82SiouxGuy

Actually, most of the people on this forum that are currently saying it is time to move on, are UND alumni. Some with multiple degrees or long family histories at UND. We are all proud of the nickname. But, we realize that the continued use of the nickname will damage the University that we care about.

The hockey program is great. It's something that the University and the state can be proud of. But the University of North Dakota is much more than just the hockey program. The Athletic Department is much more than just the hockey program. The sanctions and other possible penalties because of the nickname issue are going to hurt the hockey program, the Athletic Department and the state of North Dakota.

Probably a few ways. I believe that the petitions have to be signed by the person gathering the signatures, and that signature guarantees they witnessed the signatures. If they lie they can be charged with a crime. They will check some of the signatures and compare them to actual addresses. They will investigate any reports of petitions being left unattended. If they find any joke signatures, that could be a sign that it wasn't witnessed. They probably have some other ways or some signals that would give them a hint.

It's the opinion of one person. I wouldn't sweat it a whole lot. It's not the perspective of the entire country. Most of the country would leave the middle of continent blank.

The NCAA isn't going to move on the issue for any reason, unless forced in court. And they aren't going to accept Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux. Here are some excerpts from a story done the day of the meeting between North Dakota officials and the NCAA, http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15259301/its-over. It seems pretty obvious to me that the NCAA is going to follow the settlement to the letter. That means, since UND did not get approval by both tribes by Nov 30, 2010, either the name goes away or UND will be under sanctions. There is a mistake in that report. The settlement agreement does not require a vote of both tribes. As a matter of fact it doesn't mention a vote at all. It required a written confirmation, by someone authorized by the Spirit Lake tribe, that the tribe supports the use of the name. For Standing Rock it required approval by any method allowed in the Tribal Constitution, and that approval be delivered to the NCAA in writing.

Even if the petitions do have enough signatures, that doesn't mean that it will pass in an election. It would keep the name alive until June. The lawsuit isn't going to be started until at least 2013. So the fate of the name would depend on the outcome of the election. Or possibly on the fate of the other petition. Or a vote on a constitutional amendment. All of those are potentially on the calendar before the lawsuit even starts. And the lawsuit could take years. So even if they get enough signatures, it doesn't mean that the name will be around until the lawsuit is completed.

Not a legal eagle, but I will take a stab. The State Board of Higher Education has hinted that they would ask for a review of the constitutionality of the law if enough signatures were obtained to put the measure on the ballot. My guess is that they would make that decision rather quickly after hearing from the Secretary of State. I don't think the decision would come from UND since the SBoHE is the group that has had the lead on this issue for so long. It is very possible that UND would hold off from making a change until the review of the constitutionality is complete. If the law is reviewed and found unconstitutional, that should eliminate putting it on the June ballot, I don't see how they could put an issue on the ballot that was already determined to be unconstitutional. If they don't ask for the review, or if the review doesn't find it unconstitutional, I would guess that UND would go back to using Fighting Sioux until the election. But it would probably be a little more limited than before. I don't think they would change the names of the giving levels back, for instance. They might start using fightingsioux.com again, but have it go straight to undsports.com. They would go ahead and use the old uniforms. But the timing of this might limit some of the problem. The petitions go to the Secretary of State next week. He will take some time to review. It could easily be some time in March before we find out. Petitions to put candidate names on the June ballot don't have to be in until April, so it is possible they could go that long, although I think it's doubtful. Then the Attorney General would need time to review it if he is asked. Most of the winter sports seasons will be done or close to done before the ballot decision is made. The real effect would be on the Spring sports like baseball and track. And those don't garner a huge amount of interest, so the name use wouldn't be a huge issue either way for them this year.

Yes, we do. And I'm pretty sure that you aren't either.

The Constitutional amendment doesn't help any fight against the NCAA. They are going to treat it just the way they did the law. And they can because it doesn't affect their operation and can't be used against them in a court of law. The media and the public around the country are going to treat things just the way they did the law. They are basically going to ignore the situation. It has no meaning to them. And it never will. This is all about what is best for the institution of higher learning, not what is most popular with the people of North Dakota. Laws should never be about what is popular, they should be about what is best for the population or for a specific segment of the population. Let the Spirit Lake case happen. If they win, great. If they don't, then we haven't damaged the University in the process.

I'm pretty sure they know exactly who they're dealing with. And you plan to do this by force? The person that hates violence?

I believe that the NCAA was asked about UND using the Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux, and they said that they would not accept that. The only Native American names that could be used were ones that were already in existence at the time of the NA policy, that were able to get tribal approval within the stated timeframe. Remember, they set up a specific schedule of when the tribe approvals were needed before the bans went into effect. UND did not meet the timeframe. Allowing UND to get around the policy in this way would allow other schools to do something similar. The NCAA does not want that to happen. The settlement states that either UND gets rid of the Native American name and imagery or it will be subject to the consequences. That's why I also believe that the NCAA would be unwilling to accept a change of opinion from Standing Rock at this time. They have their victory and they aren't going to willingly give up anything.

