82SiouxGuy

Berg isn't running for re-election. He is running for US Senate.

It was also reported on the Alumni Association thread and has had some discussion on that thread.

Division 2 is also a part of the NCAA. The nickname issue would be the same for UND whether they had stayed in D2 or moved up. And as someone else mentioned, UND is joining Division I. The only sport where they split the division is in football.

They aren't worried about the viewers understanding. Their goal is to limit the exposure, and to eventually eliminate the issue. Your deep concern for fairness or equality on this issue isn't of any concern for the NCAA. They have a long term goal and they are slowly working toward it.

I am well acquainted with the article. Again, it doesn't add up because there aren't enough facts to make the connection. We went through this a year ago. People jumped to a conclusion based on emotion. Douple didn't say exactly what happened in detail, he just threw out a vague allegation. Not even enough to indict, much less convict. Oh, and I fixed your post.

Yes it matters whether it was an exact quote. That's why reporters use quotes in their stories. It is much more accurate. There are too few facts to believe such an inflamatory statement. It is hard to believe that a conference would allow it's commissioner to go that far out on a limb, to make statements about a school that isn't a member, unless those statements were true. That's why I believe that the Summit was serious about its statements on UND and membership. No one has ever come up with a good reason why the Summit would lie for UND, especially when it wasn't a member. Kelley and UND didn't have that kind of pull with the Summit. The pieces don't add up. That, along with the same reasons that Teeder listed above, are why I don't put a lot of faith in Mr. Kolpack and that story.

My problem with that was they didn't actually quote Douple. It was an impression that the reporter got from an individual. No actual allegation. What actually happened could have been very simple and innocent or very incriminating. And Douple wouldn't answer any follow-ups. He also refused interviews on KFGO in Fargo and KNOX in Grand Forks, plus I believe he refused to talk to the Grand Forks Herald. Not enough smoke for me to call it a fire.

Doesn't the BYU channel show up on some cable or satellite systems? I'm pretty sure that UND could set up its own channel. As a matter of fact, that was something I either talked about or hinted at in the discussion over the future of UND sports on television.

I had been out of UND for 5 years. Of course my college years included 2 NCAA championships and a runner-up.

As my father taught me when I was a child, life isn't fair. You just have to learn to deal with it, especially if you can't change it. In this situation UND does NOT have the power to change it. As far as those other names, don't be surprised if they move on more of them at some time in the future.

Another difference in the UND case is that UND got an additional 5 or so years to get tribal approval. When the original deadline passed UND didn't have approval from either tribe. They didn't have approval when the settlement was signed. It has never been said by either side, but I still feel that getting the extra time to gain approval was a trade off for having to get a second tribal approval. You mentioned the Seminoles in Oklahoma. The original report out of Oklahoma was that the OK tribe did not approve of the use. Later, I believe, it turned out that the tribe did approve and that the original report came from 1 individual, possibly someone in the tribal government. I also believe that there is proof that Illinois used the Fighting Illini originally to honor the Illinois soldiers in World War I. That started in the early 1920's. It was approximately 5 or so years later that they started adding the Native American imagery. The NCAA let Illinois keep the name because of the original usage and just made them drop the imagery.

Alcorn State has been in the same conference for years. Also, the SWAC does not participate in the NCAA FCS football playoffs. So the sanctions don't affect Alcorn State to the same extent as they would the UND football and women's hockey teams.

My guess is that the funds for the lawyer will come out of the Attorney General's budget. I believe that they are responsible for representing both sides, so they would pay for the extra lawyers.

Al Carlson was on KNOX radio this morning. He showed his lack of knowledge, and his true colors during the interview. He repeatedly said that the NCAA required votes of both tribes, and since Standing Rock didn't get a chance then it was only fair that they get to vote through the referendum. The truth is that a vote was not even mentioned in the settlement agreement. Standing Rock was allowed to give their approval in any manner available through their Tribal Constitution. A vote on an issue is not part of the Constitution. At Standing Rock all decisions go through the Tribal Council. They said no. That fullfilled the requirements of the settlement. Carlson didn't have a clue about the terms of the settlement. He said that he didn't know if the NCAA would accept the vote on Standing Rock at this time, since it was after the deadline. However, at the time of the big meeting in Indianapolis it was reported that the NCAA staff said that it was too late, they would not accept any form of approval now that the deadline had passed. He also said that he hoped the NCAA would be willing to negotiate once the referendum was passed and the people had spoken. Obviously he wasn't listening when the NCAA said that they were going to follow the terms of the settlement. By the way, Carlson also said that he had signed the petition and was planning to vote for it. He was very upset with the State Board of Higher Education. He said that the Legislature is going to fight this issue. His term was that they were going to "lawyer up". It sounded like the Attorney General would probably represent the SBoHE and the Legislature would find different representation. He was upset with the SBoHE on 2 fronts. First was the challenge of the law itself, and how it would represent challenging the power of the Legislature versus the SBoHE. He said that the SB was trying to become a 4th leg of the government. He definitely wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the SB should be reporting to him and the Legislature. He also was upset because he said challenging the law was basically a slap in the face to the people that had signed the petitions. He felt that the SB should just accept whatever happened in the election. He was asked why they should accept a law if it is unconstitutional. His response was that every law passed by the legislature was constitutional, unless it was challenged. And he said that since the people wanted this law it shouldn't be challenged. By his theory, the North Dakota Legislature could pass any law and believe it would be fine if they could get enough people to support it. That is a dangerous thought process for a government leader. A couple of callers asked some specific questions about the Big Sky, and Minnesota and Wisconsin announcing that they wouldn't play UND in hockey. His answers showed that he had no real clue about the specifics of the situation or about how college athletics works. He did make the statement that he wanted people to know that no one was trying to damage UND athletics with the nickname law. He either didn't get it or didn't believe that his actions might do the damage despite any intent. He also said that if the referendum passed, and it didn't get the desired result, they could always correct the problem in 2013. Since that worked so well the first time, he's planning to try it again, especially after he gets control of the SBoHE. The impression I got out of the interview was that he was trying to save some face using bravado and playing on the emotions of people. He definitely wasn't using facts to argue his case.

