VMeister Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I wouldn't think Douple is blowing smoke........why would he? Whether he's lying or telling the truth, it's baffling why he would say that to the press. If he's lying they've got to fire him, and if he's telling the truth none of the other schools will ever trust him again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It does seem hard to believe that we had that much control over Douple. To carry out the charade he even told member schools to not schedule UND. Douple was even willing to harm other schools ability to make schedules just to cater to UND. Something about all of this just doesn't fit together. My gut tells me that Douple might not be telling the truth. It does strike me as being pretty far-fetched that we had that much control over Douple. In addition, I feel I have to come to the defense of AD Brian Faison, a fellow Mizzou graduate. I personally think he has been a very good athletic director thus far. It isn't easy to come in and schedule games for teams during the probation time prior to earning full Division I status. Considering the circumstances, I think he's done a good job scheduling teams from major athletic conferences. In any event, I do not feel that President Kelley or Faison should be fired over this incident. I can well understand that the UND administration would like to have this matter behind it. It certainly is a major distraction. As a UND graduate as well, I would prefer to keep the nickname, and with the likelihood of losing the nickname, I feel that a part of me is being lost, and lost forever. But I think the matter was taken out of our hands. The NCAA in its infinite wisdom--ha!!!--unfairly chose to come down on a handful of schools and used absurd reasoning in its decision-making process. Standing Rock should have voted on the issue. Since that's unlikely now, I can see where the UND administration is coming from. But I will be a Fighting Sioux forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Its just weird timing about the Summit leader bringing this up. Trying to excuse himself for "losing" out on the Sioux joining the Summit. I am surprised by the move of us not going to the Summit. On paper it just makes sense, but I do think its cool to get a rivalry going with Montana, and I'll to see my Sioux out here in Spokane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Its just weird timing about the Summit leader bringing this up. Trying to excuse himself for "losing" out on the Sioux joining the Summit. I am surprised by the move of us not going to the Summit. On paper it just makes sense, but I do think its cool to get a rivalry going with Montana, and I'll to see my Sioux out here in Spokane. At first I thought so but especially now I am so glad we are in the Big Sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Kelley denies pressuring Summit League on nickname issue UND President Robert Kelley repeated this morning his denial that he ever asked Summit League Commissioner Tom Douple to publicly come out against accepting the Fighting Sioux as a league member until the school's controversial nickname issue was resolved. "Tom has been very consistent with me that once we resolved the logo issue, the Summit League would review our appeal," Kelley said today as he waited for the House Education Committee to begin hearings on three bills that would require UND to retain the nickname and logo. "I am very surprised to find Tom thought there was pressure put on him to speak out on this issue," Kelley said. "There has been some urgency on our part to get this resolved. I think he felt some urgency on our part. But I don't recall every putting pressure on Tom as he implied. Don't recall ? Sounds like every congressional hearing: "to the best of my recollection..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 At first I thought so but especially now I am so glad we are in the Big Sky. Also helps that Eastern Washington won it all this year. Big Sky is looking a lot better to people. Tate Forcier, a Michigan transfer that has offers from Miami and San Diego, is also looking at Montana. Tate is a baby, nevertheless, its good for the conference to have top competition looking at the schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux 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. Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Don't recall ? Sounds like every congressional hearing: "to the best of my recollection..." Haha, sounds like "I never knowingly took performance-inhancing drugs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Haha, sounds like "I never knowingly took performance-inhancing drugs." I was thinking something like this as well... The depeding on what the definition of is, is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "I am very surprised to find Tom thought there was pressure put on him to speak out on this issue," Kelley said. "There has been some urgency on our part to get this resolved. I think he felt some urgency on our part. But I don't recall every putting pressure on Tom as he implied. So, you have Douple who believed he was pressured by Kelley, but nothing express, either in writing or witnessed by somebody else, that suggested Douple publicly oppose the name as a prerequisite to admission to the Summit. Without more, I tend to believe Douple is doing nothing more than trying to cover his own a$$ for losing UND to the big, bad Big Sky. The name/logo should have never even been an issue for consideration, and it's a credit to the Big Sky they don't appear to have made it part of their membership criteria. The fact the Summit did was shows some pretty myopic judgment on Douple's, or whomever's, part. As are as the "I don't recall" spiel, who remembers what they had for breakfast on October 2, 2009? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "I am very surprised to find Tom thought there was pressure put on him to speak out on this issue," Kelley said. "There has been some urgency on our part to get this resolved. I think he felt some urgency on our part. But I don't recall every putting pressure on Tom as he implied. So, you have Douple who believed he was pressured by Kelley, but nothing express, either in writing or witnessed by somebody else, that suggested Douple publicly oppose the name as a prerequisite to admission to the Summit. Without more, I tend to believe Douple is doing nothing more than trying to cover his own a$$ for losing UND to the big, bad Big Sky. The name/logo should have never even been an issue for consideration, and it's a credit to the Big Sky they don't appear to have made it part of their membership criteria. The fact the Summit did was shows some pretty myopic judgment on Douple's, or whomever's, part. As are as the "I don't recall" spiel, who remembers what they had for breakfast on October 2, 2009? Good points, but at the same time, telling a conference to put public pressure on a university basically giving them ultimatiums so they change their name is a lot different than what I had for breakfast. Thats a big deal and frankly as a Sioux fan pisses me off. Last year there was a whole lot of talk that the Summit was giving us deadlines to join the conference. There was all this "pressure" to change the name, thats why the board was pushing the tribes to vote. How many times did it come down to a stand off with the tribes and the board putting imaginery deadlines even though we had months to figure things out. I don't recall isn't a great answer when it comes to putting policitial pressure on the university that YOU are the president of. Can you imagine a CEO of a major corporation that has built a brand name doing that to their company? The shareholders would have him/her hung. I know I would "recall" if I asked another conference to put pressure on the name issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 But for the record, I don't really think Kelley did that. I'm sure though they used it to speed along the process and used that as the excuse to not take the needed time for resolution of a historical nickname like ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747Guy Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Faison and Kelley should be $*!t canned!!!! Get some REAL leaders in place!!!! TOTAL GONG SHOW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 One thing is certain...............and that is that Tom Douple is an absurd little human being. Just watched Faison's press conference, to say the least he comes off as a tad more convincing than last time I heard Douple speak publicly back in January of 2009 when he told Dan Hammer roughly 6 times that he had NEVER, NOT ONCE discussed North Dakota's nickname with his presidents, and then 8 hours later told Jeff Kolpack that he'd been advising his members not to schedule UND. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I have a few questions for the nickname supporters on here demanding Kelly and Faison. After you run Faison and Kelly out of town to get your pound of flesh for the nickname, who do you think will even want to be president or AD of this university? Should we just have Al Carlson and Jeff Kolpack pick our next AD and Prez? You obviously believe they have UND's best interests heart if you believe this drivel. Everyone needs to think rationally about this. Douple knows his ass is grass and he wants to take down UND with him. The man's been Gene Taylor's cuddling partner for the last few years and now he's doing his buddy a solid on his way out the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Bruce Smith would love to president of this university. Dennis elbert would love to be president of this university. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I have a few questions for the nickname supporters on here demanding Kelly and Faison. After you run Faison and Kelly out of town to get your pound of flesh for the nickname, who do you think will even want to be president or AD of this university? Should we just have Al Carlson and Jeff Kolpack pick our next AD and Prez? You obviously believe they have UND's best interests heart if you believe this drivel. Everyone needs to think rationally about this. Douple knows his ass is grass and he wants to take down UND with him. The man's been Gene Taylor's cuddling partner for the last few years and now he's doing his buddy a solid on his way out the door. There's no denying that Douple is a total scumbag. I've been stating that for years. But if our leadership doesn't have enough sense to avoid making deals with scumbags, that's very revealing about their judgement, limits, and ethics. Every UND fan should be concerned about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Don't you think Stenejem tried to negotiate a one tribe solution? I don't. I think the entire deal was to thwart the will of the people both on the reservation and in the GF/UND community. What we do know is that Stenejhem said he and the governor would meet with the tribes and negotiate a deal with the tribes. Wayne never did any such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I have a few questions for the nickname supporters on here demanding Kelly and Faison. After you run Faison and Kelly out of town to get your pound of flesh for the nickname, who