MplsBison
-
Posts
2,229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MplsBison
-
-
This is made up, right?
There is no actual organization that is spending any money to get UND and NDSU to combine, correct?
-
Maybe Douple's action wasn't the direct cause of the nickname being retired, but to say it had no absolutely no effect whatsoever is just plain wrong. Douple's position caused, or gave excuse, for Kelley and Faison to openly campaign for the nickname to be dropped. Maybe they would have anyway, but we don't know. Douple certainly made it a lot easier for them to do it. With the President and Athletic Director having no interest in saving the nickname, and actively campaigning against it, that killed any momentum that was going on at Standing Rock and gave the Standing Rock council an easy excuse to not act. I'm not saying the outcome would have been different had Douple not stuck his nose in this, but the Summit's position was repeatedly cited as the biggest factor for immediately taking action to drop the nickname, yet you have no trouble discounting that entirely. He played a role, even that role was being the person to make it publicly easier for UND administration to turn hostile toward the nickname.
Nevertheless, even if I accepted your premise that he had no effect whatsoever, my opinion about Douple doesn't change. He simply shouldn't have stuck his nose into someone else's business.
I disagree with your entire post and premise on its face. I don't know how much longer you want to continue this because it's obvious to me that you've made up your mind to be hateful to the Summit and Douple and blame them for UND's problems and you won't allow any number of facts that prove you wrong to change your mind. But I leave it to you how long you want to continue this.
1) how did Douple or the Summit even "stick his nose into some else's business"? I reject that utterly false premise on its face. The Summit stated its position publicly so that the public would know what the hold up was. It was a fair position to take - the Summit would only accept UND once the issue had been resolved between UND and the Tribes one way or another.
There is not a single iota that is immature or unfair about such a position or letting the public know that the Summit has taken that position.
Pure bunk on your part to insist that such a thing is even close to them sticking their nose into UND's business.
Did the Summit demand a seat at the negotiating table between UND and Standing Rock? That I could see you saying is them sticking their nose into UND's business...but they were as far from that as could be.
2) as you just admitted it was Kelley and Faison that may or may not have lobbied for the end of the nickname. It was THOSE TWO. The Summit was not lobbying anyone! You should be blaming Kelley and Faison if you want to blame someone for supposedly lobbying to end the nickname.
And it's pretty obvious that if they were lobbying for the end of the nickname that they would've done so regardless of the Summit's position. If anything, the Summit being open and public about their position would restrict Kelley and Faison from potentially arguing that the Summit might want UND to end the nickname before inviting them to joint he conference. With the Summit's clear and fair position out in the open, that the Summit would accept UND once the school and the tribes settled the issue one way or another, neither Kelley or Faison could argue otherwise.
3) Even after all of that, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that the Standing Rock TC did not allow a tribal vote on the issue and did everything in their power to end the nickname. It was the tribal council. It was always the tribal council.
No amount of spin will ever be able to dismiss that.
MK, I've totally defeated your ridiculous premise of blaming the Summit for the nickname. But I still have my doubts that you or any other UND fan will give up this foolishness of trying to make the Summit out to be the bad guys in this. I hope you prove me wrong!
-
I think that is a very accurate assessment. I don't think Douple's actions did one thing to affect either the eventual outcome of the nickname situation nor the timeline of it. But it did put a microscope over the top of it. If he would have just kept even one side of his mouth shut, he would've been doing good.
Bunk, bunk, bunk.
Douple/Summit have zero (if possible, they have negative) impact on anything having to do with the nickname being retired. It was 100% related to the Standing Rock TC's inaction. It was entirely up to them to save the nickname. If they had, the Summit would've accepted UND with teh Sioux nickname, no questions.
This is nothing more than bitter UND fans desperately looking for something to lash out at. If anything, Douple's only mistake was giving them an excuse to lash out at the Summit.
-
This is crackpot - even for bisonville.
How does this guy get an article in the forum? You gotta be kidding me. He paid someone off to print article about his fantasy.
Whatever...never happen in a million years.
-
Or you can qualify things by saying "some people" or "a lot of us" or "not everyone". Your statement comes across as a pretty general statement that the general opinion of people on SiouxSports about RT and Kupchella is negative.
-
Hopefully the ADs realize that, for whatever reason, those folks that choose to post on message boards tend to over-represent only a very narrow portion of the overall alumni feeling on any given topic.
