mksioux

I'm repeating myself again, but the truth does not seem to be sinking in. Douple is actually right on this issue and the entire Grand Forks media is wrong. Nothing in the settlement requires UND to change its nickname. If UND does not get tribal approval or change the nickname, the suspension of the NCAA policy applying to UND will expire, placing UND squarely back on the NCAA's sh!tlist. You can use the word "policy" rather than sanctions, but sanctions is what UND will get. The Grand Forks media, and virtually everyone who comments on this, states that UND must get tribal approval or drop its nickname by November 2010. That's simply incorrect. We all assume that will happen, but Douple is not going to rely on assumptions. How would the NCAA sanctions impact the conference? I don't know enough about NCAA tournament events for the sports that the Summit offers to answer that question. If any of the sports allow schools to host NCAA playoff games based on merit (as in football), UND would be prohibited from hosting and would have to play every playoff game on the road. That could be a big deal to a conference, which generally likes to see its members do well and advance in the playoffs. The uniform restrictions probably wouldn't be a big deal to the conference. Plus the overall stigma associated with a member being on that list. Plus the general fear that everyone has of the NCAA. Having said that, Douple "cautioning" members from scheduling UND because of the nickname is pure baloney, and something Douple concocted after Gene Taylor was caught in a lie. Douple's reasoning was because of the NCAA's position on the nickname and wanting to stay on the good side of the NCAA. However, the NCAA issued a statement to all of its members after the settlement stating that it had suspended UND from its Policy and that its Policy should not be a basis for schools to refuse to schedule UND. Wisconsin and Iowa immediately dropped their scheduling bans of UND after that statement (Minnesota did not). Therefore, if a school or conference wants to refuse (or "caution") its members to schedule UND, it is of its own accord and has nothing to do with the NCAA.

I don't know whether UND will be able to consistently fill its schedule, but it's become painfully obvious that the schedule is going to be a constant struggle and UND is going to badly need home games every year for the foreseeable future. But even if UND can scrape by and fill its home schedules against random DIII and NAIA schools, is it really in dispute that a guaranteed sell-out (with increased tickets prices) every other year against your in-state 100+ year archrival would be economically better than an annual home $60k guarantee game against a random NAIA school in front of 5,000 fans? Not to mention the non-gate economic factors an annual UND-NDSU game would generate.

I can't find the story, but I believe it was in 2006 when Buning said he wanted to start scheduling NDSU again.

If NDSU needs to wait a few years and then schedule the first couple games in Fargo before re-establishing the alternating schedule, there would be no reason for the Legislature to step in. The problem is that Taylor is saying that, even after 2012, he is not willing to resume the rivalry on an annual and alternating basis. If that continues to be NDSU's stance, you can expect that the Legislature is eventually going to step in and force it. Maybe not this session, but as long as that is NDSU's position, this will continue to come up. Should government get into the business of athletic scheduling? Of course not. But governments routinely get into the business of things they have no business getting into. Given the fact that these are both state institutions and petty differences and hard feelings are negatively impacting the economics of one of them, it's not a huge stretch for the state government to get involved at some point.

Yep. Faison should call Taylor if he hasn't. Even though it appears Taylor has dug in his heels, there's no reason not to call and try to establish some sort of relationship.

I'm against government delving into such matters, but seriously, Taylor is not doing himself any favors when he talks to the media. He pays lip service to the rivalry eventually being resumed, but then he talks about all the reasons why it won't (at least not in a true sense of an alternating annual game). He basically repeats the stance he's had for a while, which is he has only three non-conference games and he would like two of them to be homes games and the road game to be against an FBS team. So unless UND wants to come to Fargo every year, he "can't see" an annual game happening. That's the kind of hard-line stance that might actually get this bill going somewhere. I understand that established FCS football programs prefer 6 homes games and 5 away games, including an FBS money game. And I understand that if you're in a 9-team league and you stick to that preference, it leaves no room for non-conference road games against FCS teams, except on the rare years the NCAA allows a 12th game. But will the average legislator think that preferring 6 homes games every year is a good enough reason to prevent a true alternating rivalry from renewing? I still don't think this bill has a prayer of passing, but if Taylor keeps talking, you never know. If he would simply say something generic like "we're working on it," the bill would certainly be DOA.

