Chewey

Yes in fact. If you want to see another example of NCAA abuse, watch "Man in the Glass". Dale Brown's (former LSU BB coach) story is one example.

One thing that probably has been done right is that the SBoHE, Alumni Association, et al have probably said "We'll work with you now. Just shut the hell up for awhile." Having a chorus of the usual "academics" chiming in would only stoke things in a way the SBoHE would not want them. Eastern ND academics (maybe the East generally? East Dakota and West Dakota instead of North and South?) have generally be held in low regard in Western ND and that sentiment was really smoked with Measure No. 6 in 1980. On another note, it looks like someone is trying to find a voice prior to June as my mom and one other (both signed the petitions) received phone calls addressing the following: How will you vote Do you think the logo should remain the same Who has the power over the logo - legistlature, State Board of HIgher Ed, citizens, UND Who would you be most persuasive to discuss the hardships of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND Student-Athletes, UND Students, UND faculty staff How credible to you find as to the adverse effects of the logo - UND President, UND Athletic Director, UND Coaches, UND faculty staff There were questions of tribal relations Looks like the lists of names with respect to the petition are the starting point for now.

You and your cohorts try to use any inflammatory language you can to paint the UND administration and the SBoHE in as bad a light as possible. That includes stretching the truth and outright lies. The UND Administration and the SBoHE have done that to themselves and no one else can claim credit for it. On the one hand, we're referred to as idiots and a "blind mob" but on the other hand we're smart enough to sustain a campaign of deceit and propaganda sophisticated enough to frustrate and overwhelm the SBoHE, the UND Administration, et al and all of the resources available to them? Contrary to the other side, our message has been simple, truthful and to the point all along. How is it that your "blind mob" has managed to "pull one over" on the ND voter whom your side believes to be uninformed and, as some here have irresponsibly claimed, unintelligent? I guess those presumptions should be no surprise now since that's the perspective that's evidently been held by the UND Administration and the SBoHE all along.

When it comes to what the Native Americans want, the fact that they have not been heard on the issue and what is intended by their customs and ceremonies, yes. The nickname does not harm UND. The nickname was given honorably and it has been used with honor and has represented an honorable people and a first-rate university for over 80 years. The NCAA's baseless, paranoid, racist, inconsistent and illogical "policy" and its economically monopolistic status, in addition to any other universities who blindly cower to the NCAA, are what can hurt the university.

Will not join NCHC because of nickname/logo vs. Will not play UND because of nickname/logo - distinction without a difference at its core. Actually, one could argue that the former is probably worse than the latter. Notre Dame will not join the conference because of the nickname and logo and, therefore, will not be in that conference to play UND because of the nickname and logo. Borrowed without permission from Goon's blog: You really have to be arrogant or stupid to interject the Sioux nickname controversy into the Notre Dame decision. But then that's what we get from the higher education in this state. They don't care what the public thinks. All we are is a flock of sheep for them to fleece to benefit those that work for the University system. One could say that the SBoHE has had the Midas touch for those it's working against on this issue. Who except the NCAA has been a better advocate, albeit unintentional, for the so-called (inaccurately labeled) "nickname at all costers" than the SBoHE?

Oh, this again? Really? Erich Longie and his ilk have been trying to militate against the nickname and logo ever since the vote. They even got one of the pro-nickname tribal council person bounced for some alleged misdoings but, guess what, the person that replaced him is even more of a supporter. If all of these NA's at SL who are against the nickname and logo actually exist, Erich Longie would have had another vote by now or some other action contravening that vote would have happened by now. It's not rocket science. The Committee for Understanding and Respect exists on SL because it has the overwhelming support of the people, as was indicated by the 70% vote in favor. Cling to your Erich Longie inspired pseudo-logic all you want but the fact remains that all of these anti-nickname NA's did not care enough to vote, presuming they exist at all. And, where is your concern for the people who voted and who want to retain the nickname and logo?

