82SiouxGuy

Standing Rock has led the fight against UND using the nickname. They have been fighting it for at least 20 years. And as I posted in another comment, it is not uncommon for a government to not allow initiatives or referendums. Approximately half of the states don't. The Federal Government doesn't. So demanding that Standing Rock allow one just because we want to know how their citizens feel is not being very genuine. They have a right to run their government how they want, they choose to not allow such votes.

A small correction. There were at least 3 other tribes that gave approval for small local colleges. I don't have them in front of me, but I believe they were all in the South. I think at least 1 was in Mississippi. There are either 6 or 7 schools that have permission to use Native American imagery, not just the big 3 that people talk about.

Initiatives and referendums are not universal. As a matter of fact, only about half of the states have initiatives and/or referendum laws. So Standing Rock is with about half the country in not allowing those type votes. And as I have repeated, they operate much like the United States government in that the governing body makes the decision for the people. The people do not get to vote on issues. So that is not some huge injustice perpetrated on the people. That is standard operating procedure for much of the country. Everyone knows how the state would vote if the issue were just do we like the nickname. It would win by an overwhelming margin. So the vote in support of the nickname is meaningless. It will not change the position of the NCAA. All it does is create a period that damages the UND athletic department. Holding another vote later wastes money and weakens the athletic department, which means more time and money needed on the other end to build it back up again. Fighting for right can be noble, but you need to have some chance to win. You now seem to be promoting this election as some kind of symbolic gesture to show the support of the nickname. Everyone knows the support the nickname has in the state, if the question is simply do you like or support the Fighting Sioux nickname. That support holds no meaning for the NCAA or for the court system. It is an empty gesture. You have been asked several times "What other options are there to fight the NCAA?" or "What other cards could UND play?", etc. You say you want a vote to make "them" show their hand. Everyone has shown their hands. All the cards are in the middle of the table. There are no wild cards left to play. The NCAA has their hand on the settlement agreement and said that is now the rule book. The courts have agreed. The tribes have made their positions known. Everyone knows what happens if UND keeps the nickname or if it retires the nickname. THERE ARE NO MORE CARDS. You asked what Dr. Kelley will do if they have to keep the nickname? He will do just as he has done for the last several months. He will work with the staff to limit the effects of the sanctions as much as possible. He will work with the NCAA to make sure that mistakes aren't made that would result in even more harsh penalties. And he will try to spend most of his time running a state research university, which is what he should be doing rather than wasting his time with a nickname issue. The NCAA has everything on the table, their cards are sitting beside a copy of the settlement. Nothing is going to change their position. No one, not Tom Clifford, not JFK, not Henry Clay could get them to move from their position. If you have any options for UND to pursue that might result in the NCAA changing their policy, please share them. You have actually been asked several times and have provided nothing. No one else has come up with anything that has a chance of succeeding. And please don't repeat the "symbolic vote to show support" theory. That will not help the situation in any way. We have passed the time for such gestures (the legislature doing it last spring was too late). If you have something, bring it up.

In the article from USAToday earlier this week, Dr. Powers from U Texas was discussing the possibilities. The last paragraph included a quote from Dr. Mark Emmert said that it might be time to explore some restructuring. I think the NCAA would much prefer going to a 3-tier system than allow the BCS schools to break off on their own.

As Scott and tSic mentioned, attempts were made to discuss the issue with both tribes. Repeated attempts were made. Just because you didn't see the attempts doesn't mean that attempts weren't made. At first Spirit Lake told UND it was their problem and they refused to do anything. Finally, tribe members forced a vote on the issue. Even then the Tribal Council didn't want to make that their official position. It took more prodding from tribe members for that to happen. Standing Rock does not want to discuss it. They won't talk about it with their own citizens, and they won't talk about it at Tribal Council meetings. I don't know how you can force them to discuss an issue if they don't want to discuss that issue. The reservation is a soveriegn nation and they can run that government any way they want. So the fact that the people couldn't vote on it may be disappointing to many, but it is really irrelevant to the discussion. A vote of the people was never required in any way by the NCAA, not in the settlement and not in the appeal process before that. Dr. Kelley was hired 6 months after the settlement was signed. He had nothing to do with it, and had no control over it. The State Board of Higher Education had taken control of the issue away from UND years before that when Mr. Engelstad sent his infamous letter to Dr. Kupchella. Dr. Kelley understands the tradition and the feelings about the issue. All you have to do is talk to him about the nickname and the way things have developed. Dr. Kelley works for the SBoHE. As an employee he is expected to follow directions and do as they wish. Not following their wishes could result in him not being employed. He has followed the direction of the SBoHE on this issue from the beginning. Anyone that thinks he should have done more to save the name doesn't understand how the situation works. He was doing his job. The SBoHE was the entity that was working to save the name. Dr. Kelley was trying to run the rest of the University and deal with all of the fallout from the nickname issue. Blaming Dr. Kelley is just wrong.

