Chief Illiniwek Supporter

From the editorial.... Why not? What will the writer say if the tribes okay the logo? Will he write that the tribes were wrong to to this? Is a vote okaying the logo likely? No, but that doesn't mean that there's no chance it will occur. There was a reason the three-year timeline was inserted into the settlement. Yes. yes: and the Seminole fans are all totally respectful. Good point Einstein. There you go. For judgements about looking foolish, always pay attention to the nearest randomly-chosen editorial writer. He'll tell you when you're no longer honoring tradition and suddenly looking foolish. I don't envy the editorial writers here in Chicago. They're forced to waste their time on politics when they'd much rather lecture people on what t-shirt to wear.

Maybe they'll get more than what they want. Like being ignored. JMHO, but the NCAA has handed your state's tribes a lever with a three-year lifespan. As noted, they can see exactly how the Seminole Tribe has leveraged the same situation into some continuing advantages at FSU and in the state of Florida. If the Sioux walk away without using the lever, how has the situation improved for the tribe? It would be one thing if they were breaking new ground. The Seminoles have provided a blueprint for the ND tribes. For that matter, since the NCAA has negotiated this one-sided settlement, all the tribes have to do is insert a five-year renegotiation clause in any agreement. They have a lot of options. To that, I'd say "negotiate and see if you can get even more than what you have now". Dropping this lever without using it assures you won't lose what you have now: but then again, exactly what do you have now that you like so much?? Why not see what this tool can do before it expires in three years? From the perspective of the tribes, I don't see a price for sitting down and talking. What do they lose by doing that?

To me, it sounds like the State is the taxing body that funds those other two-and the body that goes to the people for support. That's the logical entity to be the one who is a "united front". While your statement is correct, I feel that it is a shortsighted view on the part of the tribes. Oh, absolutely. If "Sioux" goes, then nobody has any veto power over Nakota or any other word. I've never understood those who think that any new nickname needs to go to the tribes first. JMHO, but regardless of the nickname these programs and courses are either a good idea or they're not. I think that if the name goes support for programs like this will suffer a backlash in popular approval, but so be it. Let those who speak out for reasonableness now be those who can speak out for reasonableness in the future. If you're silent now, then keep your mouth shut on other Native issues also.

FWLIW, the Alabama legislature has taken up the issue of Auburn and Alabama playing in football: Iowa State and Iowa playing in football actually was/is a law there. I think Kentucky and Louisville originally were mandated (or at least encouraged) to play basketball, but I'm not sure. Nothing like the power of the purse to motivate people. From the editorial... Oh, okay. Well, let the legislature put in a phone call or two, insert a reasonable date into the bill and everyone's happy. No harm in a little more hot air coming out of the state capital, is there?

Hammer meets knee... Of course not. I have deep undercover sources within the Sun's administration and they have assured me that the sun will rise tomorrow. On time. And before you ask, setting is also on for tomorrow-that's straight from the highest authorities. Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you; move along, this way please...

Unfortunately, the longer things go without even sitting down to talk, the closer we are to that coming true. Sad. What really caught my attention was hearing "clenched fist". And he was talking about some of the most strident haters of America out there, with ingrained attitudes and the a population that doesn't see Americans on a daily basis. And the tribes in your state really don't have to get to the situation of "we won: we've eliminated the nickname at the largest university in the state. Now what?" They have an object lesson in Florida. People there worked together. The tribe (IMHO) thrives both socially and economically. When the Seminole tribe started their agreement with FSU, they certainly didn't have the benefit of seeing how this could work. The tribes of your state have that benefit, they can study the pros and cons of what happened in Florida. But as noted, they aren't even willing to sit down and talk. (At least their leaders aren't willing to do that.)

