What Needs to Happen

[Fetch]

and what percentage don't live close enough to attend games regularly, but still give donations to UND for scholarships, facilities, etc.

there you go - they mostly all leave & without the community there would be significant less support for UND Sports

the donations are great but not enough

& the biggest donor ever has already been snubbed & disrespected .................Fools are to blame

[GeauxSioux]

there you go - they mostly all leave & without the community there would be significant less support for UND Sports

the donations are great but not enough

& the biggest donor ever has already been snubbed & disrespected .................Fools are to blame

I'm not sure even how to respond to this, so I'll give it the ol' PCM, Vhat?

[iramurphy]

there you go - they mostly all leave & without the community there would be significant less support for UND Sports

the donations are great but not enough

& the biggest donor ever has already been snubbed & disrespected .................Fools are to blame

Ralph and his family cared for more than UND hockey and this has been generous to UND. He wasn't a fan of college admin types and certainly wasn't one to suffer fools. He did care for UND and the agreement with UND to lease the arena for $1 per year then the arena goes to UND after the 20 yrs (I think). There is nothing in that agreement that requires UND to keep the name or logo. The strength of UND's outside financial support comes from UND alumni. The community support is also important. ( our friends to the south benefit more from the Fargo community as oppsed to thier alumni).

The name issue didn't get solved during Ralph's lifetime nor did either Tom Clifford nor Earl Strinden get the issue solved. This has been going on for a long time and now that it threatens UND hockey scheduling and the Bif Sky membership it must go. Fetch, you ever played any sport aboce the middle school level? I'm not saying those who have done so are better fans, but they sure will have a better understanding of the implications of this problem and they certainly prefer winning and championships to the name and logo. You seem to think the name and logo are more important. WE canb't allow UND to become a glorified community college so we can keep the name and logo. The donors like Ralph are important but so are the rest of the donors who give what they can when they can. It would be very unwise to piss off the UND Baseball, MBB, WBB, track, FB, tennis, golf and the hockey alumni smart enough to see the implications of the future problems with the hockey schedule.

Anyone who thinks Al Carlson did us a favor is naive. He did this as a calculated risk and for political gain hoping his support of the name and even his disrespectful and unjust criticism of UND officials will garner him votes in the future. He is an NDSU jock sniffer who has been laughing with his teammaker pals at how he screwed us while at the same time posturing his own political future in a favorable light with those of us who would prefer to keep the name.

[GeauxSioux]

If you didn't think the name needed to be changed, maybe you should read this.... BigSkyLetter to Schneider

[Fetch]

yes I did & I attend UND - did not graduate - did graduate else where NDSSS - so I'm not capable of what graduates know

But I have been a Sioux Hockey fan for 37 years & a season tickets holder for 27 yrs ..............who cares ?

I do & many others do too - thats why the law passed

I care less now about sports in general.......... sorry

If the NCAA meets with our Governor & he comes back & says there is no chance, then I'll give up

But the attitude of many here will make me angry for some time - to the point that I don't care about D1 in other sports

& still hope we take this all the way now

what's your fabled history ?

[darell1976]

If you didn't think the name needed to be changed, maybe you should read this.... BigSkyLetter to Schneider

and, no one, either at the University or in the State of North Dakota, will not be given adaquate warning of any impeding action by the Big Sky Conference.

What does this mean?!? That one day we could wake up and be out of a conference?

Fixed it!

Edited June 25, 2011 by darell1976

[Chewey]

What does this mean?!? That one day we could wake up and be out of a conference?

I think it means that when they meet in October they will issue a statement: Change the law during the special session or your invitation is rescinded. Keep in mind, one is dealing with irrational, agenda-driven academics. Can't think of a more vile and vulgar group of rogues. Wait a minute, I guess I can: the Pharisees.

[UNDSiouxFan]

What does this mean?!? That one day we could wake up and be out of a conference?

I think you accidentally missed a word in there. If you look at the letter, it actually says "And, no one, either at the University, or in the state of North Dakota, will NOT be given adequate warning of any impending action by the Big Sky Conference." So I think they are saying that they will give an adequate warning should any further action take place.

The sentence that worries me the most is this " All this leaves the Big Sky Conference and any other NCAA Division I Conference with very little reason to continue to offer membership to UND." Anyone still in doubt of whether our membership with the BSC is in danger just needs to read this letter. I am a Sioux fan born and raised and hate with all my heart that this is what it has come to, and believe that the NCAA policy is rather ridiculous, but, at the same time, as a UND alum I would hate it more to end up with non-competitive athletics. There is no doubt in my mind that not getting into the BSC will impact all sports, including hockey, in a very negative way.

[Chewey]

I think you accidentally missed a word in there. If you look at the letter, it actually says "And, no one, either at the University, or in the state of North Dakota, will NOT be given adequate warning of any impending action by the Big Sky Conference." So I think they are saying that they will give an adequate warning should any further action take place.

The sentence that worries me the most is this " All this leaves the Big Sky Conference and any other NCAA Division I Conference with very little reason to continue to offer membership to UND." Anyone still in doubt of whether our membership with the BSC is in danger just needs to read this letter. I am a Sioux fan born and raised and hate with all my heart that this is what it has come to, and believe that the NCAA policy is rather ridiculous, but, at the same time, as a UND alum I would hate it more to end up with non-competitive athletics. There is no doubt in my mind that not getting into the BSC will impact all sports, including hockey, in a very negative way.

I don't think anyone fails to appreciate what could happen here. The frustration is over a bully picking on a small university and its fans and being assisted by taxpayer funded dolts at the university. No one wants to sit back and just receive a beat down and if you lose you let them know that you gave it all you had. What's stunning is that so many, including Hoeven, Conrad, etc. are so willing to just throw up their hands and say, "well, that's that. Let's move on now" (actually, Hoeven has not even done that much). If anything, resolve should be even more firm and the emails should get even hotter and more vocal. How does anyone think change happens? How did gays get the right to marry in New York with a Republican controlled Senate? Not saying at all that I agree with the legislation but, in short, they got pissed and people heard from them. Indeed, this whole thing was started and stoked by a few dyspeptic holier than thou at UND. What have some people done in the face of that? Some have simply indicated that it will always be an issue, etc, etc. etc. What should take place is that people should identify and continue to expose the real issue: the people who have nothing to do and whose creative atrophy finds cynical expression fixating over and imputing racist hobgoblins to something as benign as a sports team nickname.

[GeauxSioux]

I think you accidentally missed a word in there. If you look at the letter, it actually says "And, no one, either at the University, or in the state of North Dakota, will NOT be given adequate warning of any impending action by the Big Sky Conference." So I think they are saying that they will give an adequate warning should any further action take place.

The sentence that worries me the most is this " All this leaves the Big Sky Conference and any other NCAA Division I Conference with very little reason to continue to offer membership to UND." Anyone still in doubt of whether our membership with the BSC is in danger just needs to read this letter. I am a Sioux fan born and raised and hate with all my heart that this is what it has come to, and believe that the NCAA policy is rather ridiculous, but, at the same time, as a UND alum I would hate it more to end up with non-competitive athletics. There is no doubt in my mind that not getting into the BSC will impact all sports, including hockey, in a very negative way.

I think the Big Sky presidents will do whatever they can to help UND, IF that means transition away from Fighting Sioux. I can't see them wanting to blackball UND, knowing that it would destroy athletics at UND.

But I can also see the opposite.... if there is no movement away from the Fighting Sioux name. They could say, "we warned you, the NCAA warned you and you didn't listen. Live in the hell that you have created."

Edited June 25, 2011 by GeauxSioux

[Fetch]

now politics & religion

[ScottM]

If you didn't think the name needed to be changed, maybe you should read this.... BigSkyLetter to Schneider

"render UND irrelevant as a NCAA Division I member."

Thanks, Al. You f'ing jackbag.

[Matt]

"render UND irrelevant as a NCAA Division I member."

Thanks, Al. You f'ing jackbag.

That's the part that made my jaw drop. Before this issue one would have thought a university would have to commit an egregious offense to become irrelevant as a a d1 member. It is becoming more clear, if it wasn't to some already, that the NCAA does view this as an egregious offense.

