Chewey

I like it Fetch. I'm sure it will/has offended some gay groups which is why I like it even more.

I appreciate your insights, Ira, and you're right about a lot of people needing to have done more some time ago. However, Kelley and Faison and Shaft do deserve blame - a lot of it. The emails and documentation provided via the FOIA requests show, without question, that UND was admitted to the Big Sky in November, 2010. For Shaft, Kelley and Faison to go to the legislature and indicate that the retention of the nickname and logo would preclude UND's membership in the Big Sky is nothing short of duplicitous pure and simple. Contracts had been signed, multiple years' worth of schedules had been set forth, etc. There are damages clauses in contracts, of course. Were UND bounced by the Big Sky, any prosepctive damages would become liquidated (i.e. identified, defined) and UND would be in for a big pay day from the Big Sky and its membership. Shaft outright lied about Notre Dame's supposed "concern" with the nickname and logo and then was torpedoed by ND's own officials who denied that. Add all of this, and more not stated here, on top of the behavior of Kelley, Shaft and Faison during the three-year "negotiation" period and there's no question that these three are ground zero for blame and can not be accorded any kind of credibility at all. Look at the testimony. Review the litany of FOIA responses, emails, etc. Listen to Frank Black Cloud. What he has been saying is all based upon the FOIA responses and he's entitled to a lot more credibility than Shaft, Kelley and Faison. The lay of the land with some posters on here is that the Spirit Lake Tribe should hopefully succeed but let all other avenues drop because Kelley Shaft and Faison and other duplicitious actors are literally propagandizing this or that about the Big Sky or about what the NCAA will or won't do. Do you honestly think that the NCAA is that stupid to do anything that would only bolster anti-trust claims? Does it seem reasonable to you that the Spirit Lake Tribe should conceivably succeed in Court against the NCAA only to have Shaft, Kelley and Faison indicate a couple of years from now that the bridge has been, money has been invested transitioning away from the name and more money won't be invested to bring it back? The petition process is essential element and is certainly not some meaningless tangent. During the Gopher/Sioux series, some people were walking over 100 to 200 yards to sign the petitions with numbed fingers in the cold. The court decision only served to motivate people to do exactly that. Your blaming of the tribes is without merit and that take on the matter is simply and expedient misdirection of responsibility that's been tendered by Shaft, Faison and Kelley and even the AG and the SBoHE - yes that same tableau of flip-flopping bunglers which represents in microcosm the broad scope of incompetence and duplicity that's been exhibited during the whole process. Where were the tribes? They were never involved in the process post-surrender agreement. When SL got organized and voted in favor of the nickname and logo, what happened? The SBoHE threw out deadlines that were never part of the surrender agreement in the first place, the SBoHE moved up the transition date, etc. No members of any tribal council even signed off on the surrender agreement. The whole "negotiation" process was never conducted in good faith, as is evidenced by the SBoHE response to SL's vote. The tribes are the very last groups of people who should be blamed in this. The fact that some are so enraged over a nickname and logo evinces nothing more than a complete lack of intellectual and psychological integrity. It is a blasphemy really, in my opinion, because such a mindset is indicative of a petty conceit - a fraudulent egoism that has its genesis in self-loathing,self-pitying hypersensitivities that the holder of such egoism expects everyone to accomodate - that is festooned by boredom, creative lethargy and complete intellectual dissonance which flies in the face of and is nothing more than a cynical parody of the true intellectual and creative gifts given to each of us by our Creator. Where a disposition of absolutism is met with a disposition of compromise, what do you think happens? Such conceit and hypersensitivity over an innocuous nickname -- something that has done and caused absolutely NO harm in over 80 years -- is unacceptable. To give such a disposition any manner of credence or credibility is unacceptable. To acquiesce to such a disposition is unacceptable. Your logic could have been employed in many instances throughout history. The Free French could have said "well we did not build the Maginot Line to cover our asses via the Ardennes, so we're just stuck now." Where was America until 1941 in World War II? Where were the Bishops of the Cathoic Church during the terrible sex abuse scandals in the 60's, 70's and 80's? Maybe people, including the tribes, trusted that Shaft, Kelley and Faison and others would not be duplicitious and would actually work towards retaining the name. Obviously the nickname and logo do not rise to the level of importance of these things but I only use these examples to point out how expedient and flawed that argument is. Expedient dissassociation is never a way to address any issue and any time is good time to get involved and fight. Native American rights and sacred customs are at issue here, like it or not. The NCAA conduct towards the native supporters of the nickname and logo is nothing short of abusive.

