jimdahl

Hat tip to PhillySioux for first linking this in another thread, but it's a notable enough piece of news that I'll repost... Alumni leader says UND's future at stake if nickname is sustained

Almost everything went right for UND last week. Of the things I listed to watch, nearly everything went UND's way (a couple desired wins were ties). The Michigan sweep over Miami was the biggest. We're basically in the driver's seat now on the comparison with Miami. You also have to think about the way the "possible outcomes" tree gets pruned -- KRACH only gave Michigan sweeping (a very desirable outcome for UND) a 25% probability of occurring, so when that happened it eliminated 3/4 of the likely scenarios, most less favorable for UND than those that remained. Those moves almost always average out over time, and usually do within a given week, but last week everything went right for the Sioux.

I've been distracted by all the nickname shenanigans, so didn't get this written until today... ND facing #5 UMD has opportunity to climb in the PWR Other than UND's opportunity to make a big move against a high-ranking TUC, most interesting is the noticeable shift to the left in the season outlook. I won't insert last week's to avoid confusion, but here it is. The win 5-6 scenarios have shifted about a full ranking position in UND's favor, good news for Sioux fans.

To be clear, I think those are two different groups of petition supporters... 1) those who deeply understand the risks but still favor keeping the name at all costs (e.g. even if it means leaving the NCAA); 2) those who ignorantly think that making it a "law" will somehow negate the potential downside. I used to think most of the petition supporters were in group #2, but now I wouldn't be at all shocked to find out a majority of North Dakotans are in group #1. If it indeed proves to be the case that people know exactly what they're voting for and a majority make that choice, we'll have earned/deserve whatever outcome results from it.

I think this is an important post that may help explain the difference of opinion between the two sides of debate on this forum. Is it accurate to paint the two groups as those who: * Would rather cheer for the Grand Forks Fighting Sioux (AHL) while UND drops its athletics programs * Would rather see UND continue with its athletics programs under a name other than Fighting Sioux If that's really the difference, it really helps illuminate why some fans of the current Sioux are so far apart on this issue.

That was my point in starting this thread... the law just says something like "UND shall be known as Fighting Sioux", and then a rambling sentence about how they shouldn't take any steps to retire the name. It's not clear UND has to do much to comply with the law, and it's not clear who would have standing to bring suit if they felt UND wasn't sufficiently complying, so I thought there would be a fair chance UND wouldn't change much until it all played out. A few people likely to have good information have suggested that UND is instead planning to make a good faith effort to fully return to using Fighting Sioux just as they were 3 months ago, which surprises me a little, but it may be the right P.R. move.

An old topic, but a new article... FCS expansion on fasttrack

No worries, looks like we're going to get plenty of Sioux nickname news to distract us tonight...

SaveTheSioux update on their facebook page:

The political discussions in this thread are deviating pretty far from relevant to the Fighting Sioux nickname. Discussion of the name controversy and politicians' actions will understandably lead to discussion of those politicians, but please refrain from unrelated partisan political commentary. Thanks.

Part of that is actually a flaw in the data on that site... it's missing the first three games of the season. If you want to verify on your own, just click "specify your own results" but don't change any data. You'll get something different from the actual current PWR. To make it match, add the first three game manually: 20111001 LS 1 AH 0 NC 20111002 LS 1 AH 0 NC 20111004 Ni 0 Mi 1 NC[/code] That should give you the current PWR. Now you can make other adjustments to play "what if".

Indeed. May we live in interesting times. At least I didn't put a lot of effort into renaming the site after Jan. 1

That's a nice one. I actually fired up the calculator myself in another thread last week... this is the first year in a while that the WCHA standings are pretty interesting for UND. I wish I had posted my picks instead of just the final results, though, in that I had UMD and AA split, but can't claim credit for it.

Well, this is the question I was getting at... assume UND feels obligated to follow the old law. The law is "[uND] shall be known as the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux". That doesn't particularly obligate UND to use or not use that name in any particular setting. Even if UND wanted to be in compliance with that, there's a lot of space between their current non-use of "Sioux" and their previous plastering it everywhere. However, they'd at least be violating the spirit of the "may not take action to discontinue" clause if they used the name any less than they were on Jan. 1, 2011, so a return to full use of the name is probably deemed most respectful to the law of the land and the will of the people from a PR perspective (even if it seems a bit unnecessary legally).