That's true. IMO, the NCAA got even more lawsuit-wary after they saw that they were going to face the mother of all judgements regarding their attempt to tell the Seminole Tribe that they were the victims of a hostile and abusive school. I think the three-year time frame and all of that was a backdown from the NCAA's original wishes; but we'll never know that for certain. I wonder if the Oracle of the Summit Conference, the person who is ABSOLUTELY NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENTS DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE AND IS RIGHT TO ISSUE PRESS RELEASES AT THE DROP OF A HAT has any sort of rule stating that a team that's already in his conference cannot change it's nickname or logo without the express written consent of the Commissioner of the Summit Conference, a.k.a. the Smartest Man in the World who has Deep Undercover Contacts within the NCAA? Let's say you change your name to either the Seashells or the Balloons, the Commissioner comes down and pronounces you fit for the the Conference and then you're in for about a year or so and then you change right back to "Sioux". What happens then? Certainly this guy who has all the answers and shouldn't be doubted has already thought of that. For that matter, what if Centenary decides today that it wants to be known as the Whooping, Screaming, Scalping, Warpainted Savages? What would the Commish do?

JMHO, but I think that is not an accident. I think a number of crafty lawyers on the NCAA side avoided saying "you must...." because that would make it easier for the school to go to court to say "this is unreasonable", "we're in negotiations" etc. and have a judge start issuing injunctions. This way the NCAA says "we're still letting you play, we just don't want something under our banner associated with this". Again, that's merely MHO. And that's from someone who isn't a lawyer (and glad of it).

I'll risk being accused of assuming too much. If anyone thinks that UND athletics would be able to recruit coaches or athletes effectively after they know that they have no chance of a home playoff game, and thus will be on an unequal footing compared to other schools-well, they think differently than I do. It would be a "big deal" to a conference: and a MUCH BIGGER DEAL to the school involved. In short, if the sanctions mentioned are applied the conference wouldn't have to worry about North Dakota not being able to host for very long: and that's because North Dakota wouldn't earn host status very often after being put in a position of not being able to offer coaches and athletes the same opportunity as they would have at other schools.

Exactly. There was no ban on playing sports, only a ban on images after a certain date with the enforcement being an elimination of either championship participation or hosting. What this has to do with conference affiliation I don't know. Does he think that every school in the conference will suddenly be banned from hosting championships? And the question remains: does he really think that the University of North Dakota isn't aware that they need to "resolve" the issue? I agree- I also think there's some definite grandstanding here. And IMHO someone has a political agenda that they're trying to advance. But OTOH, I can see him opening his mouth once and hearing it from his bosses: by their (apparent) silence, they've given him the okay to keep this prattle going. It's not my fight, but I would think long and hard about getting involved with this conference and commissioner. He says that there's an advantage to having rivalviries with South Dakota: well DUH, sounds like you're arguing for North Dakota's admission too buddy. And his Presidents got involved the minute they subordinated their own authority to a NCAA committee.

There's no place that's any better or worse to post this, so I'll put it here as the thread is still pretty close to the top. Here's a very slightly paraphrased version of some words that were uttered recently: anyone else agree that they're applicable here?

Again, we're getting far off the intended path of this thread... Ironic to mention those two names today, eh? But I do agree with what you mentioned (and to be fair, what I've heard many times over the last few months): not only has Obama become the African-American leader, with power to pronounce something racist or not; he has also taken a lot of the power away from the "we can't get ahead because of our race" chatterboxes. As someone who lives near Jesse Jackson's hometown, it will be interesting to see what happens now. Love him or hate him, one thing's for sure: nobody thinks Jesse will retire quietly. I don't think any one race or religion has a monopoly on either intelligence or craziness: but I do think most people will grab for any excuse to rationalize their own personal failures. I'm sure some posters on this board would say that the ANNUAL rate will climb to 143% if/when the nickname is changed.

Well I'm not sure I can think of a school that isn't considered "liberal". But if they're going to make a stand, then make a stand and stick to it. Don't want to play "Indian nickname" schools? Fine, but stick to that rule 365 days a year. And for that matter, don't limit it to Indians: all ethnicities should be equal. I don't think Wisconsin does that (or ever did that). All the spine of a jellyfish IMHO. And IMHO, there never was a situation AT Florida State. The situation was at their opponents. FSU and Utah had a very strong argument even before the NCAA committee involved themselves in issues they didn't understand. And ironically, IMHO by placing FSU on the S-list the NCAA just may have made the support FSU gets from the Seminole tribe that much stronger.

