[Petitions]

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.

[Petitions]

The tradition of the Fighting Sioux hockey program is nothing short of amazing. I have come to understand that through my time at UND as a young man and as I have moved to several different parts of the country through my adult life. I have been in Colorado for the past 12 years and between DU, CC, NCAA regionals and a frozen four here I get it.

To say that our Sioux name is not a very large part of our identity is simply not accepting the reality of what Fighting Sioux Hockey is.

Tell ya what, you-any of you let the name thing go crowd- find me one athelete who in the middle of a successfull proffesional career cites how honored he/she was to be a part of the Bison program the way you CONSTANTLY here it from Fighting Sioux players, then I will accept that I have the wrong idea about the significance of the Sioux name. ..For that matter, how about any hockey player from any other WCHA program.

The Sioux hockey alumni consider themselves a family and their name, Fighting Sioux, is a significant part of that, as it is to me a fan. You can argue until you are blue in the face that this is not true but doing so will not make it so.

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.

[What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?]

How does one prove that a signature was not witnessed?

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.

[Map of country]

Gives us a perspective of what the rest of the country outside of this little box we live in on what we have to do to grow in the eyes of the media and college football fans with the rest of the nation.

http://www.sportsgri...otball-fan-map/

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.

[What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?]

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.

The NCAA says they will not be changing its agreement to drop the nickname and logo on Monday.

Representative Al Carlson says he's disappointed about the turnout. He says the 30-minute meeting with NCAA leaders was cordial, but when it came to changing the agreement four days before the deadline, they did not budge.

Carlson says he and state and UND leaders did bring everything to the table -- pitching that even though Standing Rock was never going to have a vote, but they were the ones who gave UND the name the first place. The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe gave its blessing through a referendum.

But the NCAA says that was not enough -- and held its ground that the agreement specifically said both tribes have to take a vote. And if they violated it, the effects would be detrimental.

Dalrymple added the only thing the NCAA was flexible about was the process of taking down thousands of logos at the Ralph Engelstad Arena.

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.

[What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?]

Thus UND Admin. was unsuccessful in eliminating (destroying) the name until the Spirit Lake Lawsuit is over

Still hope & awareness & if everyone would support Spirit Lake maybe their chances are better

I think this is why they (SL) are having the petition drive

Maybe it's time to really find out if changing the name to Spirit Lake Sioux would be acceptable (Legal) a positive instead of all the negative ? ? ?

UND Admin.& the SBOHE should do the right thing & at least try to see if Spirit Lake Sioux would work

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.

[What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?]

Please keep the discussion of the merits of the petitions in the other thread, I'm wondering instead how UND reacts if the petitions pass.

By my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) the petition would not only add the repeal of 15-10-46 to a ballot for general election, but it would also nullify the repeal until that election?

In that case, until a popular vote this summer, the State of N.D. would again find itself bound by this language (H.B. 1263):

My prior is that UND will do whatever it can NOT to resume using the name (there's also a distinct possibility they decide they need the goodwill of "abiding by the will of the people", but in that case they would just resume using the name as much as practical without committing too deeply to it).

I suppose seeking an injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the original law is a possibility, though I also wonder if they would effectively ignore the law?

The first sentence seems somewhat meaningless as a law -- "shall be known as" doesn't seem obligate UND to do anything in particular (e.g. bring back fightingsioux.com, FSSN, compel its media partners to use "Sioux" or anything like that).

This part is a little tougher... "Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act."

While UND's relatively decreased use of the name/logo, as compared to Jan. 1, 2011, certainly violates the spirit of that paragraph, it seems likely that UND could get away with making no changes whatsoever. The worst case is someone sues them (who has standing to bring such?), though could UND then just stall on that until the statewide election?

Have at it legal eagles... what will UND do if the first petition gains enough signatures?

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.

[Petitions]

You guys realize that DaveK is not an alum. of UND, right?