First, the tribes shouldn't have the power to force UND to keep the nickname. The tribes really don't have much to lose if UND retires the nickname, but because of the sanctions UND does have a lot to lose by being forced to keep the nickname. Spirit Lake had more than a year to stop this issue after the Native American policy was first announced. All they had to do was send a letter to the NCAA saying that they didn't object to UND using the name. A single letter that would have prevented the last 5 years of nonsense. They refused to send the letter. So don't say that they didn't get a chance to speak. Standing Rock also had a chance to speak. They had from October 2007 to November 30, 2010 to speak. The tribe made a decision just like most governments make decisions, the governing body made the decision. They were not obligated to let the people speak. Have you ever had a chance to vote on a decision made by the United States Government? No you have not. Their government had the same opportunity. They chose to oppose the nickname, just like they have multiple times since 1992. I will repeat again, we have reached a point where there are 2 options. Force UND to keep the nickname and watch the athletic department suffer damages, or allow UND to retire the nickname and let the athletic department move forward. Those are the 2 options. Forcing the athletic department to suffer damages because of a sports nickname is not acceptable to me.

I don't consider it fair that UND has to give up the nickname. But I was taught at a young age that life wasn't always fair. If life was fair then you would always get rewarded if you work hard, it doesn't always happen. If life was fair then criminals and bad people would always get punished, they don't. Life isn't fair. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. You take the cards that you're dealt and do the best that you can with those cards. And sorry, I can't separate the penalties from the loss of the nickname. Again, in real life you have penalties to pay for your actions. UND has to pay the penalty if the nickname is kept. There isn't a way to separate the two.

If schools are entering this voluntarily the government would have no reason to break it up. It is a group of schools deciding to hold a tournament and declare a winner. There is no guarantee that your school gets to be part of another groups tournament.

You can have a goal, but without a way to reach the goal, the goal is meaningless. Accepting damage without gaining something is not acceptable to anyone. In your outrageous example you said that the bombers were taking damage and that was acceptable. The bombers were also helping accomplish a goal. They were weakening the opposition by destroying facilities, destroying munitions, destroying morale of the enemy, etc. The damage was acceptable because it was the only way to weaken the opponent to a point that they could be defeated. The Allies didn't let their planes be shot up, and people be killed, just to kill time. It was an acceptable price to be paid in order to accomplish the long term goal. There is no winning scenario for UND in your process. You want the athletic department to continue to suffer damage indefinitely without a plan to win. The only possible win that is visible in your scenario is if the NCAA at some point gives in. That is a little like a kid with a big mouth taunting a bully every day and getting put in a locker every day. The kid with the big mouth could stop things by not talking. Instead he hopes to wear the bully down by continuing his behavior. His attitude is that sooner or later the bully will slam his hand in the locker and quit. It isn't going to happen. The NCAA isn't going to be damaged by UND being on sanctions. They don't care if UND is damaged or not, as a matter of fact they know that UND will be damaged if they stay under sanctions. UND can't wait them out. As a matter of fact, there is a better chance that the NCAA will expand the policy at some point in the future. The NCAA is a VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION that is run by its members. That gives them more freedom to operate how they want as long as their membership agrees. They have membership approval for the current Native American policy. As I said last night, there are really 2 scenarios left. If UND keeps the nickname, they stay on NCAA sanctions. That means a slow withering of the athletic department, or a much faster withering if the Big Sky kicks them out of the conference. If UND retires the nickname they can go back to building a successful athletic department. There is 1 more scenario. UND could keep the nickname and leave the NCAA for the NAIA. Of course the NAIA doesn't have hockey, so that wouldn't be acceptable to the hockey-only crowd, so that scenario is a non-starter. If you really support the University of North Dakota the only acceptable scenario is retiring the nickname and getting the program off sanctions.

According to hockeydb.com he played 58 games in 2008-2009 in the AHL and hasn't played since.

Standing Rock has always been one of the reservations with the least trust in the white man. That goes all the way back to Sitting Bull not wanting to live on the reservation. Many leaders in the American Indian Movement had some connection to Standing Rock or a few of the other Sioux reservations. Standing Rock officially came out against UND using the nickname in 1992, and they have been consistently against it since then. Their position is that the ceremony was not an official religious pipe ceremony. They have completely changed membership on the Tribal Council more than once and still have the same policy. That's why everyone knew that getting their approval was not very likely right from the start. No one should be surprised that they didn't change their minds.

