Nickname/Logo Affecting Conference Affiliation

[star2city]

Changing your tune a bit? I thought Gene Taylor was going to wield his massive influence to prevent UND from joining the Summit League. Do you think Taylor will also initiate new Summit League policy (through his crony Douple) which would prevent NDSU from playing UND even though they are in the same conference

Do you really think either Taylor or Chapman are friendly to the idea of UND obtaining Summit membership? The rest of the MidCon Presidents, if their really looking for comprehensive university profiles, would they really chose USD and not UND?

Taylor's statements during the past week (and Douple changes in stance as a result of Taylor's statement) definitely imply that they have close relationships. Maybe that's why, based on hearsay, that Bisonville posters are reporting a UND affiliated legislator is going to introduce a bill forcing UND and NDSU to play (even when their both in the Summit?!). Bisonville posters would never post anything based on hearsay, it always unimpeachable information.

Must be a difficult adjustment to Bisonville posters, who have long held that the Summit would never add more Dakota schools: one more conventional wisdom bubble popped in Bisonville.

BTW, have you alerted the Bisonville network that's there's an objectionable post on Siouxsports that needs to be mocked.

[dlsiouxfan]

BTW, have you alerted the Bisonville network that's there's an objectionable post on Siouxsports that needs to be mocked.

Don't let it get it to you. It's a typical response for an NDSU grad. They generally struggle when having their ideas and opinions challenged due their extreme lack of critical thinking ability. It's much easier for them to discuss such things with people of their own low IQ's (other NDSU grads).

[The Sicatoka]

Here's a reason to speed up the timeline on the nickname issue.

Yup, that's who got the 30 pieces of silver for the moniker.

Seventy years of respectful tradition for a mere passing chance, not even a guarantee, to play the worst team in the Big T(elev)en. Impressive, even by this guy's standards ...

[Hammersmith]

I usually respect your posts hammer, but I think you just broke 3 windows in your own glass house. Every time I see a bison fan post about RT sitting on this 4 year contract, the time frame seems to get longer and longer. And now all of the sudden RT knew what FUTURE NCAA playoff policy was going to be? Bison fans always razz Roger for calling a press conference to announce that UND would not play NDSU anymore in football but never ask Forum Communications why they were doing daily interview requests with RT and asking him the exact same questions about the rivalry everyday. If you want to be pissed at Roger for calling the press conference, you should be just as pissed at your cheerleader rag in Fargo for pressing the issue.

For the record, I've never said anything about the press conference. Quite frankly, I don't see what the big deal was. But I don't care enough about it to call out either side. I know some Bison fans disliked what RT said and how he said it DURING the press conference, but I've never seen the video myself, and I don't like getting worked up over second or third-hand info. As for the time frame, the contract was sent to RT in May of 2003, it was in September that GT learned the contract hadn't been signed and the game was in doubt, and the decision to not play NDSU at all didn't occur until February 2004. All of those dates are verifiable if you pay for access to the Forum's archives and do an advanced search for "und AND ndsu AND football AND taylor AND thomas" and you limit the timeframe from Jan 2003 to May 2004. I assume that similar articles were written in the Herald, but I think they only have a 180-day archive online.

As for what RT knew and when he knew it, I said there was "a very good chance" because RT was a former member of the committee that makes those rules. Don't you think it's likely that he put in a call to colleagues who were still on that committee to see what was happening? I wish I could find a copy of the 2004 Division II Football Championship Handbook(the first year the game wasn't played), but all I can find is 2005 on. This is what the 2005 UND non-conference schedule looked like points-wise:

Central Washington: 14 points(W vs. a >.700 away)

Winona State : 14 points(W vs. a >.700 away)

West Chester: 13 points(W vs. a >.700 home)

Western Washington: 9 points(W vs. a <.500 home)

Ferris State: 9 points(W vs. a <.500 home)

Win vs. NDSU: 11 points

Loss vs. NDSU 9 points

RT could've scheduled NDSU in place of two other teams, and even a loss would not have hurt and a win would've helped. West Chester was within one loss of dropping down to the next point level. If that had happened, a win vs. NDSU would've been worth the same amount. Again, I wish I could see the 2004 handbook to see if the rule change occurred prior to the '04 or '05 season. Either way, there had to be discussion happening prior to the change and RT must have been aware of it. The only question is when that discussion began. If it happened prior to Feb 2004, then RT would've had a good idea that scheduling NDSU would not have hurt their playoff chances. If it occurred after, then the decision for football was initially made in some good faith, but that changed within a year when the rule did.