A private club can hold a similar financial sway over an individual in a small town. Being a member can make a huge difference on whether a person is successful or not. And I don't believe that any court has ever determined that the NCAA qualifies as a state actor.

I asked because you often come across as someone who only noticed the issue in the last year or two. Someone that doesn't know any of the history. Most of us here are people that believe the Sioux name is special. Many have been fans much longer than you. And it has been worth fighting for. But it stops being worth fighting for when that fight will start doing permanent damage to the University and the Athletic Department. That is the stage that many of us have reached. We believe the NCAA sanctions are going to damage the Athletic Department. It will cost the school money, recruits, success and more. Schools will refuse to schedule UND. Schools will also use these problems to take recruits away from UND. Losing recruits will mean lower quality teams and less wins. Less wins means fewer fans in the seats. That harm will cut across all sports eventually, even the hockey program. And this is only what the NCAA sanctions can do. The potential of what the Big Sky can do is a further threat. Wanting to fight a wrong can be admirable. But there are limits. Being willing to kill what you say you care about would be one of those limits for me. The nickname issue was lost in all the years that UND failed to develop relationships with all the local tribes. It was lost when the NCAA implemented a ban and UND couldn't just say "Spirit Lake has given their approval, so we get the same exemption as Florida State". Remember, Spirit Lake didn't give approval until 2009. It was lost when the settlement was signed saying that the approval of both tribes was needed. Most people knew at the time of the settlement that the chances of Standing Rock giving approval were very slim. And it was officially lost when it became apparent that Standing Rock was not going to act by the settlement deadline. Life isn't fair. Things happen that are wrong. You can't fight every wrong. And you aren't going to win every wrong you fight. Sometimes you have to give up a fight and move on to other issues.

Actually, they set up a representative form of government so that the people wouldn't be heard on every issue. They didn't believe that it would be an effective way to run a government. That is why we elect people to run the government. They are elected to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country, not what they think the people want to happen. Governing by public opinion is a bad way to do business.

The wrong thing would be to do something that would cause harm to the University or the Athletic Department. That would be the real wrong thing to happen. How long have you been aware of the issues surrounding the Sioux nickname and logo?

Dave doesn't believe the athletic department is important. The only thing that matters is the nickname. In his mind, if the nickname goes away, then that athletic department doesn't exist any more and a different department would take its place. He has no allegiance to the "new" department.

So the only things you care about are the nickname and the hockey team? Nothing else at UND matters to you? And probably in that order, nickname then hockey team? Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

How can a label (the nickname and logo) be more important than what it represents(the school and athletic department)? How can a nickname be more important than the history, tradition and people of the program? The history belongs to the program and the school, not to the nickname. The tradition belongs to the program and the school, not the nickname. If the nickname is the only thing that is important to you, go ahead and keep using it. Quit trying to damage the program and the school that the rest of us care about.

Sorry if that was too much for you. I will shorten it to something you might understand. Blog is wrong. Petitions baaaaaad.

Right and wrong can make for a great argument. And most of us will agree that the NCAA is wrong, probably on many levels. But is that what will win in a court of law? I'm pretty sure that the court case will be decided mainly on what is legal. Has the NCAA done anything that can be proven illegal? You believe that they have broken anti-trust laws. Previous courts have said they have not. We will see what the court feels at this time. Have you got anything else? Any place where the law was broken? Did they break the law by making the Native American policy? Proving a lack of good faith is going to be very difficult. The NCAA has a settlement agreement that was put in place in a court, that is going to be difficult to prove illegal. Other than the anti-trust aspect, where has the NCAA done something illegal or what have they done that can be addressed by the law? Your assertion that the name and logo did no harm for 80 years is not accurate. There have been issues because of the name and logo for more than 40 years. They have caused problems for students. The University used cartoon figures like Sammy Sioux, which showed a lack of respect. There are several examples in the past with parade floats and signs. Most of the issues were blown way out of proportion, but they existed. UND has made major strides over the years and has done a much better job with the name and logo in more recent years. But it is not accurate to say that they did no harm during the past 80 years. Responsible people stop fighting when the chances of doing harm are much greater than the chances of winning. They pick their battles and determine the level of loss they are willing to absorb depending on the importance of the issue. Fighting to the death is not a responsible decision, especially for an issue that is not worthy of causing death. A college sports nickname is not as important as the institution, or the athletic program. Therefore, when it is apparent that the chances of winning the battle are very small and the chances of doing damage to the athletic program are pretty certain, then you stop fighting and take control of what you can control.