[choyt3]

That's the part that made my jaw drop. Before this issue one would have thought a university would have to commit an egregious offense to become irrelevant as a a d1 member. It is becoming more clear, if it wasn't to some already, that the NCAA does view this as an egregious offense.

Isn't it wonderful that UND can't just say F It and declare for the draft with the guarantee of a contract worth millions? Yeah, the NCAA is all about perspective.

[DamStrait]

It may be the NCAA's game and they may make the rules - but they do not have the moral high ground. No organization that has such a narrowly defined policy that is so unevenly applied ever could. At this point we comply or perish, but because of the very narrowness of the policy's definition and the very uneveness of its application, only the most minimum of compliance can be justified. The law should be changed to reflect the following: The athletic teams of the University of North Dakota shall be officially known and referred to as the "Fighting Sioux" or if not, they shall be officially known and referred to as only "the University of North Dakota". That should be a way out for everyone - Al Carlson can claim that while he couldn't save it, he kept the name from being changed to another - the NCAA, Kelley and all the other academic PC elitists can claim they got rid of the nickname - and we fans can rest easy knowing we will not have to suffer the charade of pretending that any other nickname could possibly replace "Fighting Sioux". Further - since all of the NCAA membership left us twisting in the wind in our hour of need and support - it is only fitting that all opponents be referred in any University of North Dakota media (programs, publications, releases, PA announcements, scoreboards, etc.) as by only the name of their school - no nicknames. A subtle way to remind everyone that we may be beaten, but we will never be broken, and that we will always remember how it was and by whom we had our proud name ripped from us against our will and without justification.

[Siouxdio Apartment]

A few random thoughts and questions from a supporter of the name who is trying to understand the issue as best as possible:

1) This all started with the NCAA's labeling of "Fighting Sioux" as "hostile and abusive."

a) While I think the move to the Big Sky conference is something worth fighting for and will be great for the University's sports teams, will changing the name to do so have a much larger impact on issues such as free speech, the will of the people, etc.?

b) Many argue that by not changing the name, we are hurting the student athletes. Currently, that appears to be a solid argument. Admission to the Big Sky is at risk; and with other schools not willing to schedule our teams, the harm to our student athletes is obvious to me.

c) On the other hand, I wonder what we lose by changing the name? Does changing the name admit that our use of "Fighting Sioux" was "hostile and abusive? At the minimum, I believe it will be portrayed that way by many. Any transition plan must deal with this aspect.

I think a name change is probably inevitable, and in the short term for certain, will help our move to Division I. However, I wonder what (if anything) we lose in the long-term? What lesson will this ultimately teach the students at UND? Does it show that we have a much worse relationship with the NA peoples in North and South Dakota if we can't reach agreement like other schools did? Does it show that we gave up--or didn't wage our defense of the name in a manner that could win? Or, is changing the name the right thing to do as our society evolves? Is that evolution, or PC run-amok?

2) As stated previously, It may be the NCAA's game and they may make the rules - but to what degree does that go unchecked?

a) I cannot make sense in my mind the drastic inconsistencies in the NCAA's application of this policy. How do Native American names fall within the policy, but other names referring to people are not within the NCAA's concern? How is it that some use of tribal names is allowable, but others are not? Yes, I understand the local tribal approvals, but if the name is truly abusive, wouldn't that apply across all of them?

b) And, while not directly applicable, how do the Washington Redskins win lawsuits on their right to use the name, when that name appears to me to be much more inflammatory than others?

c) When the NCAA accepts sponsorship dollars from corporations who also use NA names/symbols, I just grow more confused.

The checks and balances in our national government and devised by our country's founders have been touted as genius and a reason for the USA's success as a nation. Where are the checks and balances within the NCAA? I know they are not a Government entity and I'm not advocating Gov't involvement/oversight; however, as an organization approaching monopolistic-like power on college athletics, some type of balance of power would be preferable. Or, has a checks/balances already occurred with the settlement of the previous lawsuit -- are these types of legal processes the appropriate checks/balances on the NCAA?

