ScottM

I tend to like the fact that a team like Union, or Ferris, or even Sacred Heart, has a legitimate chance most seasons of making it into the tourney and the FF. I think it broadens the appeal of what is generally a niche sport, and many Americans tend to like underdog stories. The fact the men's hockey tourney is only second to men's bouncyball in tourney revenue must excite the bean counters at the NC$$ too when a "no-name" team beats somebody like UND, BC, Minnesota, Michigan. etc. this time of year.

Eades was my original choice to replace Blais. I'd worry that MSU-Mankato really doesn't support its hockey program relative to other schools, but head coaching gigs don't come up every day.

Comparing the Sioux moniker issue to "rape" is as stupid as comparing it to a "hate crime". Jesus, somebody trot out the Holocaust and we can finally reach the gutter.

Really? You've read the agreement with BSC? Much like the NC$$, it's their ball, their park and their rules. UND is has no right to be a member of either organization. If UND's sanctions adversely impact other BSC schools, you can bet your bar card they'll kick UND to the curb.

"Whoop-di-do" ... If that's the attitude from the 'su faithful, I fail to understand the screaming opposition to statewide sanctions should the June and/or November votes pass.

Do you honestly think the same "do gooders" we see now would have been silent if UND attempted to change its name years ago to appease the bedwetting academics or the NC$$? I remember the uproar when Kendall Baker tried to do it over a summer session around 1990. You're pretty ignorant about this issue in general. There's some good background in the earliest threads of this forum. Come back when you have a hot clue.

And yet you still have the temerity to blame UND for this mess. UND did everything it legally could to comply with the terms of the settlement. It did not receive the appropriate approvals, and moved to retire the moniker. Politicians and Spirit Lake, who were conspicuously absent in 2005 onward when it may have mattered most, decided the Sioux moniker needed to be "saved" for UND. UND is now under sanction. Therefore, since politicians are creatures of their constituents, the people of North Dakota should share in what they brought onto one of their public institutions.

Really? Who? Most of us on this board who supported UND and its attempts to drop the Sioux moniker actively fought against the introduction and passage of Clueless Al's legislation because we understood the NC$$ was wrapped in its own little, self-righteous bubble and that it would not back down one iota. And here we are nearly a year later. Clueless Al is still clueless, the NC$$ hasn't budged and UND is under sanctions by virtue of the actions of the North Dakota legislature, So I'd say it's only fair that the people of the state really understand the full measure of the sanctions they brought upon UND through their elected legislature, or through their own votes.

They know damn well the sanctions are designed to hurt UND, otherwise the hockey team wouldn't have played in generic unis. Any vote, for any reason, in favor of UND keeping the Sioux moniker is really aimed at hurting UND, not some insipid notion of "freedom of speech" or the "NC$$ is 'wrong'". Their motivations in voting are irrelevant. If UND is to be saddled with the Sioux moniker as a state school, the entire state should share in that joy.

No, the SC policy applies because the Confederate flag flies on state capitol grounds. The Mississippi policy applies because the Southern Cross is part of the the state flag. The individual schools' own actions are irrelevant, sort of like UND's own attempts to dump the Sioux moniker would not prevent the NC$$ from painting North Dakota with the same, broad brush if the executive committee so ruled.

Yep, There was a certain wisdom for keeping much of the higher education system out of the legislative process. Maybe Clueless Al will start messing with curriculum next. PolSci 101 "Al Carlson: North Dakota's Self-Appointed Savior and Resident Tool" ...

You'd think certain UND faculty and staff members would see the necessity of a statewide sanction since the state is not only allowing, but forcing, UND to keep the Sioux moniker around. Perhaps it would also allow the NC$$ to not be as hypocritical as usual too. I don't really see a downside.

There's major distinction between "UND supporters" and everybody else who fall into various camps of moniker supporters, hockey-only fans, anti-higher education grubs, delusional tinfoil hat-types who think the NC$$ really cares about Indians and the "screw UND" crowd from 'SU. Quite frankly, I think the UND supporters are hosed, and I have no problems with spreading UND's sanctions across the state since it seems appropriate.

