State Board

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...

Honesty in business is at a low. Folks, there's no guarantee that, even if we change the nickname to the UND Friendly Friends with as the logo, we'll even get into the Summit League!

So why get bent all out of shape over a conference that is trying to jack with us using a carrot that may not ever be in reach?

I quite agree. The conference seems to be quite fluid with members coming and going: and the conference office seems a little, uh,

flaky

.

The only thing it currently has of value IMHO is the three other major schools in the Dakotas. If they don't know your situation they're not worth joining. Since I assume they do and I further assume they realize the value of having another member within that two-state footprint, the 10/1 deadline shouldn't have been necessary.

[rochsioux]

And this would benefit your alma mater in what way? Or is success of the DI move -- and of UND -- not your concern.

Whether you love the nickname or not, the game was over when the NCAA membership confirmed the executive council's authority to make policy about anything it likes. The lawsuit settlement included all we could get.

The issue has only a tangential relationship to the Summit League. If you flout this "edict" and keep the name you can bet tougher sanctions will follow. Basketball, baseball, etc. might lose out on a conference home now, but hockey would be affected sooner or later.

The affirmative vote at Spirit Lake was encouraging, but the agreement seems to require formal action by a governing body, at least at Standing Rock. Where have you seen any indication that will be forthcoming any time in the foreseeable future?

The fact that REA would keep the Sioux logos or not has no effect on UND. The only possible impact is that REA could not host an NCAA regional. Given the fact that the NCAA wants to move away from campus hosting and the fact that we have only hosted one regional ever, I highly doubt we will ever see another regional at REA anyway.

Spirit Lake voted overwhelmingly for the nickname/logo. From all indications there is an effort ongoing to put this to a vote on Standing Rock in July or Sept. Also, the Standing Rock council is up for election in Sept where it might be possible there would be new leaders that would be more open to an agreement on keeping the name. However, they wouldn't take office until Oct.1 which is too late because the SBOE set an Oct 1 deadline. The SBOE might as well have dropped the name immediately for all the good an Oct 1 date will do.

Again I ask, why are we rushing this ? We have abother year and a lot can change in that time. A year ago, who would have thought we would have had a vote from Spirit Lake ?

I can only come up with two reasons for rushing this decision:

1. The UND admin wants to get the name changed. They see some progress being made on the reservations and they want to put a stop to it. They are tired of dealing with the nickname/logo controversy and would like to end it once and for all.

2. We are worried about getting into the Summit conference. This makes little sense to me and I agree with what DamStrait has previously said. The league knows this will be resolved long before UND will become an active member, therefore there has to be something else there...it would be nice to ask Douple a few questions under oath about an NCAA involvement in this...something just doesn't smell right. I wouldn't mind also asking a few questions of Faison/Kelly under oath and explore what kind of discussions they have had with Douple...it wouldn't surprise me if they were somehow working with Douple to help put pressure on getting rid of the nickname. Otherwise, there is just no reason for Douple to care about this issue in considering UNDs membership in the Summit...at most he could ask UND to provide a letter certifying that the issue will be resolved prior to UND becoming an active member. Bottom line, if the league wants UND then the nickname issue is not going to stop us from getting in.

[mksioux]

And with all that said, what did they (the UND Board of Trustees) do with the time?

They secretly met or discussed the options among themselves, and then decided to move the deadline up (so why bother with the lawsuit and settlement negotiations? All you did was enrich lawyers) and IMHO, ask for the moon with their 30-year demand. And all we've heard is some vague notion of "this conference won't accept us".

This last action showed me that there are plenty of people on that board who had no intentions of trying to retain the nickname.

I fully agree that the Board squandered its time and didn't do anything productive. I guess I'm looking at it from a lawyer's perspective. The lawyer got the client the best deal possible and the client squandered it away.