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

[Petitions]

That's real cute ScottM, Claim an apples to oranges comparison is a fact huh? I'm sure if we checked the facts we would find out that the South Carolina African American people filed a law suit against the NCAA right?

FightingSioux4life blatantly ignores that stark contrast in his reckless comparison of South Carolina and us. A contrast that has become central to this issue. i.e. the people that the NCAA conceitedly purported to wish to protect are SCREAMING for someone/anyone to hear what they are saying... "WE ARE PROUD OF THE NAME!!!"

I say we hear them and we do what is right, and yes, ScottM, FightingSioux4life, and 82Sioux, we should expose our "athletic department" to risk to do it. Why?, because it is the goddam right thing to do. So quit being such sheep and cowards and support a true.. TRUE fight against the NCAA. (and I'm sorry sicatoka, you blogging about public actors years ago is not fighting. Not anymore than me blogging years ago about the true value of the Sioux name to North Dakota on this forum or the freedom of speech aspect or me asserting that the constitution of the state should be ammended years ago on here before anyone else did.) Changing the contitution, now that is a fight. What Spririt Lake is doing, now that is a fight. Demanding that the media cover this correctly, that would be a fight. Its worth the fight! For Pete's sake, it's in our name!

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.

[Petitions]

Fine. If they aren't going to give it up willingly we will have to take it by force. The NCAA doesn't know who they're messing with.

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?

[Petitions]

Astute points, to be sure. Perhaps you change tactics and rename the teams "Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux." Satisfies the surrender agreement in that the name is changed to something other than "Fighting Sioux". Satisfies the NCAA namesake tribe exception to its asinine policy. Satisfies most of the people because the tradition is still preserved, etc. Sounds like a win-win to me. Spirit Lake will be an ally. Case in point, one tribal council member was removed a month or two ago and Erich Longie really thought he had an ally in the Tribal Council only to be disappointed when the guy he thought was going to be his ally really was even a stronger supporter of the nickname than the tribal council member who had been removed. Sorry Erich......

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.

[Petitions]

Slight difference in that those groups do not hold the monopolistic financial sway or the state actor persona that the NCAA possesses.

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.

[Petitions]

close to 25 yrs. I used to argue with my best friends girlfriend who was a member of the UND student senate back in the early 90's when they voted to remove the blackhawk logo. She is a Sioux from Devils lake and related to Skip. Now she is a strong supporter of the Sioux name and very proud of it when she goes with all of us to SIOUX games in Colorado, we and thousands of other SIOUX FANS. Kind of like the 10s of thousands of Sioux Fans who I see at the Frozen Four. Most of who believe, like me, that the Sioux name is something pretty damn special and worth the fight accordingly. The Sioux name is NOT more important than the Athletic- as you say- "department". It is the identity of what the athletic department has produced over 80 years and that is what is the most important here.

...oh and did I mention it is the RIGHT THING TO DO?

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.

[Petitions]

I'm pretty sure they all didn't much care for the will of the people not being heard.

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.

[Petitions]

It's pretty simple 82, I care about NOT allowing the wrong thing to happen.

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?

[Petitions]

I am "willing" to do what it takes to keep UND strong both athletically and academically. YOU, on the other hand, are "willing" to "just flush (UND) down the toilet" to keep the name and logo. Nuking the athletic department just to save it is just plain stupid. We have fought this fight for six long years, but it's time to face facts and realize we can't do anything more. What is the point of having the name and logo without an athletic department to use it?

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.

[Petitions]

Ya and the Hells Angels are not just about Harleys. I'm sure they hit the jet skis too.

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.

[Petitions]

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.

[Petitions]

anyone read all of that ?

Sorry if that was too much for you. I will shorten it to something you might understand.

Blog is wrong. Petitions baaaaaad.

