mksioux

The key to keeping the Sioux nickname right now is Charles Murphy scheduling a referendum before the SBoHE acts to retire the nickname. If he schedules the vote, the SBoHE won't dare retire the nickname no matter how much they want to do it. And it doesn't really matter if the referendum is scheduled for June, July, August, whenever, as long as it's before November 30. The Summit timeline would become irrelevant. The SBoHE will not retire the nickname with a pending referendum by Standing Rock. Nor should they.

Just remember, it would not be an argument, emotional or otherwise, if Tom Douple had not needlessly interjected himself squarely into the middle of it.

Then the Sioux nickname will remain. There is no requirement in the NCAA settlement for a 30 year contract. It would obviously be preferred (I've long advocated for a long-term contract tied to financial incentives), but there is no way the SBoHE would have the political will to drop the nickname if both tribes formally approved the nickname and UND was in full NCAA compliance. There would be holy he!l to the pay if they did something that stupid.

No, "the Cult" refers to these guys:

This.

First of all, you criticize the opposing viewpoint as being based on "emotions" but use six basketball players as the basis for your own emotionally charged argument. The harsh reality is that the nickname issue is much much bigger than the six basketball players you mentioned. It just is. The nickname issue is important to thousands of stakeholders. Anyone who thinks Division I college athletics is all about the student athletes is hopelessly naive. Moreover, if you want to make an emotional pitch on behalf of student athletes, one could make the argument that prematurely retiring the nickname will do more harm to a greater number of student athletes. If donations take a hit, that could really impact the number of scholarships available to student athletes. As to those specific student athletes you cited, if it is their dream to compete for a NCAA bid, they should not have chosen a transitional school with no conference home. I've seen no claim by the players or any other evidence that UND coaches guaranteed the players that UND would be in an auto-bid conference by their senior year. Until that allegation has been leveled by one of the players or otherwise credibly reported, there's no use in even responding to it.

Good post. Hockey has already started to lose me. It's still a relatively exciting sport to watch in person, but it's getting more difficult to watch it on TV. I find myself changing channels during hockey games, which I never did as a kid. Hockey used to be a much more exciting and entertaining sport than it has become. Yes, it's always been fun to see a goalie make a series of spectacular saves, and I can appreciate a defensive struggle now and again. But it seems like the defensive struggle is the norm nowadays and not the exception. The defensive systems are making odd-man rushes (arguably the most exciting thing about hockey) an endangered species. And when a team does break through the defensive system, the goalie usually makes the save. And the saves are generally of a routine nature and not particularly spectacular given the big pads and the butterfly style. Hockey is about entertainment and there is very little entertaining about defensive systems. You can't fault coaches because they are paid to win and playing a defensive system is a proven winner. The governing authorities of hockey need to reward offensive systems and punish defensive systems. Other than cracking down on obstruction, I don't really know how to do that. Maybe others have ideas. Also, I know this makes purists' blood boil, but I really don't see a problem increasing the width and heighth of the goal posts. You can regulate the size of the pads to a certain extent, but you can't compromise safety. And the goalies can legitimately argue that with the increase in technology with the sticks, they need bigger pads for their safety. And there is nothing you can do about the butterfly style, which is here to stay. The one thing you can do is increase the size of the net. Baseball lowered the height of the mound because pitching was getting too dominant. Football has changed where you kick off from because there were too many touchbacks and has also narrowed the hash marks on the field to increase offense. Basketball fundamentally changed the game with the 3-point line and the shot clock. There's no reason hockey can't tweak the size of the net for the overall sake of the game.

I agree with you here. When Douple says "resolved" does not mean the nickname has to be dropped, I don't really believe him. Until the nickname is dropped, it will never be fully and finally resolved. That really was my whole point. I've never said Douple can't or shouldn't do what he's doing. I've just said I think he's being disingenous with his public comments and it sounds like you don't really disagree with me on that point. Your whole mantra is "business risk" by the Summit, but it sounds like you can't articulate what those risks really are, other than "unknown" risks. If Douple is trying to guard against all risks, known and unknown, associated with the Sioux nickname, then the nickname has to be dropped and not merely "resolved" before admitting UND. This goes back to point #1, which is that he's being disingenous with his public comments.

I have no idea why I engage you, but here it goes anyway. Question #1 - Mr. Douple has said the nickname issue needs to be "resolved" before he will act on UND's application. Mr. Douple has stressed that "resolved" does not mean it has to be dropped. It just needs to be resolved one way or the other. So let's say hypothetically that UND gains Standing Rock's approval tomorrow so UND is in full compliance with the NCAA's settlement, and the SBoHE publicly announces that UND is keeping the nickname, do you agree that under that hypothetical, the nickname issue would be "resolved" to the Summit's satisfaction and they would act on UND's application? Question #2 - Let's examine the ways the nickname issue could "backfire" on the Summit if they were to move on UND's application before the nickname issue is "resolved" and accept UND into the Summit on the USD timetable. 1) UND does not get approval from Standing Rock by November 2010, and yet, the SBoHE inexplicably decides, "screw it, we're not going to drop the nickname anyway." UND goes back on the NCAA sanctions list. 2) ? 3) ? Please explain other scenarios where the the nickname issue not being "resolved" before acting on UND's application could backfire on the Summit. Once I get your answers to these questions, I will see if I can do a better job illustrating my point to you.

That's not my argument at all really, but I'm done trying to explain it to you. At this point, the decision has already been made. All that's left is a bunch of political posturing for the fall out.

