82SiouxGuy
-
Posts
5,777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Posts posted by 82SiouxGuy
-
-
If the Tribal Council at Spirit Lake would have written a letter to the NCAA in 2005, or 2006, or even the first part of 2007 we could have avoided the whole problem. It just would have taken 1 tribe to come forward at that time and the NCAA would have put UND in the same class as Florida State and Utah. They refused to do it until the referendum was passed in 2009 and they were forced to act. I wish Spirit Lake good luck with their lawsuit, but I am more worried about the student-athletes and the rest of the athletic program at UND right now than the members at Spirit Lake.For years, we have told the Sioux people, "You honor us with your name and image. We respect you and your past." There's a quote in the locker room at the Ralph reminding the players to honor the SIoux tribes in how they play. We courted the Sioux people for years vying for their permission to continue to use their name and image. We obtained the permission of one tribe. The second tribe hasn't been allowed to say yay or nay.
I've been working near the Spirit Lake reservation for a few months now. The Sioux name and logo are everywhere. The people aren't wearing them because they love UND athletics like we do. They wear the name and logo because they're proud of who they are. They're proud of the honor and respect they and their past have garnered from UNDs use the name and image. Out there for everyone to see. 'WE are the Fighting Sioux' they say without speaking the words out loud. I don't know for sure but I think that's the reason the Sioux people are fighting so hard for UND to keep the name and logo.
But, now the risks are too high and the name and logo must be retired. So, Mr. O'Keefe, are you going to write a letter to the Sioux as well. Are you going to tell them, "Hey, it was great while it lasted but you now represent 'risks too high to my university'. Go away, you're not worth the risks."
-
2
-
-
Are you trying to claim that you're courageous because you want to keep the nickname? That somehow you are going to be courageous if you stand up to the NCAA? I guess it would be easy to be courageous if you have nothing to lose in the process. The student athletes and the rest of the people involved with the Athletic Department are the ones that are going to be penalized by the sanctions, and the ones that will be hurt if UND loses its place in the Big Sky Conference. You and the rest of the nickname-at-all-costers have no skin in this game. You will be able to wear your Fighting Sioux jerseys anytime you want. You'll be able to yell "Go Sioux" any time. It doesn't matter if the name changes or not. It won't affect what you do. But being on sanctions will definitely hurt the Athletic Department and the University of North Dakota. And that isn't OK with me.Courage is summoning strength in the face of life's difficulties or, sometimes, life's horrors. It mean proceeding in spite of pain, cost, or risk. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the deliberate decision that action is necessary regardless. Courage acknowledges uncertainty, but perseveres because of conviction and resolve. It offers us focus and self-possession so we can call up our competencies to meet our challenges.
Courage is not necessarily an outward act of heroism; it can be purely internal, such as making the decision to be cheerful in grief, to adhere to values different from those around us, or to give something another try.
-
I agree with what SooToo said. Also, there doesn't always seem to be a good understanding of all the FOIA information. Just because you have the information doesn't mean you know how that works within the world of college athletics. For example, UND has signed the contracts to be a full member of the Big Sky is a fact. But it is also a fact that they have not met all of the requirements to reach that status, like becoming full members of NCAA Division I or paying the full entry fee. Therefore UND is not a full, voting member of the Big Sky at this time, unlike what Mr. Black Cloud claims.Frank is a sharp, sharp guy. Who's opinion is based upon better quality information? Keep in mind Frank BC has been privy to a lot more on the native american side of this (multi-state wide) than Tim O'Keefe and possesses a perspective validated by FOIA responses. Not trying to engage in a who's smarter than whom argument but Frank BC is not an uninformed ninny by any means..
-
Not sure what your point is. As of right now the ban on hosting playoff games is for the NCAA tournament. The WCHA tournament hasn't been affected. They could make a decision at some time in the future to ban UND from hosting playoff games, something similar has happened in other conferences. But up to now there has not been any talk of that for the WCHA.
-
The MVFC stated for years that they didn't want to add anyone. It had nothing to do with whether they liked UND or not, it was a numbers game. They liked having 9 because it was simple, everyone played everyone else and they still had 3 non-conference games open. Plus, as has been discussed before, adding 2 Summit schools would have given control over to them instead of the MVC schools. They didn't want that to happen. The eastern MVFC schools didn't want to travel to the Dakota's twice every year. They were told that they could still only make 1 trip per year by adding USD, that would have been even more difficult if they added UND also. The MVFC option was explored and it wasn't available to UND. Just because you didn't watch Faison make the phone calls doesn't mean that the effort wasn't put in to put UND in the best position possible.Don't know that the MVFC wasn't an option. If they would have worked with USD and made clear that the two were a package deal to go to one conference or the other there might have been some movement with the Summit working to secure a few more schools with the possible departure of a few. As far as the Spirit Campaign, I said it was a good thing, but even after people were speculating wildly on new football stadiums and such, they continued with the more awesome than the Ralph talk. I know few people who weren't a little disappointed in the way they went about trying to get people to donate more money.