I said I was done before, but this was the type of discussion that made it fun a couple days ago.

[jimdahl]

I said I was done before

And I normally wouldn't touch a thread like this with a 10-ft pole, but I have some facts worth sharing...

I wish I could find a copy of the 2004 Division II Football Championship Handbook(the first year the game wasn't played), but all I can find is 2005 on.

Your wish is my command: 2004 SSI. Note that it's not the handbook, but a standalone SSI sheet. There's a good reason for that, coming later.

The timeline is critical in interpreting it in the context of this discussion.

Backing up to before that page, at the time UND dropped NDSU from its football schedule (Feb 04) even a win vs. NDSU would've hurt.

* A win vs an independent I-AA was 4 points and a win vs. a counter I-AA was 8 points (we only later learned that NDSU would bizarrely have technically have been a counter)

* A loss would have been even fewer SSI points, and the chances of a loss would increase by playing an opponent stacking on the scholarships

No team in their right mind, hoping to make the playoffs, would schedule a I-AA under those conditions. Coming off two championship games in three years and trying to compete for fans with a 70 mile away rival selling itself as D-I, UND had it's eye squarely on the D-II playoffs. Frankly, I think NDSU itself coincidentally sealed the deal by beating Montana and failing to make the '03 playoffs, causing North Dakotans to begin paying a lot more attention to SSI and its ridiculous treatment of I-AAs.

The SSI wasn't revised to the above 2004 numbers until late September of that year. It turned out, though no one knew this at 2004 scheduling time, that even a loss to NDSU would have been as good for SSI as a win over Crookston. At that point, bigger men with smaller egos might have resumed the game, but the damage was done and it never happened. There's little doubt UND administrators were influenced by factors other than SSI, or UND would've scheduled NDSU in sports other than football that didn't have such punitive rules; but in football, UND thought it couldn't play NDSU in 2004 due to NDSU having changed it's classification such that the game would have been highly detrimental to UND's playoff chances. Of course, the rules were later changed to prove UND wrong on even that concern, but no one knew that.

[Hammersmith]

Thanks for that link, Jim. I also tried the Wayback Machine, but I was looking for the championship handbook and the ncaa.org website blocked robots from accessing that section(I hate that finding past publications is so difficult on that site). I still wonder if RT knew the rule change was coming since he had been on the committee until recently and undoubtedly knew several of the then-current members, but that's just the star2city part of me peeking out.

That whole SSI system was pretty dumb. While it's nice to try to objectively choose teams for the tournament, there are just too many factors outside a school's control to allow a system like that to work. A school has no direct control over how good the conference portion of its schedule is. They also have no control over how well their non-conference opponents do. You can schedule a team that went 10-1 the year before, thinking they'll get you a lot of points, only to see their QB go down in the first game and they finish 5-6. And that doesn't even touch they way they handled I-AAs. Of course, the regionalization system they use now might just be worse. The FCS selection system might not be perfect, but I wouldn't go back for anything.

Again, thanks for the link and timeline clarification.

[/end thread hijack]

[Hansel]

Taylor's statements during the past week (and Douple changes in stance as a result of Taylor's statement) definitely imply that they have close relationships. Maybe that's why, based on hearsay, that Bisonville posters are reporting a UND affiliated legislator is going to introduce a bill forcing UND and NDSU to play (even when their both in the Summit?!). Bisonville posters would never post anything based on hearsay, it always unimpeachable information.

[star2city]

Proves the point: you can't trust Fargo media types for the true scoop

McFeely: No Bison-Sioux legislation planned,

[bisonguy]

Proves the point: you can't trust Fargo media types for the true scoop

McFeely: No Bison-Sioux legislation planned,

Hmmmmm.... Four words on the tip of my tongue........

Joel Heitkamp stated a bill was being proposed by a Dickinson legislator (and big UND homer) on the Dan Hammer show back around Jan. 8th. McFeely is obviously far from an investigative reporter, only asking a freshman legislator about a proposed bill.

[Chewey]

That's right. You can't trust McFeely. See this: http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/i...ection=homepage

Rivalry is on the front burner again.

[ScottM]

Regardless of the posturing between athletic departments, egg-headed administrators, political dullards and illiterate "journalists", I think most people would agree that the UND-'su rivalry was/is good for the schools, the state and the fans and supporters of the schools.

I recall feeling a good deal of pride when ESPN(?) documented the football rivalry in some documentary they did when both schools were still D2. I'd love to go back and watch another game in the future.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

About schools not scheduling us based on our nickname: That is discrimination. If I ran a restaurant and refused to serve anyone with the name of John or Mike, I would get hammered for discrimination. Now why can a school get away with not playing UND based on a name? Its discrimination.