NBC streams the Sunday night games like they did for the Super Bowl. The fun thing is that they give you several camera options so you can play TV director. The only other NFL options are a couple of sites where people relay their TV signal. Most of those have been shut down, especially the ones that are located in the US. One in particular seems to work OK. Some streams are good and some are really bad. Some games will only have 1 feed while others have multiple. The best are usually feeds that are meant for British or European distribution that are put back on the web. Some of them have a separate pregame and half time, some use the regular network. The game itself is almost always the regular announcers. This site has a wide range of sports from around the world every day. I haven't checked out Roku enough to know whether UNDSports works on it. I know that they have access to some sports programming. But I don't think it is any of the major sports programming as of yet, so no NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB.

I probably watch the majority of my television via streaming. I have the ability to get the major networks by regular broadcast, but streaming allows me to watch when I want without worrying about recording. You often have fewer commercials with streaming. There are a few broadcast shows that aren't available through streaming. Sports can be a problem. ESPN is not available through regular streaming for example. There are some "services" that rebroadcast some sporting events. The most reliable use feeds that are meant for Europe and put them on the internet. Hulu and Netflix are great resources for a lot of material. Right now I stream through my laptop, but I am considering the purchase of a Roku or other box that would allow me to stream directly to the television without the laptop.

The NCHC isn't going to be a second rate league. If you haven't noticed, all of the conference tournaments seem to be up in the air starting in 2013-2014. They are all probably trying to decide whether to go with a final four type tournament at a campus location, or plan ahead to have the tournament at a set location. There are pros and cons to each. Especially since all of the leagues are going to be more spread out. It isn't like now when most of the CCHA is within fairly easy driving distance of Detroit and most of the WCHA is within easy driving distance of the X. There isn't an obvious choice of location. And I'm sure that the different venues are trying to attract the event that would be best for them. For instance, would it make more sense for the X to try and attract the Big Ten, the NCHC or the WCHA? Which other venues are going to compete with them? The Big Ten might work in Milwaukee, Chicago or Detroit better because there would be more teams within driving distance. Minnesota is the western edge. Would Omaha, Kansas City or Denver work for the NCHC? Would the X or the Target Center work better in the Twin Cities? And what kind of deal are any of the venues willing to give? All of this takes time.

That may depend on the terms of the contract. Target Center might try to buy the tournament by offering very favorable terms.

You're probably right. But it just depends on how much was donated and how it was designated. For money designated to the IPF, if it isn't built they could go back and talk to the donors. They may want to donate it for something else, or they may decide not to donate at this time.

One thing that I find interesting is that the nickname-at-all-cost people, and especially a certain blogger, are trying to claim that they want what is right. But they are willing to get it by using a potentially unconstitutional law. They are willing to go against the North Dakota Constitution to get what they want. Isn't that just a case of the ends justifying the means for them? The Constitution is supposed to mean something, it's the framework of our government. But obviously it doesn't mean anything to the nickname-at-all-costers.

Don't forget to add the money that would have been paid to Wagner. That money goes back into the NDSU coffers. Home and homes with UND would mean no payment to the visiting team.

If the SBoHE were worried about their approval ratings, yes, this would be a bad move. But this isn't a job for any of them. They all have other careers. They are trying to do what is best for the school and to establish what the SBoHE role is in the state. And if the law is unconstitutional, it shouldn't be on the books. We have a Constitution for a reason, and it should be followed. Do you and the rest of the nickname-at-all-costers really need bad law to get your way? As far as adding to the fire, you are probably right for the group that really doesn't care about the University and only care about the nickname. But that group was mainly lost anyway. If there is a battle over a constitutional amendment it will be won or lost based on getting the facts out about the potential damage to the University and the Athletic Department. I am confident that a lot of people would vote against the amendment if they can look at the issue without the emotion. Too many people have accepted the misinformatioin that has been put out there. As far as the rest of your diatribe about the NCAA. Yes, the NCAA is the bad guy. But by all previous legal battles, they are doing things legally. Just because we don't like them doesn't mean they aren't legal. UND already settled a court case and got what they felt was the best settlement possible. The Spirit Lake lawsuit will determine if there are any other legal methods to get around the NCAA. Blowing up UND isn't a good plan. Maybe the fact that no politicians will go near this right now should prove to you that the NCAA has a winning hand right now. Again, just because we don't like the policy doesn't mean it isn't legal.

From the GF Herald article it sounds like they are going to ask that the matter goes directly to the Supreme Court, rather than to the District Court first. And they are going to ask for an expedited process so that the decision is made before the June ballots are printed.

And if successful it creates only 1 election to fight rather than spending money to defeat 2 different proposals. Plus it may help clarify some of the control issues between the legislature and the SBoHE. If the petitioners actually do have 16,000+ signatures on the amendment petition like they claim, there is a pretty good chance they would be able to get the other 10-11,000 by August 8th either way.

It would put an end to the referendum to repeal the repeal, in other words to put the original law back into effect. It would not end the efforts at getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November.