Gothmog

Well, take a look at today's Star Tribune. UND sweeps the Gophers in Minnesota for the first time in 26 years and where is the story? Buried on page four of the sports section! Hockey doesn't even get page one coverage in Minneapolis/St Paul, the hockey hotbed of the country. BTW, your comment about Iowa fans buying tickets is completely irrelevent.

OK, I'll take 15,000. That's just fine.

I suspect you're overating it a bit, but there can be little doubt that UND's hockey success will help with the transition to DI in other sports. However, NDSU has already shown an ability to bring 20-25 thousand fans to the Metrodome, and has given both Wisconsin and Minnesota a legitmate game - one in basketball, the other in football. That will certainly aid their transition at least as much.

I agree that the NDSU probably did not draw great TV ratings. Most Gopher fans expected the game to be a blowout, and it was available only on FSN North. My point was that media attention does not end with the final buzzer. There is no doubt in my mind that the Twin Cities media, and Twin Cities residents, spent a great deal more time discussing the NDSU football game last year than they did, or will, spend discussing this weekend's hockey games. I suspect that the same situation exists in the the rest of Minnesota, and most of North Dakota.

Well, having lived in the Twin Cities for 20 years, I gotta believe that you're radically wrong about the viewership of Gopher football games vs Gopher hockey games. I don't have any TV ratings to back that up, but my recollection is that there was a great deal more buzz about the NDSU football game around town last fall than there was about last night's hockey game. Some of that buzz was undoubtly driven by speculation about Glen Mason's future. But so what? Publicity is publicity. You're also forgetting that there were 5-6 times as many people in attendance at the Metrodome for the NDSU football game last fall than there were for last night's hockey game.

So you're still going to continue missing the point while digging the hole deeper by defending your false premise with an invalid analogy?

No one would argue that shooting sports even approach the popularity of hockey. However, you can't have it both ways, either the popularity of a sport is a factor in the significance of that sport's championship, or it is not. You seem to be arguing that it is. If it is a factor...well...you can draw your own conclusions about NCAA hockey championships versus NCAA football or basketball titles. We all understand the difference in popularity between hockey and those sports.

Well, regardless of MplsBison's original premise, in comparing the media attention given Alaska's rifle team and that given to UND's hockey team, you do seem to be making the point that championships earned in less popular sports are less significant than those earned in more popular ones.

On second thought, I was a little loose with that sentence. What I should have said is "UND didn't really care whether its choice of a nickname offended the Sioux tribes or not."

Actually, you're wrong again. It is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

My first answer needs no further elaboration.

First, I think that UND didn't really give a damn whether the name mocked the Sioux or not. Second, are you actually suggesting that Native American objections to UND's nickname are some sort of cynical linguistic trick? That "Sioux" doesn't really refer to the Dakota people?

So? Representative governments often take positions contrary to the will of a majority of citizens (thank God). Does that mean that we are free to disregard those positions?

I'm wrong that the majority of Sioux tribal governments have expressed opposition to the nickname, or that we all understand the concept of representative democracy? Apparently the latter.

I think we all understand the concept of representative democracy. The plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of Sioux tribes have, through their tribal governments, expressed opposition to the nickname. You've got a losing argument.

No, you are wrong, the time has come to just change the name. Your first point is basically a very weak slippery-slope argument that if the NCAA prevails on this issue they will inevitably impose some sort of politically-correct tyranny. There is not one bit of evidence to support that. The Native-American nicknames issue has been with us for decades, and the NCAA's position on the issue, whether you chose to admit or not, has the support of the majority of native tribes, educational institutions, and civil rights organizations throughout this country. No other even remotely comparable issue exists. The NCAA is not a malevolent institution, and this is not an enormous conspiracy against the University of North Dakota. The NCAA is simply trying to do the "right thing" by finally bringing closure to a divisive issue. If you're really seeking to establish a legal precedent, would you accept the same policy if it had been passed by a majority of the NCAA's membership? I think not. This is not about UND's altruistic interest in curbing the NCAA's power. As far as UND, someday, convincing the majority of tribes to "work with" the university. UND has had 30+ years to do just that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will be able to do so in 30 more years. Do you really want decades more of this?

OK, whatever you say!

Gee, that's a Non-Sequitur. My point was that the lawsuit is a waste because UND's problem isn't really with the NCAA, it's with the Native Americans who object to the nickname. Win or lose, UND will still face the exact same problem. A problem that, in my opinion, can only be resolved by changing the name. Your comments about trademarks, etc. may, or may not, be correct. However, they have no relevance to the questions I raised.

You mind explaining the "taking off your hood" comment? You're on very thin ice.

Well, there you go with the false analogies again. But if you can find a Goth who objects, I'll gladly change my name. How sure are you that YOUR thinking is representative of most Americans, or Native Americans?

First, "Gothmog" actually comes from the books of JRR Tolkien. He may, or may not, have gotten the idea from the tribe to which you refer. Second, You certainly can complain to the NCAA about anything you want. My point is that the NCAA's hypocrisy is completely irrelevant to the question "Does UND have the right to use the nickname 'Sioux'." That's why this lawsuit is such a waste - it simply cannot resolve the issue. Win or lose, as long as Native Americans generally object to the nickname, UND has a problem. No amount of whinning about the big bad NCAA will ever change that. Your efforts to convince people that the NCAA is wrong, hypocritical, stupid, silly...are all in vain.

Well, you're probably right that the NCAA should not accept advertising money from GM if there really is significant opposition to GM's use of the word "Pontiac" (I'm not so sure that any such opposition exists outside this board). The point is that the moral and ethical case against UND's nickname would not be invalidated by the NCAA's hypocrisy in other matters.

You seem to be admitting that UND will not have the votes until Sac State leaves the Big Sky. Isn't that pretty much the same situation that NDSU and SDSU faced?

Are you suggesting that the Sioux people really want UND to use their name? Now that really is willfull ignorance!