Chief Illiniwek Supporter

As an aside-to me, these flags are obviously pretty new. (Did any flags exist before say, 1800?) I'd say flying a flag like this is a bit different than a display of genuine artifacts of the 19th century. JMHO. My first reaction is that this looks a lot like the recent Josh Howard flap. Some people (in this case, some members of the Sioux tribe(s) ) may not like what is happening, but they don't own those flags any more or less than the Sioux tribe members who are going to visit your arena and speak this weekend. I'd say neither can or cannot tell the other that they can't use the flag.

I know this isn't the topic for this post-but its the most active lately, so I'll post here to keep things moving. I was wondering if anyone saw the Michigan State/Notre Dame football game last Saturday? If so, you would have seen Sparty the Spartan, a paper-mache caricature of a Spartan warrior, running around on the sidelines, mugging for the camera, playing with kids in the crowd and hexing the opponent on key plays. And doing all of this while "wearing" a sombero and serape; in "honor" of Hispanic Heritage month. So where do we draw the line? What's an "honor" and what's a "mockery"?? One caricature of a real-life group of people donning some stereotypical garments of another group of real-life people?? Who judges whether that's an insult or an honor?

I don't know who he would agree with, but either way 2008 Darwin would be one really old guy. So you would call medical research "forced evolution"? Can I infer that you would also say that something like the cross-breeding or creation of hybrids in plants and crops is "forced evolution"? Personally, I wouldn't call them that. I'd call them "medical research" and "cross breeding". I think that Chuck would find that you were stretching his theories way, way way out of line in comparison to his intentions. Splicing genes, etc. in the name of cancer research: are you saying that otherwise the original organisms would die? Because AFAIK that's what Darwin said. IIRC, he said that living things evolve because they have to. Artificial labratory conditions do not constitute "nature", where Darwin's theories originated (and to which they apply). And to bring things back to the topic at hand (and the purpose of this bulletin board), how would you call a new nickname and logo "forced" evolution; or even evolutionary in any way? One misguided person laughably thought that comparing the nickname to items with a limited lifespan would somehow prove that a change was merely evolutionary. Things like medical research are done for good. Same thing with plant/crop research. I can find no good in the intentions of the radical screamers. They have no particular result in mind, other than the destruction of one nickname and logo; and their desires are ENTIRELY based on emotions. Darwin dealt in pure science.

This is far more important than the choice between those two imbeciles-we can't just leave it to the realm of hanging chads, butterfly ballots and all the rest.

Nobody asked me, but I would view this matter in the following way: an advisory committee should be formed using the same criteria that drives the way your Board of Trustees is composed: probably with an overweighting on alums, but open to all. Testimony/suggestions are open to all people no matter who/where: and final voting/decisions back to alums, fans, students of a certain age. And I would definitely make sure that "no nickname at all" is an available option. To repeat: I'd DEFINITELY make sure that "no nickname at all" is an available option.

You and I have a very different understanding of "forced" evolution. Evolution will occur, or extinction will occur. But both will happen at their own pace, in response to the natural environment. And those facts remain immutable no matter WHAT causes nature to change: be it man, a volcano, a meteor, sunspots, whatever. Some people would call civilization part of evolution. Perhaps others would say that "pollution caused by man forces evolution". Both may be describing the same phenomena, but IMHO nothing can force evolution. (Personally, I think Darwin and I are in agreement on this. )

Huh, wha... er.... how's that again? Evolution can be FORCED?? I'll admit that I haven't read "Origin of Species" in a little while. But as I recall, Darwin gave two choices:-Evolve -Die You cannot force evolution. Its no more a matter of choice than it is a matter of force. Darwin didn't have a chapter devoted to the idea that "we found that the Duck-Billed Platypus was going to become extinct unless it developed wings and started to fly: therefore we got an order from the ship's captain, read it to the species and gave them until the next day to comply." I see that your knowledge of language and science is on a different plane than mine. I'm going to step back now and stop responding until such time as I develop a new understanding.

Wow. Just plain wow I

I agree, there's nothing you can do at this point to stop whatever will happen. The administration is well aware of the feelings of the great majority of fans, and in spite of that they've chosen to go another way. But I do know that my support for my team has gone down: and I'm not alone. I really think your team will experience the same thing. Now how many people will go to fewer games, buy fewer t-shirts, contribute less to the Athletic fund (or the overall University fund), work less for expansion of the University's programs? That I can't predict. Nor could I say how long any of those effects may last. But I'm confident that when the name is dropped, the dollar revenue to the University (or the Sports Department) will drop too. And IMHO, the revenue lost will never be made up in future years. I really, really don't think that FSU would have fought as hard (or continued to pay off the Seminole tribe) if they thought this change was somehow benign.

