What Needs to Happen

[WYOBISONMAN]

Robert Kelley's job is to look out for the best interests of the University of North Dakota. To think that he some how had a hand in the NCAA statement released last week is preposterous. My guess is that President Kelley (and Brian Faison for that matter since he is also continually thrown under the bus) has a better handle on how this legislation, and the nickname itself will affect the university going forward whether it be in DI, DII, or DIII athletics than does anyone who has ever posted on this board. The thought of giving up such proud, thoughtful, honorable and unique moniker is a tough pill to swallow and a crappy situation all around, but personally to me, not as crappy a thought as the idea that someone would prefer to be a "Fighting Sioux" fan rather than a fan of the University of North Dakota. Without the University of North Dakota, there is no Fighting Sioux......................not the other way around.

I am surprised a good guy like Kelley tolerates this BS. He is a solid president and looks out for the best interests of UND, yet an asshole like Carlson makes an incredible outlandish accusation about him. This whole mess is shameful.

[Matt]

According to Sean Johnson on the radio last week, Kelley comes back from a Big Sky Presidents meeting at which Kelley gave them an update of the nickname situation. At the meeting, the presidents give no negative feedback to the nickname update from Kelley. This was one reason Johnson and Kelley were surprised by the subsequent letter from Fullerton expressing the position of the Big Sky Presidents. The question is: if the presidents did not express to Kelley the position they took in their subsequent letter, when did they formulate that position? Was there another meeting that Kelley did not attend? Is Johnson or Kelley misrepresenting what actually took place at the presidents meeting? How could the rest of the presidents formulate a group position and authorize Fullerton to draft a letter on their behalf without Kelley's knowledge? Yet, both Kelley and Johnson expressed their surprise at the time the letter came out.

[PhillySioux]

According to Sean Johnson on the radio last week, Kelley comes back from a Big Sky Presidents meeting at which Kelley gave them an update of the nickname situation. At the meeting, the presidents give no negative feedback to the nickname update from Kelley. This was one reason Johnson and Kelley were surprised by the subsequent letter from Fullerton expressing the position of the Big Sky Presidents. The question is: if the presidents did not express to Kelley the position they took in their subsequent letter, when did they formulate that position? Was there another meeting that Kelley did not attend? Is Johnson or Kelley misrepresenting what actually took place at the presidents meeting? How could the rest of the presidents formulate a group position and authorize Fullerton to draft a letter on their behalf without Kelley's knowledge? Yet, both Kelley and Johnson expressed their surprise at the time the letter came out.

Kelly was there as a guest I believe, as UND is not a member of the Big Sky at this time. Its quite probable that Kelly would not be privy to all of the member president's deliberations or discussions.

[The Sicatoka]

How could the rest of the presidents formulate a group position and authorize Fullerton to draft a letter on their behalf without Kelley's knowledge?

Technically, UND is not a full member yet. They could've easily met after Kelley and Johnson left.

And please keep this in mind: By the tone of that letter, the NCAA got to the BSC and Fullerton.

Do you think the BSC presidents wanted to discuss what the NCAA told threatened them in front of Kelley and Johnson?

[ScottM]

And please keep this in mind: By the tone of that letter, the NCAA got to the BSC and Fullerton.

Do you think the BSC presidents wanted to discuss what the NCAA told threatened them in front of Kelley and Johnson?

Of course the NC$$ got to the BSC. And they can do the same to any other conference UND might consider. It's the NC$$'s ballgame, and they can make or change the rules as they see fit. I said it before, and it bears repeating: Losing the Sioux name/logo was the price for a relatively painless transition to D1.

[jedi]

I am surprised a good guy like Kelley tolerates this BS. He is a solid president and looks out for the best interests of UND, yet an asshole like Carlson makes an incredible outlandish accusation about him. This whole mess is shameful.

I agree. I was happy to finally see Kelley take a stand on this issue. The SBHE consistently waivers on the issue, the governor doesn't have the stones to speak up, and the Congressional delegation isn't going to say anything. This silence gives the appearance that Al Carlson is leading the charge, which would be scary if true. It was nice to see someone besides Mac Schneider take a stand in opposition to Carlson's misguided tactics.

[sioux7>5]

Why are so many people on ss.com ready to throw away the best nickname and logo in college sports? It seems like there are a few people left that want to keep the name and so many now are saying change it? I think that UND needs to keep the name and challenge the NCAA, someone needs to. Do you people not think the it is the least bit fair that a school like Ohio state cheats left and right and will probably get less punishment then UND because they disagree with a nickname, that is the sad part of all this.