[Petitions]

All's fine and well if you're in to bowing to totalitarism. The fight is not over, however. The "good fight" is ongoing. You've just allowed yourself to be cowed and bridled. So, you fought the good fight and what did that entail, pray tell? You probably contributed to the law suit, wrote letters to the NCAA, the Alumni/Alumnae Association, Shaft, Backes, Kupcake, Goetz, the AG, SBoHE, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, etc as I did and as many others did. When these people either did not respond to you or betrayed your confidence by not working the terms of the surrender agreement in good faith or just told you "we've done all we can and we'll have to just live with it" you accepted it.

What you fail to grasp is that what the NCAA has done and, in a broader and probably more relevant and significant context, what Goetz, Shaft, SBoHE, Backes, Faison, Kelley, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, have failed to do is completely unacceptable. What has transpired is wrong. The failure of these parties to conduct themselves in good faith was wrong. The failure or unwillingness to fight and redress a wrong because of a threat from the wrongdoer is wrong. You may have fought some of the good fight earlier but you have not acknowledged anything except your own acquiescence. You and others may chortle that the petitioners are harming UND. That is a disortion. The nickname and logo did absoutely nothing harmful for over 80 years. The ones harming UND are the ones that have assaulted it and the state of ND from the beginning. You're not at the Stockholm Syndrome level yet, at least. You're not saying anything different than others who have been in the same situation in years past. You're psychology is evidently to warn against fighting a dictatorial entity for fear that said dictatorial entity will inflict even more damage/hardship. For an example of the mentality you're acquiescing to, see the assassination attempt (ultimately succeeding) of Reihnard Heydrich by a few Czech heros and the resulting liquidation of Lidice. Not on the same scale, obviously, but certainly related and certainly exhibits an elemental or developmental state of such ultimate lunacy.

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.

[Petitions]

Of course you're going to dispute the credibility of that blog. It reported facts that refute the chicken little theory that you so desperately cling to for dear life.

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.

[Petitions]

First of all, I have extreme doubts that every single Big Sky member school would vote unanimously to remove us from the conference over something as frivilous as what our nickname is. But, just for the sake of discussion, if they actually felt that way it would tell me that they are not the kind of schools I want to associate with. If they're so high and mighty as to go along with the hateful concept that NA nicknames are bad, then to hell with them. I want nothing to do with anybody who supports this PC garbage.

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.

[UND's New Hockey Conference]

I have no idea what you are saying. Covered Wagons.... Grasping at straws? I can tell you right now many people have predicted the car will be gone...hasn't happened yet, and in reality I would say that one is probably long overdue, I want my teleportation device or at least my flying car by now!

The radio is still around after all these years. The TV, nor the internet, mp3s, cds, or walkmans have killed it. Wanna know why?..."radio" introduces you to the (new) music. And this is the most significant example of the TV being equated to the radio in this situation. Radio has actually gotten "stronger" recently = satellite radio....wanna know what else is getting stronger....TV! High Definition and 3D!!!!!

"TV" as we know it might be gone one day, but in like what 50+ years. Not five, not ten, not twenty. You and I will probably be dead.

The rest of your rant is a company trying to protect and/or increase their profits using online tools. It helps grow their companies and adds income for them. I get it. Doesn't in any way make them think their TV will be going bye bye....it just means that they have to fight with online companies for advertising dollars...the same as the radio and newspapers had to when TV first became available....The Grand Forks Herald Advertising on the TV is like NBC setting up NBC.com. It advertises their products and helps them generate revenue.

You really believe "TV" will be gone? And honestly when do you think that will happen?

Secondly, since it is so far down the road....we are talking how in less than two years UND will rarely be seen on national tv at home. A major step backwards for the program. You can watch all UND home games online right now.

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.

[UND's New Hockey Conference]

Exactly.

This is why we can get all the webcasts we want and it doesn't matter. TV will always trump the net in terms of "viewership." You ain't really going to get "new fans" using the web. TV ain't going anywhere. How do you know what movies to watch? What "shows" to watch? etc

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.

[Fox College Sports]

I just tried to watch some basketball over the interwebs tonight but was denied because apparently ESPN's site wasn't working here. I guess that is what I can look forward to in the future. That generally doesn't happen with my DirecTV..............

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.