3) The "Fighting Sioux" name is much different than most other school names/logos (animals, colors, etc.) ... our intention is to link our sports teams with the very best of a proud people--characteristics such as courage, honor, and strength--along with the history of these peoples in our region. Those NA peoples do not agree that this is a positive connection--some do, some don't. I think that's why this issue is so contentious -- for many, there is a much stronger connection to the UND name that makes being labeled "hostile and abusive" unconscionable. For others, the feelings are as strongly opposed to the use as they feel that this use wrongly places the NA peoples as objects, or worse. It is the unique nature of this name that makes this issue so contentious, and polarizes those of us who are interested in this outcome.

This is why this issue is so complicated. It's not "just a name" to either side of this argument. That's why those who say the issue will never go away if we keep the name are correct. Keeping the name would require a long-term, conscious effort to manage the various relationships. I can understand if that makes changing the name to be your preference; however, I personally think the name is worth that effort. It could be a win/win situation.

4) I enjoy reading the various viewpoints espoused on this site. I enjoy the logical, legal, and philosophical arguments more than the emotional ones. However, I fully understand the emotional pleas -- we are fans ... we are fanatical ... we get emotional highs (and lows) from following UND Fighting Sioux sports. There has to be an emotional aspect to this. There has to be room for opinions. However, on the flip side of that, I don't think the personal attacks add anything to the discussion. I can certainly disagree with a point made on this board ... I can even think an opinion is so unsupportable it is simply bad ... I must be very careful to transfer that to the person and his/her character. I can't derive that from this board--plus, it doesn't help any argument I'm trying to make.

5) I am disappointed that the UND leadership hasn't supported the name as consistently as I'd hoped. I have reduced my financial support of the school as a result. I understand the argument that my doing so hurts the students; but this is my most effective (and appropriate, in my opinion) mechanism with which to send my objection to the current administration. Plus, I have redirected those funds to other charitable organizations whose leadership hasn't given me cause for concern. Although I haven't seen anything I consider factual on misbehavior of the UND leadership, some of the discussions I have read drive concern, and I hope our media continues to look into the situation in the watchdog role they provide to our society.

6) I want to see a meeting between UND, the North Dakota legislature, and the NCAA. Many of the questions above would likely come up in that discussion. It's not a simple issue -- and discussed appropriately -- most parties would agree on that alone. In the end, the NCAA's policy could stand and we will stop using "Fighting Sioux" to refer to our sports teams. I'm still a supporter, and still think there are options available. In the end, I worry about the long-term implications--although I'm not certain what they may be.

I realize this is a long post ... thanks for your time ... I'm looking forward to any comments.

[Chewey]

A few random thoughts and questions from a supporter of the name who is trying to understand the issue as best as possible:

1) This all started with the NCAA's labeling of "Fighting Sioux" as "hostile and abusive."

a) While I think the move to the Big Sky conference is something worth fighting for and will be great for the University's sports teams, will changing the name to do so have a much larger impact on issues such as free speech, the will of the people, etc.?

b) Many argue that by not changing the name, we are hurting the student athletes. Currently, that appears to be a solid argument. Admission to the Big Sky is at risk; and with other schools not willing to schedule our teams, the harm to our student athletes is obvious to me.

c) On the other hand, I wonder what we lose by changing the name? Does changing the name admit that our use of "Fighting Sioux" was "hostile and abusive? At the minimum, I believe it will be portrayed that way by many. Any transition plan must deal with this aspect.

I think a name change is probably inevitable, and in the short term for certain, will help our move to Division I. However, I wonder what (if anything) we lose in the long-term? What lesson will this ultimately teach the students at UND? Does it show that we have a much worse relationship with the NA peoples in North and South Dakota if we can't reach agreement like other schools did? Does it show that we gave up--or didn't wage our defense of the name in a manner that could win? Or, is changing the name the right thing to do as our society evolves? Is that evolution, or PC run-amok?

2) As stated previously, It may be the NCAA's game and they may make the rules - but to what degree does that go unchecked?

a) I cannot make sense in my mind the drastic inconsistencies in the NCAA's application of this policy. How do Native American names fall within the policy, but other names referring to people are not within the NCAA's concern? How is it that some use of tribal names is allowable, but others are not? Yes, I understand the local tribal approvals, but if the name is truly abusive, wouldn't that apply across all of them?

b) And, while not directly applicable, how do the Washington Redskins win lawsuits on their right to use the name, when that name appears to me to be much more inflammatory than others?

c) When the NCAA accepts sponsorship dollars from corporations who also use NA names/symbols, I just grow more confused.