Well, then they should at least use the exact phraseology of what's offensive: Middle-aged, frustrated, self-absorbed, nacissistic sluts. The one version of the word "cougar" is just a nice reference to that. If they're going to be offended anyway, one may as well use the terms that are much more applicable to the situation.

Seen it already. Burggie did a very nice job.

No, no and no. The same PC stakeholders who would have to be appeased now will have to be appeased 3 years from now. The whole process began as a surreal clusterf##$#! the day the surrender agreement was signed. It became even more of a joke during the 3 year period thereafter via the handling by a completely duplicitous, erractic, incompetent and mercurial SBoHE. I don't know how or why you would believe that you or we would have any semblance of control over the issue via the same panoply (yes, this particular word is used for irony in this particular context) of characters. Look, the people who are in control are the ones who have a unique penchant for incessant bitching and who evidently have a perennial employment - or at least a boredom -- problem. The ones whom you think can usurp that crowd have a proclivity for passifying that same crowd for fear that said crowd will never stop bitching and will never go away. What needs to happen to have any control and what has needed to happen to have any control is for the 2nd much larger group to tell the excessively miniscule 1st group to pound sand or just deal with it. The only people willing to do so have been, evidently, the members of the Spirit Lake Tribe and the people suing the NCAA and circulating and signing the petitions. We do not have control. We have not had control. We will not have control. The position that one has control over an issue where a select and miniscule group essentially has veto power is a fallacy. It's at least as much of a fallacy, if not more of one, as your position that the petitioners are out of line by thinking that they can change the position of the NCAA by what they're doing. Whether it's smart or not or misguided or not, they're at least doing something. Contrast this with the pablum from Kelley, Faison and Shaft who publicly propound that all "stakeholders" will have a "voice" but then really just acquiesce to the same miniscule crowd that has had the real control/voice from the very beginning. Such control has always been essentially ceded to them via lack of backbone on the part of other people and via the lack of any demand for a backbone by still other people.

Yep. You got me figured out alright.

Right. Can't be that busy underneath your bridge these days?

Look no further than the electronic boards at the women's hockey game today. "Pride of the North" is being used a lot, or at least it was today. "Force of the North" is taken, mind you, but "Pride of the North" is wide open. If either some stupid animal that's used by 100 schools or an asinine weather pheonomenon will not work, just pick a tired emotion out of the hat. I don't think anyone gets it. You're not in control of the nickname process or any future nickname. Why deceive yourselves into thinking that you are? Only the "stakeholders'" opinions will matter and, guess what, none of us is a "stakeholder" irrespective of what Kelley says. It will be something completely inane like "Pride of the North" or "sUNDogs" or something equally stupid. "Control what's yours to control"? The newsflash that you're missing is that it's not yours to control at all. The nickname will not be brought back if the petition process fails irrespective of the litigation because Kelley, Faison, Shaft, etc. will say that the money's already been spent to erase it and more money will not be spent to bring it back. This is why the petition process must go hand in hand with the litigation. Shaft lied about Notre Dame's supposed concern with the nickname and logo. Kelley and Faison and Shaft misrepresented the whole Big Sky issue to the state legislature. They are not entitled to any credibility. UND was already in as of November, 2010 and schedules had been set out for two years and it would take a nearly unanimous vote of the Presidents of an economically faltering and attendance depressed conference to determine otherwise. The Big Sky needs UND moreso than UND needs it. UND has money and it has great attendance and it has a rabidly loyal and well-traveled fan base. Were it not for the Montana schools, who want to go to the Mountain West Conference as I understand it, the Big Sky would already be a memory. You're not in control. Passivity and a proclivity for assuming as fact propaganda fed irresponsibly by Kelley, Faison and Shaft only will reinforce that mindset held by the real "stakeholders." Several counts of the complaint appear to have significant merit to me, particularly the anti-trust provisions. However, the petition process is an essential augmentation to the litigation process. As I've said before, Kelley, Faison and Shaft and the SBoHE have gone beyond the point of no return on this issue. Name stays/comes back, they go. Name goes/stays gone, they stay. Pretty simple.

