westsidesioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Just saw this on the Herald website, thought you all would be interested. UND nickname committee to be formed next week Oh yeah, happy 125th b-day UND!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 North Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Goetz described discussions of a possible reservation-wide nickname referendum at Spirit Lake, North Dakota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Ron His Horse Is Thunder finishes what George Armstrong Custer could not: total erasure of the Sioux. Sweet irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westsidesioux Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 at this point there are too many people who nickname supporters hope go away. i don't think any of that is viable or even right. i support the nickname but if this is going to be done, let's get it done right.......i do hope that students, alumni, and fans have a say though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Goetz described discussions of a possible reservation-wide nickname referendum at Spirit Lake, North Dakota's other Sioux reservation, as of little or no value, because a pro-nickname tribal council resolution stemming from that referendum could always be overturned by a future tribal council. How can somebody who is the chancellor of the university system be this stupid. Of course a pro-nickname resolution can be overturned at a later date...that's what we agreed to in the lawsuit "settlement"/surrender. If it has little or no value then why did we agree to it ? The powers that be never had any intention of really trying to keep the nickname. If they did they never would have agreed to the surrender. They got their half-a$$ apology from the NC$$ for the hostile/abusive claim and declared victory, there is no other way to spin this. If you want to get rid of the nickname then have the balls to say so. Instead they use the surrender agreement to place the burden on the tribal leaders, one who has always been extremely vocal in his opposition. If they really thought they could change his mind then they are even dumber than I thought. Within a month or so of the surrender, Goetz was already floating the idea of not having any meetings with the tribal leaders. When faced with opposition he schedules one meeting with each of the tribes, then basically says there is no resolution and starts forming committees to eliminate the nickname. Face it, the fix was in even before the surrender agreement was signed. As much as I hate Myles Brand and the NCAA arrogance, I think our own leaders on this are even worse. At least with the NCAA they were upfront about wanting to get rid of the nickname. Our leaders also want to eliminate the name, they just won't say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Face it, the fix was in even before the surrender agreement was signed. That's basically what I said when this travesty was announced. UND had an extremely strong legal position "the powers that be" pissed away in one shot. Yet there were/are those who still tilt at windmills hoping the tribes will "bless" the name/logo and we all live happily ever after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Of course a pro-nickname resolution can be overturned at a later date...that's what we agreed to in the lawsuit "settlement"/surrender. If it has little or no value then why did we agree to it ?Why agree? To get out of the lawsuit. Florida State, Utah, et al. are also in the same boat. However, no one there has been saying that their nickname & logo has "little or no value" (which is EXACTLY what your leader is saying here IMHO). Within a month or so of the surrender, Goetz was already floating the idea of not having any meetings with the tribal leaders. When faced with opposition he schedules one meeting with each of the tribes, then basically says there is no resolution and starts forming committees to eliminate the nickname. Face it, the fix was in even before the surrender agreement was signed.Agree. The minute a "committee" is formed, you should interpret it as nothing more than a way to share blame. As much as I hate Myles Brand and the NCAA arrogance, I think our own leaders on this are even worse. At least with the NCAA they were upfront about wanting to get rid of the nickname. Our leaders also want to eliminate the name, they just won't say it.Absolutely correct IMHO. See "committee" above. Yet there were/are those who still tilt at windmills hoping the tribes will "bless" the name/logo and we all live happily ever after. IMHO, the tribes hope that your University leader will take the blame. Which he seems to be doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The ND SBHE took control of the issue in December 2000 when it decreed UND is the "Fighting Sioux". Nothing really changed since then until ..... Joel Maturi, AD at Minnesota, said effectively "no football for you" early in fall of 2007. Shortly thereafter UND FB alumnus Bruce Smith's application for the presidency (dated October 2007) says "If that middle ground is not obtainable then we need to work with those same groups to honorably and respectfully retire the logo and nickname and move on." The settlement compact then comes in November. I doubt all of that is strictly coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 IMHO, the tribes hope that your University leader will take the blame. Which he seems to be doing. Actually, the more I think about it, the more Goetz publicly expresses the futility of dealing in good faith with the tribes, any potential backlash may be directed at them rather than him. It's a pretty smart move, and it may validate, to some degree, what a number of us have expressed/felt the past few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 SBoE effectively est. itself as the authority on nicknames? That BS - the only reason they did that is "MONEY" (REA) This whole mess still points to the lack of leadership at UND. Kupchella wants nothing to do with it. From the Presidential Search profile...Athletic Nickname and Logo. The University’s use of a Native American athletic nickname and logo have been objects of controversy within the campus and the wider community. The State Board of Higher Education retains final authority to make a decision about the nickname and logo.I think that is pretty clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Actually, the more I think about it, the more Goetz publicly expresses the futility of dealing in good faith with the tribes, any potential backlash may be directed at them rather than him. It's a pretty smart move, and it may validate, to some degree, what a number of us have expressed/felt the past few months. The settlement was the perfect political solution for the ND SBHE and the NCAA. Both get to say, "It's not us, it's the Tribes' decision. That's the power they wanted anyway." The Board and NCAA get the perfect scapegoat: Ron His Horse Is Thunder. And thus explaineth why RHHIT was so upset: He got what he said was his all along, but when he got it he realized it came with a very high (political and otherwise) price. Put another way, RHHIT and his ilk have had a long run of jamming up UND. Well, he got jammed up even harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 More info on the committee...Chancellor forming group to discuss Fighting Sioux nicknameWilliam Goetz said the panel will have no more than 10 members, and include representatives of UND and the operators of the Ralph Engelstad Arena.The committee he intends to form will have to consider what to do next if the nickname and logo is either kept or discarded, Goetz said. "If the logo nickname is dropped, then there has to be some way to take next steps in determining a new logo nickname," Goetz said. "If it's not dropped, it involves relationship-building, that sort of thing. I'm really looking at those individuals to help shape (those) next steps."To go along with the earlier discussion in this thread...Goetz's blueprint appears to have similarities to a committee formed by UND President Charles Kupchella in February 2000, less than a year after Kupchella was hired, although Goetz said he was unfamiliar with the earlier panel's efforts. Kupchella is retiring this summer. The panel, which included former North Dakota Govs. George Sinner and Allen Olson, studied whether to keep the nickname or drop it. Kupchella was close to a decision on the issue when the Board of Higher Education voted in December 2000 to keep the nickname and logo. Its vote came after Engelstad said he would stop work on the partially constructed arena if the nickname and logo were dropped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 And thus explaineth why RHHIT was so upset: He got what he said was his all along, but when he got it he realized it came with a very high (political and otherwise) price. Put another way, RHHIT and his ilk have had a long run of jamming up UND. Well, he got jammed up even harder. Gotta love that "Law of Unintended Consequences". "If the logo nickname is dropped, then there has to be some way to take next steps in determining a new logo nickname," Goetz said. "If it's not dropped, it involves relationship-building, that sort of thing. I'm really looking at those individuals to help shape (those) next steps." Which really means "When the name/logo go away, the SBofHE and UND have no further obligations to waste our time dealing with SR or SL. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Supporter Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Actually, the more I think about it, the more Goetz publicly expresses the futility of dealing in good faith with the tribes, any potential backlash may be directed at them rather than him. It's a pretty smart move, and it may validate, to some degree, what a number of us have expressed/felt the past few months. I think Goetz would have to get the tribal leaders to actually turn down the option of a full-tribe referendum before he could pin more blame on them. I remember the leaders remarks about "how this will be blamed on us (meaning the Indians)" but IMHO if Goetz wanted to pin them down even more he would keep floating the idea of the referendum rather than the painfully obvious "but the next group may not like the Sioux nickname" blather. Marginally related to this line of thinking is this... So will these names be subject to the consensus of all of the stakeholders.... How much do you want to bet that the "stakeholders" committee will most certainly be composed of multiple members who's ideas reflect those of the people like ..His Horse.. but no one who considers his "stake" to be "there's absolutely nothing wrong with our current name and logo"? BTW, current popunder ad for this site is for the Grand Casino Tunica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 And having the tribes take the blame hurts them how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 And having the tribes take the blame hurts them how? It may not hurt them, but it certainly doesn't help them, especially when outreach programs, legislative initiatives, etc. come up. As a few have suggested, once the name/logo goes away the public awareness of the tribes and their "real" issues, such as poverty, crime, healthcare, etc., will diminish over time. If the SR and SL tribes had any degree of pragmatism they would have used the Sioux name/logo as a "brand" or similar device to keep them in the public eye and give voice to their other concerns. If they were worried about "negative stereotypes", only being associated with "Dances With Wolves" or "F Troop" probably isn't going to help matters over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 More info on the committee...Chancellor forming group to discuss Fighting Sioux nickname Engelstad, who donated money to build the $104 million hockey arena, was a fervent supporter of the nickname and logo. He died in November 2002. I wonder what Ralph would think of the efforts that have been made to keep the Sioux name ? I think he would be very dissatisfied with the UND/state leadership on this issue. If it were up to me I would talk to both tribes and ask them for a vote of the entire tribal membership. If the results from one or both of them is against the nickname then we change it as soon as possible. If the membership is in favor the nickname then the councils will formally adopt a resolution in support and we keep the name. If the tribes refuse a referendum then we tell them we are going to keep the name and accept the NCAA sanctions. The only way to eliminate the name is if the tribal membership as a whole votes in favor of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I wonder what Ralph would think of the efforts that have been made to keep the Sioux name ? I think he would be very dissatisfied with the UND/state leadership on this issue. If it were up to me I would talk to both tribes and ask them for a vote of the entire tribal membership. If the results from one or both of them is against the nickname then we change it as soon as possible. If the membership is in favor the nickname then the councils will formally adopt a resolution in support and we keep the name. If the tribes refuse a referendum then we tell them we are going to keep the name and accept the NCAA sanctions. The only way to eliminate the name is if the tribal membership as a whole votes in favor of it. So you think we should accept the NCAA sanctions? So basically your saying we don't have athletics anymore, or we are not able to participate in any NCAA sanctioned events. What do you want us to do join the NAIA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diggler Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 UND could still participate in NCAA events, they just couldn't host or wear uniforms with Sioux on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.