Benny Baker

I think you've made the point that if this law is ruled unconstitutional then so is the repeal law. I think you've read the briefs, or at least know of the SBHE's argument, which is that control of the nickname belongs to the State Board rather than the legislature. Whether you like Al or not, he is absolutely correct in this position---a ruling in favor of the SBHE constricts the legislature's power over North Dakota's universities. It ain't just about the nickname legislation; it's about how the precedent of this case will affect the constitutionality of future legislature. That is why the legislature has an interest in this case, whether or not they voted to repeal the nickname law.

So long as it's not filled with rhetoric, I say "the more the better."

You, my friend, should change your name to "82SiouxEncyclopedia"

Or at the least the three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. I've also wondered why UND didn't need approval of the Lake Traverse Sioux Reservation, which like Standing Rock, is mostly within the state of South Dakota.

Because one of, if not, the best hockey facility in world is 80 miles north of Fargo.

Good to know, thanks.

But the State's prayer for relief, among other things, was that the NCAA could do nothing to punish UND or prevent the nickname use, hosting playoff games, etc. The litigation wasn't exclusive to the policy at the time, it was clearly regarding whether the NCAA could actually take steps to sanction and/or punish UND. Thus, if UND won, any action taken by the NCAA to sanction UND would have been in violation of the court order and judgment. . . . Similar to how many people believe the State's actions have violated the settlement agreement. If the State sued the case out and won (not saying that they would have), then the athletic teams play as the "Fighting Sioux" without facing any sanctions. But I guess it's all academic at this point.

Doesn't winning a lawsuit necessarily imply that the Court afforded the requested relief to the Plaintiff? If the State won then UND wouldn't have been placed on sanctions. That's why litigation was commenced in the first place.

No, you were right the first time. It is a fact that the NCAA is full of !@$!.

We can make distinctions all we went and frame the issue is different ways. But, Florida State only needed approval of the nearest Seminole tribe. Central Michigan only needed the approval of one Chippewa tribe, the closest to the school, despite the presence of three other Chippewa tribes in Michigan. UND is also received approval from the tribe closest to the school, but it is the only institution that the NCAA had required approval from multiple tribes. Everyone is aware that this result is, in part, due to UND commencing litigation and that the others schools did not. Everyone is aware that the NCAA is arbitrary, capricious, and that the organization can do what it wants.

I understand the change in policy but it truly is a distinction without a difference. They wouldn't compete against UND in 2005; they won't compete against UND now. Nothing has changed . . . other than the schools' choice to weaken their respective policies. I don't think im being disingenuous about recruiting, especially now that UND will be in the Big Sky. Whether it be during the transition period or in the Big Sky, UND gave up numerous regional games for ones out in California, Texas, Montana, etc. You have a sound argument in that schools simply won't be arsed to consider scheduling UND. I'll leave it at that. As for Duluth, it seems like it's more of an issue with the student body rather than with the nickname. I'm sure you read about the Mankota incident.

If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." Since 2005, and even before that, we have known where these three schools stand regarding Native American mascots. Iowa wouldn't even have played UND before the NCAA started its sanctions, because Iowa's policy, like Wisconsin's, pre-dates the NCAA's actions. Simply put, Iowa not playing UND because of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is something I could have told you back in 2005, or 2000 for that matter. There is nothing new with this, move along already. But don't try to cloak Iowa's decision not to compete against UND as something new. it's disingenuous and you know it. All I have ever wanted to know is what new schools have said that they wouldn't participate against UND? If Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado take similar positions then I will definitely change my stance regarding this particular issue. If there have been schools that declined participating against UND, why hasn't UND sent out a press release like they did yesterday with Iowa? As for recruiting, I get where you are going. But remember, when UND transitioned to D-1 it said goodbye to games against St. Cloud St., Mankato, Winona St., Duluth, etc. So again, it's quite disingenuous to now say that not competing against UofM or Wisco puts us at a recruiting disadvantage when UND has already picked up and left Minnesota for New Jersey Tech, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Texas Pan-American, etc. Did you have these same recruiting concerns when UND, itself, chose to leave its Minnesota recruiting base for the Great West . . . and Big Sky?

Haha, well at least we can find common ground somewhere.

Sorry for sounding like a complete tool. But you just linked to the noun definition of harangue after using it as a verb. Nonethless, saying that something is "kind of funny" does not amount to a lengthy, aggresive, or critical speech. But keep on stretching the truth if you feel that it's necessary.

No,Ipointed out that the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it when I said that "I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned." You chose, for one reason or another, to bring up corporate sponsorships. I also said that "the school's policy is kind of funny" . . . so you need to look up the definition of "harrangue." I think that most of the things that you say are logical and valid, but you're really starting to stretch the truth with some of these statements.

I only wasted my time responding to you. Dude, you're the one who brought up corporate sponsorship not me. I was talking about the University of Iowa policy against UND, which is the topic of this thread. You started this NCAA sponsorship tangent. Follow your own rules and stay on point, Sicatoka.

No, my point is entirely valid. It's amazing how the NCAA can sign on with a sponsor, which sell items boasting an American Indian in a headdress, while seven months later enacting a policy, which prevents its member institutions from having logo with an American Indian in a headdress. Don't lose your credability by suggesting otherwise.

Not at all. But I am amazed that the NCAA agreed to a corporate sponsorship with Kraft shortly before announcing its hostile and abusive policy in 2005. I get that they're all about money, but don't they have to team up with the corporation that makes Calumet Baking Power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet_Baking_Powder_Company

I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned. It's just that the school's policy is kind of funny in light of the fact that its own nickname is a derivative of a Native American chief's name.

Graduate. Fan. Care about how it impacts the school and students, I've made that well known. I just think that complaining about three Big Ten schools is barking up the wrong tree. Conference affiliation is number one; playoff sanctions are number two; recruiting efforts are number three; and Iowa, Wisco, and Minny might not even make the top ten. It is unfortunate, but the ball is in their court.

Thank you, now that's what I've been asking for. Was this a UND-related event or with other schools?

You can just say: "No, I am unable to even name one more University." That'll do, try again. P.S. I have no qualms with UND playing against Auburn or Wake Forest whatsoever.

I meant FBS, but thanks for the clarification. I would still prefer I-A and I-AA. I still need to see the holy trinity's respective policies, because from what I've read they apply all across the board: sanctioned or not. Even if they only apply to sanctioned schools, my point still stands. In all seriousness, what other schools have refused to play Native American mascot teams? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just sick of hearing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over and over and over and over and over and over again. We've known that they wouldn't play UND since 2005. There is no need to act like this is such a surprise now.

Wow, Scotty. I'm glad I never served in the military with you. Nice give up attitude you have. Just because there are sanctions means UND has no shot as an athletic institution? There is no way the program knows how to persevere through the situation? Scotty, since you're the bastion of giving everyone direct responses and calling others out on their failure to do the same . . . i'm still waiting . . . I'll even broaden the scope, name three other schools who have refused to play Native American mascot institutions since 2005.

Iowa and Wisconsin's policies apply to all Native American mascots, whether the university is sanctioned or not. Schools like CMU, an FCS school, have fared just fine in the face of the Big Ten's policies.