I'm not going to go through your post item by item. We have covered most of them multiple times. I will concentrate on 3 and 4, because they are the most important. Yes, the judge said that a few of the items MAY have merit (he didn't say they would win, just that they could be worth discussing), but only if brought by UND. What he failed to point out is that UND CAN'T sue the NCAA again regarding this issue. That is also part of the settlement. Neither side can sue the other on this issue unless the other side violates the settlement agreement. And when I say UND, that also includes the State Board of Higher Education and the State of North Dakota. So even if the issues actually would have merit, no one that actually has standing would be able to explore the issues in a court of law. There are no more lawsuits against the NCAA. Because UND and the state can't sue, there are only 2 possible outcomes at this point. If the nickname is kept, UND stays on sanctions. If the nickname can be retired, then UND can get off sanctions. That is it. The NCAA has repeatedly said that they won't vary from the settlement. And the point of discussing the South Carolina situation is that it proves that the NCAA will keep the sanctions in place long term. They aren't going to back off. Nothing that UND, the state or the tribes will do from this point forward will change the 2 options. We have discussed the fact that UND loses either way on this issue, so don't even try to say that we haven't. It just isn't part of every discussion because that is understood. Losing the nickname is definitely a loss. But being under the sanctions long term is a bigger loss. We tried pointing that out and were told that the sanctions were "manageable" or "negligible" or "not real". Then we were told that nothing was worth losing the nickname, that allowing the athletic department to be destroyed was a small price to pay for keeping the nickname. We had lifelong UND fans and alumni called racists and Nazis because we weren't willing to sacrifice the athletic department to keep a nickname. We were told that people that had decided it was time to retire the nickname had been brainwashed, or were sellouts, etc. And this has gone on for a long time. Do you really wonder why people have pushed back? Especially when they are trying to protect an institution that they love? The extreme people on the side of keeping the name have not been civil for months. I think that people have been quite restrained with their responses to some of the garbage that has been thrown out. We are at the bottom line. There is no middle ground left. That is why the discussion has reached the point we are at now.

It's a sports nickname. The issue is college sports. There is no issue, and definitely no nickname, if you take away the sports.

It probably could be used. But it would also encourage the group trying to keep the nickname and make it harder to transition away from the nickname. I would guess that it will be retired just like the Sitting Bull trophy.

I don't remember the last time I heard a NDSU Sucks or N-D-S-U-C-K-S type chant at anything but a UND-NDSU game.

What details would need to be figured out? If they have dates available that work for both it shouldn't be that difficult. It's a home and home, so there probably won't be any money changing hands. Put in big cancellation fees for both sides. It shouldn't take school presidents to figure it out. It still sounds like someone in Fargo doesn't want the games to happen, but wants to appear like he is working on it. I think Faison would have a contract ready to go by next week, if not sooner.

You are obviously too young to understand the rivalry and how it plays out across the entire state of North Dakota. It has nothing to do with FCS. Even in stretches where one team dominated the other for a decade, the rivalry was always the biggest game of the year and would get the attention of people that don't care a bit about football. UND versus NDSU was included in a documentary about rivalries in college football. Nothing like that has happened with NDSU since then, no matter how much you think that NDSU has become superior. No game against UNI or SDSU, or even a National Championship will get the attention of all of North Dakota like a game with the true rival.

If you looked at the post I was responding to, my post gave him exactly what he wanted in a schedule plus an annual rivalry game with UND. He said that besides conference games he wanted an FCS creampuff game, an FBS game, and wanted to play some games against other FCS teams for a little variety. That's exactly what I outlined. The only thing it doesn't give you is a guaranteed 6 home games each year. He didn't ask for that. My scenario would give NDSU at least 6 home games most years. There would be 5 once in a while, and may be 7 once in a while. But even playing UND every other year isn't going to guarantee that NDSU would have 6 home games each year. And as we saw again this year, NDSU will have trouble finding schools to come to North Dakota some years, as will UND. So trying to follow the "magic" formula that you refer to isn't a guarantee that you will get what you want either.

It is a great nickname and logo. But it isn't magical. It isn't irreplaceable. It can't cure cancer. It is a college sports nickname and logo, nothing more and nothing less. The attitude that the nickname and logo are more important than the University is what we are making fun of (at least what I was making fun of since I don't want to speak for everyone else). That's what the smileys were there for, to make fun of the idea that the logo is somehow magical. And to make fun of the idea that the sanctions are not going to cause damage to the athletic department. The University and the athletic department are the entities that are most affected by the NCAA sanctions (not the fans), and they are what needs protecting the most. The sanctions will slowly erode the entire athletic department and every sport on campus. You get nickname-at-all-cost group to stop spreading the lies about the sanctions not affecting the University and I'm pretty sure that no one would be making any jokes related to the logo being somehow magical.

Faison stopped demanding an every year game quite a while ago. That was his opening request. But he said he was open to every other year around the time the Big Sky called if not earlier. So that issue has not been the stumbling block for at least 1 1/2 years if not longer.

Eleven game schedule. Four home games in conference. Four games on the road in conference. One FCS cupcake at home (not likely to schedule as a home and home). One FBS game on the road (also not likely to be home and home). Game against UND alternating between home and away. The years of 12 game schedules you add another home game, or use those years to schedule home and homes with other FCS. Accomplishes everything you just stated that you wanted. And it wasn't that difficult to figure out. I'll take every other year if we have to, but would still prefer every year to build on the rivalry.

The most damaging of all sanctions is not being able to wear the logo and nickname on uniforms for the playoffs, because then people can't see what a magical, wonderful logo it really is.

I put even less faith in the opinion of Reed Soderstrom and others that say the sanctions won't damage UND. They have absolutely no basis of fact for those opinions.

What??? Dan might be wrong about something,... again?

Really??? I don't remember UND winning a national championship in 2011. I'm sure I would have noticed that. You would think that the fans of a school that was so successful wouldn't have time to post on forums for other schools, especially other schools that aren't rivals. Yet you are here trolling on a regular basis. Good thing that you don't care about UND.