As you noted, I think you've already heard the response: it's contained in most of the posts made both now as well as those posted months ago. I've probably heard almost everything possible aimed at one race or another. And plenty of it was aimed at me. I've heard plenty of it trained on someone who literally came to the USA on a boat at about age nine. He suffered so much that he's only a doctor today. And the reason I said "almost" everything? I formerly worked with a guy who was African-American. He choose to go to a college where he wasn't likely to meet a lot of people who shared his heritage: The Citadel. I can tell you that it didn't affect his business career. However, during his time there I imagine that he heard some things that I might not have heard in my lifetime. Of course, I'm not sure of that. Perhaps I don't know how the Citadel is today; maybe the books are outdated. Life ain't perfect. But I've yet to meet the race, ethnicity or gender problem that was all-encompasing. And BTW, AFAIK neither of those two people ever complained about "unfairness".

Absolutely! (After the game ends, that is.)

I guess the way I look at is that Brand arrived at Indiana to find that someone had already hired a very popular man-eating tiger as their head coach. Now I personally don't think you can just talk to a tiger and get him to go on a vegetarian diet; but sooner or later, once that tiger has done enough damage it's time to get rid of him. I don't see Brand as baiting Knight, but finally saying "enough is enough". One other thing I will say: if at any time within the last say, 10-15 years of Knight's regime you had a player say "I didn't know what I was getting into" I would say that player is so dumb he shouldn't be at any college. The same cannot be said for the average student at IU, nor the other employees of Indiana basketball.

Well, the Seminole tribe has never had a position against the use of their name. BUT, the original Wisconsin statement wasn't specific to FSU. The exceptions written in by Wisconsin were for postseason play and conference play. That implies that even before the NCAA committee got involved, if somehow the Badgers had been invited to a bowl to play the Savages, the Tribe or the Utes they would have done it. Sorry, I see that as hypocritical on its face. And none of the exceptions to their policy covers the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball. Yet, they played Florida State. Sure, it was after the NCAA took them off the S-list, but if you're against the symbolism but make exceptions if a majority of "owners" of that symbolism give you permission: well, to me that's simply a case of not standing behind your words. (FWLIW, they'll gladly play the Aztecs today, anytime and any place. No need for permission, as the descendants of the Aztecs are across a border and in a country that doesn't give them as much political power as the US does. )

C'mon, you know the drill by now. All problems are caused by the nickname. Anything good that occurs happens in spite of the nickname. Blah, blah, blah. Someone (ANYONE-be they North Dakota fan or foe) posts something on a message board, and all hell breaks loose: and of course it's all caused by the nickname. It's all been said before."Autonomous nation": yes, with border guards, passports and visas, exchange deficits or surplus, membership in OAS, UN and NATO....gotcha. "We the white people made them change their name..." And it therefore follows that we the white people allowed them to change their name back to whatever they wanted. Personally, I feel closer to the second "we" then the first. I mean, "we" have done so many bad things throughout the course of history. Many more bad things than the good things "we" have made. Or perhaps somehow the good things occured in spite of us. Again, blah, blah, blah. Been there, heard that. Makes no more sense this time than all the times before. It won't stop the jokers who say it from trying it every time though. "Atrocity" in referring to a name change. I mean, that says it all as far as overreaction and the delusion that EVERYTHING is caused by the name. Obviously you're missing the point; your anger is being misdirected, you need to blame the nickname! BTW, you forgot to throw in the reference which traditionally ends all threads.

We're getting far away from the point of this thread, but here's some thoughts from someone who's a bit interested in IU hoops, even though I'm about the farthest thing from a Hoosier fan that there is... In the last few years of the Knight regime at Indiana, their basketball program was slipping. I am of the opinion that Hoosier basketball fans weren't happy with the way that Knight was shown the door, but OTOH they would have been even less happy had he stayed on as he wasn't going to retire gracefully from Indiana. So he became somewhat of a "martyr" there when he was let go. Mike Davis, their next coach, was almost predestined to fail (as are virtually all coaches who directly follow a "legend"); and he did fail. But the real problem was Kelvin Sampson. He singlehandedly drove Indiana to depths previously unplumbed in Hoosier history: and the sad part is that he came in with the reputation as a cheater, he cheated and ignored some sanctions or safeguards and then he was finally taken out (loudly protesting his innocence all the way) when the rumblings became way too loud. All of this has done nothing but make Knight even more of a revered figure in Hoosier land; but in this person's view the problem wasn't the firing of Knight but rather the rush to replace his success via a coach that was an unrepentant cheater. Tom Crean will do a good job at Indiana. And additionally, he has a Bobby-like firey persona which appeals to the faithful. Something that's contributing to their downfall this year is that allegedly there was quite a bit of drug use last year and some of the people who transfered might have thought that Crean was going to crack down hard. That comes directly from the Hoosier superstar who jumped to the NBA after his freshman season. And regarding Brand-more than a few IU fans say that he virtually trapped or baited Knight into getting himself fired. In my view that's stretching things, but some Hoosiers will believe that forever.

