82SiouxGuy

Now you're really reaching trying to find someone to hate. The Standing Rock Tribal Council has been opposed to the nickname for years. Everyone knows that they were the biggest obstacle to keeping it. It was an extreme longshot from the moment the settlement was signed. Yet now you think that the only reason that they didn't change their minds and support the nickname was because they saw weakness in Mr. Kelley and the SBoHE? The only way the Tribal Council was going to allow anything to change was if the tribe members themselves found a way to force it. That is what Mr. Fool Bear and his group were trying to do. First, the tribe doesn't have a good mechanism in place to do that. Second, the issue itself isn't important to enough members of the tribe for them to force a change. My guess is that they would have approved the use of the name if they had the opportunity. But they had no real strong reason to push the issue or force their elected officials to give them the opportunity. I'm pretty sure the tribal members themselves are more worried about the high rate of unemployment, finding a way to feed their families and stay warm through the winter, and dealing with other issues that are closer to them. Helping UND keep the nickname isn't going to be at the top of the list for most members of Standing Rock. Blame the NCAA for stepping into an issue that should have been out of their jurisdiction. Blame the SR tribal council for not giving their citizens a chance to make their wishes known. Blame past administrations at UND for not doing more to develop a relationship with the tribes over the years. The SBoHE may even deserve some blame for how things were handled, although I think their hands were tied to some degree. But it is very tough to blame Mr. Faison or Mr. Kelley when they were hired after the settlement and after the die had been cast.

It seems to me that UND did this several years ago. I would guess it was in the 80's or 90's. If I get a chance I may try to find it.

And people complain about the schedules the last couple of years. The other variable for SDSU has been much better performance. They have won a lot more the last couple of years than they did in the D2 days.

With the bleachers in the endzone and standing room it's possible that they could have packed 15,000 in Memorial. I remember a couple of UND-NDSU games where there seemed to be well over 10,000. But I don't remember any actual attendance figures.

On campus would be a definite advantage. It has a more collegiate atmosphere. Would probably help attract alums. May help attract students to games (although that isn't a definite). But a retractable roof would be a huge investment for a fairly small return of 5 or 6 home games when an average of about half of them would probably use the retractable roof. My guess is that they would go without or go with a permanent roof unless they can find a lot more usage for a facility with a retractable roof.

Attendance would be a major challenge back at Memorial. In the old days the only time you got 10,000 people or more in Memorial were during good weather when a recognizable opponent was in town. There were late season and playoff games during cold or snowy weather that had much closer to 1,000 people in the stands. UND has averaged close to 10,000 most of the years in the Alerus. People are softer now than they were then. People probably wouldn't come out to late season games in large numbers, and I think that would be very true of students. Expansion of Memorial wouldn't be needed any time soon. It was very rare that Memorial was ever totally packed (I do remember some NDSU games that were jammed). They would have to build a lot more interest before they needed to expand. But they would have to replace the seating on the east sidelines. I believe that they have removed all of those bleachers. I know that some of them are out at the River Cities Speedway. I don't know where the rest went. But I'm pretty sure that the only seating currently at Memorial is the permanent seating on the west side.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe. There are 2 main challenges in accomplishing your goal. Mr. Fool Bear and his group have to find a way to overcome the opposition on the tribal council both to hold the election and to follow the wishes of the people. And the entire issue has to be settled by the close of business on November 30th. That is just over 15 weeks, or about 107 days. The list of things to do during that time includes: Oh yeah, the election has to go the right way too (probable but not guaranteed). Go ahead and continue to fight the good fight, and good luck because you are going to need lots of that.

You sir (and I'm using that term loosely because of your insult), are clueless about who I am or where I've been. I didn't say that I've lived here all my life. I was born here but I actually moved away for several years. I lived on the West Coast, in Washington state, for almost 2 years. And I lived in the Twin Cities for more than 4 years. Then I returned to Grand Forks because it is a great community to live in and because my family was still in the area. Besides that I have traveled extensively throughout the United States. I have worn my Fighting Sioux gear all over this fine country of ours. And had some great conversations with people because of it. But I have been around the country and experienced the attitudes of others in all parts of the country so I have a little more perspective than you realize. Most of the attitudes you speak of are not going to disappear if the name changes. The Ralph Engelstad Arena is not going away if the name changes. Grand Forks is not going away if the name changes. The alumni base is not going away if the name changes. People will still go to "the Game". UND fans will still go to games in Denver, Minneapolis and other places. The name is part of the allure, but it is the University and the community and the support that the alums bring that makes this a special situation. There will be angry people and there will be some repercussions, but much of that will fade with time. UND and its fans will still be a great story. I tend to pick my battles instead of tilting at windmills. I pick the battles that I believe are most important. And I pick battles that I at least have a chance of winning. I've battled unemployment when a 130 year old company I was working for went from record sales to bankruptcy and out of business in less than a year. I've helped friends and family battle disease, and battled my own injuries. I've worked to help save organizations that I felt are important. I supported the battle to keep the name for years, even after the settlement when I knew that the chances were slim. But after the Standing Rock election when it became apparent that they were going to continue to stand in the way, and they were the only body that could save the name, I realized that the end was near. If you want to keep going until the bitter end, go ahead. Just don't insult those of us that choose a different battle. I was born and raised a Fighting Sioux fan. I will always believe that the name should have been allowed to remain in use. But if (probably when) the University of North Dakota starts using a new nickname, I will support that name also because I believe it is the institution that is most important. The nickname is only a small part of the whole that is the University of North Dakota.

