mikejm Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 This implies that the ND population has an informed opinion about higher ed. Outside the current nickname battle, 95% of North Dakotans dont know a damned thing about the issues facing higher ed. And I don't think I'd like 95% of the population making decisions about higher education, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsiouxfan86 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The Sic has it right. I don't know why people can't see that. I disagree completely. Whether he was called to testify or not is irrelevant. The issue lies in what side of the argument he stood on in his testimony. I've heard a million claims that he was "just doing his job" or he was simply "acting on orders from the SBoHE"... whatever. If his opinion was in support of keeping the logo and nickname and if he would have testified to this opinion in front of the legislature, I do not believe he would be risking his job. He would not be fired simply for stating his opinion. Just like coach hakstol wasn't for stating his. Nor have any of the PC UND professors who speak out against the nickname and logo. Its pretty clear that UND does not fire faculty or employees for stating their opinion. Anyone who follows this issue has to admit this is true. I am not saying that there is no risk associated with Fassion coming out in favor of the nickname and logo; I am just saying that he wouldn't be fired for it. If anything, they would just cook up some other reason to fire him. Either way I think the honorable thing to do is stand up for what you believe in. Win or lose you can at least walk away with your head held high knowing that you didn't succumb to the pressure of the loud minority but instead stayed true to your own personal values. In the end I think that is what this fight is all about; no matter what side of the argument you are on. Frank said it perfectly. The tradition that the Sioux legacy represents should exemplify honor, pride, and overcoming great adversity. IMO I do not feel Fassion or Kelly possess these values, and therefore do not have what it takes to lead this great university. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I disagree completely. Whether he was called to testify or not is irrelevant. The issue lies in what side of the argument he stood on in his testimony. I've heard a million claims that he was "just doing his job" or he was simply "acting on orders from the SBoHE"... whatever. If his opinion was in support of keeping the logo and nickname and if he would have testified to this opinion in front of the legislature, I do not believe he would be risking his job. He would not be fired simply for stating his opinion. Just like coach hakstol wasn't for stating his. Nor have any of the PC UND professors who speak out against the nickname and logo. Its pretty clear that UND does not fire faculty or employees for stating their opinion. Anyone who follows this issue has to admit this is true. I am not saying that there is no risk associated with Fassion coming out in favor of the nickname and logo; I am just saying that he wouldn't be fired for it. If anything, they would just cook up some other reason to fire him. Either way I think the honorable thing to do is stand up for what you believe in. Win or lose you can at least walk away with your head held high knowing that you didn't succumb to the pressure of the loud minority but instead stayed true to your own personal values. In the end I think that is what this fight is all about; no matter what side of the argument you are on. Frank said it perfectly. The tradition that the Sioux legacy represents should exemplify honor, pride, and overcoming great adversity. IMO I do not feel Fassion or Kelly possess these values, and therefore do not have what it takes to lead this great university. Have you and others ever considered that he may have been doing just that^?! As in he believes, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the best thing for UND and its athletic programs is to change the nickname and move on, especially given the "transitional" status of UND sports (-hockey) at this very time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Have you and others ever considered that he may have been doing just that^?! As in he believes, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the best thing for UND and its athletic programs is to change the nickname and move on, especially given the "transitional" status of UND sports (-hockey) at this very time? I agree that if Faison thinks the best thing for UND is to change the name because it hurts scheduling or if teams wasn't going to play us....then where is the proof of this. Let us see that College A is not going to schedule UND because of the name. Or else there is just speculating on that colleges won't schedule us. Minnesota may rebutt on their policy if they play in the BTHC because UND brings $$$ to Minneapolis where Michigan Tech does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockybison Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Millions of alumni, you guys are really cranking them out up there. Come on Capt, get a hold of yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockybison Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 And don't call me shirley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Minnesota may rebutt on their policy if they play in the BTHC because UND brings $$$ to Minneapolis where Michigan Tech does not. Your hypothesis might have more crediblity if Minnesota's policy, and other schools' policies of the same nature, was actually designed by the athletic departments, rather than the academic eggheads who don't give a shiat about hockey, or any other sports. The fact the name/logo is already being discussed by a non-existent conference's future members should give some people pause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I agree that if Faison thinks the best thing for UND is to change the name because it hurts scheduling or if teams wasn't going to play us....then where is the proof of this. Let us see that College A is not going to schedule UND because of the name. Or else there is just speculating on that