Why are you so concerned if you think the 2005 settlement somehow prevents the NC$$ from broadening its attack on NA imagery? This is, after all, an organization that changed its own rules after the Board sued it so it would stand up to further attacks. It basically fears no government, and it buys influence in congress which has probably allowed its monopoly of college sports to tighten. And suing the NC$$ for broadening sanctions to cover other member schools in North Dakota? On what legal basis? Who's going to sue? The Board? 'SU? If 'su or another school didn't like it, they could go independent or join the NAIA. Nobody's forcing them to be a member of the NC$$, which is what we've heard from those in North Dakota who seek to maintain the Sioux moniker.

Really? Ask South Carolina and Mississippi about their states' use of the Confederate flag on state office buildings and their inability to host NC$$ tournaments. The NC$$ can basically do whatever it wants to member schools and their home states. And North Dakota's failure to either stand up to the NC$$ in a meaningful fashion, such as getting its lazy-ass congressional delegation to move in 2005 like Florida and Utah, and now its continued imposition of the Sioux moniker on UND would be a perfect marker for the NC$$ to show it's "serious" about removing NA imagery from member schools by any means necesary.

Complicity for maintaining UND's current moniker lays with the people of North Dakota who perpetuate its use through the legislative and initiative processes, so they should be put under the same sanctions imposed on the school. This has nothing to do with opinions, political manuvering, etc. Let the state reap what it sows.

Oh, I quite agree with the last sentence. However, the first volley was lobbed in St. Paul. And that was relatively easy with regard to unis, It will become more problematic if/when the sanctions screw up conference planning, tourneys, etc. and UND's sanctions affect other schools too.

UND controlled the legislative processs? Are you stoned? UND, knowing the potential consequences, which we've just seen for the men's hockey team, actively fought against Fargo's rep, Al Carlson's idiotic attempts to gain power for himself. Since the state, vis a vis its legislature and referral process, wants to hang UND with the Sioux moniker, it should suffer the effects as well as the school.

Maybe you should sue SR and force them to bind themselves to moldy pictures and vague recollections.

Al Carlson and his acolytes have basically screwed UND's chances at D1, unless you accept the moronic premise that UND should act like Alcorn State or some community college. Short of dropping the name finally, UND will remain on the H&A list and be sanctioned accordingly. Anybody hanging the tinfoil hat on SL's litigation is going to be sorely disappointed. In my own view, if the state of North Dakota insists on keeping the Sioux moniker around UND's neck, the entire state should suffer under said sanctions.

It was an easy punt for them. Wait for the vote, if it passes, start over and you get past the "ripeness" hurdle and get into the separation of powers issues that may actually benefit the Board. Frankly I'm surprised they waited this long to do nothing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ... perhaps we should petition the NC$$ to put the entire state under sanctions ala Mississippi and South Carolina since NoDak voters may be as complicit as anybody in keeping a "hostile and abusive" moniker strapped around UND's neck.

In other words, they may revisit the issue again if the June vote sticks a fork in UND's athletic department. *punt*

I respectfully disagree. I see the their approach as very pragmatic, not so much to push their agenda, but to lay the ground work to snuff out the remaining schools' NA imagery in the future. These guys may be "true believers" but they didn't ascend the heights of academia by being stupid. If UND didn't put up a fight, they would have had no incentive to change their original rules to create some legitimacy and bolster them from further attack. They took a hard line with UND this summer to send a message to the other schools, that they do indeed make the rules. Once the SL litigation ends with a defeat for SL, either at the trial court or appellate level, the NC$$ now has sharp stick against future judicial interference. They can revisit their own policies, and decide that tribal "consent" really isn't enough, because it's not the tribe's to give in the first place, or the "oppressed" tribes really aren't capable of giving consent, sort of a duress argument. Then they roll that up with any dissenting tribes' views, and decide the NA names all have to go. So, FSU becomes the Rabid Chipmunks and Utah becomes the Fightin' Iguanas ...

The Wild would hinder his career, like everybody else's. I'm thinking he'd probably do well in StL under Ken Hitchcock, but I'm not sure they could afford him. Detroit?