ScottM

What's readily apparent is that you can't even distinguish between an "article" and an "opinion piece". Then again, you probably think SAB is as credible as The Wall Street Journal, or High Times. In any event, I think you should write the NC$$ and express your outrage and tell SL's valiant story. I'm sure your articulate, well-reasoned prose will show them the error of their ways, and they'll relent on this silliness by Monday.

Sorry, I did laugh at this. See you all in hell.

I never bought into the 30 year framework. If some branch of SR government is willing to dismiss a pipe ceremony conducted on its own land, it could just as easily dismiss a written agreement. Witness the change in tone on SL. At first they didn't care or opposed UND's use of the Sioux moniker. Now they're trying to hang it around our neck. Again, these are sovereign nations and suing them for breach of contract is next to impossible. We'd have better luck with Iran or Venezuela.

It's one of the reasons I figured the Sioux name at UND could become a hindrance for UND when the settlement agreement was released. The tribes are sovereign nations. Even if they agreed to UND's use in 2005, nothing would ever prevent either one or both from withdrawing that support at some point, and we'd be having this same problem. Try suing SL or SR for a governmental decision. In my view, in making any school's use of a tribal name subject to tribal consent, the NC$$ effectively holds the school "hostage" to the whims of tribal politics. Just look at the "back and forth" amongst the various SR and SL factions we've seen over the past few years over the Sioux moniker. You can bet it would become a political football at some point.

You'll have to forgive Felch. He likes to indulge in paint chips.

Dave.

Maybe we can send this scientific poll to the NC$$ ... that'll show 'em. It will be really "bad publicity" too if they disregard "the will of the people". They'll probably back down by oh, noon or so.

Precisely.

I'd rather be "book smart" than you.

I'd think so. Blais seemed pretty pragmatic as a coach. But it would be interesting to hear his thinking today.

Here's the transcript from the Blais episode. http://espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/show50transcript.html

Nah, he's just a "fan" of the Sioux moniker. He doesn't give a damn about the school or its athletes, like a few others around here ...

That was cleared up, until Clueless Al attempted to usurp the state constitution with his asinine legislation last year.

Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure Justice Scalia would enjoy it too.

State the law and/or case that says that what the NC$$ is doing is "unconstitutional". I'll wait ...

Based on what?

Which is why I think he dreads this mess ending up in front of the North Dakota Supreme Court, especially when the weight of their own decisions favor the Board. He's created a constitutional crisis, and the final arbiters can't be glad-handed or browbeat in the halls of the capitol. I do hope voters remember this, or at least start a serious recall effort.

Can't really sue Clueless Al over this mess, but it would be nice if his constituents booted his dumb ass out of office this fall. You have to wonder if he really understood how his attempt to usurp the state constitution could blow up in his face ...

Bahahaha! You really think the NC$$ cares about "bad publicity"? "Outside the Lines" interviewed Dean Blais about this issue years ago. The New York Times, of all places, regularly discusses this issue, and at least one of its columnists regularly excoriates the NC$$ for a variety of reasons. What's happened? Nothing. You think an interview with Frank Black Cloud representing some poor tribe in flyover country is going to change their minds?

You really have nothing to change. And no stake in this issue.

How much money, of your own, would you like to put on that? You seem pretty fond of spending OPM on this issue, so maybe you're willing to bet some of the "boys on the board". I've read the court docs ... It's never a good sign when opposing counsel points out grammatical errors, wrong cites, etc. in SL's docs. Which says nothing of the NC$$'s legal grounds which seem pretty strong.

Which pretty much leaves out Fetch, DaveK, Luapsided, Al Carlson, Scott Hennen, Reed Soderstrom, Frank Black Cloud and other idiots pushing petitions, or thinking the NC$$ will reconsider the matter.

Really? The sanctions have a "Sunset provision"? Where did you hear that? SAB? Your local dive bar? And how do you consider them "small sanctions" when UND athletes are already being "uninvited" to athletic events, e.g., the Iowa track meet?

Feel free to write the NC$$ and express your outrage. I'm sure they'll listen to you too.

Old news, but now "official" I guess. Some of the comments are pretty interesting. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120227/NEWS/120227030/UI-declines-to-invite-North-Dakota-Fighting-Sioux-over-mascot-flap?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage