Siouxphan27
-
Posts
4,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Posts posted by Siouxphan27
-
-
Where's the petition that I hear is going around North Dakota to stop LSS?
What if they got enough votes to put it on the states ballot?
Bye. Bye. Will there new building get foreclosed and turned into something useful like a Hooter Restaurant?!
just one hooter? That's what I call operating on a shoestring budget. Or a g string budget.
-
1
-
-
So roughly 3 to 1, students that voted chose to keep North Dakota on the ballot. but 3 out of 4 student representatives on the committee voted to take it off the ballot.
"Government of the people, by the people.....meh, screw the people.
-
1
-
-
What do we want? Nothing!!
When do we want it? Now!!
-
1
-
1
-
-
Another poster (they can "out" themselves if they so choose) pointed this out to me:
We're running with an unofficial statement (unvetted by UND attorneys) from a UND official from an unnamed NCAA source. Presumably that unnamed NCAA source wasn't reading an official statement or else that official statement would've been turned over by UND (as they should have a copy from the NCAA).
Do we really have anything more than we did two weeks ago?
Good point. Appears all we have is rumors and speculation. Sure would be nice to get an official statement from Roberto sometime before Christmas.
-
Not going to say they are set in stone; however, going after all "human" nicknames, after they couldn't get all the Native American nicknames, is something I don't expect them to try for a couple reasons:
- They couldn't get all the "race, ethnicity, or national origin" names because of a few power players, so why do they think they can get "all humans" done?
- Going after "all humans" brings in even more power players to the fight against them (and the NCAA hates losing)
It comes down to this: the NCAA was tired of hearing the haranguing by a few dedicated career protesters over a couple nicknames so they ham-handedly tried something that partially worked. It hit the little guys. As long as they don't hear those nicknames, and don't hear the associated haranguing, they'll ignore the nickname issue. But as they said, as soon as they start hearing the noise again, they bring the sanctions out again (most likely by some new ham-handed policy).
I hear ya. it's understandable if that is the ncaa's stance, at this time. as we continue down the PC road of insanity, the ncaa may feel pressure in the future from other constantly offended groups. Midgets is now controversial.
Even if it's not the ncaa that has a problem with a certain "human" name, if other groups of wake up offended-type folks do, time and resources will be wasted.
-
The NCAA policy is framed around "race, ethnicity, or national origin" and they couldn't even enforce that one fully. See: Fighting Irish, Seminoles, Vandals, Utes, Spartans*, Trojans*.
If they try again, Roughriders would be in category with Minutemen, Mountaineers, Volunteers, and (gulp) Cowboys. Sooners, Hoosiers, Cornhuskers, and Boilermakers probably fall in the category also.
I'm not sweating Roughriders in light of those.
* Sparta and Troy were city-states, or "nations of origin" by today's standards.
Interesting take. So in this instance the ncaa's policies are permanently set in stone?
After all the hullabaloo about the ncaa and what punishment they may drum up for going without a nickname, it just seems like a bad idea to go with any name with a human element. One person complains that Nodakers is derogatory, or one person claims Roughriders were racist gun toting white cowboys from the desert southwest, and all of a sudden we have a new headache on our hands.
go sUNDawgs!! a daschUND would be a solid mascot.
-
My question is why in the world does anyone want to risk going down this road again with a name like Roughriders?
It's puzzling to see some people stressing moving on from Fighting Sioux, while at the same time championing the cause for another "human-based" name, for lack of a better term.
Nodaks should be off the table as well given the hypersensitive path this nickname quest is on.
Hawks, Sun, or Stars. Yay.
-
2
-
-
I would love to see UND take the NCAA to court for trying to force unfair sanctions on a university based on words uttered by a third party.
The reality is it would never come to that. This silly, weak response from the NCAA is proof they know they have no leg to stand on. It's a green light for no nickname.
-
I know the difference between alumnus and alumni. It was a fantasy football team name that I had with two buddies and I have the same email account for it, so I just used it . There are a lot of people here who have Sioux in their name. Are they trying to represent the thoughts and opinions of all Sioux natives?
Looks like we finally have the answer to the riddle of how many ndsu graduates it takes to run a fantasy football team.
-
You anti-dentite bastard!!
Next thing you know he'll be saying they should have their own schools
-
Aren't We Sued Enough?
-
2
-
-
If UND chose "no nickname" would you continue to yell Sioux?
How about we all yell Voldemort?
-
Is it white sand? If so, I'm fine with it.Significant difference between giving someone permission (your scenario 1) and reserving the right to take whatever stance you'd like in the future (my scenario 3).
Does the group the refuses to acknowledge that there could possibly be any negative consequences get to be the "head in the sand" crowd since you're tossing out names?
Didn't mean to offend by saying tinfoil hat. I happen to think they're quite stylish if worn for the right cause.
All we have is rampant speculation regarding what the NCAA may or may not do. Kelley needs to finally ask the NCAA, or if he's asked, share with the public what he has already found out from the NCAA so we can stop the insanity. With the 5 lackluster choices coupled with the following no nickname has right now, he needs to lead for once on this issue, immediately.
