, especially when it is so obvious. This is the issue that several people have noted in the past, people are trying every angle they can come up with to maintain use of Fighting Sioux as the nickname even if it is unofficial. Your idea makes no sense for UND if they want to make a successful transition.
Look, earlier in this thread someone asked if anyone in the no-nickname crowd could possibly explain their position. I did so. Agree or disagree, but I am consistent in my argument. My belief is that the "Fighting Sioux" name was, and is, more than just a marketing piece. You state it was a "good nickname" and Briens artwork "is a good looking logo". I say they represent more than just a name and a logo. My thoughts on the name transcend any dollar value you can put on it. I am not making my argument from an economic perspective. In fact, I certainly know that my reasoning on this issue is antithetical to any marketing campaign a new nickname for UND would need. I am also not an idealist, but in this instance I am taking an idealist point of view. I am taking my stance to its logical conclusion; if the name is truly one of respect and honor, then base the decision on what is ultimately done with it on that alone, and forget about $$$.
In the end it will all work out for the best.
-
1
-
-
The problem is that it would keep the Fighting Sioux name as an active and ongoing factor, not one that is in the past. It wouldn't be limited to just the diehards that have used and worn the name for years, it would be available and used by future residents and students also. It would be direct and active competition against any new name and logo. It would hurt the chances of the new nickname and logo being accepted and used by a wider group of people. It would be a stupid decision for the University if they want the new name to be successful. And there is no chance of it happening.
Why would future residents and future students care if there is "Fighting Sioux" merchandise for sale, when UND is the "Sundogs", or the "Nakotas", or the "Blizzards", or whatever? I am being a bit facetious there, but isn't this the entire problem with a new name? In order for a new name to be successful, we have to hide the old one in some dark closet? Speak of it in hushed tones? Snidely sneer at those who continue to wear it as old coots who are harming the university because they just can't let go? I can't think of anything that could dishonor the name more.
I stated earlier that I believe the name was a tribute and an honor. If UND goes the no nickname route, they pay silent homage to the "Fighting Sioux" name and reaffirm its past use as one of solemn respect. If they pick a new name, then the best way to treat "Fighting Sioux" with the dignity it deserves is to give it back from where it came, not bury it.
-
A few problems with your reasoning. A lot of the people that claim to be "honoring" the Sioux tribe by using the name actually know very little about the actual tribes and the history of the people. It is very difficult to honor someone when you don't know anything about the people that you are honoring. And I would be willing to bet that most people that claim they are trying to "honor the tribe" would fail a test on the history and customs of the actual Dakota, Lakota and Nakota tribes. In addition, some of that same group that claim to be "honoring" the Sioux people will start throwing insults at any actual Sioux people that disagree with them. You don't have to agree with them, but you can't honor a people and insult them at the same time.
Your points are valid, but I am not trying to paint a broad brush by assuming that everyone for the name has honorable intentions. Certainly many do not. However, many do; and the University's intent was to honor. You cannot also not deny that there are many in the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota tribes that perceived the name to be an honor and they now feel they have been betrayed by the loss of the name. Finally, I also recognize that others in the Sioux tribes feel strongly in the complete opposite, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint and undeserving of any insult, to say the least.
If UND decides to go the no nickname route, then they must maintain control over the name and logo. To do otherwise would be a disingenuous farce. But if UND chooses to implement a new name and logo, the institution is making the definitive statement that going forward they are something other than the "Fighting Sioux", so what is wrong with gifting the name and the Brien logo to the local tribes. The gift would be one given in honor, It would certainly put the matter to rest once and for all, and it is completely within UND's right to do so under the settlement agreement. If the tribes feel that the name is an insult, they can do nothing with it. If they don't, they can market it. That would be their business. You seem to be worried about competition against a new name. So what? There is already enough Fighting Sioux merchandise in the hands of "die hards" to last for decades anyway. And what's wrong with the tribes making money?
-
2
-
-
Having no nickname is not necessarily just some sort of sneaky way to retain the name through the back door. There is much more to it.