[GeauxSioux]

Summit League Makes Visit to USD

USD was one of six schools who are interested in joining the Summit, but they were the only ones who got a site visit. The University of North Dakota is also interested, but league officials won't visit Grand Forks until the dispute over the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo is resolved.

Douple "As the commissioner...I don't want my presidents involved in that issue...until it solved...we're not telling them how to solve it...just get it solved."

Does Douple really talk in a stacatto manner or is this the reporter only picking parts of what he said for print?

[JackJD]

About schools not scheduling us based on our nickname: That is discrimination. If I ran a restaurant and refused to serve anyone with the name of John or Mike, I would get hammered for discrimination. Now why can a school get away with not playing UND based on a name? Its discrimination.

I hope you were kidding about your understanding of discrimination (by your words "get hammered for discrimination, I take it you mean the example you give is proscribed discrimination). If you were not kidding, you show a profound lack of understanding of some fairly basic concepts in our law.

Certain actions are deemed in the law to be impermissible discrimination. Other forms of "discrimination" are not proscribed by our law. Refusal of one institution to play another institution based on a name is not unlawful, forbidden or anything else. It can and has happened; and, it looks like it's going to continue to happen in the future (UND will be proving that). If you want to call that discrimination, I suppose that's okay but your implication is that it is impermissible discrimination and if that IS what you intend to state, then you are wrong. Example: Let's say a person of Irish ancestry wants to buy my car which I have offered for sale in a newspaper ad. I refuse to sell to the Irishman because I think the Irish are shifty, good-for-nothing drunks who cannot be trusted and I am concerned he'll probably just pay with a check that bounces. Am I discriminating against the Irishman? I suppose so. Is that wrong? Not in the law (I suppose North Dakota could have passed a goofy law saying such private actions are impermissible discrimination but that would be an odd law.) (By the way, I am 3/4ths Irish and that's why I used an Irishman in my example.)

I get tired of people talking about 'discrimination' or 'harassment' and other concepts, implying that every time someone looks cross-eyed at another person, there is some basis for a lawsuit. That's so far from the way things work...it concerns me we have a growing group of people in this country who should go back to junior high and take a course or two about some basic concepts underlying our system of government and laws.

There are a lot of resources on the internet that talk about unlawful discrimination, protected classes and related topics. Do some reading.

On a related note, KELO TV out of Sioux Falls, had a clip on this evening's news, about the Summit visit to USD. Commissioner Douple reiterated that UND had expressed interest in joining the Summit League but would not be considered so long as the name/mascot issue remains unresolved. Here's the link to KELO's website if you want to read the story:

http://www.keloland.com/sports/NewsDetail7984.cfm?Id=0,79421

[Sampson]

Summit League Makes Visit to USDDoes Douple really talk in a stacatto manner or is this the reporter only picking parts of what he said for print?

Picking parts. It's what the comma grouping represents.

Douple's covering his own azz. He's making a simple statement about UND getting their nickname solved before The Summit considers UND. Like he stated, he doesn't care how. And it isn't some conspiracy theory to keep UND out of the Summit. When UND resolves their nickname, they will get a look, and a very strong consideration. At that point Douple isn't going to care about the nickname issue.

But for now, there isn't one good reason for him to even mess with UND, even with the assumption of"it's going to get taken care of down the road". That assumption doesn't mean it's officially resolved, and that's what Douple's looking for. It's a smart decision to stay out of the wrath of the NCAA. He doesn't want to incur any future problems, and lose favoring with the NCAA because of a decision he made to show any support whatsoever for a school that has lingering issues against the NCAA. It's a lose-lose cause.

I suspect when UND gets their issue resolved officially, they will get a strong consideration and maybe even an invite, certainly if USD gets one. Until then, UND is just going to have to deal with it.

[GeauxSioux]

Picking parts. It's what the comma grouping represents.

Douple's covering his own azz. He's making a simple statement about UND getting their nickname solved before The Summit considers UND. Like he stated, he doesn't care how. And it isn't some conspiracy theory to keep UND out of the Summit. When UND resolves their nickname, they will get a look, and a very strong consideration. At that point Douple isn't going to care about the nickname issue.

But for now, there isn't one good reason for him to even mess with UND, even with the assumption of"it's going to get taken care of down the road". That assumption doesn't mean it's officially resolved, and that's what Douple's looking for. It's a smart decision to stay out of the wrath of the NCAA. He doesn't want to incur any future problems, and lose favoring with the NCAA because of a decision he made to show any support whatsoever for a school that has lingering issues against the NCAA. It's a lose-lose cause.

