Chewey

And I suppose being a fan means acquiescing to NCAA bullying and allowing the NCAA to rend your school history and a big part of your athletic program's tradition? I suppose being a fan means throwing in with a board and other related allies who a wont to swim in contradictions, misrepresentations and misstatements?

Smart move (slippery?) by the AG but technically correct. All to date, people have associated "yes" with the nickname and logo. I can divine the marketing strategy - no means yes (as per the G.F. Herald) or "just vote no to NCAA bullying."

Wonderful! Some purpose finally. Too bad your "connections" don't translate cognitively.

Contracts have damages clauses and UND and BS signed one while UND's teams were referred to as the Fighting Sioux. Was there some provision in the contract indicating that UND would change the name? Was there some provision that the schedule was set forth with the understanding, in writing, that the name would be changed? Not following contracts has consequences. Call it litigious. Call it unreasonable. Or, as the cognitively somnambulant Watchmaker, rail against some obscure small town lawyer who got the better of one's small town capabilities. But, it's still a contract we're discussing. As to the proposed

I did not know I was in the peanut gallery until now. Give it up already. You don't know who I am. Whomever this small town lawyer is, he must have gotten one over on you at some point which, quite obviously, is probably not that hard to do.

The English circa 1940 could have said the same thing and acquiesced to an histrionic perspective of extinction. Fortunately, they had resolve and willpower. If the vote goes against the SBoHE, what happens? The Big Sky schools change their schedules only to have legal exposure and have presumed damages to UND suddenly become liquidated? Not going to happen.

To just go against the law is exactly what the other side would want. That's the one thing the SBoHE has done right. Don't you think that would play right into the hands of those who want to wrest full control of the university system back to the Legislative branch (where it should be in my opinion)? Protected turf inhabited by sanctimonious, self-righteous, supercilious, smarter-than-thou types (see professors and administrators who have not had a fresh thought in over 30 years feeding on the public tit and protected by tenure and, no doubt, a union of some sort) is not the sort of milieu in which one will find reasoned debate, rational thought or tolerance for differences of opinion which translates, because of aforesaid protection, into lack of accountability to the people. Academia is bloated and inefficient and its membership needs to be culled thoroughly. When you have "courses" in "whiteness studies" and "gender studies" and many other areas ordained by sheer political correctness rather than common sense, you know that you have a "Houston, we have a problem" situation. How is this crap going to allow people to produce a widget cheaper and more efficiently than the Chinese or Indians? How does it stimulate and serve to augment the creative muse which serves as the source for the development of innovation? It doesn't. Academia needs to be taken back from the so-called academics and given back to the people who are paying the freight. For North Dakota's sake, I would hope that President Kelley and the SBoHE do exactly as Darrell petitioned.

Would you really expect any SU grad to appreciate that nuanced approach?

UND, SBoHE is exactly where blame should be placed right now. As far as the Big Sky is concerned, have you heard the Wanless interview? No? You should; I'm sure it's on podcast. Had the SBoHE shown some genuine leadership during the 3 year buffer period instead of engaging in duplicity and truncating the process by which approval could be obtained, we would not be where we are now. Do you really think that the decision to shorten the timeline after the SL vote did anything to enhance the credibility of the SBoHE? Do you really think that Shaft excoriating of Bob Kelley after Bob Kelley made some perfunctory comments about the nickname prior to the NCAA meeting in August of 2011 did anything to enhance the SBoHE credibility? Do you really think that Shaft's outright lie about Notre Dame refusal to play UND because of the nickname and logo did anything to enhance the credibility of the SBoHE? Do you really think that Brian Faison's misrepresentations about the Big Sky Conference, which he qualified as misstatements following the Wanless interview, did anything to enhance the credibility of UND Administration? Do you really think that Faison/Kelley representations about UND not being in the Big Sky Conference when a contract had been signed the fall of 2010 and scheduling arranged through 2016really did anything to enhance the credibility of UND? Do you think that waiting a full year to challenge the nickname law and participating in the legislative process it later declares as unconstitutionally infringing upon its authority did anything to enhance the credibility of the SBoHE? Do you really think that arguing one law enacted by the legislative process, as reaffirmed by the referral process, and then lobbying to pass another law repealing the first law (isn't this unconstitutional too?) did anything to enhance the credibility of the SBoHE? Do you really think that The Ralph's victory in January concerning the solicitation of signatures did anything to temper support for the petitioners and the petition process? You rail against the wrong crowd. The crowd rail against includes the above as well as the collection of other contradicting, justifying, rationalizing, equivocating, fear mongering, misrepresenting, expedient-minded little worms who seem content to tolerate the intolerable under the false but feel-good premise of "supporting UND athletics and the athletes". Those who seek to sate the twisted bent of a few hyper-sensitive, supercilious, and sanctimonious academics by blithely surrendering over 80 years of proud tradition are not supporters of UND athletics and/or the athletes. Rather, they're weasels preoccupied with a course of expedient dissassociation the end result of which is neither respected nor a fertile field for sowing the seeds of ongoing success for UND athletics. The nickname and logo have done nothing at all. The accomplishments made by the athletes while wearing them were not wrong. The rantings of some drunken idiots and the cynical imputing of "racism" as to the nickname and logo by a few creatively impaired academics do not impugn the honor and integrity and rich tradition represented by them. What should happen is that the worms and weasels should grow actual backbones and help present a collective voice of opposition and dissidence as to the NCAA and its idiotic and inconsistent policies. You may disagree with the position but we have the benefit of consistency, purity, logic and truth. The pro-nickname position has remained constant - always - and simple and understandable. Contrast this with the putrid and lukewarm mish-mash of contraditions, misrepresentations, justifications, falsifications that you've hitched your wagon to. Which will people support? Which will people be drawn to? People are not stupid and you can hardly say that our side has misled by propaganda because the position is one based upon truth. A lot of very dedicated people have worked very hard and there's been precious little money. Most importantly, there's been no one making inaccurate and irresponsible statements from behind a desk to the media.

