BobIwabuchiFan Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Since your comprehension is so superior to the rest of us, what dollar amount do the terms "proper" and "adequate" prescribe? And if you can spare just a bit more of your valuable time to educate us poor, uneducated rubes, who would decide what is "proper" and "adequate"? Pssst, maybe there's some clues to the process in this article. Yes, the SBoHE seems to have the constitutional right to tell the legislature to go pound sand, but just because you CAN, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. Should the SBoHE spit in the face of North Dakotans on an issue that seems to have enthusiastic and overwhelming support? I would say probably not, but CAN they? Sure, and if/when the constitutional amendment abolishing the SBoHE is on the ballot will voters remember what they chose to do? Will voters be reminded? Nice to see the elitist's have it all undercontrol... I would guess Siouxpr is a life long democrat who took up political science or law at UND and now probably works as an aide to the old pomery, dorgan, or conrad clan...just a guess since he keeps pretending he wants to keep the name unless it assualts his liberal beliefs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes, the doomsayers will be out even in more full force now and you can count on the anti-nicknamers to continue to fixate. I bet that each and every one of them telephoned the NC$$ on the hotline not 10 seconds after the result was in. The majority wants the nickname and logo. The majorities of SR and SP want the nickname and logo. They will not be denied. Let the NC$$ be publicly portrayed as acting in concert with the few cynical SR Tribal Council members in preventing a vote by SR on this issue. Let the NC$$ be portrayed as entirely hypocritical when the obvious is repeated and repeated -- that one of the groups whom the surrender agreement was supposed to benefit and give a "voice" to is being actively prevented from expressing that "voice." Let's continue the truthful publicity because it looks very bad for the NC$$. Next, flood Hoeven's and Berg's Senate/House email accounts. We already know what a fish Conrad is. We can only hope that the U of M, U of W, etc. refuse to schedule UND because of the nickname and logo. Then, the 1st Amendment rears its head (U of M and U of W obviously are state actors) . If we truly are not able to sue the NC$$ on 1st Amendment grounds by virtue of res judicata, we surely could sue the U of M and U of W and, if victorious, the NC$$'s "policy" becomes unconstitutional by implication. This means that if some other party sues the NC$$, there would already be some manner of precedent that its asinine "policy" infringes on free speech. As many on this board have said, this is exactly where the issue needs to be. Too many people have been content with just rolling over and stating public support for the nickname and logo and then working assiduously to retire them in the dark and behind closed doors. This is the democratic process at work and it serves to shine a light on where everyone stands and that's a good thing. The fact that it seems so unfamiliar to some people is disconcerting and is all the more reason why it should continue. The lack of comfort some have with this process, to me, only lends validation and credibility to the process and it speaks volumes as to the absolute necessity of having the experience. It is a healthy thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 They can't do that, it would go against the ND constitution. http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_VIII,_North_Dakota_Constitution 5. The legislature shall provide adequate funds for the proper carrying out of the functions and duties of the state board of higher education. "adequate" is a very subjective term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Not trying to fan the flame but I have a few questions: 1. This does not require the AG to sioux the NCAA. What happens if the AG refuses to do this. 2. If the AG did sue the NCAA, what happens if when the AG loses the lawsuit (like before) Is it possible that this vote will keep the nickname but in return UND loses all home playoff games from here on out? The only home playoff game EVER. Would be football. Much rather by fighing sioux than having to host a playoff football game every five years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 And if the ND Supreme Court rules against the backwater/bushleague ND Legislature in this case (which is where I think it will ultimately end up), will they defund that part of government too? Or how about the ND Attorney General's office? Just a simple question. The ND Legislature is full of self-important blowhards who think everybody in the state should genuflect to them on everything and kiss their collective butts on command. If they really cared about keeping the name and logo, they would have taken this up in 2007 before there was a legal settlement with the NCAA. This is nothing more than populist political posturing and does more harm than good. I don't trust Al Carlson's motives on this and neither should anybody else. I really hope this gives us a second chance to save the name, but I have a feeling this will do way more harm than good. While being a self-important blowhard is not a good trait in general, if anyone in state government should have the right to act self-important it is the legislature because they are the closest and most accountable to the people. I'd much rather have a self-important legislature than a self-important Supreme Court or a self-important SBoHE or a self-important President of a University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Or face other sanctions by the NCAA. Like bannishment from the NCAA or longer transition, or other crap