sioux2013 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Agreed Hambone. As I said on another thread, the Big Sky doesn't need UND but UND desperately needs the Big Sky (unless all you care about is hockey). This admittedly is painful, unfair and wrong but for the sake of our future, it's time to move on and retire the name. If we can get beyond this, UND has a very, very bright and exciting athletic future as a member of the Big Sky Conference. If we can't, our athletic future is in doubt -- our ability to compete and recruit will be heavily compromised without a conference. Not only would it make it difficult to recruit but I can see many of our current athletes transferring to other schools. Its a very bad situation if UND continues to fight the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Not only would it make it difficult to recruit but I can see many of our current athletes transferring to other schools. Its a very bad situation if UND continues to fight the nickname. More teams may not schedule us if we go back on the H&A list: Not only MInnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin but now....South Dakota State!!! http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/323139/ If the nickname stays, South Dakota State reportedly has issues with scheduling UND beyond the contracted 2013 football game between the Sioux and Jackrabbits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think we have no choice....its either keep the name and go Independent or lose the name and stay in the Big Sky, because there is no way we keep the name and Big Sky. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If the Big Sky actually gives an ultimatum, a "retire it or you are out" situation, then I panic. Right now there is some harsh language, but it gives the administration time to put a plan in place for whatever scenario comes to pass. I too would like to know exactly what the NCAA is saying to Big Sky leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
28noel60 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 If there is such a thing as a bright spot here it would be that this is the nickname finally coming to a head. Our legislature passed this law for keeping the nickname after having hearing where both sides got out there info. Those wanting this bill basically said NCAA will eventually see things our way. They will back down and we will prevail. The other side including the legislators from GF area painted different picture what would be coming down the pike if this passed. Gee wiz look at it now and see how the rose colored lenses look now. If the alumni want to keep fighting this and go with it as far as they want to go that is fine with me just use your dollars not state tax money the people paid in for important things like infra structure, education?, things that matter. Our politicians finally acted in the last seconds of the game threw up there hail mary pass to the endzone and we now have to go to instant replay as it looks incomplete but the video in this case time will tell. Meanwhile our student athletes and all sports in general will pay the price if we go the distance and in the end lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 One way or the other this is a game changer. That letter is brutal. Regarding the letter from the Big Sky to President Kelley, can someone remind me of the "protest" on the campus of UC Davis? If we're talking about the last game in Davis which was 2009, I was there, on campus Friday night and all day on gameday, and don't recall seeing any protestors. I could have missed them, wondering if anyone else saw them. The only protestors I've come across have been in St. Cloud and Vermillion................ Also glad to hear that if forced to choose, the Big Sky Presidents will support the wishes of the Sioux tribes......................that means they are in favor of the use of the name! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Regarding the letter from the Big Sky to President Kelley, can someone remind me of the "protest" on the campus of UC Davis? If we're talking about the last game in Davis which was 2009, I was there, on campus Friday night and all day on gameday, and don't recall seeing any protestors. I could have missed them, wondering if anyone else saw them. The only protestors I've come across have been in St. Cloud and Vermillion................ Also glad to hear that if forced to choose, the Big Sky Presidents will support the wishes of the Sioux tribes......................that means they are in favor of the use of the name! Actually they will go with the Tribal council and only 1 (Spirit Lake) has given the okay. Sioux tribes in this region are aginst the name, and not every one (ex. Standing Rock) are going to let all their members vote on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Actually they will go with the Tribal council and only 1 (Spirit Lake) has given the okay. Sioux tribes in this region are aginst the name, and not every one (ex. Standing Rock) are going to let all their members vote on the issue. Sarcasm............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Sarcasm............... Sorry...its hard to see sarcasm on a message board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 egriz thread on the topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 This is more about not wanting to bring this controversy into the league and going against the NCAA. Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSiouxFan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Rumors are floating around message boards in support of UND getting a WAC invite. http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=7587800 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Rumors are floating around message boards in support of UND getting a WAC invite. http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=7587800 A rumor started with this question: "Would the WAC invite UND, with the Fighting Sioux name? The NCAA sanctions against the name really only matter at the FCS level, not at the FBS level." Asked by a self described "siouxfan"? Good stuff, but I may need a better source, even to call it a rumor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSiouxFan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I know we have discussed the pros and cons of UND in a depleted WAC, but I think if given the opportunity we should bolt. True the WAC is not what it once was but it will still have a lot more media coverage than the Big Sky, I'm not above watching games on ESPN3 and occasionally on a Thursday night on ESPN2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota fairways Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You know, there is a certain appeal to beating NDSU to FBS. The WAC needs teams like UND, for the BSC, its optional. If UND were to go to the WAC, it may pull along teams such as Montana, Montana State and even the other 3 Dakotas. THAT would be an interesting WAC along with Idaho, Denver, Utah State. It may also be a home for some of UND's olympic sports that the BSC doesn't provide. And last, with Denver already there, it could be the beginning of a new post Big Ten Hockey hockey conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It would take a lot to go to the WAC. The biggest hurdle...a new stadium. We need to get to the 15,000 mark and being at the Alerus is not going to cut it and Memorial is not ready for an upgrade. We can't survive in Independent-ville. WAC is not the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSiouxFan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It would take a lot to go to the WAC. The biggest hurdle...a new stadium. We need to get to the 15,000 mark and being at the Alerus is not going to cut it and Memorial is not ready for an upgrade. We can't survive in Independent-ville. WAC is not the answer. I think if they took out the seats in the Alerus and replaced them with bleachers it might be possible to squeeze 15,000 plus in that facility. It would at least buy us time rebuild the Memorial stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShilohSioux Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 The WAC, without Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State and Hawaii, is less of a conference than the Big Sky. They are so desperate they are looking at Lamar, Sam Houston, CS Bakersfield and Utah Valley. They've been turned down by lesser teams than UND. LaTech will bolt at the first chance. The WAC should not be a consideration, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSiouxFan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm just saying it would be a lot more national exposure for UND in the WAC than the BSC, even with there television deal weakened. I also think that the Montana's would think about joining more seriously with us already in. Think about it win 6 games and we go to a bowl. We most likely will not get an invite, but there are definite advantages to be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota fairways Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 As much as going to the Big Sky is the ring everyone is grabbing for since NDSU & SDSU went D-I, going to the WAC with the Fighting Sioux nickname does bear some consideration versus dropping the name to get into the Big Sky. Not saying its the best of all worlds, but it should be thoughtfully considerd before being dismissed. And again, with Denver already a member, it could be the start of a post Big Ten Hockey hockey conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Did I miss something, the WAC schools have said that the nickname makes no difference to them? They are on record for this? When did this happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I also will add that if this WAC thing is reality, I'm all for it but what is our buy out from the Big Sky? Is it time to get out our wallets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Did I miss something, the WAC schools have said that the nickname makes no difference to them? They are on record for this? When did this happen? The WAC hasn't said anything, but they are desperate for FBS football schools that have a pulse and can pay bills. Since bowl games aren't part of any NCAA playoffs, the nickname theoretically wouldn't "harm" the WAC as a league as much. Sounds like Fullerton and the Big Sky presidents are talking about banning UND from hosting Big Sky postseason tournaments, not kicking UND out, but if worse came to worse, the WAC would have to be looked at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Maybe you should get a muzzle for your hockey coach and take his computer away. He is as much responsible for the new law as anybody. I don't think a challenge to the law by the SBoHE is going to make the the controversy go away very soon, as there will still be a question as to how it will end up. And don't expect a special session to be called just to address the nickname issue. That would be seen as a major waste of taxpayers money. A short special session of the legislature will be upcoming to deal with legislative redistricting after the 2010 census. When that session will be is a whole other question: potentially after the next Big Sky meeting in October. There are a number of things going against UND on this issue, even more than "just the NCAA". UND doesn't have the power of Utah (Orin Hatch), the money of Florida State in dealing with the Big Sky or the NCAA, plus UND has a very very well organized anti-nickname organization within the University, BRIDGES that has created ill-will anywhere it can . Could anyone honestly tell me that the WCHA would ban UND from hosting WCHA post-season games, even though the WCHA is filled with virulently anti-nickname presidents - moreso than the Big Sky? The WCHA would never ever ban UND because of the money it brings it to other presidents and their athletic departments. If UAA had a nickname in the same situation, UAA would be banned from WCHA hosting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 CollegeFootballTalk story on the WAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 http://www.wdaz.com/pages/archive10 Al Carlson's comments on BigSky letter at about the 4:25 mark. 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.