-
I agree that UND will probably be in the Big Sky next year. Some of the major players in the conference want UND around. But UND will be on a short leash. Money is important for a conference. But it isn't as important at the lower levels of Division I as the upper levels, mainly because there isn't nearly as much money going through. Image is also important to these conferences. They don't want to look bad and don't want to be associated with schools that will make them look bad. So the chances of UND getting booted out of the Big Sky increase the longer this goes on and if the situation escalates.Sorry folks but I must confess that this thread has been a sham...just a thinking exercise for all of you sky-is-falling types out there.
My point to all of you is this...wouldn't our leaders be doing the very things I posted on this thread if indeed we were in peril of losing our Big Sky membership? Of course they would! Wouldn't they be trying to secure support from the members of the league? Wouldn't they be looking at plan B instead of talking about failure as an independent? For heaven's sake, wouldn't the talk coming from them sound more like leadership rather than trying to persuade that the sky is falling and dooms day is near! I would sure hope so...
Fact is we are not in eminent peril of being kicked out of the Big Sky and both Kelley and Faison know this.
If the vote passes which is very likely are we going to face the NCAA sanctions...you bet, for sure we are. We can argue the depth of those ramifications but that is a totally separate argument.
Kelley, Faison, and Fullerton are setting up a smoke screen to get this issue behind us. They want it gone and frankly can you blame them? Surely the Big Sky doesn't want us on NCAA sactions. Obviously it's not good for business but they still believe we are a viable member to bring in otherwise they would have kicked us out already after the original state law vote wouldn't they?...why is this latest petition drive any different than that? The nickname was gone both times and resurected both times...so why kick us out now and not then? Remember what Fullerton said in his interview with McFeeley...he said we are for sure in the Big Sky next year, are not in danger of being kicked out before we enter in August, but would could be considered for removal if we were no longer viable after a period of time with NCAA sanctions and that removal would take a unanimous vote from the 10 presidents. Listen to the audio if you don't believe it.
But this issue can't go away if the law is re-established or if it is put in the Constitution. That's why people are making a much bigger issue of it now. That's why the Big Sky is trying to head off a problem. They want UND, but don't want the problems associated with the nickname. That's why Faison has come out so much stronger this time. That's why O'Keefe has come out. If the nickname doesn't go away, the penalties and the other nickname associated issues will make UND much less desirable as a conference partner.
-
The name wasn't supposed to be up in the air. The SBoHE had announced months earlier that they were retiring the name. The process was working. The official deadline to get approval at the end of November, and Standing Rock was not going to look at the issue. Everyone thought the issue was done until Carlson stuck his nose in the situation a couple of months later.Did the Big Sky ever want UND, or did they just want them as a package with USD? Why did they accept us in the first place when the nickname was still up in the air? You can say that Faison did a good job getting us in the Big Sky, but I believe we became unwanted right after USD fell through. Did Faison have no inkling to wait for South Dakota to sign, or did he have any conversations with USD officials that they could possibly work together to be in the same league be it the Big Sky or Summit/MVFC. Were all options explored with the MVFC? I guess when you jump the gun on new conferences twice and have the UND fan base excited both times only to realize that things weren't going to be as good as first advertised, it kind of makes one wonder if lessons were learned. You could even add the Spirit Campaign to the list of things that got the fan base excited only to leave fans with a sense of disappointment. Sure, all of these things are good in some form, but when you promise the world and need to backtrack, it certainly makes a person wonder if there isn't something learned along the way. "We get to be in a conference with a current rival"!! Guess not. "We get to be in a conference with Notre Dame"!! Guess not. "We as fans are going to be overwhelmed by an announcement that will outshine the Ralph Engelstad Arena"!! Yes, but nothing that is tangible to the fans that they convinced were going to be unbelievably excited for so they take off work early to meet at the Chester Fritz. Like I said, all things are good, but when you oversell, and undeliver, you would think you would learn from that. I only hope that Faison has a plan or something unseen for getting UND hockey on TV across the country after the plug was pulled on fans that once had access to games and now once again are in the dark after all the positives were not as advertised.