You may be right. You asked what effect this may or may not have on the federal litigation and 4/19 is the next date and we'll know if it has any effect at all.

Go to Fargo on 4/19 and see for yourself. 2 justices did not think the matter was properly before the court - yet. Justice Kapsner thought a ruling would infringe upon the voters' prerogative. Wouldn't scum the Supreme Court. 3 indicated they'd consider it; SBoHE needed 4 but did not get it. End of story - for now. Let the voters decide. The issue's ripe if the voters approve it. 2 of the Justices did not seen any immediate harm or any harm at this point, especially since UND/SBoHE accessed the legislative process to get the law repealed, etc. Like it or not (and I agree with the two that declined consideration - Justice Maring was a surprise as I thought she'd decide like Justices Kapsner and Crothers) "estoppel" even though it was not argued I am sure played a part in their determinations. How can you present an argument without a District Court record being established and with having participated in the legislative process (lobbying, etc.) and with having waited so long to assert yourself? Another bungling moment by UND and SBoHE; I've lost count.

It's not really a question of "pinning their hopes." It's a matter of dispeling ignorance (as for the NCAA) and educating people, including a Federal Judge.

There are pictures of what happened and there's the news article - I think a couple of them - from 1969. The pipe ceremoney happened; that's fact. We know that some of the people who filed affidavits were part of the group or witnessed it on the outskirts like Pam B, an affiant. What's the pipe ceremony mean and what's its significance? The affidavits tell you. The opposition will tell you that it was not "legal" because the laws "outlawing" indians from practicing their religious ceremonies were in effect. Great racist argument in response guys. Just another arrow in the quiver, if you will, for the proponents of the nickname. This is the crap that JTA and RHHIT ascribe to and is the "basis" for the NCAA not to rely on the pipe ceremony. Indeed, I doubt the NCAA even bothered to figure out the pipe ceremony and certainly did not examine any school/news archives or interview any people, except probably RRIT, JTA and Avis Little Eagle. Even Leonard Peltier, certainly an "activist" and probably would not be any friend to the pro-nickname crowd, has written as to the sanctity and binding nature of the pipe ceremony. People who care have researched this - really researched it - and have interviewed a lot of people about it. The NCAA is going to have to do some serious backtracking because they may well wind up looking like 14 carat fools for discarding, in completely racist and indifferent fashion, sacred tribal ceremonies. What research did the NCAA do before discounting the sacred pipe ceremony? Hopefully, it just did not take JTA and RHHIT word for it. Where are the letters to tribal officials/elders memorializing such research? Where are the indicia of good faith due diliegence? They've taken a racist, high-handed, indifferent, expedient, insensitive and "hostile and abusive" (at the very least in terms of omission as to what they did not do) take on this and they've disrespected and besmirched sacred customs of the people they're ostensibly trying to protect. And, if they've listened to JTA and RRHIT who have a position based upon the "laws" (yes, white laws) proscribing the practice of native religious ceremonies, they've relied upon "white mans' laws" to do it too. It its arrogant myopia, the NCAA has failed to appreicate or even recognize how bad it could look on this. You can bet your right arm that there are a lot of very committed people (both white and Native American) working very hard to help the NCAA hang itself with its contradictions, double-speak, equivocations, failure to investigate or perform any due diligence of any kind, and simple justifications. The NCAA should seriously be performing damage control on this. In addition to the above, it's aligning itself with a slim 2 person tribal council majority PREVENTING a vote that should not even be necessary in the first place but pride and arrogane will likely prevent it from doing so, at least for now. If all goes well, one word will describe the NCAA and its Bernard Franklins - Chagrin.

