mksioux

Just ordered it. Had to buy a 12-station sports tier to get the FCS channels, but well worth the $7.99 per month.

I have comcast, so it sounds like I'm golden if I purchase the sports tier package that has all three FCS channels.

The Summit League is UND's only legimitate shot at an auto-bid conference for the foreseeable future. Even recognizing the importance of the Summit, it would be crazy not to give ourselves some more time to work with a new council on Standing Rock. And an extra fifteen days isn't going to cut it. It'll take at least another six months if Standing Rock chooses to go down the same route as Spirit Lake; namely, a referendum followed by a resolution adopting the results of the referendum.

If the Board wants their decision to have any legitimacy, they need to let the issue play out on Standing Rock. Extend their self-imposed deadline, see what happens with the elections, and see if nickname supporters at Standing Rock can get something going with the new council. The self-imposed 30 year agreement should be changed from a requirement to an aspiration. I agree with the Board that the nickname cannot be sustained in the long term without a long term contract that establishes tangible benefits to the tribes. However, the lack of such an agreement is not a legitimate reason to prematurely drop the nickname if you have everything the NCAA requires to keep using the nickname. If Standing Rock ends up supporting the nickname like Spirit Lake has, then, in a gesture of goodwill, approach the tribes about adding tangible benefits to the support they've already given.

This post is worthless without pictures.

$350,000 I think UND would have been much better off waiting until 2011 at the earliest to play a top-tier FBS team like Texas Tech. But it is what it is. It in no way dampers my enthusiasm for the move up to Division I.

I think this is the worst possible year to be playing the best possible team. I'd feel better about this game in a couple years. Heck, I'd feel better about many of UND's DII teams going up against Texas Tech than this squad in a rebuilding year. TT - 72 UND - 6 If TT coughs up the ball at some inopportune times and UND wins the turnover battle, it might be closer.

As objective as a partisan can be, I suppose. I'd add that another likely reason NDSU refuses to play UND is that they have built up a recruiting advantage over UND due to being in a better conference and some high-visibility wins (most notably against Minnesota a couple years ago). There is little for NDSU to gain by playing UND and a lot to lose. One sure way to lose the advantages they have built up would be to lose to UND head-to-head. I think NDSU will continue to hold out as long as is politically feasible. Everyone seems to think 2012 or 2013, but I'm not so sure. I think NDSU will hold out longer if they can get away with it. (That is, of course, unless UND does something to close the perceived gap, like beating Texas Tech. )

Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest! Books could be written about this issue. The extremely short version is that NDSU moved up to DI-FCS in 2004 and UND remained DII. UND refused to schedule NDSU. UND moved up to DI-FCS in 2008 and NDSU is now refusing to schedule UND. The reasons will vary widely depending on which side you're talking with.

Great link. Now we need someone to put up the Mike Mooney steal from 1993. I've been waiting for that one for a while.

Great news! Ordering the KU system install at my new house as we speak...

To be sure, it'll be a memorable experience for the players, coaches, and fans that are able to attend. For the rest of us...it'll probably be a a day we'll quickly try to forget.

Nice post! Thanks for the info. Sounds like a great game day atmosphere. I have a client who went to Texas Tech and he said the people there will treat UND fans very well.

All fair points. And if UND were sitting pretty in the Missouri Valley Football Conference like NDSU, then obviously the Summit would be preferable to the Big Sky. But the fact that the Big Sky offers football in and of itself makes it more appealing than the Summit Conference. UND's football conference situation may not yet be dire, but it's pretty close to getting there. The Great West Football Conference is not a viable conference long-term and UND needs to find a more permanent home. That is not a knock on the Great West. UC-Davis and Cal Poly are great institutions and have great football programs. But the reality is that everyone in that conference would bolt for a different home if given the opportunity. But I agree with you to the extent that there are no signs that the the Big Sky is at all interested in UND and, therefore, UND should not pass up an opportunity at the Summit for the remote possibility that the Big Sky might eventually consider UND. In the meantime (to get this back on the topic of schedules), I applaud all games scheduled against Big Sky and MVFC schools. UND should be establishing relationships with as many of those schools as possible.

