Dagger Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I listened to the interview and I thought he handled himself very professionally. I have no problem with Brian Faison and the way he has handled the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Personally I am sure he supports the name. The difficulty it has created for his day to day activities he probably isn't sad to see it go. Therefore he has no opinion. I don't think it is chicken !@#$ at all for him not to answer the question. His opinion will only cause an discussion either way. His opinion is not going to suddenly change anything. Its called being professional and not letting emotion get in the way. Tell that to some UND professors who let their anti-nickname views get the best of them. So are you saying Hakstol and Roebuck were unprofessional because they love the name and support it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Why not say it. What are they going to do fire him. There would be un uproar if Faison was fired for supporting the name. UND does not control this issue. SBoHE does. The SBoHE hired Kelley. Kelley hired Faison, so it woiuld make sense that since President Kelley cannot control the issue, his AD can't come out on one side or the other on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I listened to the interview and I thought he handled himself very professionally. I have no problem with Brian Faison and the way he has handled the issue. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 UND does not control this issue. SBoHE does. The SBoHE hired Kelley. Kelley hired Faison, so it woiuld make sense that since President Kelley cannot control the issue, his AD can't come out on one side or the other on the issue. I'm waiting for a while to digest the information that comes out before I decide how I think about this issue but I will say that I don't agree with you here. There are plenty of times in life, and I think this is one of those situations, where a person can have an opinion, but carry out his orders at the same time. I, personally, would have not issue with a person who says "I love the nickname and if I could save it I would, but this is the direction provided to me that I have to carry out and I will carry it out to the best of my ability". I know UND is not the military, but I'll be there are many soldiers and officers who have been in this position multiple times in their life. In addition to that managers, who have to implement company policy. I know, I've been there. There is a time to hide your true feelings, and there is a time where that is not important. Frankly, this decision was forced upon the school from elsewhere. I see no reason why Faison needs to act neutrally. He DOES have to act responsibly and carry out his responsibilities, so he may be forced to act in concert to retire the nickname. There's no shame in that. But I don't buy that he isn't allowed an opinion, unless that has been directed by his boss. My guess is from a personal standpoint he feels this is the best way to work through the process, whether we do or don't agree with him. For me, I'd have more respect if he came out with his support (if he indeed supports it) while adding that he must carry out his directives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Faison is emphatic that the UND administration did not do what Douple said they did. Faison can't speak for Kelley, who may have had private conversations with Douple. But remember, Kelley just never "pressured" Douple about the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/191429/ This is why I have so much respect for the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation!! John Chaske, an elder of the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe, cited history, tradition, a tribal referendum and other factors here today as he sought to persuade North Dakota legislators to join the fight to preserve UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The only thing that makes me think he lieks the nickname is the $$$ it creates from logo sales. Other than that, IMO he wants it gone. Yeh i agree with others in that did the state of North Dakota become russia and not allow people to have opinions or did Faison jsut say that to get out of the question because he doesn't like the name and knew people would be calling for his head if they knew he didnt like it. Thoughts: 1. Standing Rock people should have had the right to vote, their board controlling and not listening it's people. 2. State funded institution, should have also let the tax payers decide as well. 3. The President and AD would have never been an issue, why is it in this country the 1% of the vote runs everything these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Scott Hennen is having Dr. Kelley on 1100 radio coming up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Kelley's vocabularty bugs me lol. I htink hes spent way to much time in a book and not enough talking with the common person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 http://www.fightingsioux.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=205083244 Brian Faison: The University of North Dakota never asked the Summit League, or its commissioner, to take a stand against the nickname and logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Tell that to some UND professors who let their anti-nickname views get the best of them. So are you saying Hakstol and Roebuck were unprofessional because they love the name and support it? Professors at all universities have been sharing their views on all subjects that don't belong in the classrooms for years. This list also includes politics and maybe religious views which also have no place in classrooms. This is not going to change however no matter how much you wish it wasn't there. As far as Hakstol and Roebuck they are in completely different situations and you should understand that. The first calls a lot of former players made was to the coaches of their specific programs. In a way they where a lot more the voice of the alumni than the AD who's job it is to look at the effect on the entire athletic dept., not just one piece of it. Hakstol could care less how much changing the name affected the football team. Mussman could care less how much changing the name affected the golf team. Each coach has a job to do and that is win, if they don't win it really won't matter what the nickname is. They also have to answer questions when they have a gathering of alumni and are asking for money to support their programs. I'm guessing there would have been a lot of pissed off hockey alumni when they meet in Las Vegas if Hak didn't give his opinion. And by Roebuk giving his opinion it wasn't going to matter, he didn't have final say in joining a conference. If the AD says he loves the name but than votes to drop it so teams can get into a autobid conference he looks a lot more foolish than he would if he just avoids the question all together. Darrell I know you understand that a coach and an AD are in two different categories when it comes to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I just watches the press conference Faison held today. He gives a rather complete scenerio and timeline. After watching the conference and listening to what Faison answered to the questions it makes me wonder about the character of Tom Douple. He must be a very vengeful person. It is rather sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 http://www.fightingsioux.