I have said before someone needs to stand up to this people and I for one am proud of the State of North Dakota for doing so. I realize some are so concerned about the Big Sky conference, but I do not think it is worth throwing away almost 80 years of tradition for the Big Sky conference.

[The Sicatoka]

Here's the reality:

Nobody outside of North Dakota gives a flying-F-bomb about North Dakota. We're flyover country.

No one is coming to UND's rescue.

The rest of the NCAA has voted to give the Executive Council this power. We're talking university presidents here. That demographic loves feel good, PC moves (that ultimately ring hollow as this will).

Suck it up. Man up. We've lost, because the rest of the NCAA needs to feel like they've done something magnanamous for the down-trodden American Indian. And no amount of logic or "truth" will trump the overwhelming number of votes to feel good about themselves that will happen at the NCAA.

As far as " ... I do not think it is worth throwing away almost 80 years of tradition for the Big Sky conference." Well, your statement is not quite accurate, because without the BSC, and the NCAA who put the BSC up to it, we'll end up keeping a moniker and logo but throwing away athletics. When no one will play you, you no longer have an athletics program.

So, which is it:

Fighting Sioux Hockey, doomed to fail because no one will schedule them, or North Dakota Hockey, that keeps playing "North Dakota" (tough, gritty, team-based) hockey.

Think about this:

One of the pregame videos at REA last year even used the phrase "North Dakota Hockey".

"Why?" you have to ask yourself.

[darell1976]

Here's the reality:

Nobody outside of North Dakota gives a flying-F-bomb about North Dakota. We're flyover country.

No one is coming to UND's rescue.

The rest of the NCAA has voted to give the Executive Council this power. We're talking university presidents here. That demographic loves feel good, PC moves (that ultimately ring hollow as this will).

Suck it up. Man up. We've lost, because the rest of the NCAA needs to feel like they've done something magnanamous for the down-trodden American Indian. And no amount of logic or "truth" will trump the overwhelming number of votes to feel good about themselves that will happen at the NCAA.

As far as " ... I do not think it is worth throwing away almost 80 years of tradition for the Big Sky conference." Well, your statement is not quite accurate, because without the BSC, and the NCAA who put the BSC up to it, we'll end up keeping a moniker and logo but throwing away athletics. When no one will play you, you no longer have an athletics program.

So, which is it:

Fighting Sioux Hockey, doomed to fail because no one will schedule them, or North Dakota Hockey, that keeps playing "North Dakota" (tough, gritty, team-based) hockey.

Think about this:

One of the pregame videos at REA last year even used the phrase "North Dakota Hockey".

"Why?" you have to ask yourself.

++++++++1

[dakota fairways]

those who do not want to give up the sioux name, especially hockey fans, ... it's time to get back on the Suhaki bandwagon

Cal Poly blog

I

[jedi]

those who do not want to give up the sioux name, especially hockey fans, ... it's time to get back on the Suhaki bandwagon

Cal Poly blog

It's a clever name, but it implies that other UND sports aren't important.

[CAS4127]

Call in Jesse Ventura and let the conspiracy investigation begin. To say that the NCAA got to the BSC really makes no sense if you recall, and keep in mind, that the BSC letter basically stated the BSC did not care whether the NCAA and UND renegotiated and UND would be allowed continued use of the nickname. So, why would the NCAA "get to the BSC" under that scenario? What you are basically saying is that the NCAA if foretelling us that it is going to renegotiate but wants the BSC to step in and say, "big deal", we don't like the name so you are still not in.

Not a plausible version of events my friends, not even close. The BSC did not say UND is in if NCAA capitulates--remember that before posting more conspiracy theories. Hell, the NCAA doesn't care all that much whether UND keeps the nickname--"go ahead, but just don't expect to host NCAA events or ewear" the jersey in out of town NCAA events. Each individual school and or conference can make their own policy, and the NCAA could care less. For example, do you think the NCAA cares whether UND and Minnesota play each other during the regular season? No, and it has said as much by the sanctions it is going to apply come August 15th. The NCAA is dictating what it will do, not what other schools/conferences decided to do.

Kelley knows all of this, and that is why he wants some reassurance from the legilative branch now that the law will be repealed--He knows that the BSC is going to base its decision on its own policies, not those of the NCAA, so the meeting with NCAA doesn't matter relative to the BSC invite

[The Sicatoka]

C'mon CAS, even you aren't that obtuse.

Read the letter. Let me help you out with the money phrase:

"The Big Sky Conference, as a member conference within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), must take very seriously any guidance it receives from the national organization on these matters."

" ... guidance it receives ... "

So, it got "guidance" from the home office in Indianapolis.