I suspect when UND gets their issue resolved officially, they will get a strong consideration and maybe even an invite, certainly if USD gets one. Until then, UND is just going to have to deal with it.

I was joking about the staccato speech.

I realize that UND needs to resolve the issue with the nickname, sooner rather than later, but that shouldn't impact Douple and the other Summit presidents. Insofar as the NCAA is concerned, the issue is resolved. There was a settlement in October of 2007 giving UND 3 years to get approval, change the name or face sanctions. "Settlement" means in the eyes of the NCAA it is resolved. UND is at this time able to use the name, logo and display them at NCAA events. Douple would have no bonafide reason to incur wrath from the NCAA.

The issue right now is not in the hands of the NCAA. It is between the SBoHE and Standing Rock and Spirit Lake.

On another note, what is with Douple saying "I don't want my president's involved in that issue"? "I don't want" and are these "his" presidents? Does he know that some of the schools in the Summit have already scheduled UND? Will those schools face the wrath of the NCAA? Sounds to me like it's all about Douple.

[Goon]

There was a settlement in October of 2007 giving UND 3 years to get approval, change the name or face sanctions. "Settlement" means in the eyes of the NCAA it is resolved. UND is at this time able to use the name, logo and display them at NCAA events. Douple would have no bonafide reason to incur wrath from the NCAA.

Douple is wrong on this issue the nick name issue is resolved it was taken care of in court.

I wonder if Myles Brand is behind this.

[Hansel]

There was a settlement in October of 2007 giving UND 3 years to get approval, change the name or face sanctions. "

Why would a conference want to take a school which could be facing sanctions?

[GeauxSioux]

Why would a conference want to take a school which could be facing sanctions?

Perhaps policy is a more accurate word than sanctions. With that said, how would this impact the conference?

If the university fails to gain approval from the namesake tribes, it must either adopt a new nickname or be subject to an NCAA policy that prevents schools with American Indian nicknames, imagery and mascots from displaying them at the association’s championship events and prohibits the schools from hosting such events.

PCM's piece...North Dakota, NCAA Reach Out-Of-Court Settlement In Nickname Dispute

[Goon]

Why would a conference want to take a school which could be facing sanctions?

Sanctions, there isn't going to be any, either get approval or change.

There is no sanctions.

[Matt]

I was joking about the staccato speech.

I realize that UND needs to resolve the issue with the nickname, sooner rather than later, but that shouldn't impact Douple and the other Summit presidents. Insofar as the NCAA is concerned, the issue is resolved. There was a settlement in October of 2007 giving UND 3 years to get approval, change the name or face sanctions. "Settlement" means in the eyes of the NCAA it is resolved. UND is at this time able to use the name, logo and display them at NCAA events. Douple would have no bonafide reason to incur wrath from the NCAA.

The issue right now is not in the hands of the NCAA. It is between the SBoHE and Standing Rock and Spirit Lake.

On another note, what is with Douple saying "I don't want my president's involved in that issue"? "I don't want" and are these "his" presidents? Does he know that some of the schools in the Summit have already scheduled UND? Will those schools face the wrath of the NCAA?

"I don't want" and are these "his" presidents?

Clearly, with so much public discussion on this topic in the past month, he has at least the tacit approval of the presidents that hired him. If they disagreed with anything he's been saying, they have been very quiet.

Does he know that some of the schools in the Summit have already scheduled UND?

Of course he does. As we saw with the Great West commish putting the kaibosh on the Sioux-Cal Poly game this year, the commisioner is well aware of scheduling of league members.

Will those schools face the wrath of the NCAA?

Nah. Not any more than Minnesota or any other school that opts not to schedule UND (or let them in their conference for that matter)

Sounds to me like it's all about Douple.

You are absolutely right here. It is all about him, that is evidenced by the silence of the Summit Presidents through the entire month. They are apparently comfortable with the way he is handling the league. Really, this is what makes this such a sticky wicket for UND. Douple clearly has more influence with his league presidents than we saw with Fullerton and the Big Sky.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I realize that UND needs to resolve the issue with the nickname, sooner rather than later, but that shouldn't impact Douple and the other Summit presidents.

Exactly. There was no ban on playing sports, only a ban on images after a certain date with the enforcement being an elimination of either championship participation or hosting. What this has to do with conference affiliation I don't know. Does he think that every school in the conference will suddenly be banned from hosting championships?

And the question remains: does he really think that the University of North Dakota isn't aware that they need to "resolve" the issue?