they can think of. Darell please stop pulling sh*t out your azz. The only thing that will happen if they don't comply is no home football playoff game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 . As for this board, I'm done with it. It's obviously for Sioux nickname fans and I'm a fan of the entire university so this isn't the place for me. I may stop by and read from time to time if I feel like pounding my head against the wall, but for the most part I'll probably just ignore it. That's so cute. Your publically stating how you don't like this place. haha You are a good sioux fan haha. That is the post of the year. All because the law says UND can't change its name. hahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 "adequate" is a very subjective term. Correct. A salary of 30k/year might be adequate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 "adequate" is a very subjective term. I think it is pretty clear and basically there so legislators don't do exactly what star2city is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think it is pretty clear and basically there so legislators don't do exactly what star2city is saying. And we can all thank John Q Paulsen's penchant for deception for much of the legislative antagonism towards the SBoHE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Nice to see the elitist's have it all undercontrol... I would guess Siouxpr is a life long democrat who took up political science or law at UND and now probably works as an aide to the old pomery, dorgan, or conrad clan...just a guess since he keeps pretending he wants to keep the name unless it assualts his liberal beliefs.... Why so anxious to paint this as a political issue, Bob? I didn't bother with an exacting count (maybe you did) but as I peruse the vote breakdown in the local paper I see Republicans on both sides of this issue, including Ray Holmberg and David Nething (former majority leader from Jamestown) among those who voted 'no.' I also see Tony Grindberg, a Republican and NDSU administrator, among those voting 'yes.' Hmmm. In any event, I think you have to work pretty hard to translate this to a partisan issue. Last I checked, this was the SiouxSports board. If you're hot for a political debate, maybe you should take it to another board where they revel in that kind of thing. Obviously a lot of emotion around this issue, especially today. Count me among the UND fans who have always valued the Sioux nickname but think now that the cost of keeping it has become too high. No one feels good about the possible elimination of the nickname and I doubt few if any in this camp sent messages to their legislators. And have no doubt that maintaining the nickname, while it feels good today, comes with a price. The football team, really the primary reason for all the effort to move to Division 1, will be hobbled by the prohibition against hosting playoffs. You can bet other schools will be sure that potential recruits are well aware they have no chance for playoffs on their home field if they come to UND. Wil it make a difference? Probably for at least a few. I've read from several posters on this board that they "can live with" the post-season prohibitions. To each his own, I guess, but I've never understood supporting a nickname at the expense of the organization it is supposed to represent. "Ira Murphy" had it exactly right yesterday when he noted that keeping the nickname now will penalize those athletes who choose to compete for THE University of North Dakota. I agree with him that there's little reason to believe the NCAA will revisit the settlement and nothing anyone here can do to force a public vote or change of official position at Standing Rock. Control what is yours to control, as someone on this board posted earlier, and accept and adjust to those you don't. Finally, I'm not an attorney (thank God) but I believe anyone who thinks we can use the First Amendment to force teams to play UND with the Sioux nickname is, frankly, delusional. Every school decides for a variety of reasons who they wish to face on the court, field or ice. A decision not to play UND -- for whatever reason -- certainly doesn't infringe on our "right" to be the Fighting Sioux.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Tom Dennis' editorial on nickname, with reference to Bisonville It's absolutely hilarious that Tom Dennis is using Bisonville conventional "wisdom" to make a point. Perhaps Tom doesn't understand that Bisonville has a proven track record as an anti-oracle. Unlike the Oracle of Delphi, Bisonville is always 180 degrees wrong: 1. NDSU is a lock for the Big Sky. 1.5 The Summit sucks: oh wait it is really a wonderful place. 2. No CST zone school will ever get in the Big Sky. 3. UND will never go DI, as Kupchella will never allow it. 4. UND doesn't have the money for DI. 4.5 UND hockey will never allow the rest of the sports to go DI. 5. Grand Forks can't support DI. 6. UND's television capability will not help it get in a conference - what a joke. 7. UND will never ever get in the Big Sky. 8. The SIoux nickname will prevent UND from ever getting in a conference. 9. Chapman is an honorable president, and not a crook. 10. Douple is a wonderful commissioner: he would never lie. 11. The NCAA is going to evict UND from it's membership. 