82SiouxGuy

Alumni are compelled to spend money on their alma maters because those schools play such an important role in their lives. The transition from childhood and the teenage years to adulthood is very important. College can help through those years. And college often gives people some very important tools to succeed in adulthood. Perhaps you didn't go to college if you don't understand that. Or maybe you weren't listening when Ralph Engelstad gave credit to the University of North Dakota for all of the success he had in his life, and gave credit to the hockey program for giving him the access to the University. Notice the order of credit. You are wrong if you really believe that alums don't stick around. Thousands of people in the Grand Forks area are UND alums. A lot do leave. A lot stay. And some that leave, come back. Even the ones that leave will come back for events at the school. You may be surprised by the number of people with seasn tickets to UND hockey that are alumni but live in other parts of North Dakota and Minnesota. So it isn't just non-alums buying tickets for events. You probably haven't been paying attention, but very few buildings on campus are built with tax money. The Ralph was built by an alum. Almost every building on campus was built with donations. They are maintained, in part, by tax money. That is the cost of doing business. (Don't forget that without the other buildings and the school itself you wouldn't have those teams to like.) You might be talking about the Alerus Center. It was built with tax money and is owned by the city of Grand Forks. It is also used for a lot more than UND events. If you can't figure out why alums are more connected to UND than people that just watch sporting events, you are really out of touch. And since you obviously can't see how the sanctions are going to hurt the athletic department, the teams (that you say you like) and the school itself, than you may be behind help.

Two things about your post. First, if a law is unconstitutional it shouldn't be a law. That goes for laws that are made by the legislature and laws that are made by referendum or inititiative (by the people). The Constitution is the framework of the government and the basis for the rest of the laws. If a law doesn't fit within that framework, if it goes against what is in the Constitution, then it should not be a law. That is the basis for the case going to the Supreme Court and why they are asking to prevent the vote in June. The will of the people does not overrule the Constitution unless it is to add an amendment to the Constitution. I doubt that there are very many people that have refused an athletic scholarship to UND because they don't like the nickname Fighting Sioux. But I have no doubts that there are people that have gone to other schools instead of UND because of the sanctions that UND is under while they use the nickname and logo. That problem is just going to get bigger and bigger the longer the nickname is kept. If you had a choice of a full scholarship between 2 schools, and one of them is under NCAA sanctions, why would you decide to go to the school with the sanctions? You are right, the issues with the Big Sky and with other schools are because of the sanctions and not because of the nickname. But the sanctions are in place because of the nickname. And the sanctions aren't going away until the name goes away. Why is that so hard for people to understand? None of these efforts to force UND to keep the name are going to make the NCAA change their mind about the nickname and sanctions.

You seem to have no understanding of the process. First, the NCAA sanctions would be in place in Division I, Division 2 or Division 3. Second, NDSU and SDSU moved to Division I several years before UND. That changed any rivalries. And now that USD has joined NDSU and SDSU in their conference, that rivalry is at least on pause. Minnesota is leaving the WCHA. They have a policy that will not let them play a team called the Fighting Sioux if they are not in the same conference, so if UND keeps the name that will eliminate any chance of keeping that rival. And Minnesota has refused to schedule UND in football or basketball in part because of that reason. Life changes. It will never go back to what it was before. The other Dakota schools are not going back to D2 or D3. UND would suffer even if it did go back down. That is why more and more people, including coaches and past letter winners, are now coming out to say that the nickname needs to be changed. And in a few years a new name will be chosen.

The reason to play is that it would be great publicity and a great marketing opportunity for both schools. More people in the entire region would pay attention to that game than just about any game either school could play. If they really do play each other in the playoffs on a regular basis that would be one thing. But there is no guarantee that it would happen. For instance, how often have Montana and Montana State played in the playoffs? (I really have no idea and don't have time to look it up right now.) The other problem is that both schools have already had trouble getting other schools to come to North Dakota for games. Teams east of North Dakota have a lot of options without traveling so far, and most of the FCS teams west of North Dakota are in the Big Sky. Teams don't want to go to Fargo to play a very good team, and hopefully, soon teams will have similar respect for UND. Both schools will have to overpay to try and attract schools to make the trip.

UND gets $20 extra per ticket for hockey games against Minnesota and $10-15 against Wisconsin and Denver. I think that you can get more than $5 for a game between UND and NDSU. And you are forgetting that NDSU probably has to pay their opponent if they are playing someone other than UND for that game. The average D I school is going to want somewhere around $100,000 for a game. That comes off that $400,000 (plus other game day expenses like renting the dome and paying employees). Over a 2 year period it will come out pretty close to a wash economically, and it's possible that NDSU could come out ahead because there is a better chance of selling all of those tickets playing UND than playing someone like Drake or Wagner.

It's business. Supply and demand. If there is a good chance to make some extra money you should at least consider it. But in most cases you will probably have a couple of games per year that would logically fit.

Did you have to go there?

There are worse things to have running through your head.

You can't use the name as you pick and choose. If you use the name at all you remain under NCAA sanctions. Ask Dale Lennon about the NCAA sanctions and how much they will hurt UND, have already started hurting UND. He has a letter that will be in the Grand Forks Herald and a story for the paper along with it. Both are already up on grandforksherald.com. He says it is time to drop the nickname and logo.

You would think that he would be near the top of the list. But he hasn't gotten a job yet. Sometimes people get stuck in that assistant spot and never get out. And sometimes they just don't make the right impression when they are going for the interview. I don't make those decisions so I'm not sure why Guentzel hasn't gotten a chance yet.

