82SiouxGuy

Here are 5 current coaches that are saying things similar to the "horror stories" that we keep repeating, http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238068/. Do you think that they are making things up? Dale Lennon, former UND football coach, has said he saw problems with recruits avoiding UND this winter, when UND wasn't actually on sanctions. Do you think he's lying? The vast majority of us would like to keep the nickname. But we know that the NCAA will be able to keep the sanctions in place and have no reason to drop the sanctions. I'm not sure why you believe that the NCAA won't continue the sanctions. They have had different sanctions in place for the states of South Carolina and Mississippi for about 10 years and there are no signs that they are going to back off on those sanctions. The Native American policy is not going away, and is much more likely to be expanded.

It isn't peer pressure, it's a business reality. The sanctions will hurt the athletic department financially and on the playing surface. Very few people would willingly want to compete with 1 arm tied behind their back, but that is what you are asking the ahletic department to do.

Can you back up any of your statements with facts instead of just making an accusation saying that what we are trying to fill people's heads garbage? Coaches actually working in the situation say that the sanctions will damage all sports including hockey. Everyone that is close to the situation say the sanctions will hurt the athletic department. UND alumni working in college athletics like Dale Lennon at Southern Illinois and Ray Purpur at Stanford say that the sanctions will damage UND. Are they trying to fill people's heads with garbage? Do you really know more about the situation than these people? I really don't think so. Try using actual proof rather than making broad, general accusations.

UND coaches will tour state to talk nickname http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238045/group/homepage/ Press conferences will be held in Fargo, Bismarck and Minot today and tomorrow. Tim O'Keefe and Deanna Carlson Zink from the Alumni Foundation will be with them.

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the conversation. If you are saying that you were serving in the military in those locations, then thank you for your service to our country. But it doesn't mean that you know anything about the situation between UND and the NCAA. In fact, it would mean that you were probably pretty busy with other issues so you may not have been following the nickname issue very closely. And I'm not sure what you are expecting for a reception on this board since you started with a bad attitude and you have insulted a lot of people with only a few posts. Is insulting people in public on the board really any better than something said in private emails?

I don't doubt that the PA is going to go after this, but I think it will be a tough sell for a lot of teams. They like the ability to keep control of a player for quite a while before they have to give them money, letting someone else pay for the development without huge risk. With the CHL and European players, the player can sign a contract but still go back to their team for a year or 2 before having to fit them into the AHL or lower leagues. Eliminating the college path as a viable option would force a lot more guys to try and fit through that pipeline of the CHL. I think the NHL will fight it. They got a lot of financial considerations the last contract fight and most of the league is in decent financial shape. They will try to do more, but I don't see this contract fight as bad as the last one for them or even the NBA contract last year.

That was an accusation made during an adversarial process. It doesn't mean that it was 100% accurate. UND was trying to create doubt, as they should have been in such a process. But you have to provide proof before it can be accepted as fact. For example, look at the accusations that Soderstrom made in the lawsuit against the NCAA, he didn't have enough proof to make them valid. This accusation wasn't sighted as a factor by anyone during the settlement. You would think that it would have been a factor if the NCAA was trying to hold UND to a different standard than everyone else. Besides, it would have been easy for the NCAA to prove that the resolution was questionable at that point with the qualifying statement that was part of the 2000 resolution and the efforts to change the resolution. Some facts have been shown. First, the group at Spirit Lake that doesn't like the nickname was trying to use the NCAA policy to turn back the 2000 resolution. The Tribal Council, in the end, didn't do anything either way and refused to even make an official statement either way until after being forced to hold an election more than 3 years later. No proof was ever presented that the NCAA was trying to get Spirit Lake to change the resolution, only an accusation. Every NCAA document states tribe, singular. Every successful appeal was the result of a single tribe approval. UND didn't get a single tribe approval until 3 years after the deadline, so we will never know absolutely if that was all they needed. But there is pretty solid evidence that it was. And as I said before, it is now 6 years after the deadline so I don't know what we are going to gain by arguing about it.

Signing a lot of these kids at 18 is not good for their development, and neither is trying to drop all of those youngsters into the AHL. So I have a lot of doubts that the NHL would go for the plan. They also like being able to string the kids along as long as possible, which helps delay their ability to become actual free agents. The NHL is going to be very reluctant to go that far. It is in their best interests to delay free agency as long as possible. I'm sure that this will be part of the NHL-NHLPA contract negotiations this summer, but the NHL will be very reluctant to expand the free agency limits any further than they are right now.