Did the Big Sky want the pair of UND and USD, probably. By all appearances, everyone thought USD was in on the move to the Big Sky until the South Dakota trustees stepped in. They worked with SDSU and Douple at the Summit to convince the MVFC to take USD. The MVFC wasn't going to take both UND and USD. Getting UND into the Big Sky under all of these circumstances was a great accomplishment.
The rest of it sounds like self-inflicted pain. Notre Dame was never a sure thing. They worked it for a long time, but they went east. The Spirit campaign is a great thing, especially to the people that are working on it. $300 million is a large goal for a University the size of UND, and they are well on the way. Sorry it didn't live up to your expectations. Maybe they should have worded things a little differently, but it was very much worth celebrating.
-
Personally, I take voting very seriously and I make sure I know what the measures mean before I step in the booth. I have had a few times where I hadn't made a decision either way on a measure or an office until I was in the booth. But I always make sure to read through the measures ahead of time so I don't have to figure it out as I go.Have you ever gone to the voting booth without previously looking at the initiatives and try to cast an intelligent vote? It's almost impossible not only because the wording is always something to the effect of 'against not allowing negative....' which screws people up, but mostly because you can't really understand what the repercussions of the vote going one way or the other will be because you haven't done your homework.
And that is what is probably going to happen if this comes to a vote, the average person on the street is going to have a 'Screw the NCAA they can't tell us what to do in our own state' type of attitude and the issue will probably pass. I honestly don't know if the Alumni Association and others will be able to educate enough people to keep this thing from getting railroaded through, and the sad thing is it will be done by people with good intentions who don't see the iceberg about to hit the Titanic.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't prepare ahead of time. No matter what anyone does, some people won't know all of the details and will vote from their gut based on very few facts. I just hope that enough people will get the message and do the right thing.
-
I don't feel comfortable about it. But that was approximately the margin the repeal passed with in November.Feel comfortable about that as a last option?
-
They both have a right to an opinion. But I would believe that Mr. O'Keefe's opinion is based on better quality information than Mr. Black Cloud's.People simply refuse to believe that Native Americans can actually have their own opinion on this nickname issue. First, we want you on our side to keep the nickname...now we want the nickname to go, so please follow along and retire it? Tim O'Keefe has his opinion...and so does Frank Black Cloud. I respect the rights of both to voice theirs.
-
You are correct, I was combining some history in my mind. I guess it's a sign of age. It was the Governor and the Board of Administration that fired the President of the ag school and 7 professors in 1937, which caused the school to lose its accreditation. The Governor personally hired the President of UND in 1933 without any input from the BoA. The SBoHE was put in place to have some form of checks and balances and put at least a little buffer between higher education and direct political control. But I still believe that the SB is needed to keep the legislature from trying to take too much control of every detail of higher education.Not true whatsoever. Direct legislative control of higher education ended in 1913. The State Board was created in 1939 to replace the Board of Administration, which was filled by gubernatorial appointments without legislative ratification. Now, membership to the state board requires the Senate's approval. In fact, the State Board was established to further the legislature's presence.
-
There was a united front through the court case against the NCAA. And most tried to continue until it became apparent that Standing Rock didn't have time to do anything before the deadline, and had no desire to do anything. At that point it became time to start protecting the University.How about a united front to win the battles as they come instead of more same-ol always someone doing all they can to give up
This has been the case all along always something to block a truely united well thought out fight to save the name
Just call me the Honey Badger of saving the Fighting Sioux Name
I'm just concerned that you may be a honey badger with rabies. Did the doctor test you for rabies?
-
Putting the name of the arena in state law may be a reach considering the state doesn't own it. The Engelstad trust owns the building and will for several years.And some people believe the SBHE is responsible for many aspects of higher education subject to numerous limitations. As stated, the legislature can name the hockey arena but not the hockey name?
15-11-38. Ralph Engelstad arena.
The hockey arena constructed on the campus of the university of North Dakota with funds
donated by Ralph and Betty Engelstad is officially named the Ralph Engelstad arena.
15-10-13.1. Faculty - English language proficiency.
Any professor, instructor, teacher, assistant, or graduate assistant at a state institution of
higher education must exhibit written and verbal proficiency in the English language. Any
deficiency must be remedied by special training or coursework provided by the institution.
So the SBOHE is fine with having the legislature choose the name of UND's hockey arena, but they're going to challenge the legislature's choice of the hockey team's name?