The checks and balances in our national government and devised by our country's founders have been touted as genius and a reason for the USA's success as a nation. Where are the checks and balances within the NCAA? I know they are not a Government entity and I'm not advocating Gov't involvement/oversight; however, as an organization approaching monopolistic-like power on college athletics, some type of balance of power would be preferable. Or, has a checks/balances already occurred with the settlement of the previous lawsuit -- are these types of legal processes the appropriate checks/balances on the NCAA?

3) The "Fighting Sioux" name is much different than most other school names/logos (animals, colors, etc.) ... our intention is to link our sports teams with the very best of a proud people--characteristics such as courage, honor, and strength--along with the history of these peoples in our region. Those NA peoples do not agree that this is a positive connection--some do, some don't. I think that's why this issue is so contentious -- for many, there is a much stronger connection to the UND name that makes being labeled "hostile and abusive" unconscionable. For others, the feelings are as strongly opposed to the use as they feel that this use wrongly places the NA peoples as objects, or worse. It is the unique nature of this name that makes this issue so contentious, and polarizes those of us who are interested in this outcome.

This is why this issue is so complicated. It's not "just a name" to either side of this argument. That's why those who say the issue will never go away if we keep the name are correct. Keeping the name would require a long-term, conscious effort to manage the various relationships. I can understand if that makes changing the name to be your preference; however, I personally think the name is worth that effort. It could be a win/win situation.

4) I enjoy reading the various viewpoints espoused on this site. I enjoy the logical, legal, and philosophical arguments more than the emotional ones. However, I fully understand the emotional pleas -- we are fans ... we are fanatical ... we get emotional highs (and lows) from following UND Fighting Sioux sports. There has to be an emotional aspect to this. There has to be room for opinions. However, on the flip side of that, I don't think the personal attacks add anything to the discussion. I can certainly disagree with a point made on this board ... I can even think an opinion is so unsupportable it is simply bad ... I must be very careful to transfer that to the person and his/her character. I can't derive that from this board--plus, it doesn't help any argument I'm trying to make.

5) I am disappointed that the UND leadership hasn't supported the name as consistently as I'd hoped. I have reduced my financial support of the school as a result. I understand the argument that my doing so hurts the students; but this is my most effective (and appropriate, in my opinion) mechanism with which to send my objection to the current administration. Plus, I have redirected those funds to other charitable organizations whose leadership hasn't given me cause for concern. Although I haven't seen anything I consider factual on misbehavior of the UND leadership, some of the discussions I have read drive concern, and I hope our media continues to look into the situation in the watchdog role they provide to our society.

6) I want to see a meeting between UND, the North Dakota legislature, and the NCAA. Many of the questions above would likely come up in that discussion. It's not a simple issue -- and discussed appropriately -- most parties would agree on that alone. In the end, the NCAA's policy could stand and we will stop using "Fighting Sioux" to refer to our sports teams. I'm still a supporter, and still think there are options available. In the end, I worry about the long-term implications--although I'm not certain what they may be.

I realize this is a long post ... thanks for your time ... I'm looking forward to any comments.

Excellent post!

[Ole in MSP]

Excellent post!

Really? I thought it was a redundant bunch of previously posted irrelevant trivia. The bottom line is that those of us who have supported the nickname need to realize that being right is not always going to prevail. The 3 years is up. It is time to move on. The overall athletic program and the university are more important than being right or the nickname. What is really important is helping the folks in Minot, Bismark, and elsewhere with flood recovery and getting UND firmly invested in the D1 level athletics. The nickname is irrelevant at this point.

[darell1976]

Really? I thought it was a redundant bunch of previously posted irrelevant trivia. The bottom line is that those of us who have supported the nickname need to realize that being right is not always going to prevail. The 3 years is up. It is time to move on. The overall athletic program and the university are more important than being right or the nickname. What is really important is helping the folks in Minot, Bismark, and elsewhere with flood recovery and getting UND firmly invested in the D1 level athletics. The nickname is irrelevant at this point.

Now that is an excellent post!!

