82SiouxGuy

Let's review some of your "facts":

The nickname-at-all-cost group is getting the media attention they want on KFAN radio out of Minneapolis right now. The whole state is getting destroyed over the entire situation. Words like childish, whining, and lack of self esteem are being used.

It isn't 1 or 2 games, it is a policy that goes on forever. It isn't just football, it is all sports where they could host. Hosting teams have a much better record in the playoffs, so it would affect the overall strength of the conference. Also, not being able to host playoff games will affect recruiting. Kids would rather go to a place where they could be successful and win. That is difficult if you have to play every playoff game on the road. Plus, other schools will use the ban against UND in recruiting. Sometimes they will even expand on the truth and tell the recruits how UND is damaged in other ways.. They would even use it when recruiting in sports that aren't affected, like men's basketball or hockey. So UND teams will end up bringing in lesser recruits. That again results in weaker teams and less wins. Which results in smaller crowds at the games and less money. Other schools have refused to schedule UND outside of conference. More schools could adapt that policy. That is less money for the program, which weakens the program. It is a vicious cycle that will pull the athletic program down. That's what Fullerton is talking about when he says that UND may not be able to be an effective Division I program under the sanctions.

You are correct, The bylaws outline the policy for removing a full member, and that is a unanimous vote of the Presidents other than the affected school. The bylaws do not mention removing a probationary member. UND is not a full member yet, and I haven't been able to find out if they would have to follow the same procedure or if they have a different procedure.

They can wear them for the regular season and the WCHA playoffs. They can not wear them in the NCAA tournament.

They will probably continue to use the uniforms they have right now, with the exception of having the new, plain uniforms ready for the men if they make the NCAA tournament.

Do sheep like ribs? Maybe they could make up a nice salad for his ewe.

Good point. We've seen how feelings can get hurt if they move too fast.

It sounds like we should expect a press release to come out soon saying that UND will return to the Fighting Sioux nickname, for now. They are still looking at logistics about what that means and what will be returned.

A vote of any kind at Standing Rock is meaningless to the NCAA. The settlement states that Standing Rock can decide in any way available in their Tribal Constitution, and then send that confirmation to the NCAA in writing. The Standing Rock constitution does not allow a vote on an issue like this. The Tribal Council has all the power to make that decision. Their decision for the past 20 years has been to oppose the nickname. A vote on this measure means nothing to the NCAA. In addition, the NCAA told the North Dakota delegation that it is too late to meet the requirements in the settlement. The state had to get approval from both tribes by November 30, 2010. They did not do that. The Standing Rock Tribal Council could vote 100% to approve the nickname today, and the NCAA would say that it's too late. They are going to hold UND and the state to the settlement terms. The only thing that could change this would be if Spirit Lake wins a lawsuit and gets the policy thrown out. That can't happen for at least a couple of years, and their chances of winning are mixed at best. Forcing UND to keep the nickname at this point doesn't help in any way.

I will take your bet. Grant Shaft is on KNOX radio right now and said that they are trying to arrange a meeting for Monday, and will make a decision that day on whether to challenge the constitutionality.

That is a good question. First, I don't think they would do it at all until the Secretary of State reviews and certifies the petitions. If the petitions are certified, they may consider questioning the constitutionality at that point. It would stop the process if they were successful. But they would upset the name-at-all-cost crowd and make them more determined to get the amendment passed. Plus it may upset some legislators and create problems in 2013. Doing it after the election, if the measure passes, could also help pull the name-at-all-cost group together for the amendment. My guess is the SBoHE will either question the constitutionality immediately after the petitions are certified (if they want to be aggressive) or they won't do it at all. So far they haven't been real aggressive.

Wisconsin made the announcement that they would play UND after the nickname was dropped. Just like the Big Sky agreed to add UND to the conference after they announced the name was being dropped. It doesn't mean that Wisconsin will follow through unless contracts were signed. And even then they could try to get out of the contracts. The lack of response to the Spirit Lake letter could be a decision to stay out of the mess. They were not obligated to answer the letter. Answering just left them open to more crap. Why would a school voluntarily get involved in this mess? That is just another reason schools would want to avoid playing UND. They would want to avoid getting involved in the mess. As of right now it looks like Minnesota is working on a plan to avoid UND in hockey. They have set up a plan to play each of the other Minnesota schools in Division I each year. They will play a series each year against 3 of the schools, and the 4th will be in the holiday tournament. The schools will rotate through the schedule. All of the games will be in Minneapolis except 1 series on the road. Plus they have a 4 year contract to play Notre Dame. Plus they have a deal to play teams out east. They may only have 1 non-conference series a year left to schedule. There is no guarantee that it will be against UND. As a matter of fact, the odds are probably against it just because they aren't going to want to lock into the same schedule every year. If the hockey team won't play UND, there is very little chance that the other teams will. A new Athletic Director can always change how a school makes out schedules. But as of right now it looks very doubtful that UND will be playing Minnesota much at all over the next several years in any sports.

As much as I feel the NCAA is the major entity to blame in this situation, I have a hard time blaming them for not accepting the pipe ceremony. There are too many different stories about what exactly was involved, for a non-Native organization to know what to believe. Believing the wrong party could lead to legal issues for the NCAA. That portion of the issue I blame on the Standing Rock tribal council. If what is said about pipe ceremonies is true, then the tribal council should follow it and give their blessing. Actually, they should have been giving their blessing the last 20 years instead of fighting it the whole time. And if it is as big an issue as has been said, then the tribe should have done something about tribal council members disrespecting their elders.