12. UND will lose academic accreditation. I personally hope Bisonville keeps predicting UND athletic's demise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Why so anxious to paint this as a political issue, Bob? I didn't bother with an exacting count (maybe you did) but as I peruse the vote breakdown in the local paper I see Republicans on both sides of this issue, including Ray Holmberg and David Nething (former majority leader from Jamestown) among those who voted 'no.' I also see Tony Grindberg, a Republican and NDSU administrator, among those voting 'yes.' Hmmm. In any event, I think you have to work pretty hard to translate this to a partisan issue. Last I checked, this was the SiouxSports board. If you're hot for a political debate, maybe you should take it to another board where they revel in that kind of thing. There are few issues in the ND legislature that show more of a partisan breakdown than the Sioux vote. The Legislature more often votes along rural vs urban, or west vs east, than Republican vs Democrat. With regard to the Sioux nickname, the overwhelming support for the Sioux nickname is from Republicans, not Democrats. Democrats voted almost unanimously against the nickname both in the Senate and in the House. These are the facts: ND Senate - nickname issue Repblicans 27 yes, 5 no, 3 not voting Democrats 1 yes, 10 no, 1 not voting In this case, since the legislature has made this such a partisan issue, using your logic, perhaps Siouxsports should suspend all discussion of the Sioux nickname. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 "adequate" is a very subjective term. Its not very subjective in a case like this, historical levels would determine "adequate." If a court saw a outlier drop in funding, the legislature would be ordered to restore to historical levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knickball2 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How many times on this board have we seen "game over" regarding the nickname/logo? When the merchandising revenue is factored into the debate, it's a no brainer, you fight to keep the cash cow, that is essentially derived from the cash sport, i.e. hockey. I attend UND basketball games and UND football games, but really, Hockey is and always will be king in Grand Forks, and it transcends to the high schools here. Hockey powers year after year, basketball and football championship contention, what once a decade. The dreaded NCAA sanctions list, hmm, the doctrine of Res Judicata applying to the possibility of a second suit against the NCAA, but in Federal Court rather than State Court, not an absolute when dealing with distinct and separate sovereigns. I've been practicing law for 20 years, am part Sioux Indian, and believe the nickname/logo has always been used by the University to shed a positive light on Native Americans as a whole. The iconic nature of "Fighting Sioux" is worth continuing the fight and yesterday that message was sent loud and clear. I have never been convinced that Kelley, Faison, or the SBoHE members would be the determining voices on my beloved nickname and logo, and alas, they aren't. Thankfully, we don't get our inspiration from the U of M or the U of W, simply put, North Dakotans possess common sense, really the U of M and the team failures associated with it, maybe the NCAA should spend more of it's hypocritical focus on the schools of the Big Ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 While being a self-important blowhard is not a good trait in general, if anyone in state government should have the right to act self-important it is the legislature because they are the closest and most accountable to the people. I'd much rather have a self-important legislature than a self-important Supreme Court or a self-important SBoHE or a self-important President of a University. If you're implying the state would be better off with higher education in direct control of a "self-important blowhard" legislature than under control of the SBoHE, you might want to review the history behind creation of the board in the first place. I've watched it up close and personal in the past, and the ND legislature is, to put it politely, a myopic beast. Members, for the most part, are fixated on bringing home the goodies for the folks back home. As Grand Forks county's population stagnates while the Fargo, Bismarck and Minot areas grow, you should be more than a little nervous about UND's future beinng under direct control of a overtly political body with largely parochial concerns. Please see the newly created "Energy Center" is Bismarck as an example of the future with the Legislature in control. Whether the SBoHE fights the nickname bill is an interesting question. My initial impulse is to say they will challenge it, but when they guy who has the authority to appoint board members indicates he'll sign this bill, board members must be questioning their next step. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsh Hall Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 The SBoHE is not a fourth branch of government and is not treated like one. Without getting into great detail, this is not a fight the SBoHE will want to fight. The legal arguments for this issue have already been prepared, and I believe the argument for holding the law constituional is more presuasive. I would be very surprised if the SBoHE challenged the constitutionality of this legislation. Besides the SBoHE, there is a major problem/question about who would have standing to challenge this law. The SBoHE is in enough heat already. It really makes little practical sense to have separate entities controlling K-12 and higher education. In this political climate it is somewhat difficult to justify their independent existence. Suing the State over this issue, which is a very speculative suit, and probably against the major of the population, would be a gutsy move on their part. From all the settlement negotiations between the State and the NCAA I don't believe that dropping UND from the association was ever on the table. If I am wrong, and that has been threatened by the NCAA, please let me know. Whether not hosting NCAA playoff games is something that is a deal breaker is open to debate. People obviously have different opinions on this one depending on their sport of choose. I don't see the doom and gloom