-
Two points:
1 - if the WAC does come calling to the state of North Dakota, I do think they will invite both NDSU and UND -- it's going to take a complete collapse to get to this point (BYU does not join WAC, Utah State leaves, Hawaii goes independent, La Tech leaves at a minimum and New Mexico State might have to leave too...)
2 - if the WAC does invite NDSU and UND - depending on who is going to be in the new conference... I think both school should try to make it work. With the NCAA likely to make new rules requiring that to move up to FBS you have to be invited from an established FBS conference (or maybe this is already confirmed?) it could be at least a generation before either school gets another chance to move up to the bowl level. When opportunities like that come by, you either jump on the train or watch it pass you by...
-
I just didn't see the commitment to saving the name by Kelley and the AD that was the primary memory of Kupchella's last year. To that extent, they choose to accept this path and even pushed the rationalization of cutting the fight short by not approaching SR on the University's behalf - probably told by the SOBHE to not get involved as he was brought in to transition the University away from the tribe affiliation - which to me is the biggest racist action by the University. I agree with not giving the University any more money for the time being so they know there are ramifications for not listening to the Alumni and their half-hearted attempt at saving the name is the real reason why people won't give more now. Given time, these guys will get back to normal, but again blaming the name supporters for the reduciton in giving is illogical and ignores the 5 why conclusion its related to the poor management/fight by the UND administration.
BobIwabuchiFan
For the millionth time:
a) The only ones at fault if the name is retired are the Standing Rock Tribal Council.
b) Withholding donations that you were planning to give because of the nickname being retired only punishes the student athletes.
Summary: the university and teams are much better off without you.
-
Hawaii is in a major bind. When fuel costs were lower, they probably could have gone independent in football, but with their other programs in the Big West.
Now, they really need conference football games to fill the schedule.
When the WAC lost UTEP, SMU, Tulsa, and Rice seven or eight years ago, all the sportswriters were declaring the WAC dead. In the 90's, when the MWC 8 left the WAC16, the whole sports wold declared the WAC dead. When Arizona and Arizona St left the WAC 30 some years ago, the whole sports world declared the WAC dead. The WAC always reinvents itself.
The major issue for UND is having a plan for a 15,000 seat capacity stadium in which we have to play more than half our games.
Seven years ago, NDSU made the move and didn't have a conference.
An FBS conference is available. The only ingredient missing is a 15,000 seat stadium, which means a funds must be quickly raised. An indoor practice facility is the first step, but either an addition to the Alerus or a Memorial Stadium renovation to 15,000+ is needed. FAU and FIU didn't have facilities for years that met FBS standards, yet the NCAA didn't kick them out. As long as UND has plans and is working on them, the NCAA's precedence has shown it doesn't care.
We need to think about this from an historic standpoint. When the WAC fills up again with schools, will they then go looking or North Dakota five or ten years from now? No. This is our shot.
Every school that the WAC is looking at - with the possible exception of Texas schools - are in states with major budget crisis. UND and North Dakota are in better financial shape than comparably any time in our history.
We have to recruit Texas and California for FCS recruits anyway: why not make that full commitment?
While SDSU can probably make a leap to FBS much later in the future, their budget of only $10 mill is very low for all the sports they offer even at the FCS level. USD's budget is even low compared to the low rent district of the Big Sky. Those two schools would be more than happy in the MVFC.
That said, one of the beauties of a new WAC is the ability to control costs, even at the FBS level. A major expense of FBS at most schools is paying coaches high six or even seven figures. If coaches salaries are controlled like at Sunbelt levels in a new WAC, it is affordable.
I will take exception about requirement to recruit in California and Texas. IMO, that's an accountant's view of college football recruiting, from his desk.
The majority of NDSU starters, even in the skill positions will be from the upper midwest. There is nothing genetically different about a HS player in CA or TX than there is with a HS player in MN or WI.
-
UND shouldn't concern itself with what NDSU wants to do.
If UND accepted, NDSU would immediately panic and then accept. Same with Montana and Montana St. NDSU wouldn't be breaking their contract with MVC: they just exercise the exit clause.
It's looking more and more like La Tech will leave the WAC, even for the Sunbelt. If that is the case, as stated before, the WAC could become the Big Sky on steroids.
Hawaii
San Jose St
Cal Poly
Sac St
UC Davis
Utah St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
N Dakota
NDSU
NMexSt
Benson said the remaining six schools, though, aren -
That's tame in comparison with some things that have been written about the Great West and Summit, which get almost no attention. And that story doesn't even get it's facts right: CUSA would not move down to the WAC. FCS schools are practically the only answer.