But the legislature also mandates that faculty members speak and write English to a proficient degree. For anyone familiar with the Century Code, they would also be aware of the fact the the legislature limits the SBOHE's student fee increases; requires the SBOHE to seek its approval when improving university land and infrastructure in several situations; and created multiple programs and consortiums at institutionals all throughout the state without the backing of the SBOHE. This isn't even the tip of the ice berg, in fact, our state has multiple chapters of statutes that limit the SBOHE's supposed autonomy.
For those of you unaware of the history, the SBOHE was created because its predecessor, the board of administration, was free of legislative oversight. Now the Senate must confirm the governor's appointments to the SBOHE.
So indeed, there are "stautory limits" far beyond reorganizing an institution elsewhere. Such as choosing the name of the hockey arena, mandating english-proficient teachers, and perhaps even mandating a school nickname
And a major reason the SBoHE was created was to put another layer between the schools and the legislature. The legislature was trying to micromanage the schools, going as far as trying to fire the President of the ag school and trying to dictate classes. The SBoHE is needed to keep the legislature from trying to control every detail of education.
-
This isn't about what people "want". It is about what is best for the University of North Dakota. The average person on the prairie doesn't have enough information about what is best, they are just reacting. Those people need to learn all of the facts to be able to make an informed decision.He is obviously listening to his members (Alumni) who are really a minority of potential voters = politics
-
2
-
-
Plus, the only DII conference in the region is the Northern Sun and they already have 20 members. It's not even a sure thing that UND would be invited to join them.It doesn't matter if we go backt to DII, it's still the NCAA. We would still be under sanctions in DII and DIII.
-
You keep saying that there is still hope, or still a chance. Still a chance for what? Still hope for what? The NCAA has said that they will not accept the use of the nickname or logo. The sanctions are in place and could be felt as soon as the women's hockey team makes the playoffs. There is no chance of that not happening as long as UND uses the name. Spirit Lake has a lawsuit in place that is going to take several years at a minimum. If it goes to a series of appeals it could take a decade. The UND Athletic Department may not survive that long under sanctions, or more probably it would be a shell of what we now see. The lawsuit will happen with or without UND using the nickname right now. We know that you don't care about the Athletic Department. But what do you really expect to happen, or hope to happen, while the Spirit Lake lawsuit is going on?Hey after this vote is over & it wins & the sky falls - then you can have your own referral vote
But for now there is still a chance - without SL stepping up, you guys would of buried the name already
There is still hope & as long as there is I think the majority will keep up doing the right things
-
Many people believe that the law that was made last spring requiring the use of the Fighting Sioux nickname is unconstitutional. The North Dakota Constitution says that SBoHE is responsible for all aspects of higher education other than the funding. They believe that the legislature making a law about a school nickname oversteps that boundary. The SBoHE is going to decide whether they want to take the question to the court system to decide if the law is legal. The Constitution outranks any law that the legislature makes.So what is the SBoHE meeting on Monday concerning? Not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday inn Express recently...looks like part of the argument here is how much power the board has vs the legislature...this whole thing is a #%¥&@ mess.
-
October 1, 2007When is this from? I only ask because I believe Ark. St changed their name several years ago. (now known as the Red Wolves)
-
Just look at the issue that the NCAA has with the Confederate flag in Mississippi and South Carolina. That has been going on for about 10 years now, both states have their use of the flag in state law. I believe that in the case of South Carolina it would take either 60% or 2/3 majority to change the law. The NCAA has not backed down and have gotten the ACC and the SEC to adopt similar bans for tournaments in those states. THE NCAA WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE SANCTIONS. Not even if it goes into the constitution. That is the message that has to get out to people.I have thought quietly to myself about this same point. I didn't want to bring it up as to get taken to the woodshed on this site. I guess I don't know how far reaching is the NCAA's continued strong arming will go if it goes to the citizens of ND for a vote and it gets 2/3rd approval and becomes reinstated, again, as a state law. I assume they would hold the course, but...
-
Didn't mean to say that you were complaining. There is a lot of that going on and I combined the thought into 1 post.Since when did stating an opinion become complaining? And, why won't what we're doing change anything? Are you so sure of the outcome? Why can't we have an expectation of the 'right thing'? Who is to say the federal court system won't get involved? Who would have thought the people of little ol' North Dakota and a little reservation like Spirit Lake would take it this far?
We're all on the same side. We all want what is best for our school and athletic programs. We just all don't agree that lying prostrate before the NC$$ is the right thing to do.
