IowaBison

I'd add that NDSU has, does, and will continue to provide significant institutional funding for its athletic programs.

everywhere but in fargo. it's too bad as Potts is a good man

Sh#t.

Yeah. And I apologize for being snide, PCM. I do appreciate the information.

It does. Apparently everything UND touches regarding Native Americans turns to gold.

This doesn't jive with your latest statement where apparently now you know I'm wrong.

That's a pretty arrogant comment, PCM.

And I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. I've got experience both living and working with natives in the state. working with them, even when the work is designed solely to benefit them can be extremely challenging, if not an exercise in futility.

Those are some very good points and I agree. The use of the contract analogy was to show the use of conditionality, it was not a statement of the resolution being a contract, it obviously isn't. I'm not fighting a win/lose battle. I want to learn more about the situation. I think that the cards are stacked in the NCAA's favor with regard to the process and the impending court case, that's just my opinion. I'm not defending anything or anyone.

I don't think the state's tribes are too involved with any of the programs at UND (and that's not a slam on UND).

It's a complex issue that I wouldn't have any idea where to start with and we'd surely get lost in the discussion. Is membership a contract? almost certainly. Does membership mean that the organization can still change rules? Yes (conditionally). Did the NCAA's actions meet those conditions? good question (and most importantly good luck proving that they didn't in a court of law). If they didn't, what method of recourse does UND have? the NCAA appeals process, then threats and a lawsuit. I had heard that issues of due process and the NCAA's monopolistic nature would be considered but based on previous cases that argument doesn't appear that it will work. Pursuing the case as a breach of contract will be very interesting, but I think many of the same issues arise.

? And your belief is based on what?

That doesn't make any sense and part of it is wrong. A contract can have any number of conditions, if any aren't met the contract is in breach, the same principal extends to the resolution. If I promise to rent your boat if its sunny tommorow, I'm not obligated to do anything if it rains. The Tribe promised to support the name if x,y, and z occured and one them didn't they poof - the resolution is not binding. PCM brought up a very good point about some folks at UND interferring with the University's initial work to met some of the conditions. I can definitely see that (thinking they're conducting sabotage for the greater good, while actually being absolute hypocrits) and it's very sad if it did.

Pretty sure Myra is against the name. Signature on Name Change My opinion, based on tea leaves, and having a lot of friend and family around Devils Lake, including south of it, is that tribal members care significantly less about the issue than other residents of the state. And I think the lack of a new resolution has to do with two issues: 1, disagreement on support or opposition and 2, members of the board not giving a hoot/not wanting to deal with it. If you think about the tribal board as an organization similar to a county commission the latter point makes a lot of sense. They are busy dealing with roads, that damned lake, taxes, and a hundred other things. I think that is to the benefit of those who support the name because if people were really upset, one way or the other, another resolution would have come out.

But why do they need to rescind it if it is essential invalid as UND didn't meet there end of the bargain? It's dead already. I don't mean to sound like a horse's a$$ all the time (every once in a while I do, I can't lie), I'm just trying to learn about the situation. And a lot of what's out there just doesn't match up. I wasn't being facetious when I stated a thesis or dissertation on the topic would be worthwhile.

PCM do you have any examples, or sources, for the NCAA lobbying against the name? I know that the Association contacted the Tribe repeated, but I've read that was for clarification only. ?

Thanks for the info, PCM. It's interesting that Myra Pearson, current tribal chair(wo)man, is obviously against the name. As is former tribal chairman Skip Longie. I wonder which leaders President Kupchella is referring to? And no, I'm not calling him a liar.

There is a difference between conditional and unconditional approval. You do concede that the 2000 resolution had conditions, don't you? Will you concede that there wasn't the follow through that UND promised? There was no American Indian awareness training was there?

Really, they said that? Really? I'd love to see a source on that. The resolution stated they approved UND's use of the name conditionally. According to Skip Longie, formal tribal chairman, these conditions were never met. Assertions that the NCAA tried to get them to change their position is a mis-characterization. The NCAA wanted to know how they felt-TODAY.

What are you talking about, bincity? They still do it today. Given the instability of the Mid-Con, UND, especially with a partner in the Northern Great Plains, will be a top candidate for membership. And unless Oregon and California fall into the Pacific in the next five years, the Mid-Con won't be a viable conference, it will be the viable conference.

Heck, I would look at a small, unique part of the situation: Why can't anyone get an answer out of Spirit Lake regarding tribal support for or against the nickname. That's an issue worthy of a thesis or dissertation in communications.

no, but it will be in two years.

Once again, let's stick to the topic. Otherwise just post what you mean: I'm tired of you coming on here and posting things that I disagree with. You're a annoying sh$thead, go away.

Even if true, that relates to the topic at hand how?

Got a comment related to the post, or just me?