So what if the WAC is becoming the new Sunbelt in terms of strength of conference: it's a higher level than what we are now and recruiting would be much easier. Nevada never did anything in basketball until the WAC. Same with Fresno. Utah State, New Mexico State, and La Tech individually offer more in basketball than the Summit or Big Sky have ever accomplished.
If you have the ability and resources, choose the one with greater rewards.
Agree...BUT...
look at the geography of the proposed conference. It's basically a FBS version of the Big Sky. Other than the Montana schools...what business does North Dakota schools have being in that conference with western schools? It would be like the Great West all over again.
Would it be worth it just to be FBS? I don't know...
-
The entire Kelley/Douple/Summit angle on this is such pathetic bunk.
The decision was entirely up to the Standing Rock Tribal Council. They alone will be the reason that the nickname will be retired or saved.
As star2 already pointed out, relationships/business partnerships could've been formed with Standing Rock TC a long time ago. Far before Kelley's time. He certainly wasn't going to be able to erase 20+ years of history between UND and the tribe.
-
I guess I don't get the "retractable roof" fad. You're basically playing in a can of beans with the top removed...it's not and will never be anything close to the feel of a real open-air, outdoor stadium. If you want to host events, bball tournaments, etc. then just build a dome.
The only solution I've ever seen proposed that might actually be able to provide a legitimate conversion from a true open-air, outdoor stadium to a fully enclosed stadium was the original proposal in Kansas City for the Royals and Chiefs stadiums that would've had a moving roof that would be on a track and actually move back and forth to cover either stadium when needed. That really would've been something. I think they tried again to build that recently but it failed.
-
Why does everyone assume that all donors are rich? It's probably the contrary.
Just because someone donated every year doesn't mean they must continue to do so, especially if the university doesn't fight for the interests of the majority of the donors. That's why you hear so much in the way of donors having the power to get the University to do things...because the money talks.
The university could have fought A LOT harder than it did to try and keep the name, but didn't. They did nothing to stop its death. They could have fought tooth and nail to keep it, and probably still would have lost it, but at least the alums would have noticed that they did their best. This is the problem most alums have with the University.
Sure, UND's hands were tied by the SBoHE, but they did nothing to try and prove their case with them either, nor with the tribes either.
If the university isn't going to fight for what the donors want, why should they donate anything. In the future, maybe the university will push for things that the alums want because they don't want to piss more people off, and maybe they'll gain donors in the end.
If you want to donate, great, more power to you. There will be many thankful people for your donation. However, if you feel the university isn't doing the right things, and you don't want to donate, or don't want to continue donating, I'm not going to say you're wrong. If you went to UND, paid your tuition, and made some money because of it, it's your money to spend how you want.
Lets make it as crystal clear as possible: people who were planning to donate now or soon to UND but now will not donate because of the nickname issue do not deserve any praise. In fact, they deserve to be called our and embarrassed for what they are: childish cowards.
-
Stop acting like a giving money is a requirement. It is not. It is a "DONATION." If an alum doesn't feel like their money is being well-spent at the University, so be it. I will not call them out.
I finished school $64,000 in debt, and I'm one of many students, many of which needed much more than what I did to pay for school. I'm not complaining because it's expected that school comes at a cost.
Don't try to cloud the issue.
We're talking about people who have already been donating, perhaps every year for several years, who have plenty of money to keep donating - yet they make up some BS excuse to stop donating for what basically amounts to being a crybaby, "you can't come to my birthday!" child over the nickname changing.
As as been said a million times already, don't punish the student athletes!
No, of course no one is required to start donating. But if you have been and can continue to do so, this is not a rightful excuse to stop.
-
Jesse Taken Alive and Ron His Horse is Thunder poisoned the political environment at Standing Rock such that the council voted no. They won there.
So, in response, some of you will stop donating to UND. Do you really want to give those two a second win?
Folks, the best victory will be for UND to continue to succeed without the Sioux moniker. Then JTA and RHHiT really lose.
Any UND fan who was previously donating and has stopped because of the nickname, who reads The Sicatoka's post and still finds an excuse to stop donating because of the nickname...should be banned from any UND athletic event or from even watching on TV!
It couldn't be said any more perfectly than his post and if you're still so pathetically bitter, then you don't deserve to even watch.