It was apparent after the settlement that the only way to save the name was to negotiate a long term deal with the tribes that included a share of merchandising, tribal scholarship allotments, education opportunties, or some combination thereof. Such an agreement would have required the involvement of the tribal councils. That was the only way to possibly get this to work. The Board was in a difficult position because an anti-nickname activist happened to chair one the of tribes and did not want to even discuss the issue. Nevertheless, the Board should have come up with a business proposal and presented it to both tribal councils. Let the tribes ignore or turn down a long-term stream of revenue and other positive opportunities if they choose, but an offer needed to be made. To my knowledge, the Board never even discsussed putting together a long-term package, and it certainly never presented one to the tribes. If they had, would that have gotten the tribes attention? Would it have caused them to come to the table? Would it have saved the nickname? I don't know the answers (I tend to think it would not have ultimately saved the nickname), but the effort needed to be made.

The real story here, as far as I'm concerned, is the complete lack of leadership by Board after the settlement in putting together a long term package to present to the tribes. Now, it appears the Board finally realizes that they need a long term agreement to save the nickname, but there is still no talk of actually putting a proposal together. And given the new timeline, there's not realistically enough time anyway.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

...Nevertheless, the Board should have come up with a business proposal and presented it to both tribal councils. Let the tribes ignore or turn down a long-term stream of revenue and other positive opportunities if they choose, but an offer needed to be made. To my knowledge, the Board never even discsussed putting together a long-term package, and it certainly never presented one to the tribes. If they had, would that have gotten the tribes attention? Would it have caused them to come to the table? Would it have saved the nickname? I don't know the answers (I tend to think it would not have ultimately saved the nickname), but the effort needed to be made.

I agree that they needed to get the parties to the table:

especially

after the tribal election.

What is "long term"? I don't know the answer to that, but all I can say is 30 years is ridiculous.

I personally couldn't say that I was optimistic about a "revenue stream to the tribes" but I'd say that some sort of tangible benefits could have been discussed.

You start out by saying that the lawyers made a good deal and the clients blew it. JMHO, but that statement implies a client that's an idiot. I don't think that was the case here.

[mksioux]

You start out by saying that the lawyers made a good deal and the clients blew it. JMHO, but that statement implies a client that's an idiot. I don't think that was the case here.

I don't know whether the Board had any intention of making an honest effort to negotiate with the tribes when the settlement was agreed upon. I guess it's possible some of them did not and used the settlement for political cover in dumping the nickname. I'm just saying that from a legal perspective, the lawyers were eventually proved right to settle based on the membership subsequently affirming the Executive Committee's authority. From a legal standpoint, UND was destined to lose sooner or later. It was smart to get what you could out of a settlement. Whether the client had any intention of making a good faith effort to utilize the time the settlement bought, I really don't know.

[NorthDakotaHockey]

I know if I had paid for REA I would not go along with the agreement. Not one logo would be removed from the arena, in fact I would probably start adding more. The only way I would go along with it is if the tribal members voted against the use of the nickname. That is a decision that I could respect. I would not give in to a pathetic group like the NC$$ or a group of professional complainers that will always find something or someone to blame for their problems when maybe they need to be looking in a mirror.

The REA is not going to lift a finger, or pay a single dime, for any costs of removal or retrofit. This is going to potentially become a problem for the University, especially in terms of cash.

[octupus25]

Mksioux,

I am not asking this to be a smart alec, but because I'm a little confused. What exactly did we get out of the settlement? I mean from my standpoint, I don't see what it could be. The Summit League thing isn't a definate and to be honest, that is not driving this.

[Goon]

The REA is not going to lift a finger, or pay a single dime, for any costs of removal or retrofit. This is going to potentially become a problem for the University, especially in terms of cash.

Nor should the REA have to foot the bill it was a gift to the University, long before the settlement. To expect them to foot the bill is short sighted.

Besided the NCAA wants the Regionals to be off campus at more neutral sites like the Xcel Energy Center.

[octupus25]

The great tragedy is that a city is this size has an arena like that and people want to destroy it. It's amazing. I came from a city much bigger and our nicest arena was a piece of crap.

I get excited on hockey night to just look at it as I walk into the arena. The thing is flat out awesome. Why in the world do people want to wreck it?