scenerios which have been presented by some as having any factual basis. I agree that anything is possible, but at this time there is nothing to support these scenerios. Finally, the 1st amendment arguments are total crap. We have our right to pick a name just as other schools have a right to not play us. I'm unaware of a nickname being a protected class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobIwabuchiFan Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 While being a self-important blowhard is not a good trait in general, if anyone in state government should have the right to act self-important it is the legislature because they are the closest and most accountable to the people. I'd much rather have a self-important legislature than a self-important Supreme Court or a self-important SBoHE or a self-important President of a University. Exactly...nice clarity on this one!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 There are few issues in the ND legislature that show more of a partisan breakdown than the Sioux vote. The Legislature more often votes along rural vs urban, or west vs east, than Republican vs Democrat. With regard to the Sioux nickname, the overwhelming support for the Sioux nickname is from Republicans, not Democrats. Democrats voted almost unanimously against the nickname both in the Senate and in the House. These are the facts: ND Senate - nickname issue Repblicans 27 yes, 5 no, 3 not voting Democrats 1 yes, 10 no, 1 not voting In this case, since the legislature has made this such a partisan issue, using your logic, perhaps Siouxsports should suspend all discussion of the Sioux nickname. Did either the Republican or Democratic caucus take an official position on this issue? Not to my knowledge. There may have been, as your careful count suggests, tendencies to vote one way or another based on general philosophy but what of it? Last I heard, the rules of the forum were to steer clear of blatantly political discussion. God knows we all get more than enough of that through other venues. Seems to me there is plenty to discuss without this thread deteriorating into a political rant. If you feel unable to carry on without a political diatribe, perhaps you might want to consider a hiatus while you cool off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobIwabuchiFan Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Why so anxious to paint this as a political issue, Bob? I didn't bother with an exacting count (maybe you did) but as I peruse the vote breakdown in the local paper I see Republicans on both sides of this issue, including Ray Holmberg and David Nething (former majority leader from Jamestown) among those who voted 'no.' I also see Tony Grindberg, a Republican and NDSU administrator, among those voting 'yes.' Hmmm. In any event, I think you have to work pretty hard to translate this to a partisan issue. Last I checked, this was the SiouxSports board. If you're hot for a political debate, maybe you should take it to another board where they revel in that kind of thing. Obviously a lot of emotion around this issue, especially today. Count me among the UND fans who have always valued the Sioux nickname but think now that the cost of keeping it has become too high. No one feels good about the possible elimination of the nickname and I doubt few if any in this camp sent messages to their legislators. And have no doubt that maintaining the nickname, while it feels good today, comes with a price. The football team, really the primary reason for all the effort to move to Division 1, will be hobbled by the prohibition against hosting playoffs. You can bet other schools will be sure that potential recruits are well aware they have no chance for playoffs on their home field if they come to UND. Wil it make a difference? Probably for at least a few. I've read from several posters on this board that they "can live with" the post-season prohibitions. To each his own, I guess, but I've never understood supporting a nickname at the expense of the organization it is supposed to represent. "Ira Murphy" had it exactly right yesterday when he noted that keeping the nickname now will penalize those athletes who choose to compete for THE University of North Dakota. I agree with him that there's little reason to believe the NCAA will revisit the settlement and nothing anyone here can do to force a public vote or change of official position at Standing Rock. Control what is yours to control, as someone on this board posted earlier, and accept and adjust to those you don't. Finally, I'm not an attorney (thank God) but I believe anyone who thinks we can use the First Amendment to force teams to play UND with the Sioux nickname is, frankly, delusional. Every school decides for a variety of reasons who they wish to face on the court, field or ice. A decision not to play UND -- for whatever reason -- certainly doesn't infringe on our "right" to be the Fighting Sioux.. So let me get this staight...you don't understand why I bring politics into this because it's not a political issue? Right...keep on believing that and we'll see who has cognitive dissonance. Your second point was something about the fact that 3 or 4 republicans voted against this and thus its a bilateral issue - wrong again...who voted in lockstep with their party to remove the nickname with whatever reason they come up with? I don't think you can count the republicans in the senate, house, and the governorship as being in that camp. Again, the nickname supporters are going to welcome you fence sitters back into the fold once the university and NCAA do what all organizations do when dealing with legal impasses of this sort...no harm, no foul....sorry dlsioux...I'm meant penalty since its all you can understand from a sports penalty analogy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If