Chewey

Jesus, so you disagree with him. We get it. He's not a supporter of the petition process so he'd probably qualify for your smart group in another context. Obviously, you have a unique perspective on the recruiting side of things having played football - heck you were even captain of our "Rough Justice" squad and a good one at that :~) From your perspective, you could certainly throw me in with the "dumb people" though because I support the petition process.

Don't forget the NCAA brass and quite nearly all of the university presidents no doubt believe themselves to be part of the group of "smart people being vastly outnumber by ... uh .. less smart people." Many of that sort of group of such "smart people" actually advocate for voting rights for only the "educated." Probably not such a smart group after all?

Sioux Nickname article per CNN http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/north-dakota-mascot/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Yes, but the SBoHE is not a 4th branch of government. The legislature's job is to "micromanage" which includes the ongoings of institutions of higher learning. Why not prohibit the legislature from micromanaging the funding of higher ed? I was in my final year of law school when the SBoHE stuff was done and I thought it was incredibly inappropriate then and it just looks ridiculous now.

Anyone ever thought that the SBoHE ceded this argument by not doing so initially AND by sending troops of people to lobby the legislature to repeal it? First words out of Gerald VandeWalle's mouth would be: "But didn't the SBoHE subordinate itself to the legislative process by sending people to lobby against the law when it was passed and by sending people to lobby in favor of its repeal?" And, "What if the legislature passed a law prohibiting smoking within 10 feet of any public building, including college campuses. Couldn't the SBoHE in its 'plenary' power reverse that?" Could it be that the best thing Shaft, et al could do would be to let it alone? Challenge the constitutionality of a law that that was passed through the legislative process which the SBoHE participated in? Right, that's not going to impact anything. Don't know if there's a laches or res judicata type scenario here but, at the very least, it will look foolish.

Big Sky does not have problems with the nickname. It has problems with UND possibly not being a "viable" member. What does that mean? Let's see, that would depend on any loss of revenue UND would have because of not being able to host playoff games. Perhaps 10 protestors at some games with nothing better to do. That boils down to $$. Are UND's television partners/sponsors going to bag on it? If one just focuses on NCAA sanctions, one could probably divine a very quantifiable number. Put this concern with viability into dollars and sense instead of leaving it in innuendo-land.

Not an insurmountable obstacle though Darrell. What is the capacity of the "Al" right now? 12,000 or so? Certainly all the money that would be required to jettison the nickname and logo could be applied to more productive uses such as expanding capacity there.

Believe it or not, the documentation says so. Capice?

Scheduling is already in effect to 2016 - http://www.wdaz.com/...rticle/id/8191/ (April 28, 2011 -- right around the time the nickname bill was passed) Fullerton did not say that if the Montana schools bolt to the Mountain West (and they're being pursued mightily, as I understand it from the FOIA responses) Big Sky is fairly screwed Fullerton did not say that two of the 13 schools are FB only schools -- Cal Poly and UC Davis -- and if the Montana schools bolt, conference is down to 8 schools anyway with UND in the mix Montana, MSU, and UND are the only schools that attract a regional or TV interest. UND is needed as an insurance policy. Also, Fullerton stated that some Big Sky Presidents don't care much about the nickname. By stating that Fullerton is effectively stating that a unanimous vote to expel UND is not even theoretically possible. Fullerton admits that the WAC badly wants Big Sky schools. If UND was available, the WAC would instantly accept UND (like they did for swimming). No bitching about travel -- See Louisiana Tech. With Idaho, Denver, Seattle, Utah State, N Mex St, and San Jose St, the competition is actually a step up, but the problem for UND is that it would need to spend more for football. Big Sky is as interested, if not more interested in UND as an institution of Higher Learning: the EERC, Med & Law Schools as well as the Undergraduate program, mean as much, or more, than the Athletic programs. The actual NCAA "sanctions" really do not amount to much. Contract to BS signed while UND was known as "Fighting Sioux" no representations to be relied upon in writing that name would be changed -- http://www.scribd.co...ig-Sky-Contract (prior to 11/30/10 deadline) The NCAA is working on a neutral site for the national championship game as they do for division 2 championships. Conference championships are not subject to NCAA sanctions (See WCHA Final Five) The SBoHE and Kelley Administration, I have no doubt, have encouraged the NCAA to hold fast. More will be revealed in the litigation in this regard, no doubt, if it goes that far.

Dan Barreiro? Credible? Seriously? He despises North Dakota, generally, and ND hockey specifically. That moron has spouted off much like so-called "Dark Star" about ND and its Canadians for at least 15 years. He is the very last person who should be using the "whiners" term. Gophers have a few bad years and he's throwing Lucia under the bus and now Lucia's his best friend, or so he thinks.

If I even had the ability to register as a disappointment on his level, it would be a success.

Duane Espegard says, But let’s say the proponents are wrong and, indeed, the NCAA puts you under sanctions. The Big Sky says, ‘This is not going to work for us and you can’t be part of us.’ And the schools that said they wouldn’t schedule us hold to that Wisconsin already indicated its intent to continue playing UND post 2013 to 2014. Minnesota will do the same. It's failure to say anything in response to SL's letter request is indicative of a school who has had representatives say too much already. Too much money involved and there is a sizable component of UND grads in the Twin Cities. Until this year, the hockey arena was a cemetery, unless the Sioux or the Badgers were in town, and the football stadium has been nothing short of a kasota stone mausoleum. In part, it will never be a Camp Randall stadium because of where it's located. In another part, it will never be one because the Gophers just suck in FB and probably will for the foreseeable future. They're going to need "puffs" from the lower-tier D1 schools to beat up on but even that strategy has not worked to garner a token 2 or 3 wins given the U's experience with NDSU. Maybe they wont want to schedule UND because then they'd lose to 2 ND schools instead of 1. Now, they're going to need to schedule my alma matter, St. John's, or even St. Thomas to get them evidently. Better yet, they're going to need to schedule Hamline or Macalester. They're already hurting for attendance and wins and can't afford the luxury of nitpicking nicknames.