Fox News, NPR, and ESPN have shown interest and are still interviewing Frank Black Cloud, Frank Burgraff, John Chaske, Archie Fool Bear, etc. Saturday morning is the next one.

I'm sure they're salivating at the opportunity. The athletes should wear FSU T-shirts under their uniforms which would conveniently be displayed during an interview or two. No permission needed there. So, the NCAA would force forfeiture of this or that and all UND would have done woud be to display imagery that's been publicly approved by indians but the NCAA just doesn't like it because 2 members of one tribal council (and, yes it's that close) are preventing a vote on the matter and do not respect a sacred pipe ceremony circa 1969 - something that even Leonard Peltier deems sacred and binding? Peltier has ont commented on UND's situation but he's written that the sacred pipe is binding. How could the NCAA disrespect even his opinion? No whoring conducted by athletes or sponsored by the school? No recruiting violations? No paying of athletes? No tutors taking exams for athletes? Just the sort of thing that should put the asinine policy, unevenly and prejudicially applied as to UND, in the spotlight.

The FSU attire is "approved" by one tribe. Thus, they could not "punish" anyone for wearing it. Conceivably, they could put the Seminole head on a jersey and wear that and just go by "north dakota" pending some sort of arrangement with FSU. It's the voice of dissidence. Where else to get the matter on a national stage other than this weekend?

Are we in China?

Yes. That's how stupid this whole thing is. If someone had any backbone for protest, that's exactly what would be done. They should get a bunch of FSU t-shirts and wear them under their gear and should all be in those t-shirts for interviews in between periods and after the games.

No, the NCAA has remained silent. Even Kelley indicated that he'd have to "push back" if the NCAA came out publicly in that way. I don't recall seeing either side repeatedly saying anything. The NCAA, of course, preferred to remain "silent" on it evidently content with presumptions and innuendo to be taken from its earlier letter with misspelled names, etc.

There's no way the NCAA can limit what fans say or where to the games. The "X" is publicly owned and the fact that it's being "rented" by a "private" body does not place restrictions on free speech. Kind of the reverse of what was argued vis-a-vis the Ralph where it is a private body and the fact that it's being "rented" by a public body does not expand free speech. The irony is that if the NCAA wanted to ban Fighting Sioux gear, it would have to "rent" a privately owned place like the Ralph to do so. Of course, certain members here under the aegis of the surrender agreement and based upon the logic of protecting the school and it's athletes would probably, no doubt, impart some manner of legitimacy as to such an arrangement.

Actually Ira, I doubt the NCAA would want to revoke a championship banner for a team's wearing of "offensive" imagery. That sort of publicity is exactly what is needed. So, the NCAA revokes a banner because a team's wearing a uniform that it feels honors a class of people (intentions are pure) and that same class of people (at least a lot of them anyway) has come out in favor of it. No dishonor at all. Rather, it would be just non-compliance with some arbitrary NCAA mandate that has no foundation in reason or fact.

Actually, that's an idea but there will be plenty of word talking about why they're not wearing their usual jersies anyway. In my opinion, that's exactly what they should do. The nickname and logo are not hostile and abusive. The nickname and logo are supported by the native american namesake tribes (expressly stated and expressly acknowledged support on SL and support on SR by a majority who is being prevented from voting. The NCAA policy is idiotic and capricious and unevenly applied. What a better stage to really get this challenged? It's about more than a nickname and logo - on a tribal level, on a state level and on a university level. If you truly support the athletes, the tribes, the history of UND athletics, the people of ND, then you stand up in favor of 80 years of rich tradition, you tell your alumni association and SBoHE and university officials to have some spine and lobby your Congressional delegation and speak with one voice of opposition to the NCAA. You do not engage in expedient disassociation. So they wear the jersies and their championship (if the win it) gets yanked? UND to NCAA: We did not engage in recruiting violations. We did not get prostitutes for our athletes. We did not pay our athletes. We did not allow our athletes to cheat on tests or allow their tutors to take exams for them. All we did was wear/display some native american imagery (it's approved by the vast majority of native americans by the way) that you just don't like.

There were two guys with Fighting Sioux jerseys on and the name on the back of one was "Hostile" and the name on the back of the other was "Abusive".. Funnier than hell.

Why not? Maybe that would get the Congressional three stooges off of their lazy arses.

That and there's no evidentiary record. They seemed cautious about taking something up with no record established at the district court level. It didn't sound to me as if they bought the AG's "it's a purely legal issue" line but, again, I could be wrong.