It is hard to explain the attachment to the Fighting Sioux name with out sounding over-dramatic; but to many “diehards”, the name “Fighting Sioux" was not just a marketing tag. It was a recognition of, and tribute to, the original inhabitants of the Dakota territory. The name stood for honor, courage, pride, and heritage. The name was territorial, it was unique. There was a deep tradition involved. Having all of that just ripped away was painful, and still is.
People fought hard to keep it, not because it was cool, but because to be told it was “hostile” or “abusive” was an offensive premise. It is hard to just get over it and move on. In addition, this debate is not something in the abstract; there are real people involved. They are actual “Sioux”. Many of them, possibly the majority, feel an affection for the name and believe they were belittled and disenfranchised by the entire process. They feel that they gave the name to the University in a sacred trust and there is an obligation attached to that; creating an everlasting bond between the University and the Sioux people. (Other tribal members feel differently, there is no denying that.)
The name “Fighting Sioux” will not be coming back to the University of North Dakota, that is a given. However, the adoption of a new name and logo might be the final insult to the very people that the University had purported to honor in the first place - saying it really was “just a name”, "a cool logo", a "money maker", and nothing more. Not having a new name is way to signify respect for the "Fighting Sioux", and a solemn recognition of what was taken.
If the University does decide to choose a new name and logo, then so be it. However, if there was a true intention to honor the Sioux (as many people with a strong affinity for the name still believe), then as part of the process, why not hold an event with Spirit Lake tribal leaders wherein as a gesture of humility, respect, and honor, the new name is adopted with their blessing; and the “Fighting Sioux” name and logo is ceremoniously retired - with the trademarks and logos given over to them with gracious thanks for having allowed the University to use the name in the past.
Maybe the name could then finally be retired with some actual dignity rather than the University having to trot it out every so often on some meaningless “throwback” item in an attempt to preserve a trademark and copyright it has disassociated itself with.-
2
-
-
Again, here is the actual settlement agreement:
http://www.ag.nd.gov/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf
Paragraph 2.d. on page 6 (page 5 of the .pdf) is the one that everyone is focused on. I feel that the first sentence is the controlling language for the paragraph:
“UND will announce that its Athletic Department will transition to a new nickname and logo which do not violate the Policy or render UND subject to the Policy”
UND has retired the Fighting Sioux name and logo. UND currently does not have a nickname, but it does have a logo, the interlocking ND. The current logo does not violate the policy nor does it render UND subject to the policy.
Does UND need to pick a new nickname? I don’t think so. I am no attorney, and have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately, but as a reasonable person, I believe the language was written by people who just assumed that any NCAA member school would have one. However, it is not an NCAA requirement that its members have a nickname to be able to compete in NCAA sanctioned events. Also, not having a nickname does not violate the actual policy in question, nor does it do any harm to the NCAA.
Sentence three seems to give everyone the chills: “If UND does not adopt a new nickname and logo, or if the transition to a new nickname and logo is not completed prior to August 15, 2011, then UND will be returned to the list of institutions subject to the Policy.” That seems to demand that a new nickname be adopted.
However, I read it more like this: “If UND decides to retain the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo, or if the transition away from the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is not completed...” That doesn’t seem so ominous.Remember, the NCAA never said UND couldn't be the Fighting Sioux or use the logo, they just said they couldn't do it at their sanctioned events, and wouldn't be able to host events. They really don't care what an institution's name or logo is, or if they even have one, so long as their name and logo does not viloate the NCAA policy.
I don’t believe that the NCAA will declare UND subject to a policy it is not currently violating, and by the policies own language, UND is not subject to. To do so, the NCAA would have to make the argument that by having no nickname, UND, as an institution, is affirmatively sanctioning the use of the Fighting Sioux name, or some other name that would violate the policy.In addition, the arenas UND plays in, both the Alerus and the Ralph complex, are in complete compliance with the NCAA policy; the Alerus always was and the NCAA declared the Ralph complex to be in compliance by execution of the addendum to the settlement.
(Edited for spelling - probably still full of mistakes.) -
-
Here is the actual NCAA Policy: http://nmai.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/NCAA-Mascot-Policy.pdf
By not having a nickname, UND violates no part of the policy.