Like Goon says, the REA shouldn't have to pay a cent to take one thing down.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

From a legal standpoint, UND was destined to lose sooner or later.

I'm not a lawyer, but IMHO the more you got the NCAA and the MOIC to admit that in their little minds, all men are definitely NOT equal the better off you would be.

Once the Notre Dame's and USC's of the world start getting their oxes gored, things change.

Whether the client had any intention of making a good faith effort to utilize the time the settlement bought, I really don't know.

I don't know either, but (again from a non-lawyer's viewpoint) "good faith" and "intelligence" should go together.

I can't accuse people on a college board of trustees of stupidity; so I have to assume duplicity.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Mksioux,

I am not asking this to be a smart alec, but because I'm a little confused. What exactly did we get out of the settlement?

I'm not MK but I'll give my opinion: the settlement with the NCAA bought you a little time to negotiate with the two tribes.

Your Board of Trustees not only arbitrarily shortened this time (for no particular reason, it seems) they also started issuing outrageous demands. Their negotiations were clearly a sham.

[DamStrait]

I'm not a lawyer, but IMHO the more you got the NCAA and the MOIC to admit that in their little minds, all men are definitely NOT equal the better off you would be.

Once the Notre Dame's and USC's of the world start getting their oxes gored, things change.

I

don't know either, but (again from a non-lawyer's viewpoint) "good faith" and "intelligence" should go together.

I can't accuse people on a college board of trustees of stupidity; so I have to assume duplicity.

Again, perfectly expressed.

[Herd]

Wow. Thanks for the generalization.

After you're done crying and getting all defensive, maybe you'll scroll back in this forum thread's history and realize that our defense of the nickname is more than just "because us Hockey fans love it so much."

Maybe there's something to the fact that the Summit League is acting just as bush league as Brand and his idiot cronies?

I chafe at the thought that some blowhard big wig uses their league as a lever to force its will on or, in this case, suck up to the NCAA front office to gain prestige or brownie points or whatever, on a school because they need to find a conference for its other sports to play in.

Honesty in business is at a low. Folks, there's no guarantee that, even if we change the nickname to the UND Friendly Friends with as the logo, we'll even get into the Summit League!

So why get bent all out of shape over a conference that is trying to jack with us using a carrot that may not ever be in reach?

Let's be clear on one thing, the Summit doesn't need UND. Because the other 3 state universities are in, the Summit is graciously tyring to throw you a bone, which it looks like you don't want. Hum, that sounds about like NDSU waiting an extra year to try to uncourage UND to go division I, and we all know how that went.

So if the nickname is the most important item to UND, fine, the Summit moves on . . . and they are perfectly OK with that, I'm OK with that, you're Ok with that. If UND gets locked out of a real DI conference for the next 5 years, don't come complaining to the Summit League. I'm quite sure that UND brass will lament that decision as much as they are now lamenting their late arrival into DI.

[DamStrait]

Your Board of Trustees not only arbitrarily shortened this time (for no particular reason, it seems) they also started issuing outrageous demands. Their negotiations were clearly a sham.

Agreed.

[mksioux]

Mksioux,

I am not asking this to be a smart alec, but because I'm a little confused. What exactly did we get out of the settlement? I mean from my standpoint, I don't see what it could be. The Summit League thing isn't a definate and to be honest, that is not driving this.

The settlement bought UND three years to negotiate with the tribes to get a namesake exemption. If the case had proceeded to trial, the entire lawsuit may have been rendered moot just a couple months after the settlement when the entire body overwhelmingly approved the Executive Committee's authority in this matter. UND's breach of contract count might have been dismissed as moot, leaving UND only with its much weaker unfair restraint on trade count, which likely would have been dismissed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that without the settlement, the nickname may already be gone. Obviously the Board did not use its time wisely and voluntarily gave back one of the three years. But my point was not how the Board utilized its time (I have said very harsh things about that), but that the settlement at least provided them the opportunity to use that time wisely and possibly save the nickname. Without the settlement, I do not think they would have even had the opportunity. I think the Board is fair game for criticism on how they used their time or whether they even intended to negotiate in good faith. I was defending the settlement as a concept, mostly from a lawyer's perspective, not the subsequent actions or the motivation of the client.