So, try to tell us again how the NCAA didn't get to the Big Sky. Or did Fullerton make that up and sign it?

[CAS4127]

@Sic: I think you are construing much too broadly that one statement in a paragragh that is nothing short of confusing in the manner it is worded. I have read it dozens of times and still do not understand what it means. To read it as simply as the BSC received guidance from the NCAA on this issue is not doing it justice. How do you know that the BSC didn't contact the NCAA for "guidance"? How do you know that the BSC did not just use past history and NCAA actions as guidance?

The paragraph could also be read as to say that the BSC is concerned that UND may decide it does not want to remain a member of the NCAA because the NCAA's policies do not align with those of UND's/Nodak! READ THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, as typically paragraphs contian full thoughts/positions on an issue, not just one sentence within it. Think: BSC concerned UND/Nodak may bail from NCAA because of sacred nickname, and BSC does not want to deal with that and the resulting scheduling issues.

I will stick with the conspiracy theory run amuck approach--maybe we will ultimately learn what happened!!

[puck]

C'mon CAS, even you aren't that obtuse.

Read the letter. Let me help you out with the money phrase:

"The Big Sky Conference, as a member conference within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), must take very seriously any guidance it receives from the national organization on these matters."

" ... guidance it receives ... "

So, it got "guidance" from the home office in Indianapolis.

So, try to tell us again how the NCAA didn't get to the Big Sky. Or did Fullerton make that up and sign it?

This is absolutley correct. I think what many overlook in the settlement agreement is the exemption from the "Best Practices" policy of the NCAA. Once UND is back on the H/A list they are subject to not only not be able to host NCAA events and wear NA logos or names, would again be subject to the "Best Practices" policy, which encourages member schools to emulate "model" institutions such as Wisconsin, Iowa, etc that have policies against scheduling teams with NA names or images. That's the guidance from the NCAA.

[CAS4127]

This is absolutley correct. I think what many overlook in the settlement agreement is the exemption from the "Best Practices" policy of the NCAA. Once UND is back on the H/A list they are subject to not only not be able to host NCAA events and wear NA logos or names, would again be subject to the "Best Practices" policy, which encourages member schools to emulate "model" institutions such as Wisconsin, Iowa, etc that have policies against scheduling teams with NA names or images. That's the guidance from the NCAA.

Read my response to Sic--that's what I am saying!! Past/existing regulations and policies can be looked at as "guidance". Why would Fullerton hide the ball that the NCAA contacted the BSC and said "be careful with UND invite"? WHY would he hide that if in fact UND is still and wanted/desired member and he knows the NCAA has said there could ge ramnifacations to the BSD if UND joins with the nickname. What would be the reason to hide that ball?!!!!!!!! More NCAA/BSC conspiracy? Doubt it, as BSC not that big of a player to the NCAA!!

[mizzou/sioux]

Here's the reality:

Nobody outside of North Dakota gives a flying-F-bomb about North Dakota. We're flyover country.

No one is coming to UND's rescue.

The rest of the NCAA has voted to give the Executive Council this power. We're talking university presidents here. That demographic loves feel good, PC moves (that ultimately ring hollow as this will).

Suck it up. Man up. We've lost, because the rest of the NCAA needs to feel like they've done something magnanamous for the down-trodden American Indian. And no amount of logic or "truth" will trump the overwhelming number of votes to feel good about themselves that will happen at the NCAA.

As far as " ... I do not think it is worth throwing away almost 80 years of tradition for the Big Sky conference." Well, your statement is not quite accurate, because without the BSC, and the NCAA who put the BSC up to it, we'll end up keeping a moniker and logo but throwing away athletics. When no one will play you, you no longer have an athletics program.

So, which is it:

Fighting Sioux Hockey, doomed to fail because no one will schedule them, or North Dakota Hockey, that keeps playing "North Dakota" (tough, gritty, team-based) hockey.

Think about this:

One of the pregame videos at REA last year even used the phrase "North Dakota Hockey".

"Why?" you have to ask yourself.

I have been a longtime nickname supporter. Nevertheless, as much as it pains me to say this, I think our options to retain the nickname in addition to being able to support a viable athletic program at UND are virtually nil. The NCAA in its infinite (?) wisdom appears to hold the trump cards. If Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota among other universities are going to deny playing us then I question our proceeding in a manner which could seriously adversely UND's being able to field a strong and competitive athletic program. The NCAA appears adamant in its stance. Like it or not, the NCAA makes the rules on national tournaments. NAIA is not an option for UND. We can talk all we want about the NCAA's arbitrary and capricious behavior. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court were someday to rule against the NCAA in this manner (highly doubtful), we're hung out to dry. The powers that be acted as they did in a politically correct manner and are quite proud of themselves for doing so. Yes, like it or not, North Dakota is flyover country. No one is coming to the rescue with enough clout to make a change. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong. I just don't see it happening. The North Dakota legislature, rightly or wrongly, made an effort. But I fear it's all come to naught. I'm happy with being in the Big Sky, also the WAC for women's swimming and diving as an affiliate member. While I don't like officially losing the nickname, I'll be a Fighting Sioux forever in my own mind.