As far as hosting events, the Alerus Center has no imagery that violates the policy. As for the Ralph - that was settled, and the settlement is referenced in this press release from the ND Attorney General: http://www.ag.nd.gov/NewsReleases/2012/09-26-12.pdf
-
Hey what "nickname" does our country use when we compete in international competitions?
-
We have 6 tickets available in Row J - Section 116 for tonight's game. Great seats in the lower bowl. Tickets are near center Ice, 10 rows up from the UND bench.
Take all 6 or I will be break up in pairs. Would like $50 for a pair; but if you want all six, I will sell for a steal of a price - $100.
Text me at (701) 270-0603. Thanks!
-
Toughest Place to Play: http://www.nchc.tv/nchc/video
Video in question is: Inside the NCHC - Season 2 - Episode 4 - 10/29/14
-
4 Tickets - Section 116 - Row J (10 rows up behind Sioux Bench) for tonights (12/13) game vs Northern Michigan.
Text me at 701-270-0603 if interested. Thanks.
-
I don't think it would have changed much. The people that want to keep the nickname-at-all-costs would still have been upset. Standing Rock wasn't going to do anything whether the SBoHE waited any longer or not. Carlson still would have introduced his legislation, because his cause is to get rid of the SBoHE and he doesn't really care about the nickname.
I have to disagree. I believe that this was the turning point in the whole ordeal. The lawsuit settlement of October 2007 had a drop dead date of 11-30-10 for compliance. From October 2007 through all of 2008, very little was done. In fact, at the January 2009 SBOHE meeting, they talked about how the "formation of the [nickname] committee has begun". They hadn't even formalized their committee yet! However outside the purview of the State Board, people were working to get a vote held at Spirit Lake. That vote, an overwhelming one, was held on April 20, 2009. One would think this would have been met with great joy by both UND and the SBOHE. A full year and half before the deadline, one tribe has voted in favor- by a landslide. The board doesn't even have a committee yet, and one half of the hurdle has been accomplished. This was fantastic.
So what does the Board do? A mere 24 days after the vote, the SBOHE, on May 14, 2009, makes a motion to 1. Move the deadline from 11-30-10 up to 10-1-09; and 2. Require a 30 year binding agreement. Talk about taking a crap on the very people you claim to be honoring. Unbelievable. You don't think the people at Standing Rock noticed that one? You don't think the people of Spirit Lake have dug in their heals over this offense? Everything that has happened since, including Carlson's legislation, stems from Board's 5-14-09 action and their subsequent screw-ups on this issue.
Had the SBOHE left well enough alone, the original 11-30-10 deadline with have come with either approval from both sides, or the grudging retirement of the name for failure to gain Standing Rock approval. Everyone was resigned to this reality. There would have been no legislative interference because the board would not have given the legislature any ammo. The SBOHE, and the UND officials who lobbied them, screwed this up royally for no reason - except a shot at the Summit League, which is specifically mentioned in those very 5-14-09 minutes.
So UND is in a very tough spot, no doubt. This is a watershed moment. I did not sign the petition, nor will I vote for the measure, because I understand the stakes are high. However, I don't feel one bit sorry for the UND administration, or the members of the SBOHE, or the Alumni Association. Because, this was all avoidable. All one had to do was have a simple understanding of the heartfelt emotions surrounding the name and logo, and then just let it play out without interference.
-
2
-
-
“I’m glad they did that,” Shaft said. “But had a lot of that happened earlier, we might not be in the position we’re in today.”
I find this statement to be somewhat ironic. If the SBOHE had not done what they did earlier (spring of 2009), I doubt we are knee deep in this steaming pile of poo today.
North Dakota vs. Minnesota in Las Vegas - October 2018
in Men's Hockey
Posted
It was explained to me this way:
At the Orleans Arena, the large home team locker room is behind the bench closest to the horseshoe end with all the seats. The team on that bench would then shoot twice at the end with no seats. Apparently, the Wranglers and the visiting team would come out of their locker rooms and then actually switch benches, so the Wranglers could shoot twice at the horseshoe.
UND wants to use the home team locker room, and there is no way these teams are going to be allowed to skate out and switch benches.