colleges won't schedule us. Minnesota may rebutt on their policy if they play in the BTHC because UND brings $$$ to Minneapolis where Michigan Tech does not. I would think that his position has more to do with just scheduling. The nickname opponents are not going to go away even if a new deal is worked out with the NCAA, and both of the surrounding, non-productive debate and negative connotations (whether accurate or not) will still be there. He likely thinks and feels his time, and others in the administration, is better spent on productive matters--but these are just my thoughts of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I would think that his position has more to do with just scheduling. The nickname opponents are not going to go away even if a new deal is worked out with the NCAA, and both of the surrounding, non-productive debate and negative connotations (whether accurate or not) will still be there. He likely thinks and feels his time, and others in the administration, is better spent on productive matters--but these are just my thoughts of course. You think the pro-nickname supporters are going away...espeically those on the 2 reservations? There are a lot more pro supporters than anti supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Your hypothesis might have more crediblity if Minnesota's policy, and other schools' policies of the same nature, was actually designed by the athletic departments, rather than the academic eggheads who don't give a shiat about hockey, or any other sports. The fact the name/logo is already being discussed by a non-existent conference's future members should give some people pause. $$$$ does a lot of talking. Picture this scenario. Minnesota is close to the playoffs but their SOS has them playing Michigan Tech and not UND. Minnesota misses out of the playoffs, fans are pissed, and who do they blame the AD who says nothing I can do we can't schedule UND....Then the president's head comes on the chopping block. Minnesota's main sport is hockey. Football , basketball a close second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 $$$$ does a lot of talking. Picture this scenario. Minnesota is close to the playoffs but their SOS has them playing Michigan Tech and not UND. Minnesota misses out of the playoffs, fans are pissed, and who do they blame the AD who says nothing I can do we can't schedule UND....Then the president's head comes on the chopping block. Minnesota's main sport is hockey. Football , basketball a close second. None of which means anything to "idealistic" academics who probably view college sports as anathema anyway. They make those idiotic policies, and if the teams' gates suffer, it's of little consequence to them. You can find plenty of examples at UND too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomackman Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Here we go again...with all the native american slurs you've been hearing in this town. Where are the documented charges identifying racism in this town? And when you dig these up how exactly are these tied to the fighting sioux name? You seem to have forgotten all the wonderful comments made in the Herald in the comment section (the one you did not have to sign your name to) a few years back. Are you denying that there has never been racial shots at Native Americans in Grand Forks? If you do lift the rock off and see the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsiouxfan86 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Have you and others ever considered that he may have been doing just that^?! As in he believes, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the best thing for UND and its athletic programs is to change the nickname and move on, especially given the "transitional" status of UND sports (-hockey) at this very time? I have considered this and I do believe that he holds the opinion that the University would be better off without the nickname and logo. My question is regarding what led him to form this opinion. If it was formed out of fear that other schools may not schedule us due to the nickname and logo issue then I feel that this is a weak position for him to take. I'm slightly worried about scheduling issues as well but it isn't enough for me to justify not trying to make this new legislation work. There is no precedence for this situation, therefore I feel it is worth letting it play out and seeing what might come of it. I think the odds are about 50/50 and for me that is enough to warrant fighting to keep this 80 year tradition alive. If I learned anything from my history of North Dakota class at UND with Kim Porter, it is that this state wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the Sioux nation and the other Native American tribes who settled here long before our ancestors came along. The same can be said for the University as it was established several years before North Dakota became a state. The Native Americans and the University of North Dakota have helped shape this great state into what it is today and their influence shines through in each and every facet. My pride for my school, my state, and their history is immeasurable and I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. No matter what the outcome, I will always and forever be a Fighting Sioux. Go Sioux! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxbooster#33 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 None of which means anything to "idealistic" academics who probably view college sports as anathema anyway. They make those idiotic policies, and if the teams' gates suffer, it's of little consequence to them. You can find plenty of examples at UND too. I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. The biggest problem I have with the doom and gloom apocolyptic view of consquences of keeping the UND Fighting Sioux name is that the doom and gloom apocolyptic view is not based in too much reality. Instead, the doom and gloom seems to flow like water from the minds of those who oppose the name -- supported by nothing but speculation, fear mongering, and hand-wringing. In fact, on this very message board, fellow posters have revealed that the Minnesota policy is a lose policy, not a dictate. And the committee that formed the policy against playing schools with native nicknames declared that ultimate scheduling authority rested with the Athletic Department. Perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to present some proof of all of the disasters they blithely announce (as Gospel truth) that will befall UND? Or perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to point to one school -- one -- which used native names and/or imagery, and which refused to change, and which the NCAA did not settle and back down? One school that got any measure of the "death" penalty from the NCAA? Any? What school right now is on sanctions from the NCAA for using a native American name? What school right now is officially having trouble scheduling athletic contests because of their native-based name? Name one. Please. Anyone? The doom and gloom is easy to spew -- literally impossible to back up. e..g . . . Mr. Faisson is full of manure when he speaks of scheduling problems caused by the name. He claimed that the pistols used by Pistol Pete would harm attendance at NMSU because the guns scare children. Also deeply-layered manure. He holds a PC leftist position on this issue -- and rather than having the courage to stand up and declare his non-majority moral views, he hides behind unsubstantiated blither, which is lapped up by too many who are too easily swayed and too easily willing to be easily sucked into his too-easy explaination. Mr. Faisson is not exhibiting courage or moral integrity in this name fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I have no idea what the percentage of Universities that have policies regarding scheduling games against schools with Native Americans is. However, there definitely is precedent (or proof) as Minnesota and Wisconsin and I believe even Iowa have stated that they will mirror the policy of the NCAA. In other words, if UND goes back on the list, those schools would not schedule us. As I, ScottM, and some others have alluded to in the past, there has to be a reason Faison and Kelley are encouraging the retirement of the Sioux name. I highly doubt they are just pushing a personal agenda...feel free to provide the proof of that. I'm sure that Kelly and Faison have had discussions with other Athletic Departments/Schools in regards to potential fallout regarding the name. To think otherwise is foolish. I'm hoping we get to keep the name but only if Standing Rock steps up and says it's ok. I don't see anyway this turns out positive for UND without their blessing. Standing Rock needs to step up very soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. They are NOT on the hostile and abusive nickname list; which is where UND will likely return if unable to convince the NCAA that one tribe's permission is enough. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 None of these schools are on the NCAA sanctions list. The NCAA already made a statement that the new law doesn't change anything which means they intend to put us back on the sanctions list if we do not abide by the agreement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The MN AD was just on KFAN the other day, and, when asked about scheduling UND in hockey after the BTHC is in play, he said he is not sure how that will work out. BTW, the question was prefaced with (paraphrasing), "while you won't play UND in football or basketball because of the name . . . . . . " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 This implies that the ND population has an informed opinion about higher ed. Outside the current nickname battle, 95% of North Dakotans dont know a damned thing about the issues facing higher ed. I agree that 95% of the people don't know what is going on with the state board of HIGHER ed, nor should they. That is why we have elected officials that police such branches of government. When you have a branch of government that has no one to police them, you have problems! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. The biggest problem I have with the doom and gloom apocolyptic view of consquences of keeping the UND Fighting Sioux name is that the doom and gloom apocolyptic view is not based in too much reality. Instead, the doom and gloom seems to flow like water from the minds of those who oppose the name -- supported by nothing but speculation, fear mongering, and hand-wringing. In fact, on this very message board, fellow posters have revealed that the Minnesota policy is a lose policy, not a dictate. And the committee that formed the policy against playing schools with native nicknames declared that ultimate scheduling authority rested with the Athletic Department. Perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to present some proof of all of the disasters they blithely announce (as Gospel truth) that will befall UND? Or perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to point to one school -- one -- which used native names and/or imagery, and which refused to change, and which the NCAA did not settle and back down? One school that got any measure of the "death" penalty from the NCAA? Any? What school right now is on sanctions from the NCAA for using a native American name? What school right now is officially having trouble scheduling athletic contests because of their native-based name? Name one. Please. Anyone? The doom and gloom is easy to spew -- literally impossible to back up. e..g . . . Mr. Faisson is full of manure when he speaks of scheduling problems caused by the name. He claimed that the pistols used by Pistol Pete would harm attendance at NMSU because the guns scare children. Also deeply-layered manure. He holds a PC leftist position on this issue -- and rather than having the courage to stand up and declare his non-majority moral views, he hides behind unsubstantiated blither, which is lapped up by too many who are too easily swayed and too easily willing to be easily sucked into his too-easy explaination. Mr. Faisson is not exhibiting courage or moral integrity in this name fight. You won't be able to find one, because as far as I know all the other schools either got the required approval or changed their mascot / name / logo as required....