Well, might as well get this thread closed once and for all. First of all, anyone trying to understand what's going on through media accounts is largely uninformed about what's going on. Despite hundreds of stores, the media has not done a very good job of informing the public of the issues involved in this case. You need to go straight to the court decisions, and be able to meaningfully interpret them. But I'm sure you've done that and are fully informed to discuss the subject. You are correct in that Coleman's attorney conceded that the election was clean in that they couldn't find any fraudulent intent. But that does not mean the election laws were not broken that arguably resulted in Franken getting more votes than he should have legally received. Really what the election contest boiled down to is that Coleman identified a wrong that was without a judicial remedy. Coleman's most basic challenge was that election officials on election night used different standards in determining whether absentee ballots should be opened and counted. Predictably, election officials in liberal precincts used more lax standards, while officials in conservative precincts used strict standards (which is what the law requires). The Court did not dispute Coleman's basic challenge. However, the Court said that without proof of fraudulent intent, there is no judicial remedy for Coleman's complaint (i.e. it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution). Once the absentee ballots were opened and processed into the voting machine on election night, they are comingled with all the other votes and they are official votes regardless of whether they should have been opened and counted under Minnesota law. The Court basically said that human error is a part of the process and, that without proof of fraudulent intent on behalf of election officials, they can't undo what was done. That does not mean, however, that violations of the law did not occur on election night that resulted in the counting of many absentee ballots that should not have been counted. Because this largely happened in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties (heavily DFL) it likely resulted in many votes for Franken that should not have been counted. Coleman's requested solution was to ease the restrictions over the entire state to compensate for the easing of restrictions in certain precincts on election night. The Court refused. In a sense, the Court refused to create a remedy for violating the law by further violating the law. So there you have it. I actually agree with the Supreme Court decision. Coleman's argument was strained and basically asked the Court to order the counting of illegal ballots to compensate for illegal ballots that were already counted on election night. That is not a good precedent to set. But that does not mean Franken would have had more legally cast votes if everything was done legally from the start. But I'm sure you already had all the answers anyway.

The affirmance of the Executive Committees power to enact the Indian nickname policy proved that the membership had no problem giving the NCAA a rediculous and unwarranted amount of power. Another result of that power is an unelected body in Indianapolis is essentially dicating Montana and Delaware state law on gambling. It would be interesting to see the votes by the reps for the Montana schools and Delaware on giving the Executive Committee the power to legislate social change. The vote was so overwhelming that chances are they voted in favor of it. If so, then let them suffer. This may sound petty, but given how no schools rallied to UND's cause, I don't really care what the NCAA does to other schools. Bring on the post season bans and let the members get what they deserve.

Exactly. The lacrosse movement in this country is starting to become undeniable to anyone who is paying attention.

For me, the answer is obviously football. The Summit does nothing for UND football. If the choice is GWFC/Summit vs. Big Sky, I'd choose the Big Sky. If the choice is MVFC/Summit vs. Big Sky, I'd choose MVFC/Summit. But I am not optimistic about the MVFC letting UND in anytime soon and I don't think a five-team Great West is a viable conference (better than nothing, but way less than ideal). I agree though that the Big Sky is not interested in UND, so it's a moot point. UND has to pursue the Summit and hope for the best with football. As to EWU or any of the other troubled programs in the Big Sky, by the time any of them actually leave the Big Sky, UND will likely be locked into the Summit.

I raised this issue as being problematic when the settlement was first announced. I don't think the NCAA will do anything if UND goes without a nickname for a couple years. I believe other offending schools were immediately taken off the sanctions list once they dropped their offending nickname. I believe the same will be true of UND. It's perfectly reasonable to let emotions calm a little before beginning discussions of a new nickname. However, if UND goes without a nickname for an extended period of time (with no timeline to replace it), and the Fighting Sioux nickname is unofficially used in a noticeable way, I can see the NCAA invoking that section of the settlement agreement to force UND to adopt a new nickname. That section of the settlement agreement was poorly drafted and it seems obvious to me that nobody contemplated the idea of not having a nickname for an extended period of time. UND might very well have a good legal argument in the end, but I highly doubt anyone on the State Board or UND will have the stomach for further litigation against the NCAA. More importantly, I don't think it will ever come to any of this because UND may go a couple years without a nickname, but regardless of what the settlement agreement says, it isn't going to go indefinitely without one. I think the best we can hope for is that UND will not rush into a new nickname and wait a couple years before starting the process of adopting a new nickname.

Without going back and looking at the old policy, I think you're probably right. I don't think the NCAA would place an otherwise fully compliant member on the Sanctions list if it's only "crime" was using a facility that had Native American imagry in it (at least not yet). The uproar at the time was that REA was scheduled to host the 2006 hockey regional, and the policy prohibited any facility with Native American imagry from hosting an NCAA championship event. The injunction took care of that and allowed the 2006 regional to go forward. The settlement relates to the UND hosting post season events at REA in the future. If REA doesn't want to host any more tournaments, I don't think anything needs to be changed. REA may come to the decision that hosting another regional was a long-shot anyway, so they won't change anything and won't bid for another tournament. But if they want to host another NCAA tournament, there is now a realistic road-map where it was impossible before the settlement.

I respectfully disagree. While it is true RHHT gave no indication of negotiating, that doesn't give the SBoHE the license to do nothing. How many times does an owner of real estate say he's not interested in selling, yet someone makes him an offer anyway? It happens all the time. And sometimes it leads to negotiations and a sale. Despite RHHT's unwillingness to negotiate, the SBoHE should have nevertheless put together a tangible proposal and delivered it to the Tribal Council. Maybe it would have been ignored. Fine. At least they would have tried. They cannot say that right now.