-
Fine. Hate the Summit then. Same goes for the others who have this sentiment. Just dont hate UND's teams that potentially join the Summit. Don't punish the teams, coaches and student-athletes.
Bottom line is Standing Rock didnt get it done when they needed to. I dont hate their people for it. However, I have quite a distaste for their tribal council.
And there it is, the raw, naked truth: as soon as the Spirit Lake voted their support for the nickname, every single card was placed into the Standing Rock Tribal Council's hand.
The Summit had zero to do with the SR tribal council's inaction.
-
Ha, an endorsement of the Aleurs coming from you is just about perfect. Thanks for making my day.
Don't mistake it for being an endorsement of the building and how it's being used "as is".
I think you get my point...these days trying to actually do something is almost impossible. Too many people who sit around being critics of others and don't actually do anything themselves.
-
You sir (and I'm using that term loosely because of your insult), are clueless about who I am or where I've been. I didn't say that I've lived here all my life. I was born here but I actually moved away for several years. I lived on the West Coast, in Washington state, for almost 2 years. And I lived in the Twin Cities for more than 4 years. Then I returned to Grand Forks because it is a great community to live in and because my family was still in the area. Besides that I have traveled extensively throughout the United States. I have worn my Fighting Sioux gear all over this fine country of ours. And had some great conversations with people because of it. But I have been around the country and experienced the attitudes of others in all parts of the country so I have a little more perspective than you realize.
Most of the attitudes you speak of are not going to disappear if the name changes. The Ralph Engelstad Arena is not going away if the name changes. Grand Forks is not going away if the name changes. The alumni base is not going away if the name changes. People will still go to "the Game". UND fans will still go to games in Denver, Minneapolis and other places. The name is part of the allure, but it is the University and the community and the support that the alums bring that makes this a special situation. There will be angry people and there will be some repercussions, but much of that will fade with time. UND and its fans will still be a great story.
I tend to pick my battles instead of tilting at windmills. I pick the battles that I believe are most important. And I pick battles that I at least have a chance of winning. I've battled unemployment when a 130 year old company I was working for went from record sales to bankruptcy and out of business in less than a year. I've helped friends and family battle disease, and battled my own injuries. I've worked to help save organizations that I felt are important. I supported the battle to keep the name for years, even after the settlement when I knew that the chances were slim. But after the Standing Rock election when it became apparent that they were going to continue to stand in the way, and they were the only body that could save the name, I realized that the end was near. If you want to keep going until the bitter end, go ahead. Just don't insult those of us that choose a different battle.
I was born and raised a Fighting Sioux fan. I will always believe that the name should have been allowed to remain in use. But if (probably when) the University of North Dakota starts using a new nickname, I will support that name also because I believe it is the institution that is most important. The nickname is only a small part of the whole that is the University of North Dakota.
There is absolutely no need for your to explain yourself to some of the mouth breathers on this forum. You're never going to convince them anyway.
But it is still nice to read such well written posts from your side of the argument, the side of rational people and the side of the majority of UND alumni. It's too bad that in most internet message boards, it's the very few extermists that often have try to project themselves as being the majority when it's not true.
-
I don't think it's today's concert industry that's the problem, I think it's the state of the industry ever since the Alerus opened its doors. The Alerus was planned in a time when the concert industry was running extremely hot. During the time between the opening of the Fargodome and the approval of the Alerus Center, the Fargodome was posting fantastic profits because of the state of that industry. The Fargodome made a profit from day-1, and the annual profit was racing toward $1 million(I think it peaked at around $800,000). At the time, there were actually more profitable concert tours than the Fargodome could handle. That was the environment when the Alerus Center was approved.
Then came the tech crash, followed by 9/11, followed by the wars in the Middle East, followed by the mortgage crisis, followed by the credit crisis. The concert industry fell apart after the tech crash, and it's never recovered. Every small recovery has been erased by another economic crisis. The Fargodome hasn't been immune to this. From the high point just as the Alerus was being built, the Fargodome profits fell to less than $20,000 just a couple years later. Today, a profit of over $100,000 at the end of the year is considered good, and anything approaching $200,000 is nearly beyond hope. With the construction of the Alerus and Ralph, and the state of the concert industry since the late 90's, we've been playing a zero-sum game in the RRV. There just aren't enough profitable concerts to go around anymore, and Fargo has significant advantages over GF when the concert promoters make their choices. The Fargodome ends up getting the sure things and the near-sure things, and the Alerus has to take the risky ones. I honestly think you could have the best management staff in the history of mankind, and the Alerus wouldn't make a profit right now. Maybe it wouldn't be losing quite so much, but I don't think you could break even.