We all could be wrong on this topic. My guess (as a non-lawyer) is that they are going to the courts to appeal the ruling against holding a referendum. They will probably use the tribal attorney's opinion that the reservation has to allow a referendum process because the citizens should have the same rights as North Dakota residents. But even if they can get the courts to rule in their favor, is there time to get everything done by November 30th? They need to have a hearing, the judge has to rule in their favor, that ruling would have to go back to the tribal council, they would have to agree to go ahead, they would have to set up a referendum process (they don't currently have one), notice would have to be given of the election (probably 60 to 90 days), the election held, results taken back to the tribal council, tribal council would have to agree to follow the wishes of the election, tribal council pass a resolution if the referendum is approved and the SBoHE review the resolution then bring the name back. They have approximately 107 days to get all of that done. Is it technically possible to get all of that done in the time left? Yes. Is there much of a chance knowing how slow things normally happen in tribal government? My guess is the chances are slim and none. And that is if the court even agrees to hear the case.

I agree that this isn't apathy. As a matter of fact, I would expect a lot of interest in a new name so apathy won't be a problem with that process. A bigger concern would be division of the fanbase because of the way the name had to be retired. It will be hard to find a name that a significant portion of the students, alums and employees can agree on.

I would be willing to bet that it won't be. Some of the strongest nickname proponents are probably members of this board. Remember, there are a lot of alums that are not sports fans and I would bet that a large majority of them are willing to let the name be changed because they don't have much invested in the name. They won't be voting in a SS.com poll. Plus, as we saw with the most important UND sports moment of the 2000's, internet polls like this have no scientific accuracy. But it will be interesting to see how this poll comes out.

I've tried it with my Blackberry a few times in the last couple of days. The only issue I've had was it didn't allow a post one time (said there was some kind of connection error IIRC). I backed out, looked at another page, then went back to the original page. That time the post took. Thanks for all the time and work you put into this site.

I admire their efforts and wish them all the luck in the world. But I'm not going to hold my breath because it would be a huge surprise if they are successful. Fighting and winning are two very different things and they haven't had much luck on the winning side lately.

As far as I know there hasn't been any polling done on the subject. But it wouldn't surprise me if that was in the right ballpark. And that's for UND alums. If you polled other North Dakota residents it would probably be a larger majority. Face it, this isn't a big issue for most residents of the state. The vast majority of the people in North Dakota probably think Fighting Sioux is a good nickname and that UND has used it well. But the number of people that are willing to trash everything to keep it, that believes UND should keep fighting forever, is a minority of the population. If Mr. Fool Bear has some magic trick up his sleeve that will change minds on the tribal council I wish he would play it. Otherwise it is time to move on.

So your position is that they should have gone down with the ship supporting the name. They should have supported it to the bitter end no matter the odds. They should have risked their jobs to support the Fighting Sioux nickname no matter what the eventual outcome was going to be. Does that sum up your position? Is that what you mean by principles? I can assure you that not all North Dakota natives or even all UND alums would have followed the path that you have supported (this is coming from someone whose family has been in North Dakota for well over 100 years, who has been a Fighting Sioux fan probably longer than you have been alive, an alum with many others alums in the family, and someone that really hates losing the nickname and logo). There comes a time when you cut your losses and move on. No matter what you and many others think, the nickname is a small part of the entire University of North Dakota or even of the UND Athletic Department. It is a great nickname, one of the best I have ever heard. And the logo is wonderful. But they aren't worth what you are asking for from Mr. Faison or Mr. Kelley. Risking everything to support the nickname when the odds are so great against it would have been foolhardy for the administration and for the University. And I know that you don't agree with me so you don't have to tell me that you think I'm wrong.