The settlement bought UND three years to negotiate with the tribes to get a namesake exemption. If the case had proceeded to trial, the entire lawsuit may have been rendered moot just a couple months after the settlement when the entire body overwhelmingly approved the Executive Committee's authority in this matter. UND's breach of contract count might have been dismissed as moot, leaving UND only with its much weaker unfair restraint on trade count, which likely would have been dismissed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that without the settlement, the nickname may already be gone. Obviously the Board did not use its time wisely and voluntarily gave back one of the three years. But my point was not how the Board utilized its time (I have said very harsh things about that), but that the settlement at least provided them the opportunity to use that time wisely and possibly save the nickname. Without the settlement, I do not think they would have even had the opportunity. I think the Board is fair game for criticism on how they used their time or whether they even intended to negotiate in good faith. I was defending the settlement as a concept, mostly from a lawyer's perspective, not the subsequent actions or the motivation of the client. Perhaps more importantly, the settlement bought concessions involving the architecture of REA. Prior to the settlement, the NCAA could basically create whatever policy it wanted regarding Native American imagry owned by and used by the University. Had the settlement not occurred, UND might very well have found itself in a position of having to major architectural changes to REA, or even worse, REA might have refused them altogether. It could have gotten very ugly depending on how much of a hard-line the NCAA wanted to take (and after contested litigation, it would likely have been very strict). Because of the settlement, REA can stay largely intact, and the changes that have to be made to REA (over time) may be somewhat expensive, but they are at least manageable and can reasitically be done. And because some restraint was put in place in the settlement regarding the changes to REA, I believe REA will reluctantly go along with the changes as long as the University pays for them. Clarity on this issue is vastly preferred over the NCAA's whims. Lastly, the NCAA had to qualify its hostile and abusive tag on UND. This was not very important to me, but it was very important to some people like President Kupchella. I had no involvement in the lawsuit, nor do I know any of the lawyers that were involved in it. All I'm saying is that I do not think things would have been better for the University (or the Sioux nickname) if the Board had refused to settle and continued with the lawsuit. In fact, they could have been much worse. The common misconception is that UND could have won the lawsuit and be allowed to forever keep the Sioux nickname. That simply is not true in my opinion. If UND had not settled, I believe they would have had to eventually change the nickname anyway, and do so solely on the NCAA's terms.

I don't know whether the Board had any intention of making an honest effort to negotiate with the tribes when the settlement was agreed upon. I guess it's possible some of them did not and used the settlement for political cover in dumping the nickname. I'm just saying that from a legal perspective, the lawyers were eventually proved right to settle based on the membership subsequently affirming the Executive Committee's authority. From a legal standpoint, UND was destined to lose sooner or later. It was smart to get what you could out of a settlement. Whether the client had any intention of making a good faith effort to utilize the time the settlement bought, I really don't know.

I fully agree that the Board squandered its time and didn't do anything productive. I guess I'm looking at it from a lawyer's perspective. The lawyer got the client the best deal possible and the client squandered it away. It was apparent after the settlement that the only way to save the name was to negotiate a long term deal with the tribes that included a share of merchandising, tribal scholarship allotments, education opportunties, or some combination thereof. Such an agreement would have required the involvement of the tribal councils. That was the only way to possibly get this to work. The Board was in a difficult position because an anti-nickname activist happened to chair one the of tribes and did not want to even discuss the issue. Nevertheless, the Board should have come up with a business proposal and presented it to both tribal councils. Let the tribes ignore or turn down a long-term stream of revenue and other positive opportunities if they choose, but an offer needed to be made. To my knowledge, the Board never even discsussed putting together a long-term package, and it certainly never presented one to the tribes. If they had, would that have gotten the tribes attention? Would it have caused them to come to the table? Would it have saved the nickname? I don't know the answers (I tend to think it would not have ultimately saved the nickname), but the effort needed to be made. The real story here, as far as I'm concerned, is the complete lack of leadership by Board after the settlement in putting together a long term package to present to the tribes. Now, it appears the Board finally realizes that they need a long term agreement to save the nickname, but there is still no talk of actually putting a proposal together. And given the new timeline, there's not realistically enough time anyway.

Exactly. People love to criticize the settlement. But the NCAA membership vote a few months later confirmed that the settlement was a good decision. UND's basic argument was that the Executive Committee did not have the authority to enact the nickname policy. But after the settlement, the membership overwhelmingly supported what the Executive Committee did by expressly giving the Executive Committee such authority. Even if UND had won the lawsuit on the grounds that the Executive Committee did not have the authority at the time it enacted the policy, a new policy would have been swiftly enacted and there would have been no grounds for UND to challenge it. The lawsuit bought UND some time (which it did not use very wisely), and got some concessions relating to REA. Given the circumstances, that was about the best UND could have achieved out of a lawsuit.