mksioux

I think what Brand means by "work with the university" is work with UND in changing its nickname. I'm sure they'd be willing to work with UND on a phase-out timetable or something like that, but it sounds like there is no willingness to "work with the university" in reaching a real compromise.

The first two counts challenge the procedure. But Count III (Unlawful Restraint on Trade) effectively challenges the policy itself. Unfortunately, Judge Jahnke granted the temporary injunction on Counts I and II, but specifically denied Count III as a basis for the temporary injunction. Count III is a much more difficult legal argument to make and I am not optimistic UND will prevail on this count. Assuming UND wins on Counts I and II and loses on Count III, I think the next step would be for the Executive Committee to bring the measure before the entire membership body as legislation. Nobody really knows for sure how a membership vote would go. Personally, I have no faith in the college presidents to do the right thing, but I respect others' opinions that believe the votes are not there.

This bird has flown. UND is going DI. It's important for all sorts of reasons to make the transition successful.

Overall, great post. But that "outrage" heard will quickly dissipate into nothing. I've seen this pattern way too many times. More importantly, Maturi has dug in his heels on this one. UND will have to wait until Maturi is gone and then take a stab at the new AD.

I suppose in the long run, western civilization will pay for it. But that's getting pretty deep. Costs to alter or change the nickname through a settlement would be up to the terms of the settlement. If it's on our own after the bitter end, the costs would be be paid for by UND. I don't know what it will be next, but I'm sure it will be something. The Executive Committee is not going to stop at this. I think I authored a post on this very subject in one of the South Carolina threads. I agree the NCAA needs to be stopped. I've been in favor of litigating against the NCAA from the very beginning, and will continue to do so if an acceptable settlement is not possible. It's the scheduling boycotts that really have me thinking twice. If that starts to become a trend, we have problems...

Having lived down here for a while, I'd say the hockey fans who care about football and/or basketball would rather see UND. The others don't (or can't) distinsguish between any of the four Dakota schools and wouldn't care one way or the other. I'd say, overall, small edge to UND. I think Maturi would love to have all four Dakota schools at his disposal for non-conference games. That would be great for attendance. I'm sure that was a consideration for Maturi, but probably not enough for him to take political heat over it.

It's not at all uncommon for a I-AA to schedule a I-A game and many do well. It's not a guaranteed 40-point loss. Off the top of my head, NDSU and Northern Iowa played within a touchdown of Minnesota and Iowa State respectively. Montana State beat Colorado (before losing to DII Chadron State the next week). There's no reason (other than the nickname), that UND couldn't regularly play one Big Ten or Big 12 game on a regular basis. For reasons cited by Bincitysioux, Minnesota is obviously the best of the bunch.

I don't think the advisory committee was wanting more than an advisory role. They went out of their way to tell the reporters that they were merely advisory and the AD could schedule whomever he wanted. Maturi doesn't have the guts to schedule UND without "cover" from the advisory committee and risk protests and all the crap that would go with a game against UND. And really, that's the problem. As an AD at a major university, it's just easier not to schedule UND than put up with the crap that goes with it. I don't agree with it, but I'm sure that's what they think. You'd probably need a new group of people on the committee before the policy would change. I have no idea how they are appointed and how long their terms are. But taking Maturi at his word - and that's all we can do - UND will not be playing Minnesota anytime soon.

I'd guess there are probably enough of us that live in the Twin Cities that we could field a small team even if the Sioux don't make it down. The only real question is whether our goalie can make it. <checking...>

My thinking is that if there was legal merit to those arguments, they would have been included in UND's complaint. But I don't claim to be a First Amendment expert, so maybe I'm wrong. I base my opinion on the reaction after the NCAA policy was annonced. There was a firestorm of negative publicity at the outset, which evetually quieted down, and then everybody forgot about it and moved on to other things. And this issue doesn't have near the traction as that one did. We agree on this one. Look, I'm a big David Horowitz fan, I frequently read frontpagemag, I've read good books like Shadow University and the Diversity Hoax that have documented the downfall of universities. I wouldn't say I've accepted it, but maybe I'm a little resigned to it. Besides, kids keep getting dumber, so I don't expect things to change anytime soon. If you want to get philosophical about it, I believe that college athletics, in part, allows universities to get away with what they've done. Heck, even some of the most conservative people in Minnesota staunchly defend a notoriously leftist institution like "the U" because of their beloved Golden Gophers. But that's an entirely different topic of discussion. I didn't renounce my citizenship, or decide to support Ralph Nader for President. I was looking at the landscape and trying to figure out the best way out of this mess. It turns out that a major fact I was relying on turned out to be false, so it's kind of moot point anyway. But I still think if an opportunity for settlement presented itself that would include us getting to keep "Sioux", we'd be foolish not to seriously consider it.

