Chief Illiniwek Supporter

Some may be interested to see this video story about another Illiniwek fan-he recreated the logo in his back yard. http://illinoishomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=6821 BTW, his ancestry is partly Native American. That should drive some people nuts.

I'd hope he wouldn't even check the gas gauge (being satisfied that he knows everything) and in my version of a perfect world he'd keep going until he got to grizzly bear territory in say, Montana; where he'd run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. And he'd get out of his car to enjoy a sandwich from his preferred PC vendor at that time. Maybe your big enforcer could be the Bible Belter. The Blue (Line) Law could refer to your strong defense. BTW, here's a letter to the editor with a far different tone. I didn't send it, but I do agree with the author. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/...erful_chief_was

Here's a nice letter to the editor from the hometown newspaper of the University of Illinois. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/...e_as_a_surprise Wear a hat someone disagrees with? You're a racist. Love to see that guy come up to Chicago during hockey season. (Personally, I would have loved to see him try to "talk some sense" into the balcony dwellers at the old Stadium. It was a long walk up there, and people were in no mood for nonsense by the time they got to their seats.)

A factor, rather than THE factor. That says it all. "Old" is up to you to define. But "married"? Uh, that's a no-go from day one. Personally, I prefer the metaphor of pro wrestlers on the undercard. Bash folding chairs over each others heads for two hours; then retire to the same dressing room, go out to dinner with the other wrestlers in a group, share a cab back to the same hotel, and get on the same bus to travel to the next night's show-where they bash each other with folding chairs once again. All Sound and Fury Signifying nothing. That statement covers 99.999% of these boards. :-) Interesting point on the respective populations-and that's one reason why I try to stress proximity AND population. But frankly, in this case I had always heard that the Florida group was the larger group. So if that's wrong, then I'm wrong too. I've never been a fan of Wiki so I won't use it to cite stats. One point that I do know is that the Florida Seminoles have one of the "tightest" tests for tribal membership. http://www.seminoletribe.com/history/faqs.shtml They insist on 25% blood being traced to a 1950's list. I don't know whether or not the Oklahoma group insists on the same thing, or if they're even more stringent. For that matter, I don't know how the 1950's list was determined. I have searched for some (reliable, official) stats about individual tribe Indian populations in the past. They're very hard to come by IMHO; and as noted, its difficult to ascertain that you're comparing apples to apples. But that's neither here nor there. Wait a minute. I'd have to say that was not a unilateral decision at all. That was mutual at the very least. Absolutely. Once you do get support (and find the right combination of words to satisfy the courts and the NCAA) then just like with the Chips and 'Noles, its up to you to keep that support. Nobody has ever said how long the "votes" last, or whether its a popular vote among the population or a resolution by a legislative body, or some other test. I have to believe that the "intense pressure" is there for the Chips and the 'Noles also. So for better or worse, there's no guarantee that a revote would happen often, nor that it would be a change. But here's one other point: nobody has ever brought up the idea that the Miami Tribe of Ohio should "revote" on the idea that they rescinded support for Miami University. Once you lose support of the patron, its gone forever. That's also unfair IMHO.

And do you think that Illini fans are somehow latecomers to this party? That's good, because you haven't done that here. -How? Perhaps. I'm skeptical about this. -Why? Highly doubtful. -The order? While you may know the sequence in which events occurred, your assignments of causes simply cannot be proven. Correlation does not imply causation. (There's a Latin phrase too, but this board is too dirty-minded to spell it out in public.)

LOL! What a gem. The original point is summed up in this thread. Sorry if anyone can

Google cannot find this. What's more, here's a quote from the letter of appeal sent by William and Mary a full NINE MONTHS after the NCAA first put Utah on the H&A list and then took them off:

(here) I agree. Right now a lot of people seem to be relying on the Spirit Lake decsion. IMHO, the NCAA would point to the fact that within the state of North Dakota the majority of people who are designated as members of a recognized tribe of Sioux are against the nickname. Simply put, population and proximity are what differentiates you from the Chips of Central Michigan. (And also what would have differentiated you from Florida State University if the Oklahoma Seminoles actually had objected.) In another thread (here), I asked if your school would be interested in adopting the nickname "University of North Dakota Spirit Lake Sioux" (or whatever name the Spirit Lake group now uses). Personally, I think this could trump the NCAA and the other North Dakota Sioux tribes. This is correct; but the NCAA has "leaned on" the BCS in an attempt to make the BCS either not invite those schools not in compliance, or keep them from showing their nicknames/logos. AFAIK, the BCS has not actually said anything about this issue. Frankly, it never was much of a concern for Illinois as we are light years away from using "BCS bowl" and "Illini football" in the same sentence. Edit Correction: it looks like the NCAA has done more than lean on the bowls, they've brought them under this policy. USA Today story from 2005