People from the outside can have a more impartial view. Most people were leading with their hearts on this issue rather than with their heads. My guess is that someone with an impartial view could see that keeping the nickname was a very long shot after the settlement. They could see that the longer the issue was kept alive, the more damage would be done (or the longer lived the damage). And I would guess that Mr. Faison and Mr. Kelley were not willing to risk their jobs and their long term futures on such a long shot. They were hired with specific jobs to do, and specific demands for their performance. Diehard supporters of the nickname keep saying that they should have just kept it no matter what, or that someone should have done more. Sometimes there is nothing left to do, or at a minimum, sometimes it is time to move on because your chances of winning are so bad. I will ask this question, would you (or any intelligent person) be willing to risk your job and your reputation on an issue when you know that the chances of successfully winning on that issue are very small? Especially when the issue is only a small part of your overall responsibilities? Faced with that option, most people are going to let that issue go unless they have some special reason to support that issue.

It's true that the Summit only wanted a decision. But they wanted it as soon as possible. The chances of getting the nickname approved by the Tribal Council at Standing Rock has always been slim. And this spring it reached a point where the time it would take to approve the name, even if the Tribal Council was interested in doing so, would make it very difficult to get things done by the deadline. Since the Tribal Council had no interest in allowing approval of the nickname the SBoHE decided not to waste any more time or take any more chances that the Summit would get tired of waiting. They decided to do what most people predicted would happen when the settlement was announced. If you go back and look you will see that very few people believed there was a chance that the name would be approved, especially by Standing Rock. Why would you throw away a chance to get the majority of the Athletic Department aligned with a conference just because the football team would not be part of the conference. You may have noticed that there aren't a lot of potential conferences available for UND, and that football isn't always part of a conferences offering but there are several football-only conferences. One of the problems for the Athletic Department is the travel expense to send all the non-revenue sports to both coasts for games. Getting those sports in a conference which will cut travel significantly is very important to the bottom line. That's why it is so important to the University to get as many sports as possible into a conference that works even if football wasn't part of the mix. It wasn't about making money it was about saving money. As far as not being eligible for 2 years, that is approximately when UND would enter conference play based on the current schedule. As it stands now, and if UND is approved for the Summit, UND would probably enter conference play for the 2012-2013 season. If UND had waited until after the deadline to get the process started they would push the timeline back yet another year and would have to compete as an independent their first year as playoff eligible. Don't you think that a large group of people would be complaining about that, UND still not being in a conference in any sport during their first year eligible? The SBoHE needed to make a move soon so they did. It sucks to give up the Fighting Sioux nickname but life can often suck.

Bamba isn't on the Raiders roster so I'm pretty sure that he isn't in camp.

I'm not a hydrologist either, but there are a lot of smaller streams that enter the Red between Fargo and Grand Forks. That adds to the water flow. The water usually slows as it travels north during spring floods because of ice, so moving the water more quickly through the Fargo area would probably build up more the further north you go. And I'm sure that there are other factors that I wouldn't know about that affect the flow of the river. Doing something for Fargo is very important and should be near the top of the list of projects for the state (along with Devils Lake and infrastructure for the western part of the state). But it will only work if it doesn't have major negative affects for the rest of the Valley.

A while back Mr. Faison hinted at some kind of announcement during Homecoming.

I don't think they even worry about Pontiac because most people don't realize that Pontiac was a famous chief. The Blackhawk stuff is pretty obvious at the United Center.

As star said, you don't consider dumping the Sioux Falls game until the rest of the schedule is filled and you have a better option available to fill the date. I don't feel like going back to look, but I'm pretty sure that there was some kind of buyout. And personally I don't have as much of a problem playing them again. I would prefer another FSC game, but if we are having trouble filling the schedule it wouldn't be bad to have a chance to even the slate.

They have used the United Center before and will again. They like to hold events in Chicago. But isn't it hypocritical to complain about NA imagery in one building but not in another where they hold events?

A lot of teams play at least 1 game each year against a team from a lower division. Look at all of the FBS schools that play FCS schools. A lot of FCS play a game against a Division II school. The reason is that it is hard to get home games. Quality FCS teams are looking for more home games, not more road games. Plus they would rather have an easy game or 2 on the schedule. So getting FCS schools to schedule a lot of games in Grand Forks is always going to be a challenge. You probably won't see a Division II school every year, but don't be surprised when they turn up on occasion.

It's only simpler to your simple mind. NCAA doesn't want to see Native American imagery. So you think they would want to hold tourney games in places where they don't have Native American imagery. How much simpler do you want it?