I have been involved in quite a few of them and that is without merit at least for the ones I've participated in. Slander? Really? Faison and Kelley have been justifiably criticized, as has the SBoHE and Shaft. If muddying the waters is what you have a problem with, there's a pretty good example with Faison pre and post Wanless interview and with Shaft's baseless Notre Dame claim. Our "side" has acknowledged the existence and continuation of sanctions, as spelled out in the surrender agreement, with retention of the nickname. There is the claim that this is about more than a sports team and a nickname. There is the claim that the sanctions can be endured and tolerated and there is the claim that the Big Sky issue has been exaggerated. The Wanless interview and Faison's apparent backtracking would lend credence to this claim. Whether or not people think that his claims are entitled to any credibility as such concerns are "above his pay grade", the fact remains that you had Faison/Kelley/SBoHE claiming doomsday scenarios and Wanless, AD of Sacramento State a BS member (last I heard AD's were involved in scheduling games) contradicting them and saying that the matter was not even an issue in the discussions of conference ADs. The sanctions are a reality until or if SL wins in Court, ND's Congressional delegation gets a collective spine or the NCAA changes its position. Of these three, only the first seems to be remotely realistic. Who are these people who have received the misrepresentations? Please, give their names? Why have they not gone to the papers saying publicly what those misrepresentations have been and naming the locations and the petitioners who made them? We know the petitioners at every location. Why have these people not attempted to discredit the process then? You had a claim by people where some petitions were supposedly unattended in Cavalier. Why weren't these claims stated? If honoring the Sioux tribes and observing and respecting their traditions and listening to what they have to say are of such concern with respect to the nickname and if determining what is intended and conveyed by their ceremonies is important, Frank Black Cloud, Archie Fool Bear, Eunice Davidson, John Chaske and 70% of the Spirit Lake Tribe all have a lot more credibility than you or those whom you mentioned.

So Grant Shaft's public statement, without any corroborating proof, essentially that Notre Dame would not play UND because of the nickname is a half truth? Moving up a retirement deadline more than a year before its expiration in response to a tribal wide vote is a half truth? Terry Wanless contradicting much of what Faison and Kelley had claimed is a half truth? Pat Seaworth's commentary about Fighting Sioux jerseys being akin to just other piled up dirty laundry is a half truth? This is all there in black and white. It's neither a quantum leap in logic nor an employment of deceit or propaganda to realize and conclude that the SBoHE and other parties in charge handled this whole debacle - indeed, are still handling it - very poorly. That does not mean that they had to kiss the posterior of anyone. Certainly, this would mean that you don't make statements a la Shaft and Seaworth and certainly it means that you don't engage in the lobbying process vis-a-vis legislation and then initiate and engage in a legal scrum claiming that the legislative process which you just got done participating in is an unconstitutional infringement upon your authority. Certainly, it would mean that you don't truncate an approval process by over a whole year. Certainly, they could and have done all of this and more. Has it been smart? Obviously not.

No "perceived grievances"; sorry to disappoint you. I suppose regurgitating propaganda from the same body that has presided over this debacle counts for original thought?

Call it what you will and employ the hyperbole and histrionics, if you must. The nickname has done nothing and is a huge part of the tradition at UND. The school has done nothing. The players have done nothing. If you want examples of puerile behavior, you have to look no further than the NCAA itself, many of the professors and administrators at UND, Pat Seaworth - attorney for the University system, who publicly equated the Sioux jerseys as being just pieces of dirty laundry that get thrown in a pile at the end of a game, much to the consternation of the Sioux indians (in truth - at least according to Mike Commodore - the jerseys never touch the ground), the SBoHE who can't seem to handle the situation with any kind of tact or competency and who push up deadlines in response to a tribal-wide vote and the President of which makes baseless allegations concerning Notre Dame not wanting to play UND, Faison making broad and irresponsible claims and then saying he's "mistaken" or whatever after the Terry Wanless interview, the SBoHE actively participating in the legislative process (lobbying, etc) and then saying that the very law they were lobbying against is unconstitutional (wouldn't that mean that the law allowing the retirement of the nickname- for which they lobbied intensely - is also unconstitutional?), spineless Congressional delegation who won't commit one way or another, etc. A lot of very committed people are addressing a massive screw-job in which the SBoHE, though its obvious and irresponsible incompetence, has been actively complicit. A lot of very committed Sioux Indians demand that their ceremonies be respected and demand that they are heard. There was never any good faith detente or engagement with the tribes at all. The moving up of the deadline by the SBoHE was certainly an indication of that and there are, no doubt, other examples. Call it whatever you will. It's a matter of perspective and you are obviously entitled to yours.

Doubt very much that it will be one of the assistants. That's what Jutting was, evidently, and if MSU-M is smart it will go outside of the program. If Eades is selected and MSU-M invests some money, it may be a precursor to joining the NCHC in a few years. SCSU (Jan Brady State) would not have gotten in there but for Gino. A commitment to spending some considerable money to rehab the concrete barn that is the National Hockey Center didn't hurt but they can thank Gino for SCSU getting raptured into the NCHC, in spite of what its President (or was it the AD) said.