That's fine. I've NEVER seen anything like written by anyone at CMU or Utah. Utah's people in particular seemed to bend over backwards to emphasize that they were considering all sides of the issue; yet AFAIK they never mentioned the Colorado group. Next time you see it cited on the web, drop in a link here. I don't know the answer to that question. A few lines ago you wrote "I don't pretend to know what the NCAA knew about those tribes." So maybe they did know. Listen, I simply can't make it any plainer. Three schools had long-term support from their local tribes: CMU, FSU and Utah. (Yeah, yeah: I know that you are NOT certain about the Chips and the Utes. Okay, fine. I'm going with it anyway.) The NCAA banned them all in early August, '05. Only one thing changed in the next few days: The assumption that a small Oklahoma tribe opposed Osceola and the Seminoles was corrected. But in the next six weeks or so, the effect (namely, the rescindment of the ban) were shared by all three school despite your cause applying to only one school (FSU). I simply cannot draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the Okie Seminole tribe issuing a clarification, and two other schools totally unrelated to the Oklahoma tribe (CMU/Utah) suddenly becoming list non-members. I have to look elsewhere, and I see the possibility of a lawsuit by the supportive Chippewa, Ute and Florida Seminole tribes as being the far, far, far more likely cause of the NCAA dropping their objections. And in particular, the NCAA feared a lawsuit from the Seminoles because they're supported by the most people (fans), and politicians from a powerhouse state stood behind them in no uncertain terms. I'd opine that Utah and CMU would have been happy to delay their lawsuits while FSU and their rabid supporters tore the NCAA a new one, and then just ask Miles Brand "you ready for another round in court?" I just can't help you anymore than that. Its as plain and simple as I can possibly make it. As far as I'm concerned, whoever disagrees with that simply doesn't want to consider any other possibilites (or probabilities), and no amount of words will ever convince them. I've spent far too much time on this; you're on your own from here on out. As previously noted, best of luck.

And they knew the position of the Chippewa tribe. And the Ute tribe. Here's the difference: there were no dissenting tribes for either of those schools. The NCAA didn't care about anything. (IMHO, that is.) They thought the PC police at the various schools would carry the day. The fact that they mentioned the Oklahoma Seminoles is (of course IMHO) a happy coincidence. And the reason the NCAA believed it could ignore the Chips and Utes is..... ? ? ? ? The "only" part of that statement is your opinion. I disagree with your opinion. Um, yeah: gotcha. Hey, good luck with that. Wow. That's quite a statement. Personally, I think it does matter. Occassionally, things matter even though they don't happen. I have found it interesting (even helpful) to consider alternatives and options. You obviously feel differently. Again, much good luck to you with that. Here's the original press release: http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...;PreviewState=0 Here's a story from USA Today where they quote a CMU spokesman as saying ""Frankly, we wonder if (the NCAA) ever read some of the original documentation we filed in the first place," referring to a report filed two months before the August, '05 ban: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/z...-zillgitt_x.htm

The original proclamation from August, 2005 said nothing about namesake tribes (or any other exemptions for that matter). The NCAA wanted to hold fast against one namesake tribe in Florida because they claimed they had an objection from another namesake tribe in Oklahoma. If you want to say "not really" to the idea that the policy isn't fluid and ever-changing, I can't agree. See below with the

Its all relative, isn't it? Here on May 30th gas in the Chicago area (just outside of the county line where Chicago is located) was $3.59 at the off-brand stations. Add at least a nickel for major corporate stations.

An interesting question. But IMHO, the so-called "requirements" are quite fluid. If North Dakota had the support of a small minority of in-state Sioux, would the rest of the tribal members just walk away? Personally, I don't think so: that's when you would see the stories of how UND is taking advantage of some people by bribing them while others are starving, etc. Strictly as an aside, I think the Seminoles got off because of both the in-state factor as well as the greater population of the Florida group over the Oklahoma group. Another issue that would be brought up would be the "ownership" of the word Sioux. Does any one tribe own any more (or less) than the others? And by no means do I grant ownership of a word to any group, just a question for arguments sake. One final question here: how would people on this board feel if they woke up on say, June 15th and heard that their school had changed its nickname to the "University of North Dakota Fighting Spirit Lake Sioux"? You've probably seen one of Michigan State's logos: the one with the word "State" in very large type and "Michigan" in much smaller type, above and between the letters "S" and "e". (Here's a picture: http://shop.thefabricfinder.com/item.asp?cID=58&PID=180 ) Your group is very imaginative, you could work out something similar. And by definition, you could keep your Chicago Blackhawks-style logo. Quite a few people would be checkmated, wouldn't they? Perhaps then the University Athletic Department would contribute $$ to the Spirit Lake tribe, and maybe after that some other tribes might re-vote; and sooner or later it would be decided that it's unwieldy to call them the "Spirit Lake/Standing Rock/XXX Sioux" and maybe they would just shorten it to Sioux. Would people think this is an acceptable compromise? The state of South Carolina has a Confederate flag in a Civil War Memorial on the grounds of their state capital building. Obviously, neither the University of South Carolina nor Clemson can do anything about that: but the NCAA wants to withhold competitions from the state universities based on the flag display. So I don't think state police cars can be far behind for the thought police in Indianapolis....