I agree it's never been the argument. I'm not the one trying to make it one. I completely agree that a minority of a minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority on this issue, but that doesn't necessarily make it a First Amendment issue. A lawsuit against whom? For what? Honest questions. They should be held accountable, but accountable to whom? I bet nearly every faculty member on campus agrees with them and applauds them for taking this action. Accountable to taxpayers/parents? Most parents and Minnesota taxpayers won't even become aware of this issue. The ones that do will probably disagree with it in theory, but won't care enough to do anything about it. Unless it affects people directly, people give PC lip service and move on with their lives. College campuses are the very essence of making decisions in a vacuum - there is less free speech and diversity of thought on college campuses than anywhere else. It's a group-think mentality. I'll take that as a shot at me. That's fine. I've been a big advocate for DI. I believe a successful transition to DI is essential to UND's future. Whether I'm right or wrong is a topic for an entirely different thread and forum. But it doesn't matter anyway because these same issues would eventually catch up with a DII UND, particularly with hockey. It just wouldn't come to a head quite as fast. But the DI-DII decision has been made - it's important to be successful at it. It is undeniable that Minnesota is one of the most important schools for scheduling. Losing them is a very big deal and will without a doubt will hurt the athletic department. This is the second-biggest blow UND has taken on the nickname issue behind the NCAA sanctions - but the big difference is that there is nothing we can do about this one. Appeals and lawsuits are not options. The future success of UND and the Sioux nickname are two of the most important issues to me. Based on the way the world is undeniably changing, it's not way off base to predict that we'll eventually have to choose between one or the other. Will it be better if we fight to the bitter end, setting the school back an unknown number years, and then have to change the name anyway? Maybe. But it's an issue we should be thinking and talking about.

I know we've had this First Amendment argument before so I won't go into it again. Suffice it to say that if we're relying on the First Amendment to force others to accept our use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, we're wasting our time. The case against the NCAA is a breach of contract case (with an uphill anti-trust count). The “case” against other schools who don't want to schedule us is...well, nothing. There is not a court in this country that will force schools to schedule us because of the First Amendment or any other legal theory. It is merely a matter for public opinion and public discourse. And while we may hold public opinion amongst the general population, we certainly don't hold it on major college campuses. The people in positions to make these decisions might as well be living on another planet from you and me.

Well, scrap everything I said yesterday. It appears they're going to take a hard line on this no matter what. After reading this latest article, I guess I just don't give a dang anymore. Keep fighting the lawsuit and see what happens. If reasonable people actually cared about PC lunacy more than giving it lip service, Dale Lennon would have a dozen offers this morning from I-A coaches wanting to schedule us. But I'm not holding my breath... And I see right through Maturi's BS about "doing what's right for the student-athlete". He's allowing the inmates to run the asylum over at UofM. The panel even says they are only advisory and he can schedule whomover he wants. Grow a pair Maturi. Show us that adults are still in charge.

Yep, my post was exactly like building up a rogue dictatorship empire through appeasement that will eventually lead to tens of millions of deaths. My bad. Please read my last few hundred posts in the nickname forum and tell me if you still think I'm a Chamberlain on this issue. I never said to immediately drop the nickname because Minnesota won't schedule us. What I'm saying is if there is any possible way to settle with the NCAA short of dropping the entire nickname, now is the time to do it. Settling with the NCAA will not guarantee that schools won't boycott us, but it seems like the best bet right now, short of dropping the name altogether.

The vast majority of the country may support UND by paying lip service, but people don't care enough to do anything about it. Unless it affects them directly, people don't tend to take action on "PC run amok". People will just say "that's stupid", or "I hate PC" and then go on with their lives. Nobody in the UofM community, even the people who agree with UND, will do anything to change the policy. They just don't care enough. In reality, UND is on its own. The people who care enough to take action -- i.e. creating policies -- are the people against UND.

