Chief Illiniwek Supporter

Here's one quick thought on Pac 10 baseball: don't forget that Oregon can sell kids on the idea that they will play the top schools in the country twice a year. In our area, Missouri & Kentucky have that same advantage. But just a few miles away, schools like Illinois, Indiana and Iowa can't make that claim. Northwestern, right in Chicago, hired an aggressive coach for their women's Lacrosse program and has won multiple national championships. This year they just crushed the competition in the national championship game. Right now there are no rules with who can and can't play LAX. Granted, NU is a wealthy school for wealthy kids. But the old "east coast only" rule has been shattered and IMHO it won't be long until the game filters down to more and more public schools. IMHO, it's a good candidate for women's expansion in that it requires very little in terms of new equipment and/or a field. If you've got soccer or football, you've got a field for Lacrosse.

Sure; monkey repairs after our long cold winter is causing a spike in demand.

He outed himself when he wrote this:

Well, it would be very unfortunate if a great hockey area and passionate hockey fans aren't rewarded with post-season bids as they should be simply because of a bunch of nutcases at the NCAA. It would be hard to imagine a college-only facility that exceeds the quality that Englestad has. Going to a place with second-rate ice and blase fans because a extreme minority of bureaucrats (most of whom don't go to hockey tournaments ANYWAY) have a warped sense of "justice" wouldn't be fair to the players. But as we've seen, fair's got nothin' to do with it.

I don't disagree with any of this: but I don't understand why there weren't even any meetings scheduled. Seems to me that right after the tribal referendum that went 2-1 for the nickname was finished, the time was right to schedule a sit-down with groups from both sides. Call it what you will but an exchange of "we want this" and "we're willing to give this" should have been started right then and there.

If it was there wouldn't have been any publicity until after the money changed hands.

I agree. I'm mostly wondering about why skating in the building is a "use" of the logo. I can tell you that the NCAA DI basketball playoff have been held in the United Center, home of the Blackhawks: and there's PLENTY of Hawk imagery all over the building. Every other row has an Indian head on the end of the seats, and there's an enormous Indian Head sculpture across the street. So why did the NCAA specifically allow the use of that building? Believe me, it's a long and involved bidding process-the NCAA honchos go thru the building on a tour before they give you the games. It's not as if they were ignorant of the building's decor.

Well, the NCAA doesn't have the problem of using Pontiac as a sponsor anymore, do they? But one of my thoughts was "what if the local "Sioux Motors" purchases some advertising in the arena? Or for that matter, what if the local "Fighting Sioux Fan Club" purchases some advertising in the arena?" Well yes-and if you wanted to start talking about a rented building as a "use" of the logo, there's a long list of things that would also be a "use" IMHO. And clearly we're talking about whose rights take precedence in some of these examples: doesn't the owner of "Sioux Motors" (which is a perfectly legal name) have the right to advertise?

Reading between the lines about the way you chose to emphasize words above, let me ask this: Do you think that by skating in a building with the Indian Head logo on it, that the University "uses" that imagery? JMH (non-legal) O, but I think if you're going that route it sets up a lot of questions about advertising in the arena or even sweatshirts worn by fans. Clearly its one thing to build a new arena with the old logo (which wouldn't be a good business decision in any case) but a virtually new arena which is already built (and built in good faith) where UND has a long-term lease: IMHO a court would have a hard time telling North Dakota to break that lease, especially with so few other options in town. I've got a lot of other thoughts about the arena, but we'll save them for another day.

Of course, that's an attack on the blogs, which are an easy target. This just smacks of "selective research" to me. I for one have never heard the Civil War story in connection with Notre Dame. AFAIK, their official website doesn't mention this story either. So couldn't the blogger go to the official website instead of Wiki?

I'm not MK but I'll give my opinion: the settlement with the NCAA bought you a little time to negotiate with the two tribes. Your Board of Trustees not only arbitrarily shortened this time (for no particular reason, it seems) they also started issuing outrageous demands. Their negotiations were clearly a sham.

I'm not a lawyer, but IMHO the more you got the NCAA and the MOIC to admit that in their little minds, all men are definitely NOT equal the better off you would be. Once the Notre Dame's and USC's of the world start getting their oxes gored, things change. I don't know either, but (again from a non-lawyer's viewpoint) "good faith" and "intelligence" should go together. I can't accuse people on a college board of trustees of stupidity; so I have to assume duplicity.

I agree that they needed to get the parties to the table: especially after the tribal election. What is "long term"? I don't know the answer to that, but all I can say is 30 years is ridiculous. I personally couldn't say that I was optimistic about a "revenue stream to the tribes" but I'd say that some sort of tangible benefits could have been discussed. You start out by saying that the lawyers made a good deal and the clients blew it. JMHO, but that statement implies a client that's an idiot. I don't think that was the case here.

If sport really was a "catalyst for social change" we'd all be taking steriods by now, wouldn't we?

I think you could substitute the name "Douple" for Myles in the above quote. Same type of "we know better than you do" attitude.

I quite agree. The conference seems to be quite fluid with members coming and going: and the conference office seems a little, uh, flaky. The only thing it currently has of value IMHO is the three other major schools in the Dakotas. If they don't know your situation they're not worth joining. Since I assume they do and I further assume they realize the value of having another member within that two-state footprint, the 10/1 deadline shouldn't have been necessary.

And with all that said, what did they (the UND Board of Trustees) do with the time? They secretly met or discussed the options among themselves, and then decided to move the deadline up (so why bother with the lawsuit and settlement negotiations? All you did was enrich lawyers) and IMHO, ask for the moon with their 30-year demand. And all we've heard is some vague notion of "this conference won't accept us". This last action showed me that there are plenty of people on that board who had no intentions of trying to retain the nickname.

I think you're leaving a lot on the table. You could start demanding programs be started; maybe you'd want to teach some classes in your heritage, perhaps you'd get tenure....

Aiyeeee! The Title IX people just had their heads explode!! http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?sho...2438&st=194

At at a University of Illinois Spring football game, the head coach (Ron Turner) said this much: "How about the Chief? Isn't he great?" and recieved a loud ovation in return. For that, the AD informed him that in the future, all comments on the Chief would come from the AD's office. And of course, the official policy from the AD was "no comment".

I've said both things before: -If this conference was seriously considering Chicago State, it isn't a conference you want anything to do with. -If this conference lets Douple lead them around in the manner that some here claim is "necessary" then again, I wouldn't want anything to do with joining those schools.

Aiyeeee! The Title IX people just had their heads explode!!

My money would be on this choice. And if your AD really doesn't know basic facts like this, then quite frankly I would say that your school needs a new AD.

I guess I have to believe that the BOT already knows how the big $$ people think. I'm certainly of the opinion that the major donors have more ways to get their feelings known to the Board than the average fan. And I really think that the big $$ group are among the strongest supporters of the nickname. Long and short of it, I think the Board knows how these people feel, and they're rolling the dice: the Board is gambling that the major donors will "get over it".

I can tell you that the University of Illinois has supposedly licensed the very familiar drawing of Chief Illiniwek to a specialty manufacturer of retro clothing. I say supposedly because I haven't seen any product; and neither has anyone who I talk with (and we're all pretty interested consumers).