We're all just "some guy on a message board," yourself included. I'm not lashing out. I just don't believe Douple's public statements was his primary motivation for injecting himself in this mess. Please explain why not. There are concerns in nearly every deal and lawyers draft contracts to alleviate those concerns. If Douple wants UND in the Summit but for the "business risk" associated with the remote possibility UND ends up back on the sanctions list, the lawyers could easily deal with that issue. I don't disagree. I'm not saying the Douple doesn't have the right to do what he's doing, I just think he's being disingenous. Then you haven't been paying attention. You said yourself that but for the nickname issue, UND is a great fit for the Summit. Therefore, the question is why shouldn't they be admitted because of the nickname issue.

I've heard of no timeline scenario that would have UND joining the Summit within the next six months. Absent the extremely unlikely scenario of UND choosing to go back on the sanctions list, this issue will be resolved by November, well before UND will ever be in the Summit. And the Summit can guard against that extremely unlikely scenario through contract. I'm talking a rediculously high liquidated damages number that no reasonable Board member could justify paying to keep the nickname (on top of the NCAA sanctions no less). My point is that through contract, you can remove any fears the Summit might have that UND might end up back on the sanctions list. In fact, even if UND gets permission from Standing Rock and the matter is presumably "resolved" according to Summit requirements, there is still no guarantee that approval would not be withdrawn at some point in the future and UND could theoretically go back on the sanctions list. No matter how you look at it, Tom Douple's public comments on this issue do not make sense. There has to be some other reason Tom Douple wants the nickname dropped. I'm not saying we are entitled to an explanation. It is not our conference and he technically doesn't owe us an explanation. I just find his comments (and now his silence) to be less than genuine.

I'm coming around to the position that the risk of being left behind in the Summit is not that great. Maybe waiting until this November would delay membership by a year, but I don't think UND will be left behind. Changing the nickname prematurely would be far more devastating to the University than delayed entry into the Summit by one year. Whatever the case, the way Tom Douple interjected himself into this issue in a real game-changing type of way will never be forgiven in Grand Forks, even if the Summit eventually accepts UND into the conference. He'll be about as popular as Greg Shepherd or Don Adam. And deservedly so.

It's difficult for me to believe that ideology is not driving the Summit's position, at least to a certain extent. If all they cared about was the business risk of the possibility UND might go back on the NCAA sanctions list, all they would need to do is put a clause into the acceptance agreement that requires UND to pay a rediculously high liquidated damages payment to the conference if it ever goes back on that list. That would be the guarantee of resolution that the Summit says it wants.

Service was the main problem IMO. The service was downright awful. I never heard anyone who didn't think the service was bad.

The important part: I'd be very surprised if Judge Sturdevant stays his ruling during the appeal. Normally, the party asking to stay the effect of the order has to provide security (usually in the form of a bond) to protect the other party from damages if the district court's decision is ultimately upheld on appeal. Here, the SBoHE will tell the court that damages associated with being forced to keep the nickname (i.e. exclusion from the Summit Conference) are incalculable and someting a bond can't protect against. And even if Judge Sturdevant stays his order, that decision is immediately appealable (often on an expedited basis) and would likely be reversed. So in sum, this appeal is not likely to save the name or even allow more time for Standing Rock to get its act together.

The deadline to gain tribal approval under the settlement is November 30, 2010. If an agreement is not reached by that date, then UND must start transitioning to a new nickname. That transition must be completed on or before August 15, 2011.

Exactly. That is why there should have been pause before embracing Bemidji State and Nebraska Omaha into the WCHA. It further pissed off Wisconsin. Wisconsin, as an institution, wants no part of being associated with schools like Bemidji State. Starting next year, 2/3 of the league will be DII or DIII. Wisconsin is starting to see itself increasingly surrounded by schools that have very little in common with it. Minnesota probably feels the same way, but it has has financial reasons to stay in the WCHA, Wisconsin does not. It's easy to think UND will be fine without Minnesota and Wisconsin because attendance is good for the other games. However, it is the regular games against recognizable Division I institutions that, in large part, create the buzz and interest in the first place. That buzz and interest carries over to all of the games. Without regular games against Division I schools, UND hockey loses a lot of its luster. Of course, UND with its history, tradition, and facilities, could still bring in big names for non-conference games. UND would not crumble without Minnesota and Wisconsin, but it's equally foolish to think it would have no negative impact.

How exactly is the timing right because of this? The timing may be right because of the general movement toward Big Ten Hockey, but the timing is not right because the CHA is disbanding. Obviously there is no way Indiana starts a varsity hockey program without the BTHC. Call me skeptical. Nowhere in the article does it discuss Title IX. Without a clear Title IX plan, adding varsity hockey at any university is just a pipe dream.

Geez, MPls, you really ought to learn to known when to be quiet. You don't have the first clue as to how our constitutional republic works. There are elementary students who know that the courts job is to interpret the law.

The SBoHE will be legally free to drop the nickname by Christmas. The only thing that can save the Sioux nickname at this point is a significant development by Standing Rock that would make it politically impossible to immediately drop the nickname, such as the formal announcement of a referendum. Anything short of that, the nickname is gone. This lawsuit served its purpose. It bought Standing Rock a little more time. That time is about up.

Not sure on the North Dakota rules, but in Minnesota, district court judges have no more than 90 days to issue an order on a motion they take under advisement. Many times, the exigencies of the circumstances make it so that a ruling needs to come sooner than that. In my experience Judges have always been accommodating in issuing rulings on an expedited basis when necessary. In a case like this, taking a couple weeks to issue an order is perfectly normal.

It's obviously unrealistic now. Having said that, North Dakota would have been better off if they had decided upon state inception, to have one public flagship university and funnel all of its resources into that one institution. North Dakota could easily have a viable FBS program if it had done so, but still probably not in the Big Ten or Big 12.

Yep, if the contract does get bought out, it'll be reported somewhere. Until then, it's still on.