I could see some benefits to colleges. Kids could go to school for 2 years and become free agents rather than the 4 years they have to wait now. So kids going to college would have more freedom than kids going the CHL route. Having kids leave after 2 years wouldn't be great, but more top end kids may choose the college route to be able to get their freedom. This system sounds a little closer to baseball. In baseball players are usually drafted out of high school. They can be signed right away and play minor league baseball, or go to college. If they don't sign or go to college they are put back in the draft the following year. If they start college, the teams lose their rights and the kids can't be drafted until after their Junior year. If they stay in school, they can be drafted again after their Senior year. They draft a lot more players in baseball because so many don't sign each year, plus because the development system is much bigger.

30 years and your only loyalty is to a nickname and logo, not to the school and the teams themselves. That's more than a little sad. I hope you enjoy that Bison hockey team.

Not to a single player or coach, and not to most sports fans.

You haven't presented any hard evidence on why keeping the nickname is a good thing or how UND will avoid getting hurt. You just make comments like the one above or say something about how you can live with the sanctions.

There will be no appeal. No home games is a big deal because it will chase away talented recruits. That means less chance of winning games and less chance of getting to go to the playoffs. And of course you can live with it. None of the sanctions affect you personally. But they will affect the school and the athletic department; as well as the students, coaches and staff of the teams. Ask them if it bothers them.

The NCAA wouldn't take that meeting. They would say that they covered it last August, and that they shouldn't have had to cover it then. Some voters don't know anything about the sanctions. Some actually believe that the sanctions are minor. Those are probably the main targets for the Alumni Foundation advertising. Some voters don't care about the sanctions because they either don't care about UND, or they only care about hockey and believe that the sanctions won't affect hockey. And then there are the people that will vote to keep the name just because they know it will hurt UND and that's what they want. I hope that this group is very small. The next step if the vote is No would be to go back to the Supreme Court and try to get the law declared unconstitutional.

True University of North Dakota supporters who understand the magnitude and potential of the sanctions will vote with their minds instead of their emotions, and will vote YES on Measure 4.

From Wikipedia, Cavalry (from French cavalerie, cf. cheval 'horse') or horsemen were soldiers or warriors who fought mounted on horseback. Cavalry were historically the third oldest (after infantry and chariotry) and the most mobile of the combat arms. A soldier in the cavalry is known by a number of designations such as cavalryman, horseman or trooper. Calvary or Golgotha /ˈɡɒlɡəθə/ was the site, outside of ancient Jerusalem’s early first century walls, at which the crucifixion of Jesus occurred. Calvary and Golgotha are the English names for the site used in Western Christianity.[1]

As a follow up, here is the link I posted this weekend that shows Spirit Lake was looking at rescinding the 2000 approval instead of giving UND another approval, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/9145566/. The article is from September 1, 2005.

Spirit Lake had given permission to UND to use the nickname in 2000 with a provision that "something good comes out of it" or something like that. I would have to look up the exact wording. When the NCAA passed their policy in 2005 they demanded that everyone get a current proof of approval from the name-sake tribe. The proof could be as simple as a letter from someone authorized by the tribes. The main component was that it had to be in writing. At approximately that time, as I linked earlier this weekend, there was actually a movement on Spirit Lake to remove that approval because they didn't think that UND was treating the name well. So approval from Spirit Lake was far from a sure thing. The NCAA was not asking the tribe to change its position, the NCAA was asking the tribe to give its position. The Tribal Chair and the Tribal Council refused to address the issue with UND or with the NCAA. They wouldn't comment on the issue. As a few of us have said, if they had simply written a letter telling the NCAA that the 2000 decision was still in effect, much of this nonsense could have probably been eliminated. But the Tribal Chair and the Tribal Council refused to comment until after they were forced to allow an election, and even then they had to be pushed to issue a written letter of support. I have never seen any proof that the NCAA was pushing the tribe to come out against UND. That would have been another potential lawsuit for UND. None of us like the NCAA, but I have heard no evidence that they interferred with tribal governments anywhere. The NCAA was not out to get UND specifically. UND was part of the group that the NCAA was trying to change. So it is really doubtful that the NCAA was actually asking Spirit Lake to change its position.

And whom did I supposedly copy this from? I've written similar posts in the past. It is a composite of bits of information I have read from many other places. But if you want to point to something similar and I can give them credit, not a problem. If you read my previous posts you would know that I often post links to other web sites to give credit where credit is due. But it is interesting that you've insulted people or taken shots at people in 5 out of your first 6 posts. By the way, I graduated from the Business department many years ago, not Communications or English.