do you think will even want to be president or AD of this university? Should we just have Al Carlson and Jeff Kolpack pick our next AD and Prez? You obviously believe they have UND's best interests heart if you believe this drivel. Everyone needs to think rationally about this. Douple knows his ass is grass and he wants to take down UND with him. The man's been Gene Taylor's cuddling partner for the last few years and now he's doing his buddy a solid on his way out the door. Maybe we can get someone good who's accomplishments will be greater than playing in the pep band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobIwabuchiFan Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I must have a poor memory, but I remember specifically when Kelley was in the running for the presidents job that the SBOHE asked that the panel from UND should provide 3 candidates to the board for the final decision. I believe the hiring board only provided Kelley's name. At that point, I thought the fix was in...Now the supposed revelation from Douple it all seems to fit very well. By the way, Kelly was at the final five last year in St Paul and at no time did he or Faison wear any Sioux Jerseys or Sioux logos, only the ND designations - very telling, very telling.... BobIwabuchiFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Only thing that I still wonder about is did the AG ever tell the NCAA that UND had prior approval from Standing Rock - Did they know this when they settled with us on getting both Tribes approval ? I think it was as honest & sincere of a approval as you can get But now a council won't allow the people to affirm or deny that - seems to me we have it (approval) & letting all the people vote is the only way to take it away If they did vote no - I could let the name go As it stands now I feel cheated & I feel many at Standing Rock do to All this other stuff just caused too many to hurry thru & give up before this was even tried (& it appears to of been the agenda of some in power / or some that don't really care) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I don't. I think the entire deal was to thwart the will of the people both on the reservation and in the GF/UND community. What we do know is that Stenejhem said he and the governor would meet with the tribes and negotiate a deal with the tribes. Wayne never did any such thing. Wayne can't force John Hoeven to meet with the tribes. Hoeven never had any intention of helping UND during this process and yet he is immune to criticism. Stenehjem probably got the best deal he could out of the settlement. At the time there was no guarantee that Spirit Lake would ever hold a referendum either. I'm sure Stenehjem had to give something up to get the extended deadline to remove the logos from the Ralph and the two tribe concession was probably it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 On a related note, have any of these suddenly inspired legislators contacted the NCAA to determine what their next move would be if this bill passes and what repercussions that would mean for UND? That would seem to be some important information to have before the legislature takes a vote on it. I'm guessing that they haven't, which speaks volumes about how much they actually give a !@#$ about the university and it's athletic teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 On a related note, have any of these suddenly inspired legislators contacted the NCAA to determine what their next move would be if this bill passes and what repercussions that would mean for UND? That would seem to be some important information to have before the legislature takes a vote on it. I'm guessing that they haven't, which speaks volumes about how much they actually give a !@#$ about the university and it's athletic teams. They know! The outlined sanctions would be enforced upon UND. UND would not be able to host any NCAA tournament games and could not wear the logo during post season play (there may be some other minor items as well). To me this is a small price to pay to keep the name while everything gets ironed out. If Standing Rock held a vote all of this would go away. If they voted against the name, I would be ok with the name being retired. Until then, I hope we retain the name and let the NCAA look like the PC fools they truely are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 They know! The outlined sanctions would be enforced upon UND. UND would not be able to host any NCAA tournament games and could not wear the logo during post season play (there may be some other minor items as well). To me this is a small price to pay to keep the name while everything gets ironed out. If Standing Rock held a vote all of this would go away. If they voted against the name, I would be ok with the name being retired. Until then, I hope we retain the name and let the NCAA look like the PC fools they truely are! How many years would you be willing to face these sanctions? Even if they vote for the nickname the NCAA doesn't have overturn the sanctions since we have an agreement that we needed to get support before the deadline and it didn't happen. The NCAA would punish us indefinitely for this and there is nothing we or anyone on the Standing Rock Reservation could do about it. I know your a Sioux hockey fan and thus probably don't give a !@#$ about the other sports on campus but just try to think about what this would do to the other sports on campus to have an indefinite ban on hosting postseason events. If this impacted hockey like it does the other sports the name would have been gone 2 years ago. 1 1 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.