I fully agree. With scheduling as difficult as it is, UND needs all the good-will it can get.

Lame. No way this passes. I'd hope mature adults at the respective institutions could sit down and handle this issue rather than the Legislature getting into athletic scheduling.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as the buy-out on the 2011 game was so big that it would virtually guarantee that the game happens. Yes, Fargo is close, but it's still a road game no matter how you look at it. I don't think any program wants seven road games on their schedule. With only three home games scheduled, UND is not going to get rid of the Sioux Falls game regardless of whether NDSU is on the schedule. In fact, UND could schedule another home game and an away game with NDSU, for a 4 home, 7 away schedule. The question for UND fans is would you rather have a 4/7 home-away split with one of the away games being NDSU, or a 5/6 split (assuming UND is even able to get two more home games at this point).

He did say that, but Mussman will not have the final word. They should, but it may take a one-year deal before NDSU officials would be even dare to consider scheduling a long-term home-and-home agreement with UND. I can't even imagine the wrath they'd face from their hard-core supporters if they came out of the gate with a long term home-and-home. The reality is that most of UND's DI road games have been one-year deals anyway. It's not like one more would be out of the question. The reason I don't think it will happen is that UND already has six road games scheduled for 2009. I can't imagine UND scheduling seven road games in one season, but then again, next year is so far from the ordinary that you never know. Fun to talk about, but I seriously doubt the rumor is true.

UM will not schedule UND in any non-conference games due to UND's nickname. But it's probably moot because UND will likely have dropped its nickname by the time expansion takes effect. Nickname aside, I'm not sold UM would consistently schedule home-and-home non-conference games with UND. But if it could ever be worked out, your idea is pretty good (given the alternatives).

Hadn't been asked? Interesting. Either Goetz or Hoeven was lying.

Finally a reporter to ask some direct questions of people on this issue. This just confirms my suspicion that Goetz put this committee together not to try to get tribal approval, but so that all the "constituencies" can come to the realization that the nickname has to be changed. How stupidly political. I was under no illusions that the tribes would change their tune, but the committee should at least follow the settlement and try to get approval by putting a formal package together. If the tribes say no, or don't even respond, so be it. Make their leaders turn down a package that could really be a benefit to the tribe. Instead, Goetz is just giving them the easy way out.

UND would continue to hold the legal rights to Fighting Sioux merchandise and I don't think the settlement with the NCAA addressed the issue of whether UND could continue to sell Fighting Sioux merchandise. But from a political standpoint, I highly doubt it would ever happen. It seems like such a waste for UND to just sit on such valuable intellectual property rights. Maybe the University would sell the legal rights to a private company for a one-time fee. If not, I'm sure there will be some illegal options out there for people to get there hands on Sioux gear (not that I would ever condone such behavior).

I'll re-cap. The confusion started when someone made a joke about the law student really being Jim Grijalva in cognito. Goon then made a comment about Grijalva being against the nickname. Illiniwek mistakenly took that to mean the law student was against the name. I corrected and said Goon was referring to a law professor who is not on the committee, not the law student on the committee. You chimed in and said the law student supports the name. Goon clarified that he was talking about Grijalva. You reiterated that you were talking about the law student. I think that covers it So in sum - Grijalva (who is against the nickname) is not on the committee. The law student (who apparently supports the nickname) is on the committee. My point was that regardless of where he stands on the nickname, I think it's stupid to have a law student on the committee just because he represents a "constituency." The committee should be comprised of people who actually have authority to offer something to the tribes.

The editorial doesn't address the main reasons I'm against adding BSU to the WCHA. Sure, they will compete, they fit geographically, they have tradition, and their new facility will be more than adequate. I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary on those issues. The overriding issue was expansion itself, not BSU in particular. Ten is already too many, more will just make the problem worse. Nevertheless, I understand BSU's excitement and wish them the best. They seem like a shoe-in at this point. I don't think a school would vote to lift the moratorium, then vote to deny BSU. It wouldn't make sense politically. If a school truly was going to vote against BSU, they would have voted against lifting the moratorium to not make it personal.

I'm not sure we know whether the law student is against the name. Goon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was referring to Jim Grijalva, who is a law professor.