I don't see how it matters the least bit whether someone is an alum or not. There are many stakeholders other than alums. I tried to capture that in the site description... A fan is a fan; a friend is a friend. Frankly, it's far easier to be a fan or friend of UND Fighting Sioux athletics when you're a student at the institution than to choose to be if you aren't, so those who come to be fans and friends without matriculating are often bigger and/or more involved fans. That UND fans are so divided on this issue isn't surprising, it's a very emotionally charged topic. But, the extent to which some have begun to declare that those with whom they disagree must either be disloyal (not "true fans") or stupid is disappointing.

Please keep the discussion of the merits of the petitions in the other thread, I'm wondering instead how UND reacts if the petitions pass. By my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) the petition would not only add the repeal of 15-10-46 to a ballot for general election, but it would also nullify the repeal until that election? In that case, until a popular vote this summer, the State of N.D. would again find itself bound by this language (H.B. 1263): My prior is that UND will do whatever it can NOT to resume using the name (there's also a distinct possibility they decide they need the goodwill of "abiding by the will of the people", but in that case they would just resume using the name as much as practical without committing too deeply to it). I suppose seeking an injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the original law is a possibility, though I also wonder if they would effectively ignore the law? The first sentence seems somewhat meaningless as a law -- "shall be known as" doesn't seem obligate UND to do anything in particular (e.g. bring back fightingsioux.com, FSSN, compel its media partners to use "Sioux" or anything like that). This part is a little tougher... "Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act." While UND's relatively decreased use of the name/logo, as compared to Jan. 1, 2011, certainly violates the spirit of that paragraph, it seems likely that UND could get away with making no changes whatsoever. The worst case is someone sues them (who has standing to bring such?), though could UND then just stall on that until the statewide election? Have at it legal eagles... what will UND do if the first petition gains enough signatures?

I can see why people are pessimistic... from the language of the contract, it sounds like the only options are a different REGIONAL TV provider, or non-TV delivery. When UND says "don't worry yet, we're working on it", I assume they mean those two options. Yeah, I tried to hint at that here. Between PS3, Xbox, Apple TV, media PCs, and new TVs themselves being internet connected, a lot of people are starting to be able to watch streaming media without jury-rigging a computer. If some of these college sports broadcasts upped the quality and started tapping into some of those delivery services, it would feel a lot more like watching TV than watching the computer. Watching streaming Netflix or a rented iTunes movie feels to me just like watching TV, but watching college sports broadcasts on the laptop is reminiscent of a decade ago.

It's tough with so many games between now and then, but a sweep would hopefully do a little better than that -- most likely around 10-11, with anything from 8-13 being reasonably likely. A split is likely just a little worse, most likely around 15-16, with anything from 13-18 reasonably likely.

I agree, given the terms of the contract as reported, I don't see what UND could do other than provide some improvement to the internet streaming (better quality, cheaper/free, leveraging some service that's frequently built into STBs/game consoles so you don't need to jury-rig a computer anymore?).

Of course, I had UND do what it takes to ride high into the NCAA's, because if they don't... then it just doesn't matter.

WCHA What-If Calculator Ok, here's mine: WCHA Final Team GP Pts UMD 28 40 UMN 28 40 UND 28 34 Denver 28 34 Nebraska-Omaha 28 33 CC 28 32 MTech 28 28 UW 28 26 SCSU 28 23 Bemidji State 28 20 Mankato 28 15 AA 28 11 [/code] It took a little work to not have Minnesota win outright

UMD is looking vulnerable and UMN fans are starting to favor polls over the PWR, so it's no surprise... Roman gives it to the Gophers Note that his predictions have UND drop 3 of 4 vs UMD and Denver, so fighting for home ice. I'll fire up the What-if Calculator and see if I can do better

There are so many possibilities remaining that it's less certain than that, and more a set of probabilities. To stand a better than 50% chance of ending the regular season in position to make the NCAA tournament, UND can only lose two more. However, there are less likely scenarios in which UND can lose 3 or 4 (or more) additional games and still be in position to make the NCAA tournament. There's also the possibility of not winning the WCHA tournament, but still getting a big boost from it (e.g. sweep the opening round, win one or two games against just the right team, then get a loss), though that becomes a bit of a longer shot.

UND's PWR not likely to move much in bye week Having lost none last weekend, we can still afford about two more losses... I also always find it fun to see how much our ranking can move on weeks we don't play.