On another note, what is with Douple saying "I don't want my president's involved in that issue"?... Does he know that some of the schools in the Summit have already scheduled UND?...Sounds to me like it's all about Douple.

I agree- I also think there's some definite grandstanding here. And IMHO someone has a political agenda that they're trying to advance. But OTOH, I can see him opening his mouth once and hearing it from his bosses: by their (apparent) silence, they've given him the okay to keep this prattle going. It's not my fight, but I would think long and hard about getting involved with this conference and commissioner. He says that there's an advantage to having rivalviries with South Dakota: well DUH, sounds like you're arguing for North Dakota's admission too buddy.

And his Presidents

got involved

the minute they subordinated their own authority to a NCAA committee.

[mksioux]

Sanctions, there isn't going to be any, either get approval or change.

There is no sanctions.

I'm repeating myself again, but the truth does not seem to be sinking in. Douple is actually right on this issue and the entire Grand Forks media is wrong. Nothing in the settlement requires UND to change its nickname. If UND does not get tribal approval or change the nickname, the suspension of the NCAA policy applying to UND will expire, placing UND squarely back on the NCAA's sh!tlist. You can use the word "policy" rather than sanctions, but sanctions is what UND will get. The Grand Forks media, and virtually everyone who comments on this, states that UND must get tribal approval or drop its nickname by November 2010. That's simply incorrect. We all assume that will happen, but Douple is not going to rely on assumptions.

How would the NCAA sanctions impact the conference? I don't know enough about NCAA tournament events for the sports that the Summit offers to answer that question. If any of the sports allow schools to host NCAA playoff games based on merit (as in football), UND would be prohibited from hosting and would have to play every playoff game on the road. That could be a big deal to a conference, which generally likes to see its members do well and advance in the playoffs. The uniform restrictions probably wouldn't be a big deal to the conference. Plus the overall stigma associated with a member being on that list. Plus the general fear that everyone has of the NCAA.

Having said that, Douple "cautioning" members from scheduling UND because of the nickname is pure baloney, and something Douple concocted after Gene Taylor was caught in a lie. Douple's reasoning was because of the NCAA's position on the nickname and wanting to stay on the good side of the NCAA. However, the NCAA issued a statement to all of its members after the settlement stating that it had suspended UND from its Policy and that its Policy should not be a basis for schools to refuse to schedule UND. Wisconsin and Iowa immediately dropped their scheduling bans of UND after that statement (Minnesota did not). Therefore, if a school or conference wants to refuse (or "caution") its members to schedule UND, it is of its own accord and has nothing to do with the NCAA.

[Sampson]

And the question remains: does he really think that the University of North Dakota isn't aware that they need to "resolve" the issue?

This is what's confusing. Half the argument against Douple is, "it's been resolved, it will be dealt with once the 3 year period is up", and the other half is "UND knows they need to resolve it, so it shouldn't be an issue...." Is it resolved, or not?

And it's completely not about "being banned from hosting a championship", it's about supporting a school that is in question with the NCAA. It is in question, even though the time limit has been set. What happens when the time limit is up? I've even said posts in this thread from fans saying "what if we don't do anything about it and decide to face sanctions".

Both sides are ignorant to a degree. Douple needs to understand the the University isn't going to do anything to jeopardize it's athletic future, and UND needs to understand that these situations are going to come up regardless until it is

officially

resolved.

I can see arguments both for, and against, both sides. The underlying fact is, this could not be at a worse time to be going through the nickname situation (making the move up to D1). The good news is that both will be resolved when the time frame of being a fully fledged D1 member has expired

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I don't know enough about NCAA tournament events for the sports that the Summit offers to answer that question. If any of the sports allow schools to host NCAA playoff games based on merit (as in football), UND would be prohibited from hosting and would have to play every playoff game on the road. That could be a big deal to a conference, which generally likes to see its members do well and advance in the playoffs... Plus the overall stigma associated with a member being on that list. Plus the general fear that everyone has of the NCAA.

I'll risk being accused of assuming too much.

If anyone thinks that UND athletics would be able to recruit coaches or athletes effectively after they know that they have no chance of a home playoff game, and thus will be on an unequal footing compared to other schools-well, they think differently than I do.

It would be a

"big deal"

to a conference: and a

MUCH BIGGER DEAL

to the school involved. In short, if the sanctions mentioned are applied the conference wouldn't have to worry about North Dakota not being able to host for very long: and that's because North Dakota wouldn't earn host status very often after being put in a position of not being able to offer coaches and athletes the same opportunity as they would have at other schools.