you're implying the state would be better off with higher education in direct control of a "self-important blowhard" legislature than under control of the SBoHE, you might want to review the history behind creation of the board in the first place. I've watched it up close and personal in the past, and the ND legislature is, to put it politely, a myopic beast. Members, for the most part, are fixated on bringing home the goodies for the folks back home. As Grand Forks county's population stagnates while the Fargo, Bismarck and Minot areas grow, you should be more than a little nervous about UND's future beinng under direct control of a overtly political body with largely parochial concerns. Please see the newly created "Energy Center" is Bismarck as an example of the future with the Legislature in control. Whether the SBoHE fights the nickname bill is an interesting question. My initial impulse is to say they will challenge it, but when they guy who has the authority to appoint board members indicates he'll sign this bill, board members must be questioning their next step. I wasn't implying anything other than your disdain for the legislature is misplaced. As far as the government is concerned, the legislature is the closest thing to the people there is. If you think they are self-important blowhards, I suggest you get involved in politics and get them voted out. That is the beauty of the legislature, the members that comprise that body are accountable to the people. I have no opinion on whether the SBoHE should be abolished. But I do know that if the SBoHE fights the legislature on this issue, there's a much better chance of that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I don't know much about this Plains Daily publication, but they seem to be kicking the Herald's butt on coverage on this issue. I absolutely love when the media provides direct access to the sources of their stories, rather than forcing you to rely exclusively on their filter. The Plains Daily has posted video of testimony on this issue from both sides. There is also video on http://www.plainsdaily.com/of their interviews with various people involved in the issue. (and no, I don't work for plains daily or have any affiliation with them...) Eunice Davidson Clips of Mark Dosch, Phillip Mueller, Curt Kreun, Lonny Winrich, Al Carlson, Jerry Kelsh, RaeAnn Kelsch Clips of Richard Marcellais, Mac Schneider, Dick Dever, David Hogue, Joe Miller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Finally, the 1st amendment arguments are total crap. We have our right to pick a name just as other schools have a right to not play us. I'm unaware of a nickname being a protected class. Ah, ok. Believe what you want. It's not an issue of a nickname being a protected class. The issue is a school, a state actor, refusing to play another school BECAUSE OF what the other school/state chooses to call its teams. I'm sure reasonable minds may differ, but there is a lawsuit to be made there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I wasn't implying anything other than your disdain for the legislature is misplaced. As far as the government is concerned, the legislature is the closest thing to the people there is. If you think they are self-important blowhards, I suggest you get involved in politics and get them voted out. That is the beauty of the legislature, the members that comprise that body are accountable to the people. I have no opinion on whether the SBoHE should be abolished. But I do know that if the SBoHE fights the legislature on this issue, there's a much better chance of that happening. ...and I didn't indicate any disdain for the legislature, just utilized the description included in your post. I'd ask, however, how much confidence you felt when the author of this bill stated he had "no idea" of the impact on UND. The poiint of my post was that those who are miffed at the SBoHE at the moment might be best served by a little research on events that led to the creation of the board in the first place. It wasn't a pretty picture when the legislature directly controlled higher ed in the past and the state's demographics don't suggest a promising future for UND if state lawmakers have direct control in the future. Your local leglslator may be directly accountable to you, but an increasing number of legslators from Minot, Bismarck and Fargo may have local or political interests they'd promote at UND's -- or all of higher ed's -- expense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 So let me get this staight...you don't understand why I bring politics into this because it's not a political issue? Right...keep on believing that and we'll see who has cognitive dissonance. Your second point was something about the fact that 3 or 4 republicans voted against this and thus its a bilateral issue - wrong again...who voted in lockstep with their party to remove the nickname with whatever reason they come up with? I don't think you can count the republicans in the senate, house, and the governorship as being in that camp. Again, the nickname supporters are going to welcome you fence sitters back into the fold once the university and NCAA do what all organizations do when dealing with legal impasses of this sort...no harm, no foul....sorry dlsioux...I'm meant penalty since its all you can understand from a sports penalty analogy.... What legal impasse? The state and the NCAA, a voluntary organization, negotiated an agreement over rules approved by the NCAA membership. The legislature now has told UND not to comply. I'm sure no one at the NCAA in Indianapolis cares if the state -- and therefore UND -- chooses to take sanctions rather than comply with the agreement. As to your politics, please take the ranting to a forum where it belongs. 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.