UND already settled the issue with the NCAA, and that settlement included the SBoHE and the state of North Dakota. Part of that settlement included not being able to sue again unless the other side doesn't live up to the terms of the agreement. Neither UND or the state can sue over this issue again. Spirit Lake has a lawsuit in progress. It seems to be the only chance of a lawsuit succeeding, but most lawyers I've talked with think that the chances are very limited. Plus it won't even get started until 2013 at the earliest and will probably take several years. The Athletic Department could sustain a lot of damage during that time period. That lawsuit will go on whether UND continues to use the nickname right now or not.
As of right now, none of the things done in the last year related to keeping the nickname have helped the University of North Dakota. They just keep dragging out the process and the pain. The NCAA will not back away from their settlement, they won. Thinking that the NCAA will back away is wishful thinking. Hurting UND won't do anything to the NCAA. As the Gambler once said, "You've got to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Know when to walk away, and know when to run."
-
1
-
-
The NCAA issued a statement after the 2007 settlement saying that UND was not hostile and abusive to Native Americans. But most people use the hostile and abusive moniker for the list of schools under sanction for having a Native American nickname or logo.One small correction. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but UND is not, nor has it been for a while, on the hostile & abusive list. They were taken off that quite a few years ago. They are now considered a program under sanctions by the NCAA. Not a big difference, but a notable one.
-
Are they the same, no. But to me, and to a lot of people that I talk to, the sum of school and athletic department without sanctions plus being in quality conferences for all sports is better than nickname, school and athletic department under sanctions and not in a conference for most of its sports. It's not even close.That is all true. But to me (and me alone) the question becomes...are they still all the same without each other?
-
I heard the same concerns. You can probably add volleyball and other sports. Most of the games would have to probably be on the road even if you could schedule games. Most of the home games would be Division II or NAIA schools. Then you have the problem of reaching the minimum number of Division I games needed to remain in Division I.I just heard Brian Faison raise some excellent questions:
- without Big Sky Conference, how, as a football independent do you schedule games? Everyone else in FCS is in a conference now. UND doesn't have the money to pay that many guarantee games
- without Big Sky Conference, how would UND be able to schedule 24 plus MBB and WBB games? There are only 3 other independents so that leaves that many to schedule.
I heard the replay of Doug Fullerton. He's not bluffing. Why would he and his group of schools want to take on this albatross? They'll cut UND loose before they have to deal with it. It's their party. They can and will. And the NCAA brass would sit back with popcorn and watch.
-
The members gave the NCAA that control and that authority. They could also take it away, but they won't. Nothing short of the federal court systm could possibly get the NCAA to back away from their position. UND tried that, and got the settlement of 2007. The choices now are simple. Change the name and be a regular member of the NCAA or accept the santions and damage the UND Athletic Department. Do what is best for the school and the Athletic Department, or do something to make a group of people feel good about themselves. All of this complaining about it being wrong or not fair won't change anything.I've been going back and forth on this issue for as long as you have. I don't want our student athletes to become victims but there's so much more involved than just a name or a conference. I abhore the total and complete control the NC$$ has over their membership (yes, I am aware it is a volunteer membership). They are not our institutional leaders. They are not our State representatives. They are not our National representatives. They are not our lawmakers. Yet, they've taken on the role of political correctness and social justice enforcers. Who gave them that authority. We did but it was under duress. WIthout the NCAA we would not be competing against the best; we would be junior league at best. Unfortunately, if we don't change our name, that may happen.
I don't have the answer. I do know that rolling over and exposing our neck to the NC$$ feels very, very wrong.
Alumni Association begins campaign against nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
And don't fool yourself. It has been all about us for a lot of people the entire time. Before 2005 very few people cared what the Native Americans thought. There was no statement of respect for the tribes. When the policy came out it started to become "Well, if the tribes would tell us they don't want it, I might be willing to get rid of it." After the vote in Spirit Lake it became, "Standing Rock deserves to be heard because we're sure they would vote for us." What about all of the other tribes? Most people can't tell you if someone is Sioux or Chippewa by looking at them. Many of the people that have felt the anger are Chippewa. But no one cares what they think. Or all of the other Sioux tribes that have come out against the name. Remember, all of the other tribes in the region, other than Spirit Lake, have come out against the name. But people are trying to pick and choose who they want to hear from based on the result they want to get. None of this is a good way to make policy. UND has to live with the current situation and the things they can control. Changing the nickname is something they can control to limit the damage.