And this would be a total capitulation by the NCAA-not that I would mind it... But what would the NCAA say to Arkansas State, and William and Mary, and Illinois, and a few others who were told to knuckle under? And that's not considering the schools that jumped the gun (oh sorry, that's an Oklahoma Sooners reference, isn't it?) a little earlier and became Redhawks or Red Storm or something.

If your school doesn't keep the name, it

Booze can be a health hazard. I can't see a settlement happening without getting some sort of signoff from at least one of the tribes. That's the only way the NCAA could remain consistent. And IMHO unless they get a significant number of the tribe members behind it, the agreement would be under constant fire from other Indians. That's where having a stated time period in the settlement would come in handy. Personally, I would recommend about a million years.

And that's another part of the problem. Once you start delegating (or perhaps asking for cover) so-called "major" decisions down to various ad-hoc committees, then you have to define/justify exactly what these "major" decisions are/are not: and then you live and die with the next committee's decision. And the public soon learns that these whitewashing committees are useless; so every once in a while you have to appoint one with real authority and autonomy. And then you need to start factoring in THOSE additional costs into the "oh look at UND, they're spending all that money and we're saving it" blather. Oh what a tangled web we weave......

Two quotes, one from each article: Anyone else notice that the students are affected, but are not represented? I do have to wonder how often these decisions are made by committees instead of A) the Chancellor or B) the Board of Trustees. At Illinois, the decision was solely the responsibilty of the Trustees. Do we have a committee on raises? On budgets? Or is it just on hot button issues, the ones the Trustees want political cover for? (Emphasis added.) Yes, thanks for another shining example of unbiased journalism. Bingo! Magic word. End of debate. If you claim to have diversity on your side, you automatically win.

Chock-ful-o-buzzwords, isn't it? And WE'LL be the judges of what is "offensive", "relevant", "educational", sufficient "effort" and how often "perodic" reviews are needed. Why is it that Illinois or North Dakota needs to attract/retain American Indian faculty, but Iowa, Southern Cal, Florida State and San Diego State do not? Why do only certain institutions need to educate? By implication, they are saying that the use of (unapproved) macots creates misinformation. How Florida State's Osceola and SDSU's Montezuma are considered accurate but Illiniwek created misinformation is a mystery to me. I wonder if they will use Seminoles for FSU and Braves for Pembroke? Here's a fun article: I guess mocking Indians is okay as long as its done to support a PC-charity. http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/114037.asp

And of course, the judges of exactly what is and is not "benign" will be.... who? Others may choose to give grants because you refuse to kotow to the PC patrol. And others may drop their grants if you do change nicknames. Any real numbers here? Why is it that the issue should be peripheral to those who support the nickname: but its a given that the nickname is somehow a lifelong cause to those who don't like it? Where's the logic there?

Money makes the world go 'round; the world go round.... I wish I had more than a Broadway show tune to support my argument, but without some economic impact against these schools, what hammer would the NCAA have? "This won't cost you a cent but if you keep the nickname "Sioux" we'll all say 'shame on you' and look at you in a lesser light"? They've already discussed not letting Illinois play in bowl games. Whenever the NCAA discovers some violations, the first thing they do is hand out economic penalties. You lose your share of basketball revenues, or they limit scholarships (with the idea that you'll lose games and attendance). Money: its what they do. BTW, as long as we're talking lawsuits, here's a bit of news on the Illiniwek lawsuit: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/200...d_chief_lawsuit I always thought our so-called appeal was late and weak. And been its common knowledge for a very, very long time that a LOT of people thought the Board of Trustees would attempt to say "hey, the NCAA tied our hands here". I hope they dig up some real documentation.

Now as I recall, didn't the NCAA claim that there policy wasn't "punative" towards individual schools? Doesn't this latest claim contradict that statement (which everyone knew was a lie)?? (edit) Also, how can you claim that you are setting up a second class of membership, summarily demoting a school: and then try to deny anti-trust violations? The NCAA almost got hauled in front of Congress for the BCS bowls and had to create another "Bowl" to placate the Boise States, Tulanes, etc. Why would North Dakota voluntarily take this demotion?

Yeah, so if youse guys can't speak proper American, that means you ain't supposed to be posting here! And also, whatever youse sez when you post with "youse guys" is irrelavant!

Something in-between these two observations happened at the University of Illinois. We spent a lot of money taking statements from any interested party about Chief Illiniwek (and by extension, the nickname). Obviously the "poll" wasn't scientific, but something between 85% and 95% of the people who bothered to say something supported Illiniwek. Therefore, I agree with saying that the people who don't like nicknames using ethnic groups are a "small minority".