I believe I bring a great deal of pro-nickname credibility to this post, so hopefully I won't get flamed too much. But this news out of Minneapolis today really hit home. I've heard about this policy, but seeing it in print strictly applied to UND really brought home the ramifications of the nickname in the upcoming DI era. Minnesota is not just a DI-A school, it is the DI-A school that UND needs in this transition. This is a big deal, and there's no way to sugar-coat it. The forces of this movement are far greater than political correctness and are much more expansive than the lawsuit with the NCAA. UND is slowly but surely being boxed-in to a corner on this issue. I know it's tempting to "fight on principle" and to "fight to the end", but just know that fighting a battle on principle will be to the serious detriment of UND as an institution. We may win, but we'll still lose. As much as I've admired what UND has done up to this point, we may be at a point where it's time for a more practical approach to get out of this mess. I know I'll get flamed for "giving up", but I believe UND should take a serious look at settlement and see if there is a realistic way to get out of this. I strongly disagree that winning the lawsuit will make this issue go away. It may prevent the NCAA from imposing post-season sanctions, but it will do nothing to force other schools to accept our nickname. Schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa are not going to play us just because we win our lawsuit with the NCAA. But they appear to be following the NCAA's lead on exemptions, which means they will probably play us if we settle with the NCAA's blessing. Yes, these schools may be hypocritical and schedule FSU or CMU and we can all call those schools hypocrites, but in the end, UND is still being hurt. Moreover, the list of schools that will do what Minnesota is doing will only increase over time. Certain eastern non-conference hockey foes will undoubtedly follow suit. I predict the days of UND hockey playing schools such as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, etc. are very limited if the nickname stays intact. It could easily become an issue with conference affiliation as well. If the activists at UND haven't already contacted their activist counterparts at schools in the Big Sky, MidCon, etc., they probably will be soon. We need to know what we're up against and the forum in which it's taking place. UND is the main target in this war and nobody should think we've taken the other side's best shot yet. Things are going to get harder, much harder, for UND no matter what happens with the lawsuit. I don't know what kind of settlement UND would be able to obtain with the NCAA at this point. I don't know what kind of settlement would be accepted by those who have dished out money for the litigation fund (including me). Maybe we could somehow keep "Sioux" and the Ralph intact, while dropping "Fighting" and changing the imagery. I can only speculate on the specifics of possible settlements, but think I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that reaching the best possible settlement in the lawsuit and getting off the NCAA's "!@$! list" is essential for UND, and particularly a DI UND. Right now, UND with a preliminary injuction in place, has some settlement leverage with the NCAA. Now is a good time to use it and get out of this mess.

Umm, try even mentioning UND on Bisonville, upper or lower case and see what happens to you. This is the most opponent-tolerated fan message board I've ever seen and people still love to rip on it. Perhaps people got sick of your immature compatriots who insisted on lower casing UND and grand forks like second graders.

The South Dakota Board of Regents approved USD's request to go DI (registration required) I think this was expected to be a rubber-stamp and it appears it was. I thought this part was interesting.

I wouldn't read too much into the settlement comments. Judges encourage settlement in nearly every lawsuit. In Minnesota, it is mandatory (with a few exceptions) for the parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution before the case can go to trial. I'm not sure if North Dakota has the same rule though.

Felt what way?

Looks like the parties had a telephone conference with the Judge and they pushed the trial date back to December 2007. UND v. NCAA: Dec. '07

I agree with almost everything in your post, except for this sentence. I don't view it as a zero-sum game. UND should be able to grow interest in football without taking anything away from hockey. The move to DI will hopefully be the catalyst.

There are certainly fans that think that way, but I bet for at least some of them it's not a hockey vs. non-hockey thing as much as a DI vs. DII thing. They don't care about the other sports because they're DII. People in Grand Forks love Sioux hockey for a lot of reasons, but I don't think it's as much because they love the sport of hockey as much as they love the fact that "little ole UND" can be a major player against the big boys. Sioux hockey is "an event" for that reason. If UND hockey played in a division that did not include the best teams in the country, interest would fall dramatically. Hopefully interest in UND football will grow along with the level of competition. But it's also essential to win.

Are you saying FSSN's televised bb game against...ummm....forgot the name of the school...didn't interest people? It's tough to complain about WDAY televising a game against Iowa State statewide. There's nothing on UND's schedule that could possibly interest a casual N.D. fan in a similar way. It has more to do with market factors than some WDAY/NDSU conspiracy (although I still think it may be wise for UND to team up with someone else for the next contract). Just remember, it was UND's own lack of vision, not WDAY, that put UND in the position to be second-fiddle in the state. The hockey team having a terrible season doesn't help either.