Chief Illiniwek Supporter
-
Posts
717 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chief Illiniwek Supporter
-
-
Brass is up, though.Sure; monkey repairs after our long cold winter is causing a spike in demand.
-
He'll probably be mad at me for out-ing him, but a lawyer has weighed in on this ...He outed himself when he wrote this:Now, who gets the bill?
-
Without going back and looking at the old policy, I think you're probably right. I don't think the NCAA would place an otherwise fully compliant member on the Sanctions list if it's only "crime" was using a facility that had Native American imagry in it (at least not yet). The uproar at the time was that REA was scheduled to host the 2006 hockey regional, and the policy prohibited any facility with Native American imagry from hosting an NCAA championship event. The injunction took care of that and allowed the 2006 regional to go forward. The settlement relates to the UND hosting post season events at REA in the future. If REA doesn't want to host any more tournaments, I don't think anything needs to be changed. REA may come to the decision that hosting another regional was a long-shot anyway, so they won't change anything and won't bid for another tournament. But if they want to host another NCAA tournament, there is now a realistic road-map where it was impossible before the settlement.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.
-
That really would have put the onus on the Tribal Councils. If certain beneficial offers had been put forward, the councils would have to defend why they wouldn't take advantage of the mutually beneficial aspects this could bring to both UND and the tribes. They've been allowed to get away with a "no solicitation" sign until now.
It's a touchy situation, however, because if you come with an offer unbidden in this sort of politically charged situation you risk being charged with bribery. It has to be communicated very smartly to avoid having it turned against you.
I don't disagree with any of this: but I don't understand why there weren't even any meetingsscheduled.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. -
Hum, now it's making more and more sense. This sounds like a chicago style shake down.If it was there wouldn't have been any publicity until after the money changed hands.
-
I think they would have a hard time restricting that advertising.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.
-
And the NC$$ undermines itself on that issue by using Pontiac as a major sponsor. With the changes in the auto industry that may go away.Well, the NCAA doesn't have the problem of using Pontiac as a sponsor anymore, do they?But one of my thoughts was "what if the local "Sioux Motors" purchases some advertising in the arena? Or for that matter, what if the local "Fighting Sioux Fan Club" purchases some advertising in the arena?"Sweatshirts and other personal items would be much harder to control because of personal freedoms. I think that the NC$$ would have a very difficult time trying to limit clothing worn by fans. The only time I have heard of being able to limit clothing is in the case of obscenity laws, and not always in those cases.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?
-
Prior to the settlement, the NCAA could basically create whatever policy it wanted regarding Native American imagry owned by and used by the University. Had the settlement not occurred, UND might very well have found itself in a position of having to major architectural changes to REA, or even worse, REA might have refused them altogether.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.
-
I couldn't tell for sure but that looked more like a blog entry to me? If so quoting Wikipedia probably isn't such a big issue.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?
-
Mksioux,
I am not asking this to be a smart alec, but because I'm a little confused. What exactly did we get out of the settlement?
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. -
From a legal standpoint, UND was destined to lose sooner or later.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.Whether the client had any intention of making a good faith effort to utilize the time the settlement bought, I really don't know.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.
-
...Nevertheless, the Board should have come up with a business proposal and presented it to both tribal councils. Let the tribes ignore or turn down a long-term stream of revenue and other positive opportunities if they choose, but an offer needed to be made. To my knowledge, the Board never even discsussed putting together a long-term package, and it certainly never presented one to the tribes. If they had, would that have gotten the tribes attention? Would it have caused them to come to the table? Would it have saved the nickname? I don't know the answers (I tend to think it would not have ultimately saved the nickname), but the effort needed to be made.I agree that they needed to get the parties to the table:especiallyafter 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.
-
Mentioning "catalyst for social change", where all could that go I wonder. Read on in the link for notions.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.
-
...
Honesty in business is at a low. Folks, there's no guarantee that, even if we change the nickname to the UND Friendly Friends with
as the logo, we'll even get into the Summit League! So why get bent all out of shape over a conference that is trying to jack with us using a carrot that may not ever be in reach?
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. -
...Given the circumstances, that was about the best UND could have achieved out of a lawsuit.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.
-
IF we become the Fighting Norse and other schools fans made stereotypical jokes/chants about Norwegians at sporting events, I would not be offended and blame the nickname for promoting the stereoptype that all Norwegians are dim witted.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....
-
-
Since the vast majority of the posters here want the Fighting Sioux nickname to continue at UND, here's something to ponder: shouldn't someone at the actual university that bears the name take a public, active, vocal, point position to persuade people that the name should be kept? I understand fully that the SBoHE's role here, but that certainly doesn't mean someone at UND can't speak on behalf of the name. They know how to do a sell job when they are raising money, but to keep the name we are hearing crickets. Are Kelly and Faison telling the board they don't want the name? Are we advocating on behalf of a name the university doesn't even want anymore?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".
-
That's part of my point: he knows exactly who's applied and doesn't seem to want the public to know. If the public knew the names, they urgency the adminstration says is needed in dropping the Sioux name would look ridiculous.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.
-
Actually, in today's economy, I think we should cut the AD by 80%.
Leave Football, Men's and Women's Hockey, Men's and Women's Basketball, and one other women's sport. Then cut the rest. Blame the economy and minimize the impact of all this.
(Ok, this is tongue in cheek people so don't flame me!)
Aiyeeee! The Title IX people just had their heads explode!! -
Either he's playing dumb...My money would be on this choice.And if your AD reallydoesn'tknow basic facts like this, then quite frankly I would say that your school needs a new AD.
-
Just to clarify, I'm talking about people that donate major cash to UND. It is obviously a divisive issue amongst the general public already.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".
-
It's not a copyright issue, but a trademark issue. To maintain a trademark, the owner has to periodically certify the mark is still used in commerce. If the owner surrenders the mark or does not use it commerce, they generally lose their rights to it.I can tell you that the University of Illinois hassupposedlylicensed the very familiar drawing of Chief Illiniwek to a specialty manufacturer of retro clothing.I saysupposedlybecause I haven't seen any product; and neither has anyone who I talk with (and we're all pretty interested consumers).
Lacrosse at a "DI" UND?
in NCAA News
Posted