[mizzou/sioux]

There comes a point where the battle is lost and you must keep your resources for battles you can win.

The NCAA came up with a policy.

They had Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa in their camp from the start.

They got to the Summit.

They got to the BSC.

They've made it clear they'll get to anyone else they need to.

It's their game; it's their party; arbitrary and caprecious or not, that's the way it is.

For some reason UND got onto their radar as someone that had to be knocked down. (I suspect it is related to Ralph Engelstad Arena.)

They think they've won.

So now we control what is still ours to control, and that is the best revenge, namely, coming out of this stronger than ever.

In short, very well said, sad but true. We have to consider the University as a whole as well.

[CAS4127]

Here's the reality:

Think about this:

One of the pregame videos at REA last year even used the phrase "North Dakota Hockey".

"Why?" you have to ask yourself.

Surpised the "WE R NORTH DAKOTA" tv adverstisements/promos haven't been mentioned. Already gettin peeps accustomed to "Sioux" being gone that early in the game??!! Those started almost a year ago, didn't they?

[The Sicatoka]

The paragraph in question from the letter.

The Big Sky Conference, as a member conference within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), must take very seriously any guidance it receives from the national organization on these matters. The NCAA, as you know, is a member organization and its regulations and guildance are merely a reflection of the will of the members. No institution or conference is forced to continue as a member in the organization should the NCAA's collective policies fail to align with those of a particular member. In consideration of this, the Presidents have asked that I reiterate their concern regarding the continued use of the "Sioux" name and marks.

Honestly, the first and last sentence in that paragraph read like they were written by Fullerton/BSC.

The middle two, namely,

The NCAA, as you know, is a member organization and its regulations and guildance are merely a reflection of the will of the members. No institution or conference is forced to continue as a member in the organization should the NCAA's collective policies fail to align with those of a particular member.

read like they are straight out of an NCAA handbook. The aloof " ... are merely a reflection of the will of the members ... " is classic. The will of the members, that's why this policy came from the Executive Committee and only later was the full membership consulted to determine if the Executive Committee had such powers.

[mizzou/sioux]

Unfortunately everything that he says is true. Without UND athletics GF is a non destination for alumni and a lot of other folks. I was born and raised there and rarely go back, but when I do it is to attend a sporting event and visit family graves. UND is really the only major asset that GF has and this issue has already hurt the university, AND it will get worse. Wouldn't it be refreshing to wake up some morning and see this issue gone and then move on with all the positive things that can come from the BSC and D1 athletics without this millstone? I look forward to that day when the UND administration can focus on building a better univesity and community.

Well said.

[mizzou/sioux]

Freedom of expression. I would doubt they would ever try and prohibit fans from wearing Sioux gear at a game......and if they tried it surely would be unconstitutional.

Seems certain to me that attempting to prohibit the wearing of Sioux gear at a game would be in direct violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[darell1976]

Seems certain to me that attempting to prohibit the wearing of Sioux gear at a game would be in direct violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Kelley even said they would never do that...heck I still have my Grand Forks Central Redskins jacket, and I could wear that to a GFC game and all I hear is "where did you get that jacket" or "where can I get one of those". You can still wear your Sioux gear. But when UND gets a new name I think I may wear both.

[The Sicatoka]

But when UND gets a new name ...

This is the last big place where Kelley is dropping the ball.

Don't just say "we need to move on". WHERE do we need to move on to? Having a plan to move forward is called "leadership".

If you're taking away something beloved have something half decent* to fill the void or the old won't go away.

*Examples of EPIC FAIL at this are Dartmouth (Big Green?) and Stanford (Cardinal, as in the color, not the bird or holy man). Miami of Ohio had something good, not great, but good. Arkansas State had something good, not great, but good.

[darell1976]

This is the last big place where Kelley is dropping the ball.

Don't just say "we need to move on". WHERE do we need to move on to?

If you're taking away something beloved have something to fill the void or the old won't go away.

Having a plan to move forward is called "leadership".

I think Kelley would have but the whole legislation bill thing put the breaks on and dismantled the transition to a new nickname process. Who knows a list of new names could have been listed by now if Carlson would have just shut his mouth.