Perhaps more importantly, the settlement bought concessions involving the architecture of REA. Prior to the settlement, the NCAA could basically create whatever policy it wanted regarding Native American imagry owned by and used by the University. Had the settlement not occurred, UND might very well have found itself in a position of having to major architectural changes to REA, or even worse, REA might have refused them altogether. It could have gotten very ugly depending on how much of a hard-line the NCAA wanted to take (and after contested litigation, it would likely have been very strict). Because of the settlement, REA can stay largely intact, and the changes that have to be made to REA (over time) may be somewhat expensive, but they are at least manageable and can reasitically be done. And because some restraint was put in place in the settlement regarding the changes to REA, I believe REA will reluctantly go along with the changes as long as the University pays for them. Clarity on this issue is vastly preferred over the NCAA's whims.

Lastly, the NCAA had to qualify its hostile and abusive tag on UND. This was not very important to me, but it was very important to some people like President Kupchella.

I had no involvement in the lawsuit, nor do I know any of the lawyers that were involved in it. All I'm saying is that I do not think things would have been better for the University (or the Sioux nickname) if the Board had refused to settle and continued with the lawsuit. In fact, they could have been much worse. The common misconception is that UND could have won the lawsuit and be allowed to forever keep the Sioux nickname. That simply is not true in my opinion. If UND had not settled, I believe they would have had to eventually change the nickname anyway, and do so solely on the NCAA's terms.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Prior to the settlement, the NCAA could basically create whatever policy it wanted regarding Native American imagry owned by and used by the University. Had the settlement not occurred, UND might very well have found itself in a position of having to major architectural changes to REA, or even worse, REA might have refused them altogether.

Reading between the lines about the way you chose to emphasize words above, let me ask this: Do you think that by skating in a building with the Indian Head logo on it, that the University "uses" that imagery?

JMH (non-legal) O, but I think if you're going that route it sets up a lot of questions about advertising in the arena or even sweatshirts worn by fans. Clearly its one thing to build a new arena with the old logo (which wouldn't be a good business decision in any case) but a virtually new arena which is already built (and built in good faith) where UND has a long-term lease: IMHO a court would have a hard time telling North Dakota to break that lease, especially with so few other options in town.

I've got a lot of other thoughts about the arena, but we'll save them for another day.

[The Sicatoka]

Folks, just like a tango, it takes two to negotiate an agreement.

Ron His Horse is Thunder effectively flipped the bird at UND the day the NCAA/State of ND agreement was signed.

Ron His Horse is Thunder effectively flipped the bird at UND in Dickinson at the ND SBoHE meeting again.

Ron His Horse is Thunder has no interest in negotiating anything.

As long as that's the position of one side, it's over.

But don't blame the ND SBoHE for it.

[82SiouxGuy]

Reading between the lines about the way you chose to emphasize words above, let me ask this: Do you think that by skating in a building with the Indian Head logo on it, that the University "uses" that imagry?

JMH (non-legal) O, but I think if you're going that route it sets up a lot of questions about advertising in the arena or even sweatshirts worn by fans. Clearly its one thing to build a new arena with the old logo (which wouldn't be a good business decision in any case) but a virtually new arena which is already built (and built in good faith) where UND has a long-term lease: IMHO a court would have a hard time telling North Dakota to break that lease, especially with so few other options in town.

I've got a lot of other thoughts about the arena, but we'll save them for another day.

I am not an attorney either, but I think it comes down to how much things can be controlled. The imagery on the building, or using a building that already has such imagery can be controlled by the University and/or the landlord. The University could ask that the imagery is removed (probably having to pay for it) or they could decide not to use the building. The landlord has the choice to remove it or not rent the building. I do know that the NC$$ can control which buildings they use based on imagery or any other criteria they choose. Whether they could control what member schools use for regular season games or practices is an interesting question. The subject for REA came up for hosting NC$$ tournament games. Advertising I think is a little more questionable. Could there be restraint of trade issues or something similar if a legal product using legal imagery is not allowed in? And the NC$$ undermines itself on that issue by using Pontiac as a major sponsor. With the changes in the auto industry that may go away. Sweatshirts and other personal items would be much harder to control because of personal freedoms. I think that the NC$$ would have a very difficult time trying to limit clothing worn by fans. The only time I have heard of being able to limit clothing is in the case of obscenity laws, and not always in those cases.