You're pretty fixated on that, aren't you? I thought I had you on "ignore". I'll voluntarily do that now.

This is a highly nuanced topic, especially given Spirit Lake's approval and Standing Rocks' unacknowledged 1969 approval and NCAA collaboration with the slim SR majority to prevent a vote. The petition process and any NCAA conduct based thereon fits very nicely into the litigation area, particulaly the anti-trust claims. Somehow, I think the NCAA and its lawyers are smarter than that. As I've said before, I'm sure they're very arrogant but they're not stupid.

<p> </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> The litigation will run its course. &nbsp;The NCAA may get a couple of claims thrown out but some will remain. &nbsp;The ravings of a couple of drunk fools constitute a poor basis upon which to make factual conclusions about the petition process or about people who support and effectuate it. &nbsp;The U of M, U of W, etc. are, without a doubt and without the need for any court determination, publicly funded institutions. &nbsp;Both of these schools have already stuck their collective feet in their mouths with their previous public statements (and, WI recently - around 2 months ago and irrespective of this issue - stated that it would continue playing UND in hockey) and neither has said nary a word about it since. &nbsp;Finally, someone smarter than a long-winded, out of touch academician is advising them evidently. &nbsp;To the extent that any refusal to play UND can be tied to the NCAA &quot;best practices policy&quot;, what do you think that does to the anti-trust and even the state actor claims vis-a-vis the NCAA? &nbsp;Certainly, such claims would not be hurt by it. &nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> The NCAA has said that this is a state issue and it is being dealt with at the state level. It makes no sense to have victory in Court only to have Kelley and Faison and Shaft indicate that we've already retired the name, so it's all water over the dam now. After the misdirection play they employed concerning the Big Sky Conference and Shaft's factually unsupported statements vis-a-vis Notre Dame being concerned about the nickname and logo, I doubt there's much credibility in that triumvirate. How is reinstating the nickname and logo if and when a court victory is achieved furthered by retiring the nickname hastily, even though there's a three year window, only to have people give the Spirit Lake Tribe an atta-boy pat on the back and indicate that we can't endure this emotional trauma again so we're not bringing it back? If you have Faison, Kelley and Shaft indicate that they will agree to resume the nickname and logo if and when a court victory is realized, then your argument has more merit. Expedient disassociation with the nickname and logo and getting them out of sight and out of mind (or so they think) and disrespecting the wishes of the many Native Americans who wish to retain them (under the cover of the NCAA is making us do it) is the only course they intend to follow.

Lots of signatures were probably obtained anyway, as I understand it. In particular, this decision may have motivated people to sign and may have pissed them off.

Yep. This weekend they will get a lot more.

The NCAA is akin to a fourth prong of government and is completely unaccountable to even state governments. It's loose claim as a "private entity" will be tested with the law suit. Hopefully, a court can bring them back to earth but the NCAA will settle if it sniffs out even the most modest chance of an opposing side prevailing. This is why no settlement should be even acquiesced to let alone proposed. Force a court decision and force the NCAA to live with it. If Hoeven and Conrad had any kind of spines at all, they would have been all over the NCAA if not in 2007 certainly after its complete dissing of the state government this year. What a couple of wet noodles. Wanna bet that they jump on board the bandwagon if the litigation looks like it's going to be successful?

Frank B.C.'s allegations are supported by the emails and documentation obtained by the FOIA. He's not making them in a vacuum. This isn't created out of whole cloth. The reason for the scare tactics is that they know the petition process will likely have enough signatures. The documentation/emails is right there. Do you really think Frank B.C. would make such allegations if there was no support? How would that be for the side he supports? He's a smart guy.

So, the NCAA is going to hold UND athletics hostage and kill UND athletics. That could fit nicely into the anti-trust part of the lawsuit. I am sure there is an historic pattern of practice involving other institutions that could augment the argument. The NCAA is going to want that, I'm sure.

If you don't think they have any inclination to ban chants or stop people from wearing this or that, I suggest one look at what's going on at the U of Illinois and the "USA chant" last year or how "offended" some administrators have become with the ongoing chants of historical/traditional significance involving/mentioning/depicting the Chief. If you don't think that won't happen at UND, you're kidding yourself.