I believe the Alerus was just planned and built in a time that doesn't exist anymore. It's only bitter irony that it never even got to experience that time. And I don't envy the choices faced by the city, Alerus commission, or the management company. Do you continue to take risks and probably lose money? Do you challenge the Fargodome for the sure-fire concerts knowing that the only way you'll get them is by undercutting the Fargodome so much that you'll hurt your bottom line and jeopardize your bargaining power in the future? Do you go for tiny concerts that are guaranteed losses, but small ones? Do you give up on concerts altogether and take the political hit? I don't know the answer, if even there is one. All I know is that a chunk of Grand Forks fell to the "if they(Fargo) can do it, so can we" fallacy, and that too many people bet on the best-case scenario when the economic models were studied. The Fargodome had back up plans if everything went to hell(hockey among other things), the Alerus did not. Now it's time to make the best of a bad situation. Accept that the decision was made. Accept that the Alerus will continue to lose money. Come to a consensus on which is more important: money, or the quality of life improvements brought by the concerts. And hope that the economy eventually recovers to the point that the hot days(or at least warm ones) return.
At least they (city of GF) took the chance and built the thing. Maybe it is a money loser, but these days (esp. in fiscally conservative states like ND) getting anything built is a challenge.
I guess my point is that they can be proud that they actually got something built, even if it didn't work out.
-
So your position is that they should have gone down with the ship supporting the name. They should have supported it to the bitter end no matter the odds. They should have risked their jobs to support the Fighting Sioux nickname no matter what the eventual outcome was going to be. Does that sum up your position? Is that what you mean by principles?
I can assure you that not all North Dakota natives or even all UND alums would have followed the path that you have supported (this is coming from someone whose family has been in North Dakota for well over 100 years, who has been a Fighting Sioux fan probably longer than you have been alive, an alum with many others alums in the family, and someone that really hates losing the nickname and logo). There comes a time when you cut your losses and move on. No matter what you and many others think, the nickname is a small part of the entire University of North Dakota or even of the UND Athletic Department. It is a great nickname, one of the best I have ever heard. And the logo is wonderful. But they aren't worth what you are asking for from Mr. Faison or Mr. Kelley. Risking everything to support the nickname when the odds are so great against it would have been foolhardy for the administration and for the University. And I know that you don't agree with me so you don't have to tell me that you think I'm wrong.
Very well said!
You're wasting your time trying to convince people like Goon. He would sacrifice his neighbor, his brother-in-law, his favorite hunting dog...whatever it would take to keep a nickname to a college sports team and expects nothing less of anyone.
That type of emotional attachment (obsession?) is impossible to convince otherwise using logic.
-
The problem is that they were hired to do a job, they have no connection to the Fighting Sioux name or the University of North Dakota other than this is the institution that is sending them a pay check every week. I don't care what they say no matter what empty platitudes they use, the "BRUTAL REALITY" is That UND Fighting Sioux just a name to them because the have nothing invested in it, the probably also see the name FIGHTING SIOUX as an impediment to their cause.
Maybe that's exactly what the people who hired Kelley wanted in the first place: no previous connection to the school. He in turn hired Faison under the same directive.
Sometimes it's good for a business to bring in leadership from the outside, for a fresh perspective.
-
You are correct about everything you posted here.
But Just for the record, it is only over because we are all going to let it be over.
The will of the people is always realized just as long as they continue to have will. (only exception to this murder)
Short of a coup, pitchforks in hand, your will as a commoner is more or less irrelevant. Those in power are the ones who control what happens. It's always been that way.
-
But all the whining about the Summit League & to me it was a crucial Blow, to the fall of support for the Sioux name & now it's not that big of a deal ?
UND Admin. sure woosed out
I will forever hate the Summit League
someone one tell me why I'm wrong about this ?
Summit League never had any authority to change the nickname. UND admin wanted the nickname to change and so they used the Summit League as an excuse to do so.
Now you're using the Summit League as an excuse to hate something.
Preliminary opinion from NCAA on UND/NDSU combining
in Community
Posted
If anything, your group (if this is real) should be putting your energy, passion and resources into shutting down or at least changing the mission of the extraneous 4-year universities in ND. They should close or become 2 year tech schools.
Having both UND and NDSU is only good for the RRV (research corridor) and the state of ND.