I'll say this: your scenario would not please your Athletics Department. A glut of tickets on the market isn't good at any time. You simply can't replace longtime support very easily, and you'll never replace it totally. There will be a dip in contributions, estates, and all the other methods of support: and how long and how deep is undoubtedly a concern for them. Those season-ticket holders are taking a LOT of games that the cherry-pickers won't buy. That's the concern. Your biggest rivalry games will always sell-out: its the early season blowouts that are going to suffer at the gate. THOSE are the games that the season-ticket holders eat as a price of having a good, guaranteed seat for the big game at the end of the season. Principle of marketing: its far easier (and cheaper) to keep an existing customer than to gain a new one.

I never have "cheered for administrators" in the past. I've respected some, admired some; but cheering for our administrators? No. And to be honest, I yearn for the day when our present group goes. IMHO, school administrators shouldn't be asking for "cheers" for doing their jobs. However, our current group is working against Illinois IMHO. Well, I did say my support has waned, not disappeared. During the games I find myself listening and cheering as much as before; but OTOH I used to be able to tell you a lot about recruiting, how many scholarships we had, who the targets were, etc. and that high level of interest has definitely gone by the wayside. I find that I am much more compartmentalized: I let go of both losses and wins a lot quicker. I certainly buy much less Illini merchandise. On all of the above counts, I doubt I am the only one who has done this with the exact same timing. Ironically, many years ago I found myself asking roughly the same question as you wrote here. I couldn't conceive of a time that our administrators would pull support from Chief Illiniwek. Why in the name of all that nature has created would they do that? Certainly anyone could see that reasonable people in Florida and Utah (among other groups) supported both their schools as well as their longtime symbols-they recognized that the school was doing nothing wrong and causing no one any harm in any way, shape or form. I was confident the administrators at Illinois would certainly be able to recognize that fact as well as anyone. Obviously, that didn't happen. And I'm still a fan: I just don't live and die with them anymore. It's a step towards apathy, I'll grant you that. One thing that certainly changed for me: I'm much more open to supporting our other state schools. Those students are working just as hard as the Illini, maybe even harder since they don't have the equipment, support and facilities that are present in Champaign. To the extent that there are only 24 hours in each day, then yes: I am supporting Illinois much less now than before. I console myself by knowing that I'm supporting college athletes just as much as before; perhaps even more. I totally disagree. A simple way to find out if this is "evolutionary": would the screaming maniacs on the other side say their goal is evolutionary? Or would they say "revolutionary"?? Perhaps your school has changed some logos in the past, but AFAIK the old logos are still available, correct? And has the nickname EVER changed? I'm guessing that a 1988 grad could still pull out a college sweatshirt, give it to the son/daughter headed off to college and everyone would know what it was and what it symbolized: no one would be "offended" that they weren't wearing the latest, most up-to-date logo. But the die-hards on the other side want to be "offended" by the Sioux logo and nickname. At least one person here has proposed throwing people out of the hockey arena if they wore a Sioux sweatshirt. A evolutionary attitude? Hardly. The goal of the opposing side today is the complete eradication of the nickname and logo in any form; either current or evolutionary. That's far different than what may have happened during the last twenty years. Not the same thing at all. Not even close.

IMHO, loyalty resides on a two-way street. Loyalty that isn't returned will soon fade. I know my support for Illinois has waned. They caved in to a small, vocal minority, and they KNEW they were in the wrong. That is not a characteristic I can support. I hope I never become that way, giving up what is right for the sake of political correctness. If I did, I couldn't respect myself and I certainly couldn't ask others to respect my integrity.

I agree with the above, but the far more troubling comment IMHO is... Please. Perpetuating alienation? C'mon. If you added up all the broad jumps in the Olympics and substituted light years for feet you wouldn't equal the length of HIS jump to a conclusion. And if a new logo is decided upon, I will be the first to tell this mope that I feel "alienated" and ask him when he will be writing a sophmoric column demanding the retirement of the NEW logo.

My comment here is with the addition of the 12th game to schedules there are plenty of schools looking for an opponent to come to their place: while the distance your school may have to travel might be a little longer (Ames, Iowa or Champaign, IL) the paydays are out there.