The short answer to your question is yes. The AG is a very powerful position. And I don't believe that there is a way to fight a settled court case. But your question doesn't actually apply in this case. The AG was working for the State Board of Higher Education. The AG's office tried the case and negotiated the settlement. The SBoHE worked with them on the case, and were the ones that decided to accept the settlement. I would assume that the president of the board signed the agreement. It is binding on the SBoHE, the University of North Dakota and the state of North Dakota.

UND went under the NCAA sanctions on August 15, 2011. So, they had been under the sanctions for approximately 3 months by the time the legislature changed the law. And they had about 3 months before the women's hockey team was the first team to feel the real effects of the sanctions. How long did you expect them to wait to make the changes? Would another month have made you feel better? Six months? 7 years? This argument, that nickname forever supporters got their feelings hurt, is possibly the weakest yet. Face it, the fact that it was going to be changed at any time was just too much. It doesn't matter how much things may hurt the University, the fact that your feelings were hurt makes all your efforts worth it. You and the rest have no regard for the University. It is all about you and what you want.

It's too bad that people's feelings were hurt, but the nickname law put the program behind schedule in making a smooth transition away from the name. They were trying to avoid the situation we may find ourselves in with the women's hockey program not allowed to host a playoff game. Carlson wasted a year with the law when anyone that was familiar with the situation at all could tell that the NCAA wasn't going to budge a millimeter.

We have posted about it several times. The situation isn't apples to apples, but it is as close as you can come in any recent situations. About a decade ago the NCAA said that they would not hold any prearranged postseason tournaments in any state that officially uses the Confederate Flag in any way. Of course, the biggest would be the NCAA Division I basketball tournament. South Carolina had it flying over the state capital at the time and Mississippi had a small copy in its flag. South Carolina decided to move the flag to a Confederate Memorial that is on the capital grounds. They put that in state law. Mississippi refuses to change their state flag. The NCAA hasn't scheduled a tournament in either state since then. Greensboro used to hold basketball regionals on a regular basis. The last one was shortly after the ban started, and was only held there because the contracts had been signed years earlier. A couple of cities in North Carolina have held approximately 7 March Madness tournaments in the past decade. Both the SEC and the ACC (there are South Carolina schools in both conferences) have also refused to hold most of their tournaments in South Carolina (I'm not as sure about Mississippi because there are fewer articles about that situation). The bottom line is that the NCAA put a policy in place, that included a postseason ban, based on what they consider a race based issue. They have lived up to that ban for a decade and show no signs of backing off. And in the Confederate flag case, it doesn't even have anything to do with the schools themselves, although they bear the brunt of the pain. So there is no way that the NCAA is going to back down on banning UND teams from hosting tournament games.

Why is it so hard to understand that the NCAA isn't fooling around? They have taken millions and millions of dollars worth of basketball tournaments out of South Carolina and moved them to places like North Carolina. The policy the NCAA has against South Carolina doesn't directly affect the University of South Carolina football team, because they don't have NCAA playoffs. Yet, Coach Steve Spurrier has publicly stated that it is hurting his football team because they lose recruits. If the UND women's hockey team stays in the top 4 and qualifies to host the first round of the playoffs, THEY WILL NOT HOST AND WILL INSTEAD GO ON THE ROAD TO PLAY THE GAMES. That isn't fearmongering, that is the plain truth. Unfortunately, the ladies will probably be the first to suffer.

I bet you're wrong. A competitor isn't going to give up an advantage in a competition for a nickname. Remember, these young people have already played under several team names in their young lives.

All of that has been discussed to death. And rehashing it really doesn't accomplish anything. The situation is what it is. The choice now is keep the nickname and accept the sanctions, or lose the nickname and avoid the sanctions. The only thing that could change this dynamic would be Spirit Lake winning their lawsuit, and that won't be decided for at least a couple of years.

The building was built for hockey only, so I don't think the sightlines would be as good for basketball as they are in the multi-purpose buildings. The seating is kind of flat, and the ends wouldn't have good sightlines at all. I went to a lot of games in that building. It was great for hockey, but it would be tough to put a good basketball venue in the building without spending a lot of money. Speaking of money, it would probably cost about as much to renovate the old Ralph for basketball as what they spent building the Betty, or more. It needs a new roof. The interior would have to be gutted. All new locker rooms would need to be put in. The entry way would have to be redone. Basically, you could keep the walls (although you would probably have to redo them). It would probably cost well over $5 million to put basketball in that building. There isn't room to put the practice facility south of Memorial. By the time you would renovate Memorial or put in a new stadium, plus put in the practice facility, plus try to keep the old Ralph, you wouldn't have room for enough parking. Plus, the long term plan wants to put a soccer facility over in that area.

It might be since Dakota is the name of a tribe. Plus it sounds strange. But Dakotans would probably be OK.

It would cost millions to rehab the building, and probably still wouldn't be a good fit since it was built for hockey. It is a great place to put the indoor practice facility. Plus it is in the way for any future football stadium project. Things change. Remember, the original hockey arena was torn down when the old Ralph was built.

You don't need to share your medical records with us. We understand from just seeing your other posts.