[Chewey]

Really? I thought it was a redundant bunch of previously posted irrelevant trivia. The bottom line is that those of us who have supported the nickname need to realize that being right is not always going to prevail. The 3 years is up. It is time to move on. The overall athletic program and the university are more important than being right or the nickname. What is really important is helping the folks in Minot, Bismark, and elsewhere with flood recovery and getting UND firmly invested in the D1 level athletics. The nickname is irrelevant at this point.

Well, I'm from Minot, I have farm property underwater in Minot where property is going for $70K per acre in some areas, have 90% of my family in Minot some also with property underwater and we all still think it's an important issue. Admittedly, it's obviously a secondary issue but not one that is not unimportant. Can't do anything about preventing the Souris river but one can still work to stop NCAA abuses.

[Ole in MSP]

Well, I'm from Minot, I have farm property underwater in Minot where property is going for $70K per acre in some areas, have 90% of my family in Minot some also with property underwater and we all still think it's an important issue. Admittedly, it's obviously a secondary issue but not one that is not unimportant. Can't do anything about preventing the Souris river but one can still work to stop NCAA abuses.

I am very sorry about your property and family suffering through this flood. I am from GF, but did not experience the flooding issues as my family is now gone and I moved years ago. The nickname issue is sad and unfortunate and the NCAA is wrong in the way they approached it. But, in spite of being right, it is time to cut our losses and move on. The cost is and has been too great to continue the fight. UND and the athletic teams will all be fine once the name is gone. People will adjust over time. As you know first hand, there are far more important issues in the world to tackle. I was very upset about the name change too, but have come to grips with it especially now with the Big Sky opportunity and not being able to see Sioux teams play the Gophers in OOC sports as have other former NCC teams.

[Rick]

Well, I'm from Minot, I have farm property underwater in Minot where property is going for $70K per acre in some areas, have 90% of my family in Minot some also with property underwater and we all still think it's an important issue. Admittedly, it's obviously a secondary issue but not one that is not unimportant. Can't do anything about preventing the Souris river but one can still work to stop NCAA abuses.

You have to realize that just because you're the one that's being directly affected by the flooding, there are always people much smarter than you who aren't affected by the flooding that know how you should feel about your property being under water. It's similar to the nickname/logo issue. Even though Native American's want to keep the name, there are some very smart academics out there that understand how Native American's "should" feel about their name. Just because 70% of NA's feel honored with UND's use of their name, there are Bernard Franklin and Robert Kelley types who are in a better position to understand what it's like to be an Indian and be discriminated against. Also, just because you and 90% of your family who live in Minot and are affected by the flooding, there are people on this board that are high and dry that have a better understanding of what should be important to you and how you should feel.

[SooToo]

... Even though Native American's want to keep the name, there are some very smart academics out there that understand how Native American's "should" feel about their name. Just because 70% of NA's feel honored with UND's use of their name, there are Bernard Franklin and Robert Kelley types who are in a better position to understand what it's like to be an Indian and be discriminated against. ...

When did Kelley say anything like that? Yes, he refused to drive the bus over the cliff to satisfy a dwindling few in the nickname-only camp, but why put words in the man's mouth? All I've ever heard him say is that the on-going nickname fight is hurting UND and athletics. If you've got quotes from him saying something different, please post them.

[green_sioux]

You have to realize that just because you're the one that's being directly affected by the flooding, there are always people much smarter than you who aren't affected by the flooding that know how you should feel about your property being under water. It's similar to the nickname/logo issue. Even though Native American's want to keep the name, there are some very smart academics out there that understand how Native American's "should" feel about their name. Just because 70% of NA's feel honored with UND's use of their name, there are Bernard Franklin and Robert Kelley types who are in a better position to understand what it's like to be an Indian and be discriminated against. Also, just because you and 90% of your family who live in Minot and are affected by the flooding, there are people on this board that are high and dry that have a better understanding of what should be important to you and how you should feel.

The vote at Spirit Lake was 67% in favor. That's 2 out of 3 in favor. But, that also means that one out of every 3 people there were not in favor. So you're telling the 33% who were against it how to feel, huh?

[Fetch]

"dwindling few" - note the how effective these kind of messages are

I guess all the folks who contacted their Legislators were just a few