I'm a no nicknamer until we hear otherwise from the NCAA. And if they say no, I'll moooove on to support one of the lame names.
-
I never know with you. A smiley for tone would help.
sorry Sic. just assume sarcasm with me. it's a curse.
-
Scenario 3 is most likely. UND/Kelley asked the NCAA and they politely said "No comment at this time".
So in other words, scenario 3 = scenario 1. They do not have a policy against it. I know that's not enough for the tinfoil hat crowd, but the reality is, it would be acceptable.
-
It was an after standard work hours rally (5 pm).
I was being facetious as you realize. Kelley announced that very morning that no nickname would still be given consideration, so that would also take the air out of any rally don't you think?
To continue with facetious questions/answers..... How have the rallies for the other 5 options been? Poorly attended? Well attended? Wait what?! there haven't been any rallies? Wow given what we've learned here today, there must not be any support for those names.
-
Ahh ... but it was supposed to be a "no nickname" rally, aimed at just those folks (like you as you say), but somehow it got overwhelmed by the "old nickname forever" point of view. What does that say about what is reality.
I'll take a stab. No nickname forever folks are employed, while fighting Sioux forevers are not?
-
After thinking about this issue for awhile, the fact that Kelley hasn't come out and clearly stated that the NCAA has an issue with UND having no nickname leads me to believe that maybe the NCAA does not have a problem with it. If he clearly didn't want "no nickname" to be an option, he could just pull out the "the NCAA has a problem with it" card out of his back pocket to push his "agenda". (Of course it still may be in play and he may wait to play it if "North Dakota" moves on to the popular vote and comes out on top." Now lets just say that is the case. It is still in the best interest of the University to select a new nickname. First an foremost to move past the Fighting Sioux nickname debacle that has plagued this University, it's fanbase, and this state for a decade. Forget settlemet agreements, forget recruiting scare tactics, forget marketing opportunities. UND and all of its invested stakeholders need to move on from this issue. Not selecting a new nickname will not allow all of us to do that.
Two scenarios have been quite obvious to everyone for awhile now. 1. Kelley has asked and received permission, or 2. Kelley has gone to bed each night praying the no nickname supporters will go away, and has avoided asking the NCAA until he absolutely has to.
If scenario 2 is true, he's probably asking the NCAA right now. OR, he's trying to find a way to justify having north stars and Sundogs as our only 2 options.
-
Using absolute characterizations of the other POV is setting yourself up to be shown wrong, as has been shown here time and again.
Having said that, the "we don't need a nickname" rally last Friday lost some credibility when many of its speakers brought up the old moniker. If we don't need a moniker why bring up the old one at all. It just served to better make a case for the "no nickname is just de facto old nickname" argument.
Now I'm sure there were some there sincere in wanting no nickname; but they became harder to find because of the others.
We weren't at the rally, because we do not agree with the fighting Sioux forever part of their stance.....maybe that's why it was poorly attended?
-
It's been use by other coaches to recruit against UND. That is a FACT. You can choose to not believe it, but it is reality.
The reality we should be concerned with is today's reality/situation. You're comparing apples and oranges.
-
People on here have all sorts of opinions. No one of those people has wrote a letter to the editor, called radio stations or planned protests but those are ok right.
At the end of the day it should be a factor in the decision. If it's all good with the NCAA than the leadership needs to come out and say so.
We're on two different wavelengths here- my post a couple posts back was referring to people saying opposing coaches will use it in the future as a recruiting strike against UND. I did not say, and was not referring to, the issue the NCAA may or may not have with going nickname less.
My point, and I'll state it again, permission for going with no nickname will have been decided with the NCAA before UND goes ahead and officially chooses no nickname, (I have at least that much faith in the UND administration).
Thus, rendering all the scare tactics mentioned here regarding opposing schools and recruiting, moot.
Or as some mimes would say, mute.
-
It hasn't been brought up by any decision makers or UND personnel this go around. How are they using it as a scare tactic. It's only been brought up by me and a few others on this board as something that officially needs to be addressed as the NCAA has proven time and time again it plays by its own set of rules.
They're not the ones using it as a scare tactic. People on here are the ones using it as a reason to be afraid of going with no nickname.
-
You're missing something here. Read the post above yours.
The NCAA and sanctions over the old nickname was the problem back in the day. Everyone wants to know if it will pop up again by not having a nickname. Wish Kelley would answer the question.
My pont was that question will be answered by then. We will not go forward with an option that creates instant sanctions. Which makes the entire discussion about opposing coaches another fear mongering scare tactic.
-
How would not having a nickname be used against UND by other teams' coaches?
Would they sit in a recruit's living room and say you know, UND doesn't have a nickname, so, Neener Neener Neener? Or am I missing something here?
-
1
-
NCAA To Sanction UND if School Does Not Adopt New Nickname
in UND Nickname
Posted
Evidently you have me on "ignore."
lol