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=205083244 Brian Faison: I'm finding it increasingly disturbing the wording that is in that press release. Replacing the word "pressured" with the word "suggested" changes the whole meaning of the press release. The word "pressured" totally absolves Faison and Kelley. "Statement by University of North Dakota Brian Faison: "I'm here today to respond to a report that the University of North Dakota "pressured" the Summit League to take stand against the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo." Total wordsmithing and spin reminiscent of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDAXGXGiEw Depends on the meaning of intercourse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I damn near choked when I read that article this morning. I wouldn't think Douple is blowing smoke........why would he? In the end, if Douple is telling the truth, Faison and Kelley were not trying to do anything that they thought would harm UND. While you can disagree with how they have handled things, both of those guys are trying to do what they think is the best for UND. 10 years from now, when there has been in new name in place for several years, I suspect that the wisdom of Kelley and Faison in attempting to get this behind the school will be appreciated. But, given the current hard feelings over the NCAA and the name, they will be hammered. And still, I don't think that nicknames ought to be a concern of the NCAA. But, obviously the courts didn't see it that way.........too bad there is not an alternative to the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Tell that to some UND professors who let their anti-nickname views get the best of them. So are you saying Hakstol and Roebuck were unprofessional because they love the name and support it? As homer pointed out, I think this is a slightly different situation. Hakstol and Roebuck aren't really viewed as the administration, so I think it is easier for them to state personal opinions as opposed to Faison who is part of the administration. But to answer your question, I have to say that I personally thought it was very unprofessional when Roebuck made his comment about him rather having the name than getting into the Summit League. It is one thing for him to think it, it is entirely different for him to say it to the media when we are trying to get into said conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Faison's response.... "I'm here today to respond to a report that the University of North Dakota "pressured" the Summit League to take stand against the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. The University of North Dakota never asked the Summit League, or its commissioner, to take a stand against the nickname and logo. In fact, the commissioner of the Summit League stated publicly, on more than one occasion over the past two years, that the university had to resolve the nickname and logo issue before they would consider us for membership. This resolution of the nickname and logo issue was always a precondition for league membership. My position has always been that we need a resolution. My job was to find the best conference for the University of North Dakota, and that is the Big Sky Conference." Edit: I like the last sentence the best. Edited January 26, 2011 by GeauxSioux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Faison's Press Conference The written statement was solid. The video adds emphasis to some of the words such as "never". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Faison's Press Conference The written statement was solid. The video adds emphasis to some of the words such as "never". Never pressured - true Never asked - true Never 'Suggested" with a wink - never denied People at Kelley's level are masters at getting what they want, and not leaving a legal trail. That's how they get to their positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Never pressured - true Never asked - true Never 'Suggested" with a wink - never denied People at Kelley's level are masters at getting what they want, and not leaving a legal trail. That's how they get to their positions. Good Lord. What part of "never" can't you accept? In this case, it would appear the term may only apply to the date at which you will accept Faison's denials to a poorly written story containing absolutely no direct confirmation of a premise laid out in its opening paragraph. Much ado about nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So now its Douple's turn to call Kelley a liar. I wonder when this will be said...or ever said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So now its Douple's turn to call Kelley a liar. I wonder when this will be said...or ever said. It is time for all (Douple, Faison and Kelley) to just be quiet and let it die. No reason for anymore salt in the wounds over the name change. In the end this does not affect where the name battle is and just serves to salt the wounds (and maybe sell a few newspapers). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It is time for all (Douple, Faison and Kelley) to just be quiet and let it die. No reason for anymore salt in the wounds over the name change. In the end this does not affect where the name battle is and just serves to salt the wounds (and maybe sell a few newspapers). Then why does Mr Kolpack (NDSU fan) have to bring up this crap now when the legislature is bringing up 3 bills to save the name. I guess he is not an Al Carlson fan, or he just likes to stir up trouble with UND and the Summit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Kolpack should bring this up if there is a factual basis to the story. IF Douple is right, that is news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Interesting points. But I have never liked Kelley, no matter who is telling the truth. I didn't feel that he stood up at the President of the Sioux for the nickname really at all. Agree 100%. Last year I sent Kelley and email asking whether he personally supports the Fighting Sioux nickname...got no response. It has been clear for a long time that the UND admin wants to get rid of the name. 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.