The more I think about it, this committee approach is entirely the wrong approach. This isn't the time to get a representative from each of the "constituencies" to try to build "consensus." This is the time to deliver a business proposal from the person or persons with the ultimate authority to make a business proposal. Let the tribes decide whether to act on it or not. If they do, then negotiate. If they don't, then change the name. Will these five individuals on the committee even have the authority to put together a business proposal? I mean, there's a freaking law student on this committee! What can he possibly bring to the table? I simply don't get it. An acceptable committee in this situation would have been Hoeven, Kelley, Faison, and a member of the Board. Hoeven brings credibility and gravitas to the process. Kelley and Faison are needed because any deal will likely involve scholarships from the university and money from the marketing of Fighting Sioux merchandise. A board member is needed because the SBoHE would have to approve the deal.

Goetz is not trying to set up representation from the tribes, just asking them to set up a parallel committee so that the SBoHE committee has someone to talk to. The problem is, the tribes have no obligation to even talk to the SBoHE committee. IMO, you needed the Governor's involvement in some capacity just to get the tribes to sit down and talk. Given the lightweight committee that was put together by the SBoHE, I predict that the tribes (at least Standing Rock) will not even listen. Ron His Horse is Thunder is staunchly opposed to the nickname. Why would he bother to put together a committee to listen to the general manager of an arena he hates, some random UND alumnus, some random UND law student, a Vice President from UND, and a single member of the SBoHE? If this is the best committee Goetz can come up with, I think it would be best to just change the nickname immediately.

Very weak panel IMO. The tribal governments probably won't even talk with this panel...probably consider it an insult. Very disappointing. Not one politician chose to get on board to help save the nickname, not even the popular Republican Governor. That speaks volumes about how dead this issue is politically.

Not cool. Things just keep getting worse for UND this week. $25,000 for a buyout? What a joke. That's a fricking steal for Idaho State. I'm sure their AD was trying his best not to laugh when he made that deal. It'll cost UND more than twice as much to bring an NAIA team that nobody has ever heard of. At this point, they'll have to schedule a couple high school teams just to get to five home games.

It just means we care. A passionate fan base should be a positive. I certainly hope the guy wouldn't make such an important decision as conference membership based on a few pissy emails from fans. But then again, nicknames seem to be high on his priority list, so you never know. * and no, I never sent an email to Douple nor would I recommend it.

And isn't their conference situation not that good since the NCC dissolved? You'd think their biggest rival dropping football combined with an already bad football confereence situation might have them take a close look at DI and the GWFC. I'm not sure whether there would be a viable DI conference for the rest of their sports though. But I agree Central Washington would make an excellent addition to the GWFC. On the other hand, if Central Washington went Division I, they'd probably shoot for the Big Sky to renew their rivalry with Eastern Washington.

Wow, that is really too bad.

Are you only a LOYAL Sioux fan if you don't complain? And dlsiouxfan, is complaining about a bad scheduling decision really throwing a temper tantrum? And who are either of you to say what level of complaining is acceptable? Wake up football fans. You should want passion from the fans. You should want people complaining. You should want people chiming in even though they don't know what they're talking about. You should want people criticizing the athletic director even if they couldn't do as good of job. This is par for the course amongst Sioux hockey fans and I hope that mentality starts creeping into the football program. It just means people care. My point about this type of scheduling is that the average fan will lose interest. I'll still go to games. Hard-core fans will still go to games. But the average fan will lose interest in this program and stop going to games unless it can bring in semi-decent teams. And these things snowball. Do you honesetly think other coaches aren't going to bring up the fact that UND has an NAIA team on their schedule in 2011 to potential recruits? If you have to add a game like this, make it a 1-year only deal and get it over with. Don't let it linger on your future schedules list for two years. And yes, scheduling is very difficult in a 5-team conference for a team in transition, but that doesn't mean certain decisions can't be criticized. To the point, we all know UND was desperate for a game in 2009. Let's assume UND could get no other DI team to come in 2009. Let's assume UND could get no other DII team to come in 2009, at least at a semi-affordable price. And let's assume Sioux Falls said they won't play UND in 2009 unless they get scheduled for 2011 as well. Then don't schedule them! Seriously, is there not another NAIA school out there that would have taken a one-year deal? Seriously?