The problem with the pipe ceremony is that there is not clear proof that it was actually a religious pipe ceremony. There isn't a great deal of evidence that exists about the ceremony and it is contradictory. There are people that were at the ceremony that believe it was simply a ceremony to recognize that a group from Standing Rock was trying to develop a relationship with the University of North Dakota. They don't believe it was a religious ceremony. One piece of evidence they cite is the fact that the person who was Tribal Chair in 1969 was at the ceremony, and he was also one of the Tribal Council members that first opposed the nickname in 1992. The Tribal Council has repeatedly voted against UND using the nickname since 1992. It is up to the Standing Rock Tribe to determine which is right, whether the pipe ceremony was valid or not. Outside entities are going to follow the lead of the Tribal Council. It isn't up to the United States government, the North Dakota state government, UND or the NCAA to make those decisions. Those groups don't have a right to interpret tribal law. They have listened to the Standing Rock Tribal Council because the Tribal Council is the group authorized to speak for the tribe. That's how government works, and that's how business works. You deal with the authorized parties and follow what they tell you. The pipe ceremony didn't get any traction because of the efforts of the Tribal Council. If you don't like it, take it up with the Standing Rock Tribal Council. You will probably be met with the same silence as UND, the state of North Dakota and Archie Fool Bear have heard when they've tried to talk to the council about the nickname.

Most of what is put on that board is paid for by someone, so it could be that someone bought the time.

I think that part of the reason students have trouble getting specific classes is because they haven't had the proper prerequisite first. And some of those classes are only offered in 1 semester. I took a class in the summer so that I could take a class offered only in the fall that I needed to graduate the following spring.

UND claimed to have tribal approval. But they didn't have official tribal approval from any of the tribes during that period. 0 tribal approvals. A single tribal approval could have been used to out rank those opposed. No where in that document does it say that UND needed more than 1 approval, just that none of those tribes approved. Every school that had a successful appeal had a single official tribal approval. The NCAA would have had a very hard time turning down the UND appeal if UND had gotten that tribal approval. Denial of the appeal with an approval, when every other school with an approval having a successful appeal, would have been grounds for a lawsuit that had much greater chance of success than the lawsuit that UND ended up filing. We will never know for sure whether UND needed more than 1 tribal approval. I believe the evidence suggests that was needed. But as I told Gothmog yesterday, it doesn't really matter any more. This is 6 years after the appeal deadline. UND couldn't get even 1 tribe to approve, so it doesn't matter how many were needed because the number was at least 1.

The post season had very little effect this past season because UND was in transition. The only sports where they were ELIGIBLE to participate in the NCAA postseason were men's and women's hockey. Men's hockey is a sport where the sanctions will have lesser effects. The most obvious effect is not being able to wear the name and logo. Women's hockey is a sport where the effects could be felt more severely because UND will not be allowed to host playoff games. If the women's hockey team had won 1 or 2 more games during the season they would have been eligible to host the first round at home, except the sanctions would have prevented it. The rest of the other teams were not eligible because UND was still transitioning to Division I. Obviously you either didn't know that or don't understand that. This will be the first year that UND teams are eligible to compete in Division I playoffs in any sport besides hockey. We will see if any of them make the playoffs since they are new to the division, most transitional teams don't make the playoffs in very many sports the first few years they are eligible. Specifics have been given for the effects of the sanctions. Not being able to wear the name and logo is the minor one. Hosting playoff games in several sports is a large issue. Being under sanctions will chase away many recruits in all sports. According to Dale Lennon it already happened even before the sanctions went into effect last winter. Major regional colleges have already announced that they will not play UND in sports, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and recently South Dakota State was added to the list. This list is going to grow. Those are specifics. Other potential issues are less specific. With talented recruits avoiding UND it is likely that the performance of the teams will decline. More losses means fewer fans, fewer fans means less money for the University. Losing teams are also less likely to attract students and donors. And then there is the whole issue of the Big Sky. If UND keeps the nickname there is a chance that the Big Sky will kick UND out of the conference. It could be soon, or they could allow UND to stay for a year or 2 to see how it goes. But it is possible that at some point the Big Sky will decide that they don't want to deal with a school on permanent sanctions, a school that brings extra scrutiny from the NCAA, a school that brings problems with them, especially when that school is 1,000 miles east of the nearest league member. UND athletics would have a hard time surviving without a conference for its teams, the football team would probably be the first to go. Here we have someone in Florida, who obviously doesn't understand how the sanctions will affect UND, trying to tell us that people like Dale Lennon, Dave Hakstol, Chris Mussman, Tim O'Keefe, Earl Strinden and many others that are or were deeply involved with athletics at UND don't know what they are talking about. Sorry, I trust the people that are hands on more than this person trying to sell his theories. This isn't a stand and fight situation unless you are looking for a college sports version of the Alamo.

And exactly how many narcissistic people do you believe are able to recognize their narcissism?Probably very few.