Oh yes. You've already seen how people have said that the nickname has caused a shooting after a wrong way chase on an INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. People actually believe not only that the incident happened, but also that it was somehow caused by a name on a jersey. That self-delusional attitude won't go away. If and when the nickname changes, the incidents (both real as well as quite imaginary) will be caused by the delay in changing the nickname. They're professional complainers, plain and simple. By giving them results you empower them and feed their egos for the next "battle". I would like to ask a question of the University of North Dakota fans here (rather than hearing from fans of other schools): do the North Dakota fans really think that the nickname and logo issue is causing any sort of delay at all in obtaining membership in a new conference? Personally, I don't see it as a problem in the least little bit. There's too much on the line for the schools and conferences to haggle over an issue that will be resolved in a set period of time: risking $$$ on this type of thing makes no sense to me. But I would like to hear from the people in the local area.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't paint/draw a homage to the current Chicago Blackhawks logo. Or a interpretation of well-known historical images, from his own point of view. I'm guessing he couldn't put the word "Sioux" on the product, but he probably could get away with using the name of a state in the USA. AFAIK, colors really can't be copyrighted.

The University of Illinois continues to hold the copyright or trademark to the Chief Illiniwek symbol. They licensed it to a specific "retro" clothing manufacturer, but I have yet to see any of their products. So a retro clothing maker does exist: how hard the University tries to market this logo may be a different story. Interestingly, last fall the University enforced their rights against several people who had portrayed Illiniwek in the past. Talk about angering the most loyal of your alumni.....

I agree-if you have a committee of five people, and two of them are a student and the GM of the arena, clearly you have very little interest in trying to get the approval of the tribes that the long-awaited "settlement" talked about. 1) Is Ron/Thunder the only representative from that tribe that the committee can talk with? 2) Unable or unwilling? I am a great believer in "what goes around comes around". When the phone rings at this end, then I would be "unable to be contacted".

No, my mistake started all of this. I should have read the little excerpt from the article: instead, I tried to hit the link but it wouldn't work for me, and I was in a hurry to make my point... and this whole thread got sidetracked. Reading the post would have helped me keep to the point at hand. Anyway, thanks to all who corrected me about some of the campus personalities and their already-known political leanings.

Referring to a law student appointee to the committee... Referring to a University Vice President on the committee... 1) That law student-doesn't he have ENOUGH to do in LAW SCHOOL? 2) If the committee seems to be composed of five people in total; and you now have 40% 20%of this committee who's "resolution" seems to be surrender to the tribes/NCAA and hold an election to select a half-assed compromise that will be supported by a plurality (and therefore opposed by a majority) of the interested fans. Seems like the three others (assuming they're somewhat more open-minded) have an uphill battle. (Edit: I misread Goon's post, therefore I assumed 40% came in with a predetermined mindset. It appears only one of the five are on record as being anti-nickname and logo. The "uphill battle" isn't quite so uphill. ) I agree. The student involvement is like having a student on the Board of Trustees: window dressing that does nothing but take up time. This committee (and others that should have been formed long ago) should try to meet with the tribe(s) and say "we've got some money from the sale of t-shirts, etc. Let's talk about splitting it up." It's JMHO, but if/when you can get one tribe to sit down and then agree that there's a deal to be made, I think the other tribe(s) will then follow. Thank you for pointing out that I may have erred in the way I read Goon's comments; I have attempted to edit my original post. Also, it looks like the five people are known, including a representative of your new arena. I personally don't see a need for this person at this time. He has an interest in the outcome but right now input from others may be more valuable IMHO.