I disproved most of that blog a few days ago. You might want to try reading it. The highlights are that UND is not a full member of the Big Sky at this time no matter what the blog claims. The Big Sky bylaws state that a member has to be a full Division I member of the NCAA. UND is considered a Division II member transitioning to Division I. That will not change until July 1, 2012 at the earliest. I posted links to prove both of those facts. An example that you might understand. We are going to elect a President in November. That person does not become President the day of the election, or even on the day the votes are counted. They are inaugurated in January. There are procedures that have to be followed before they can actually become President. When you join a conference you don't become a full member on the day it is announced or the day you sign the paperwork. Things need to be done. In this case, UND has to first become a true member of Division I. Also, UND has not completed paying the entry fee. That will be paid this summer after UND is qualified to become a member. I'm pretty sure that was spelled out in the contracts. Back to the blog. People state that UND can't or won't be kicked out of the Big Sky. There is a mechanism in the bylaws to remove a school from the conference, so UND can be removed even when they are a full member. You are making an assumption when you say they won't be kicked out because no one can know that at this point. It is a dangerous assumption for someone to make considering the bad public relations that are associated with this issue right now. And if you assume they won't, but you're wrong and they do, would be a bad result for UND. That is not a good bet for a responsible person. The myth that the Big Sky is a failing or floundering conference, and that they need UND more than UND needs them is outright laughable. The Big Sky is a very stable conference. They haven't lost anyone in the past decade. The last school they lost was Cal Northridge in 2001 when they dropped football. Boise State and Idaho left almost 16 years ago. Northern Colorado was a quality replacement for Northridge. And the Big Sky has 1 other full member and 2 football only members joining this summer without UND. So the Big Sky has plenty of members. Besides, with UND they have a strange number of members so it would actually be easier for scheduling to not have UND. (The travel distance and travel cost to UND is another reason to not have UND in the conference, but I won't persue that any further right now.) People also bring up attendance at sporting events, and how UND would rank among the top schools in the conference in attendance. I'm not sure how that applies to this argument at all. I may be wrong, but I believe that the home school keeps the ticket revenue from a sporting event in conference play. When UND is at home they get the ticket money, and if they are traveling they don't. I suppose it's possible that there could be some kind of revenue sharing. But they don't just throw all of the ticket revenue into a big pot and split it evenly. So Eastern Washington isn't going to profit if UND sells out all of its games. Eastern Washington profits when they sell out their own games. That is why Montana and Montana State are important to the league, they attract fans to their away games. It isn't because Montana puts 25,000 people in the stands for a home football game. Tournaments are a different story. Revenues are split for a league tournament. But UND would only host a limited number those events. The conference isn't going to keep them just to sell a few more tickets to those events. And at this point UND isn't a big enough factor to attract large attendance at away games. UND fans would help, but would that be enough to overcome the increased travel expenses of having to bring teams to Grand Forks? That is probably plenty for now. Dave, your blog had some facts in it, but they didn't use all of the facts. Therefore they came to some wrong conclusions. There is a real possibility that UND could lose its place in the Big Sky. No one but the Presidents of the conference schools knows what the chances are of that happening. But it is a real threat. And that is on top of the sanctions that the NCAA has in place that will also hurt UND Athletics.

If you want nothing to do with them there is a simple solution. Don't have anything to do with the University of North Dakota or college athletics. You are free to do that all by yourself. But leave the athletes, coaches and fans of UND out of your little world. The program and the people involved with the program want to keep it going.

Radio does still exist, but it is a minor player now compared to what it was in the beginning. From the 1930's into the 1950's it was the dominate medium. Then TV took over and the radio became backround for life. TV may or may not go away. But the method of delivery is changing, and soon. People don't like having to pay $50 or $100 or more to get a bunch of channels they never watch. The internet allows them to watch what they want. They pick and choose. Cable and satellite companies may have to adjust and do something similar. Even if the cable and satellite companies stick around and adjust, the flexibility of the internet will allow it to become the dominate player in distributing video. And that is going to happen much sooner than you realize.

TV ain't going anywhere? You mean like radio drama's ain't going anywhere? Like the Shadow, or the Bob Hope Show, those shows that soon moved to TV? Or maybe like covered wagons ain't going anywhere? At some point the balance will shift again and something will replace TV. They may coexist for a little while, but probably not for a real long time. Why do you think that cable companies all over the country moved into internet service and telephone service? It's all just data. People are going to switch to where they can get the best quality for the best price. The cable companies know that TV will be replaced and they wanted to be ready. And another thing about the television companies buying up rights to the big conferences. When those games move to the internet, those same companies will probably still own the rights to broadcast the games. And make the money for advertising. And publicize their own events. It isn't going to matter to them whether they deliver the signal through a cable TV line or an internet hook-up, they're still going to make the money off the games.

I'm pretty sure that there are times when DirecTV doesn't work. Like during storms at times for instance. Was the problem with ESPN because the site wasn't working, or because you don't have access to it through your internet provider? ESPN3 isn't available on all internet providers. Kind of like how not all television channels are available on all cable or satellite providers.