Benny Baker
-
Posts
1,205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Benny Baker
-
-
Before? Eh, whatever. But if they'd have done it after Aug 5, 2005, you might have a point.
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.
-
And when Pontiac motor cars existed they were an official sponsor of NCAA events. Pontiac was Ottawa tribe chief's name. In light of that, you shouldn't be surprised.
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
-
"Hawkeye" is not a "race, ethnicity, or national origin" based name. That's what the Aug 5, 2005, NCAA statement laid out. Yes, they're only targetting Native names ... at this time. But they left the door open, didn't they.
Now if you'd be complaining about "IOWA" on the front of their jerseys you might be onto something. Iowa derives from the name of the indiginous Kiowa peoples of that region.
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.
-
Answer the question: "What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students?"
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.
-
Iowa State
Thank you, now that's what I've been asking for. Was this a UND-related event or with other schools?
-
Military? I'd have to guess air farce. I spent six years in the army, and really appreciated those flights in the back of a C-130 or 141 when we had to go somewhere.
Three schools? ... Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Why do you need more? UND has scheduled these schools in the past, There are probably others that have been mentioned in the past, but feel free to look around. Would you prefer they look to Wake Forest or Auburn?
Preserverance? I've been in this name fight over two decades since I was on campus in the late 80s. Check some of the earliest threads on this forum. Where the !@#$ were you until you recently showed up here? I know a losing deal when I see one, and this name that most of us grew up with has become a cancerous growth on UND.
Answer this one: What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students?
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.
-
CMU is a FBS school in the MAC and they are not under sanctions. We are so that is why we have problems now. What don't you understand and what are you trying to get at?
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.
-
In other words, you and others will throw UND under the bus to "make a point" to the NC$$, when they don't give a damn what goes on in North Dakota, and they have a settlement agreement to support their indifference.
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.
-
What I don't understand is the policy is intended to not stereotype NA yet just because the NCAA says FSU and Utah and CMU are ok that means those names don't offend anyone. It seems as though the NCAA is acting like GOD. The policy should be evenly applied and if the name is offense it shouldn't matter if they are on the sanctions list or not. I think that is a point that irritates a lot of people about this whole process.
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.
-
I don't get it Benny. "Keeping the moniker benefits UND" is by your statement "incorrect. "
So why the other tangential concerns or arguments? Just bored and have a keyboard?
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.
-
Again, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa follow the NCAA's "best practices" policy when it comes to scheduling. That means they won't schedule teams on the NCAA's "naughty monikers" list.
FSU, Utah, and CMU are not on the "naughty monikers" list.
UND is on the "naughty monikers" list.
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!
-
You said that keeping the nickname does not benefit the university. My question is: if they keep the nickname, who does it benefit then? You obviously want to keep it so who do you see benefitting from keeping it?
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.
-
You make an "apple to oranges" comparison between UND and CMU when CMU regularly plays B1G schools without sanctions hanging over it. UND no longer has that benefit.
Not sure what your game is on the board,. since you fail to answer any direct questions posed about the effects of the sanctions on UND or the "benefits" of keeping the Sioux moniker. However, you do seem to enjoy engaging in pointless hypotheticals llike some bored law student.
Haha, says the guy who refuses to answer any of my direct questions.
-
Benny, I am still waiting on your answer to my question............
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.
-
CMU isn't under sanctions you idiot. And they are scheduiled to play Iowa. And Michigan State.
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.
-
Also I've heard the argument that the BSC has to take us now because it's too late for UND to find games to replace the 2012-13 schedule, I assume what would happen is the BSC would honor those games and play them as OOC games, and we would be on our own in 2013-14.
Not official, just my guess.
Logical, good point. A lot more reasonable than the plain assumptions that the BSC will dump UND and that's that.
-
Then what are you blathering about?
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.
-
Okay smart guy name me 3 reasons why keeping the name will benefit the University?
Who said that keeping the nickname would benefit the University? I think that they'd be incorrect.
-
They are probationary. They can be removed very easily.
What is the removal policy for probationary members?
-
Ask any of the fb people that post here what playing MN 3 times did for the NDSU fb program.
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.
-
Probably the same thing that Iowa is waiting for as it pertains to the soccer game. They want to see if UND still has the Fighting Sioux nickname. Just like Iowa, the Big Sky agreed to let UND in when it seemed the nickname issue was being resolved. Now that there are setbacks, Iowa has pulled that acceptance, but is waiting before they pull the soccer agreement. According to the Big Sky Commissioner, it won't be very difficult to pull the acceptance of UND.
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 come to pass, are you still going to be around here, or will you slink back into the woodwork? And we'll talk about soccer, not that I ever do, when/if Iowa does play UND since there's plenty of time for them to pull that deal. I take it proactive thinking isn't really your forte.
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.
-
The athletic program hasn't played Wisconsin and Minnesota? Then who were the Lamoureuxs (Monique, Jocelyn, and Mario) playing this year? Nice try.
And Benny, I thought you'd have more respect for UND's volleyball and tennis programs. Without the Big Sky Conference, they're toast.
"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.
The Sanctions and Punishments Have Arrived
in UND Nickname
Posted
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.