Yes, I believe that some people were. I was in high school at the time so I didn't follow it as closely as some. But I remember the discussion and thought that either Harkness or Gino were probably good choices. I started at UND the next fall and got to experience a great period on UND hockey, watching the team make it to the championship game 3 out of the next 4 years and winning 2 with Gino as the coach. The people that supported Harkness seemed to go away during that period.

Most of the big games would be scheduled well in advance, probably years. For instance, you already know in advance when you are playing Montana and when you play UNI at home. If both UND and NDSU could change things around to play in 2012 it would be a special circumstance, but it would be tough to go to season ticket holders that had already played. And don't non-season ticket holders already pay extra for single games? They do in most places. That is one of the percs for buying season tickets, getting a better price per game for buying the entire season in advance.

I was told by one of our Bison friends that their season ticket holders wouldn't stand for that, and it was too confusing.

He made a pretty public appearance at UND a couple of years ago, so he knows the way.

Or if they are playing a completely different game.

Assistant coaches are hired as head coaches every year. And every school will have different priorities when hiring a coach. But most schools would hire someone that has proven success as a head coach on that level as their first choice. Proven assistants with experience at that school would also be highly prized, especially at schools that like to promote from within and at a lot of successful programs. The next level of choice would be proven assistants at succesful programs. And successful head coaches at a lower level would get some consideration. UND has proven that they like to hire from within. Gino was not the first choice for that position, but he ended up getting it doing well. Blais was well thought of when he was at UND originally, but he went to the high school level so that he could get head coaching experience. That and his relationships at UND helped him get the job. And Hak was part of the program for a long time, that definitely helped him get the job. Sandelin was part of a successful program at UND. That definitely helped him when he was being interviewed for the Duluth position. Obviously you don't like Hakstol. In this discussion, Hak has had a successful run as a head coach at the collegiate level. He has done everything but win a national championship, and has regularly had his teams in the tournament. Most schools with head coach openings would be interested in talking to him about their job. Some NHL teams might consider talking to him about a head coaching job, and many would probably be interested in talking to him about an assistant job if he was interested in that. Guentzel has had a good run as an assistant, but not as a head coach at the collegiate level. He has had experience as a head coach at the USHL level, but hasn't been able to get hired at the college level. He could get a shot at a head coaching job, and very well might at UNO when Blais leaves, but most schools would probably rank Hakstol higher before talking to them. Interviews may change that based on how the personalities and goals fit.

It would probably depend on a lot of other factors. What other jobs are open, or will open. Who has talked them. Their personal financial situation. How strongly they felt about the situation. People have walked away from a lot more.

His point is that most schools would rather hire a coach with a proven record of success as a head coach than hire a good assistant coach for his first time as a head coach. Hak, Blais and Gino were all hired as a head coach in the same place where they had worked as an assistant coach. Other schools may have been more hesitant to hire them for their first time as a head coach.

You must have had too many jello shots. Your reading comprehension isn't very good.

Standing Rock doesn't have a provision for a referendum vote in their constitution. They would have to change the constitution to do it. Plus the leadership at Standing Rock doesn't want it and has said so for about 20 years. Plus, if I remember right, the 2 tribes have never been very close. Spirit Lake probably isn't going to talk Standing Rock into much of anything.

Contracts can be amended or changed if both sides are agreeable. As has been repeated many times, the NCAA isn't going to agree to changing the settlement to allow use of Native American names or imagery. Breaking contracts often results in lawsuits, and the party that breaks the contract is normally the loser of the lawsuit. In this case the NCAA is getting exactly what they want out of the settlement, why would they agree to a change?

Part of your argument will depend on what the NCAA accepts as a new or "new" logo and nickname. UND can use the interlocking ND logo and the name "UND or North Dakota" according to the 3 year moratorium because they were implemented and used before that moratorium was put in place. If the NCAA accepts them as new because they are different from the Fighting Sioux name and Brien logo, then that fulfills the settlement agreement. Both sides could be satisfied and the problem solved. Again, the aim of the settlement and the reason for the NCAA policy are to eliminate the use of Native American nicknames and imagery. The NCAA is happy when that is accomplished.

They have said that they would not back off the use of Native American nicknames. Remember, the NCAA also said that they might be willing to review the removal of logos from Ralph Engelstad Arena and might be willing to change the timeline outlined in the agreement. They say they are trying to encourage schools to follow the policy, not damage the schools that are making an effort. But I believe that the interlocking ND logo may still work for the NCAA, while not breaking the 3 year moratorium on adopting and implementing a logo that was put into the repeal law. The interlocking ND has been used for years, and was modified a couple of years ago. It has nothing to do with Native American culture in any way. It was not part of the settlement agreement. UND using that logo exclusively, and not using the Brien logo would live up to the the NCAA policy and the spirit of the settlement agreement even if it didn't live up to the letter of the agreement. And it wouldn't break the law on adopting and implementing a logo, because it would just be using something that was in place well before the law was enacted. It has been the secondary logo of the Athletic Department, and has been the primary logo for some of the sports. UND still wouldn't have a nickname as required by the settlement agreement, but as I said, the NCAA may give them some leeway in that process.

The NCAA has also said that they would work with UND if they were making a good faith effort to live up to the settlement agreement and eliminating the Native American nickname and logo. There has been no official statement, but perhaps they have indicated that they would be OK with delaying the adoption of a new nickname and logo. As someone else said, all indications were that UND had been removed from the sanctions list after the law was repealed in November. Therefore there could have been some kind of understanding with the NCAA.

There is absolutely no way that he is going to be re-elected. He's running for a different office.