Eades would be a terrible loss for the program. In many respects, I think he's a better coach than Hak. MSU-M would do well to do what it takes to get him as he's obviously a top-shelf candidate but it's awfully tough to recruit to Mankato vs. UND, WI, MN, Duluth. Say what you want about Jutting, he was behind the 8-ball recruiting and still did a decent job. MSU-M is going to have to spend some serious money to raise the status of the program and make things easier for whomever takes over for Jutting. Any recruit coming in and seeing the 5,000 person arena and the practice facility vs. those at UND has a no-brainer of a decision. Of course, one can get the occasional Backes, Morin, Shane Joseph, Ryan Carter etc but it takes more than one or two of them on a team to compete. As a Sioux fan, I hope Eades stays.

I don't know if Sioux fans envy the rodents. I think it's the other way around.

More of the gender-neutral garbage. It's dehumanizing, disrespectful and an acquiescence to "gender stereotypes" to utilize masculine and feminine pronouns. Just the sort of thing one would find in Merrifield Hall. When you have this sort of garbage being propagated through today's "prose" and being taught at universities and high schools and when you have the same thick and synapse-dulled types wanting to ban Hemingway, Faulkner, Thomas Hardy, and Walt Whitman (he was gay, so one would have thought he surely would be accorded a "pass") and Mark Twain you know there's something rotten in Denmark. Hemingway is seen as too macho and anti-woman, the phrase "barbaric yawp" in "Song of Myself" apparently did it for Whitman, the "N" work in Huck Finn did it for Twain, "Tess of the "D'Urbevilles" did it for Thomas Hardy (evidently a woman who loses her virginity to some guy and then is rejected by another guy because of said loss of virginity was just too much for the feminists - it's one of Hardy's best novels - complete failure to see that Hardy was obviously criticizing that mindset). Faulkner's portrayal of Caddy as "loose" in "The Sound and the Fury" did it for him.

Exactly. At the regionals, I was visiting with someone from Traverse City, MI who is a junior at Central Michigan. He said that they go by the nickname "Fighting Chips" of all things. And, he said that some of the opponents have mockingly used "buffalo chips" or "cow pies" to refer to them, shirts, etc. If anyone has ever attended the Richland County Fair in Sidney, MT, you'd know what "chip throwing" is. Apparently, the NCAA is ok with this sort of thing though.

Ira made this very lucid point before and he was right. I advocated that the hockey team defy the NCAA and wear their jerseys in the regional. Risk? Possibly. It would have put this asinine issue out square and center for all to see.

They are just shy of 4 months to go. They'll get the signatures.

Sure. I hope you have someone at least as skilled for your other, more obvious, failings.

That's a matter of serious doubt.

Cognitive issues?

And just how did we get to here, pray tell? If UND keeps the nickname and logo, monopolistic and low-core aggressive entity uses its monopolistic might and, influence as to other schools who fear similar abuse, against a weaker party that has done NOTHING. Seriously? The NCAA has told UND what will happen if UND doesn't do what the NCAA wants, which is the same damn thing. No, what they've done is say that we'll use our monopolistic influence to effect "social change and we'll define where and what that social change is" and and if you don't want the weight of that monopolistic influence to course against you, do what we say.

It's simple really. Abuse in varying degrees. Tolerating abuses eventually can wind up in tolerating bigger abuses. It's like erosion and one gets desensitized to it. It's beyond the realm of possibility that a counselor or two graduated from UND?

Maybe those women should talk to the women here. The ones I know would probably say you're minimizing the issue; I certainly think you are. Call it a rape. Call it bullying. The bottom line is that you have one party forcing another party to do something it shouldn't have to do and, ultimately, doesn't want to do. That's the perspective. Saying that something is just this or just that is a hazardous, equivocating and insipid perspective. You could call a gay person some idiotic, homophobic epithet or you could call a black person a similar name and say it's just a word. Why are you allowing that simple word to have such control over you? In the end, it's a simple perspective - truly. It's a wrong and it is not to be tolerated. Capice?

Not sure if "horrified" is something that would be a justifiable reaction to the comparison. It's a party of dominance and control asserting dominion and forcing conduct upon a weaker party and causing that party to suffer economic damages (in this case) and humility and shame (as if there ever was "shame" in the Fighting Sioux nickname). Sounds pretty similar to me. Oh, and by the way, the women I work with at the local CADA house concur with this analogy so it's been "vetted" by the best of them.

Being a fan means advocating for your institution and not tolerating the intolerable or acquiescing to it. What is happening is completely analogous to a rape - not entirely figuratively speaking either. The difference is just bending over for it vs. fighting for your life against it, screaming and drawing some passers-by out of their lulled sensibilities to assist. My affiliation with our local women's and animal shelters, in part, informs my position on this. You don't stand for abuse - ever. If there were a unified clarion call by all against this business, there would be movement. Your position is flawed.