Kelley should be bagged on for his lack of candor, lack of leadership and lack of respect for the nickname and logo. He has talked and still does talk out of both sides of his mouth. So, we're supposed to be retiring the nickname and logo with "dignity and respect" but buffoon Peter Johnson uses imagery such as "scrubbing" and "hunting down." I don't buy this pixelated contradiction. This crew has not shown leadership at all. I am sure that when UND joined the Big Sky a contract or some other document memorializing things was duly drafted, reviewed and signed. I would be surprised if that is not how such things are routinely done. I am sure that had the Big Sky booted UND, there would likely have been a damages clause that would have been employed. This is likely why the Commissioner only gave opaque and obscure treatment of the matter from which innuendo only could be drawn. I am pretty sure that was intentional and I am pretty sure that this is why. At this point, Kelley, Faison, Shaft, et al have achieved the point of no return. Retirement of the nickname is tantamount to career preservation, pure and simple.

Don't know what that person has been smoking. I support the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. I am a white catholic and conservative. I can think of a few groups that this writer may wish to join, or at least attend a meeting, in order to augment her own exposure to diversity. Without a white conservative catholic, we don't have the full diversity panoply, right? And, "diversity" does not mean that every freak show is entitled to legitimacy.

Yep. It's going to kill recruiting. It's going to kill donations. It's going to kill whatever cash reserves Penn St. has now. I'm sure the NCAA will find a way to impose sanctions. It won't take long for the lawsuits to roll on and Penn St. is going to be eager to settle them to get the whole thing behind them and to start the recovery process. No matter the length of time, it will be an indelible stain on PSU. Some lawyers will get easy pay days.

That's why this needs to be opposed with steadfast conviction and inflexible resolve.

Regardless of sides - and I'm only using this quote as a sample because I fall in line with your view more -- this sort of exercise is really unproductive. I'll cheer for UND regardless of name and I've seen ScottM at a few Gopher Sioux games at the Mariucci as well as during his time at law school there. Regardless of position, ScottM, IraMurphy, Teeder11, Sicatoka, etc support the school and the programs and the nickname. DaveK obviously does too and one need not have attended UND to get cred, I think. The NCAA has not just victimized the School. The NCAA has not just flouted the laws/will of a state sovereign. The NCAA has appropriated dominion and control over a namesake that does not belong to it. It has disrespected and soiled the will of a Tribal sovereign and has aligned itself with a majority (small majority at that) of the SR Tribal Council who has denied its population a say on this issue and who has passed resolutions which transgress the SR Constitution. I'm not going to scum anyone because I have no right to criticize the motivations or sincerity or anything else of the people on here who just want to move on. I am sure they are loyal to the institution too. But, Native Americans -- those supposedly for whom the policy was designed to protect - are being treated with hostility, capriciousness, indifference, etc. by an unaccountable, low-core aggressive, multi-billion dollar, non-profit who is using its monopolistic power to ram-rod a social agenda down the throats of its members and down the throats of Native Americans. The NCAA has elected to portray the nickname and logo as being tantamount to jackboots and a swastika. The NCAA has elected to state as a matter of public record that the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is nothing more than a racial slur. There are many facets to this matter other than the school itself not the least of which is discrimination being perpetrated against Native Americans via the NCAA policy.

Wrong. They've already opened their mouths about it. The reason they're not saying anything now is that they realized they were holding shovels in a ditch and decided to throw them aside and climb out while there still some room for wiggling. With U of W and U of M and U of I and, to a degree, the B.S. would be fairly straightforward in connecting the dots just by what they've represented as a matter of public record already.

Haven't been paying attention to Supreme Court decisions lately, have you? Hint: It involves the issue of speech. Where's the definitive "we won't admit UND" from the B.S. in response to the SL Tribe's letter? Something tells me they know better.

Uh, no they can't. The B.S. is made up of public institutions and UND is a public institution. If the B.S. won't admit UND or if public institutions won't play UND because of what it calls its teams, that has 1983 lawsuit written all over it. The anti-nickname episcopacy can carp all it wants in the safety of its gilded ivory tower but things get a little more complicated when they step out into reality.