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. And which of those schools is currently on the NC$$'s shiat list for having "hostile and abusive" names, logos, etc? And which ones only had to get one tribe's consent to use their names and logos? Contrast that with the number of schools, including one on your list, that succumbed to the NC$$'s requirements in some form or another. And here's a fun trivia question, which school removed a feather from its logo to avoid the NC$$ list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Great job Frank...you spoke for a lot of us. I think Brian Faison is a good person, but he doesn't understand what the Fighting Sioux name means to a great majority of us that went to the University of North Dakota. The simple fact is, we are proud of the Fighting Sioux name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 And which of those schools is currently on the NC$$'s shiat list for having "hostile and abusive" names, logos, etc? And which ones only had to get one tribe's consent to use their names and logos? Contrast that with the number of schools, including one on your list, that succumbed to the NC$$'s requirements in some form or another. And here's a fun trivia question, which school removed a feather from its logo to avoid the NC$$ list? I know that one the Tribe of Bill & Mary....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxbooster#33 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I have no idea what the percentage of Universities that have policies regarding scheduling games against schools with Native Americans is. However, there definitely is precedent (or proof) as Minnesota and Wisconsin and I believe even Iowa have stated that they will mirror the policy of the NCAA. In other words, if UND goes back on the list, those schools would not schedule us. As I, ScottM, and some others have alluded to in the past, there has to be a reason Faison and Kelley are encouraging the retirement of the Sioux name. I highly doubt they are just pushing a personal agenda...feel free to provide the proof of that. I'm sure that Kelly and Faison have had discussions with other Athletic Departments/Schools in regards to potential fallout regarding the name. To think otherwise is foolish. I'm hoping we get to keep the name but only if Standing Rock steps up and says it's ok. I don't see anyway this turns out positive for UND without their blessing. Standing Rock needs to step up very soon... Is there proof that UM, Wisconsin, and Iowa will not schedule the Sioux? I see no proof, and in fact Wisconsin has scheduled the Sioux in basketball and softball in the past year. I don't care about Iowa. Push comes to shove, I really don't care about playing UM, UW, or Iowa --- if it means selling out our name to make some people on those campuses happy. I think that is selling the name pretty cheap. But any proof of these schools refusing to schedule UND? As for Minnesota . . . I am not in that group of people who feel that playing Minnesota in non-hockey events is some measuring stick of any serious value. Minnesota is a low-ranked, pathetic excuse for a Big Ten athletics program. I would prefer that we keep the name and play more Western-based schools rather than wring our hands in enrvous worry that "Big Minnesota might not like us." This includes hockey. I am not living my life, nor am I willing to sell my ideals, so cheaply just to make the regents of the University of Minnesota pat us on the head and say, "There's a good boy." But I ask again ---- any proof of any of this, are is Faisson spouting the doom and gloom party line? I see no proof, I only see cheap parlor tricks disguised as logic. I only see a shell game and three-card-monte. I only see a pack of left-leaning PC police officers frustrated that not enough people are taking them serious. I only see a gaggle of left-leaning Crusaders from the 1970s (Glassheim, Tom Dennis, Mike Jacobs, Omdahl) so entrentched in their long-long-long war against the name that they have totally lost their bearings. In place of logic and proof to support their debate, they and their converts have resorted to knee jerk nonsense, sky-is-falling rhetoric, and "boogey man" bed time stories meant to scare the little ignorant children who are unwilling or unable to understand these people are lost in the haze of their crusade so deeply they just can't see daylight. And these people have dominated the conversation for so long, without being legitimately questioned, that their hyperbolic responses stink of decayed ideas long discredited, stink of panic, and stink of fear. Deep, serious, fear. The children don't believe their bedtime stories anymore. The children are growing up. And they are having a hard time getting traction on their doom and gloom silliness. Where is the proof that any of the defenses raised by Mr. Faisson will happen? There is none. Only a performing clown acting out the pathetic last act of a death sequence to the great PC dream in North Dakota to strip the name from UND. Its been such a dedicated cause for them for so long they don't realize the kids aren't afraid -- they are laughing at them. These silly old men sputtering spittle from their senile chins, still ranting about Nixon and the Ford Pinto. And Mr. Faisson, nice man that he is, is sadly playing the part of the dutiful leftist public servant, spouting the party line and propping up these decaying old 1970 social class warriors for one more run. He is neither smart enough, nor brave enough, to anything else. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxbooster#33 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 And which of those schools is currently on the NC$$'s shiat list for having "hostile and abusive" names, logos, etc? And which ones only had to get one tribe's consent to use their names and logos? Contrast that with the number of schools, including one on your list, that succumbed to the NC$$'s requirements in some form or another. And here's a fun trivia question, which school removed a feather from its logo to avoid the NC$$ list? All of them, at one point in time. And Minnesota / Iowa / Wisconsin's scheduling policy is not tied to the NCAA. And yet . . . these schools all continue to play, nickname and all. 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.