I think people are seeing this type of language... (emphasis added) ... and reading the word "will" as a literal imperative. IMHO, "a new nickname which does not violate the policy" could be no nickname at all. Here's where I saw the quote above: http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_even...lement_rls.html

I'm not a lawyer either: and while I realize there are differences between personal rights and corporate rights, I view this as akin to nobody being able to tell me NOT to wear my Chief Illiniwek shirt. Yes, the University owns that trademark but at one time they licensed it to a company to make shirts, and I bought said shirt in good faith. I'd say my rights are unlimited. JMHO, but if those symbols/logos got into this arena with the University's permission, it would be awfully, awfully hard to win a lawsuit and force a company to spend money to remove them. Perhaps it's a typo: but either way I agree with this quote.

No matter which way anyone reads the settlement agreement, I can't see the NCAA forcing a school to adopt a nickname: and even if they did try to force the issue you could just delay them forever by continuing to "study" the problem. And nothing would stop your school from adopting "North Dakotans" (or even Dakotans) and then simply not displaying the nickname on your athletic uniforms.

First, remember that I can

Yes, not merely the endorsed name but the "price" of the endorsement is up for continuous, daily review by each of the tribes according to the settlement. Just one of the reasons the settlement is ridiculous on its face, and IMHO not a settlement at all but rather a three-year public relations excercise. These statements by your administrator are just another milepost along that road to surrender.

I absolutely LOVE it! Way to get a taste of your own medicine. From the article (and all added emphasis is mine):

I am reminded of the SIU Salukis. The Saluki dog was sacred to the ancient Egyptians. Yet, they're never lumped in with the offending nicknames. Ironically, former US Senator Paul Simon hated Chief Illiniwek, publically advocating his elimination very early on in the game: yet never a word about his alma mater (and later in life, his employer), namely SIU. Everyone has an ax to grind. I number of years ago I saw a letter to some official from a six year old girl, and it went something like this: Off this subject: The LPGA has modified its English-only policy today. Heavier on education, lighter on penalties.

Right, but AFAIK most of the time the advertisments are filmed using a dubbed voice, or the American celebrity is coached up enough to stumble thru in something approaching an understandable version of the native language. That's why I used the term "one on one". Putting Paris Hilton out on the street to talk with some Japanese industrialists will not result in a furthering of international relations. And IMHO that's what those pro-ams, dinners, etc. for the LPGA tour events are most like; individual face to face meetings with people rather than a mass media advertisement. Further, the LPGA is a collection of "companies" if you will: right now I'm sure some sponsors are concerned about the language issue, and others don't care. When the number on one side got to be big enough, the commissioner stepped in. I'm guessing some sponsors weren't in favor of the latest edict. Nothing will prevent Kraft foods from featuring Se Re Pak in an advertisement if they choose. Neither is Wheaties prevented from putting anyone they want on their box.

Not to mention the # 1 golfer on the tour today, Lorena Ochoa (who spoke out on the issue recently). Its JMHO, but the LPGA isn't dumb-and they're in business to make money. If they weren't hearing from sponsors, people who patronize the pro-ams, etc. then they wouldn't have started down this path. Apparently a lot of people were shying away from events where they couldn't interact with the golfers. IMHO, if you went to say, China and wanted to start a one-on-one advertising campaign, you'd really need someone who could speak the language. This is no different as far as I'm concerned.

Go for the Gold, Indian Country First of all, it was written by two lawyers. Frightening, yet not surprising. Next: I wonder how much legal work these two do outside of nuisance lawsuits/shakedowns and suing various units of government? Wow, the insanity of this one stands out: Can you even point out a single instance where a college passed on someone because of their race? Please. These universities are trying to make money. Passing on someone only to see him go to your biggest rival and beat your brains in for four years because of his origin? C'mon. Let me know the first time you see that happening. And its not surprising that LITIGATION is mentioned as a remedy (for a non-existent problem) in an article written by lawyers. A good piece of advice: make sure you understand a business before you bid on it: (emphasis added: and shouldn't it be "care must be taken"?) Yes, thanks for that nugget. Nobody would have thought of it unless you mentioned it. Another one from the article: (emphasis added) Now some people would think that each state's boxing commission had adequately regulated boxing, etc. and the only reason someone would want to change those regs would be to loosen them. But at the end, they do go right ahead and mention safety. So obviously a tribal boxing promoter wouldn't have any less of a "safe" bout than someone in New York City. Phew.