[82SiouxGuy]

Folks, just like a tango, it takes two to negotiate an agreement.

Ron His Horse is Thunder effectively flipped the bird at UND the day the NCAA/State of ND agreement was signed.

Ron His Horse is Thunder effectively flipped the bird at UND in Dickinson at the ND SBoHE meeting again.

Ron His Horse is Thunder has no interest in negotiating anything.

As long as that's the position of one side, it's over.

But don't blame the ND SBoHE for it.

I don't blame the SBoHE for not getting an agreement. I believe that it was a long shot from the start. I do blame them for the lack of effort. It would have been easier for many people to accept if they had made a strong effort to get the job done.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

And the NC$$ undermines itself on that issue by using Pontiac as a major sponsor. With the changes in the auto industry that may go away.

Well, the NCAA doesn't have the problem of using Pontiac as a sponsor anymore, do they?

But one of my thoughts was "what if the local "Sioux Motors" purchases some advertising in the arena? Or for that matter, what if the local "Fighting Sioux Fan Club" purchases some advertising in the arena?"

Sweatshirts and other personal items would be much harder to control because of personal freedoms. I think that the NC$$ would have a very difficult time trying to limit clothing worn by fans. The only time I have heard of being able to limit clothing is in the case of obscenity laws, and not always in those cases.

Well yes-and if you wanted to start talking about a rented building as a "use" of the logo, there's a long list of things that would also be a "use" IMHO. And clearly we're talking about whose rights take precedence in some of these examples: doesn't the owner of "Sioux Motors" (which is a perfectly legal name) have the right to advertise?

[octupus25]

I am giving them (the board) part of the blame. They didn't have to make it October 1. The fact it was an 8-0 vote shows there were politics at work. All the blame? No. Some (and to their boss Johnny Hoeven who I would bet they asked for some advice from) of course.

They're spineless.

[The Sicatoka]

Ron His Horse is Thunder effectively flipped the bird at UND the day the NCAA/State of ND agreement was signed.

I don't blame the SBoHE for not getting an agreement. I believe that it was a long shot from the start. I do blame them for the lack of effort. It would have been easier for many people to accept if they had made a strong effort to get the job done.

The ND SBoHE effort was shut down (by RHHiT) before they could even reach out and try.

[octupus25]

So you still vote eight to zero? Just because he wouldn't talk to them doesn't mean they have to vote 8-0 and move up the timeline.

[Goon]

Sweatshirts and other personal items would be much harder to control because of personal freedoms. I think that the NC$$ would have a very difficult time trying to limit clothing worn by fans. The only time I have heard of being able to limit clothing is in the case of obscenity laws, and not always in those cases.

The NCAA or NC$$ can not tell fans what they can wear to a sporting event, it is a constitutional first ammendment issue.

[82SiouxGuy]

Well, the NCAA doesn't have the problem of using Pontiac as a sponsor anymore, do they?

But one of my thoughts was "what if the local "Sioux Motors" purchases some advertising in the arena? Or for that matter, what if the local "Fighting Sioux Fan Club" purchases some advertising in the arena?"

Well yes-and if you wanted to start talking about a rented building as a "use" of the logo, there's a long list of things that would also be a "use" IMHO. And clearly we're talking about whose rights take precedence in some of these examples:

doesn't the owner of "Sioux Motors" (which is a perfectly legal name) have the right to advertise?

Which is why I said this:

Advertising I think is a little more questionable. Could there be restraint of trade issues or something similar if a legal product using legal imagery is not allowed in?

I think they would have a hard time restricting that advertising.