As white guys, we're applying an inapposite standard, at least as far as the SR Tribal Council is concerned. The Pipe ceremony is entirely binding on all subsequent Tribal Councils and, well, every member of the Tribe that existed then and will exist after that. As far as the NCAA is concerned, white man legal concepts of comity, contracts, etc. should not enter the picture if it is genuinely sensitive to native customs. To demand a signed contract after the Pipe ceremony has been conducted is actually an insult, as far as I understand it as a white guy. The NCAA bascially is saying "Well, this indian says this and this indian says that and so we'll default (probably purposefully and conveniently by design) to a (slim) majority of a Tribal Council." In terms of Native customs and the meaning and binding nature of the same, the elders are the final arbiters. Any members of any Tribal Council are bound by those customs and decisions of any Tribal Council do not supersede them. If the NCAA were truly concerned about the tribes, the NCAA would be investigating the Pipe ceremony and what it entails. People who do not abide by those customs fail to do so at their own peril. The 10 Commandments are not "binding" on me or our Government. However, if I decide to disregard those same safety principles I can expect a fair amount of choas and disharmony in my own life. I am Catholic and when I go to Confession, my sins are forgiven so says Catholic orthodoxy. By analogy, what the NCAA has elected to do is to deny the legitimacy of that piece of doctrine and demand a "contract" stating the same signed by the Pope. The Pope would not even have the authority to sign such a contract and would laugh at the NCAA because that Catholic truism existed for millenia before this Pope took office and will exist for millenia after he leaves. That priniciple has been hashed out and resolved through the Magisterium and neither the Pope nor the NCAA can deny its legitimacy or binding nature vis-a-vis Catholic orthodoxy. Just because some renegade Bishops or priests indicate that such is not the case does not make it so. We have this sort of thing right here with the SR and the Pipe ceremony.

The Pipe ceremony is binding. The elders on the reservation are very upset with JTA and RHHIT as they have besmirched sacred tribal customs by persuading a majority (a very slim one at that) to not countenance it as valid. It's not up to the Tribal Council's determination. It was valid ab initio which makes the stupidity and outright racism of the NCAA in not recognizing it even more profound and stunning. Hell, no less than Leonard Peltier has written about the sanctity and binding nature of the Pipe Ceremony. If anyone wants a quick crash course as to its sanctity, all one needs to do is read a little blurb in any book by Robert Utley - THE authority on Custer - to see how he disrespected the Pipe ceremony and to see how Native Americans feel about bad things happening to those who disresepect it.

The initiated measure is something that is a stand alone matter apart from the present referral. If 13,500 signatures are not obtained by the end of today, the other matter still goes if 26,000 signatures are obtained by August ? (forget the date at present).

I know. I know well the attorney that worked on that case. They did pretty well too when the CP derailed in January, 2002.

I sure hope you're right, Goon, for ND's sake.

As I've said before, Reed and other attorneys so involved are doing it pro bono. Anyone who wants to do so can ask Roger Yankton about that.

Yep. Agreed. But, to be fair (and, possibly, paranoid?), some of that "go back on the resevation" stuff may have been listed by anti-nickname "plants" just like the allegations of petitions being left unattended, etc. But, enough of that crap has been spewed here by many and you're very right about the lack of it being spewed now is a positive. The Native Americans are the most committed of the supporters. Regardless of position, however, that sort of vitriol has no place in responsible discourse. There was an issue up in Cavalier where a store owner was collecting signatures and was right there at the counter with the petitions out and an anti-nicknamer tried to rip the petitions away and actually ripped a page out and ran out of the store. This is true, believe it or not, and just shows how vile and juvenile many antis are.

It is about the people, not the color of the jersey or a name. I agree with you but it is also about the people who gave the nickname and who have mistreated and ignored and, now conveniently, blamed (Where were they?, etc.).

The PC Nazis don't assign any weight to it which is ironic in light of their PC attributes but I would not classify too many people here as PC Nazis. Most detest the NCAA at least as much as I do. Just differing positions concerning the purpose and efficacy of the petitions.

That's exactly what they are doing. A prominent UND alum lives right by Berg in Fargo. I'm sure there's heat being applied. That said, anyone would be preferable to Heitkamp in the Senate for ND.

It's not about "hurt feelings." For the SBoHE, it was/is about achieving a result. It's about doing things in a way that is obviously counterproductive.

Dragging out the "thought police" imagery misses the point entirely. After the ongoing bungling ("bungling" presumes an element of at least artless sincerity, which we know did not exist in the first place) of the matter by the UND officials and the SBoHE and after various overt examples by the SBoHE that good faith was no where to be found, anyone with any degree of ordinary common sense should have seen that such verbiage and haste would do nothing but add fire to the situation. Perhaps they didn't really think about it. Unbelievable that they didn't since the Legislature itself certainly got it which is why it came up with the 3 year "cooling off" period in the first place. Message: Do nothing for 3 years, except use the "North Dakota" reference. Simple. Succinct. Not hard to grasp or follow.

My point is that a little more due care employed would have gone a long way. Kelley and Johnson were a bit rash and lacking in foresight in bowling headlong into this "scrubbing" foray 2 seconds after the repeal law was passed.