Benny Baker

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.

Sorry, I'm confused by what you said too. No, I don't think that continuing the nickname would benefit UND. But I'm not of the opinion that the current harm facing the athletic's program justifies retirement. Now, if the BSC finally gets off their collective butts and actually says "drop the nickname or you're gone" . . . well then my opinion would change. As far as I'm concerned, the Big Ten holy trinity can have a nice life. Hope that clarifies it.

I've tried to find clarification on this. From what I've seen, Iowa and Wisconsin's policies don't differentiate between sanctioned-mascot and unsanctioned-mascot schools. Are the policies that I'm looking at old? Do you have any links for newer ones? Thanks in advance!

Again, I've already said that the nickname does not benefit the university overall so I don't know how you can read into that statement that someone is being benefited. But if you want this to be an academic exercise than I'll throw this out there: To prove our state’s ability to make it’s own decisions, rather than blindly following the NCAA’s arbitrarily enforced policy. To ensure that the amount of public time and resources expended in retaining the nickname are not wasted, rather than making reactionary decisions based upon other parties’ actions. To continue providing exposure to the Native American community, but I guess that is why SL is suing the NCAA in the first place. To encourage UND to recognize and continue providing educational opportunities for North Dakota’s Native American population, rather then see it dwindle away after the nickname is gone. To continue the proud tradition and history of Fighting Sioux athletics. Again, I've already answered your question three-times over. So I'm not sure if it was something like this that you were looking for.

Haha, says the guy who refuses to answer any of my direct questions.

Sorry, too many questions at once. Which question? I'm not really sure what you're really looking for since I said that the nickname and sanctions will hurt the school. So if it's the second question, I think I've made it clear. The unilateral choice of three schools to continue not playing against UND is not the end of the Earth. The athletic program will survive.

Where did I say that Central Michigan was under sanctions, idiot? Iowa's policy doesn't differentiate between sanctioned and unsanctioned universities. It's actually pretty well documented that the school applies its policy arbitrarily. It must be because the Hawkeye nickname is derived from Chief Black Hawk, who was of course, a Native American.

Logical, good point. A lot more reasonable than the plain assumptions that the BSC will dump UND and that's that.

The fact that the UND contingent now believes that the absence of three non-traditional opponents from UND's athletics' schedules will kill the program. These policies have existed for a long time; UND has survived. Central Michigan has survived without scheduling this apparent holy trinity. In other words, UND's survival is not contingent on playing three specific schools, which UND has hardly, if ever, played before. In seven years, all I've heard is Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. Finally, I am asking for the name of any other schools. ScottM can't even name one more. All I'm asking is for someone to name a few other schools, which have adopted similar policies in the last seven years.

Who said that keeping the nickname would benefit the University? I think that they'd be incorrect.

What is the removal policy for probationary members?

Is Minnesota the only horse sh1t FBS program that UND is able to travel to? No, there's more than 110 out there. Heck, if I was NDSU, I wouldn't schedule UofM anymore. You guys need to face some real competition if you want to repeat.

You were making a lot of sense up until the last part. UND can only be removed for cause according to the bylaws. Upon this showing, UND can only be removed with unanimous consent of every Big Sky president. "Won't be very difficult" is disingenuous.

So ScottM, in other words, you're saying you can't. That's what I thought.

So when/if those scenarios don't occur . . . You do realize that speculation goes both ways, right? Let's talk facts. We know where Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota currently sit. We have for several years. This isn't new and EVERYONE realizes it. It's time for you all to move on from your anectodal stories about these three schools. So what other schools have adopted policies like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over the last seven years? How many of the other 360 D-1 institutions won't be playing UND? For everyone's benefit, please don't use the response, "But if other schools follow suit..... what happens if other programs . . .." For starters, let's see if ScottM can name three more.

"Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota---Three schools with no history against UND outside of hockey." I said that an hour ago; I figured you had read that. As for the other programs, yes they'd probably be "toast" without a conference. But like I've constantly said, the most important issue is conference affilitation, not what Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota chose to do. The Big Sky season starts in a couple of months. Why haven't they removed UND yet? What are they waiting for? Do they want to wait until summer to take action so that the schools will have to face tight deadlines for rescheduling since UND would be out of the picture? Fat chance. Maybe Fullerton is waiting until the Big Sky has a "super major concern" with the nickname, rather than the simple "concern" and "major concern", which the conference currently has.