What Needs to Happen

[The Sicatoka]

All the more reason to seriously consider closing up shop on athletics altogether. Better to take your ball and go home ...

No Dave, your short-sighted, single-mindedness on this issue with that singular statement is the death penalty. No, actually, what you ask for is departmental suicide.

No. Way.

[The Sicatoka]

You don't say? We wouldn't have guess that. That said, I contacted the NCAA to let them know the truth. Let's hope it works.

Truth? By whose standard? Was there a disgusting float in a homecoming parade? Yes. Truth. Was it 30 years ago? Yes. Truth. Guess which matters to the NCAA and other "enlightened" types. Everyone has their "truth" that they operate from and are closed-minded to anything but.

The NCAA has their version of truth supplied by partisans of their ilk and moniker supporters have their version supplied by that side of the fence. That's where this gets to quagmire mode, as it is.

[The Sicatoka]

If the NCAA does decide to meet with Shaft and who knows who else, I hope they ask just one question:

Where do we send the bill for the changes you are mandating.

Put it in the only terms the NCAA seems to care about.

[Matt]

The AG should petition the Court for an amendment of the settlement agreement. From what I see, the Court did not divest itself of jurisdiction so it could be opened up and, given the impossibility of getting a vote at SR and given that SR is mostly in SD and given the ND legislative action, I am sure "cause" could be found somewhere.

Since the settlement was a voluntary agreement signed by both parties, wouldn't both parties have to agree on a change? Under what circumstances could the court force both parties to ammend the voluntary settlement?

[JackJD]

The AG should petition the Court for an amendment of the settlement agreement. From what I see, the Court did not divest itself of jurisdiction so it could be opened up and, given the impossibility of getting a vote at SR and given that SR is mostly in SD and given the ND legislative action, I am sure "cause" could be found somewhere.

Yeah, I know this is a message board. But, part of the fascination I have with following this issue and the collateral discussion on this message board and others, is based on the "ideas" being thrown about. I don't mean to single you out, Chewey, but the statement you made serves as an example of at least part of what makes this issue so interesting. What basis on God's green earth would some judge have to order a reformation of the settlement agreement? Do you think getting a solemn agreement "amended" as you call it, is that simple?

I'll concede my opinion has no value on this issue but here it is anyway: The only way UND avoids a real train wreck (defined: getting the boot from Big Sky and then tryng to live in independent hell) is either (1) the legislature reverses course and repeals its law; or, (2) the Big Sky AND the NCAA change positions. #2 is not realistic and the NCAA's latest pronouncement says so. Getting legislators to admit they made a mistake will be near-impossible but it seems to me that's the best chance UND has for staying on the track.

If you read Bisonville posters on this topic, its readlly apparent many (most) are gleeful UND appears to be in a stew but note also that many BV posters point out (accurately so, in my view) that nutcase Carlson didn't do UND any favors. Carlson seems to be ready to stand by his vote.

I hope some of you write to Carlson and other legislators who voted for that goofy bill, telling them that even though losing the nickname/logo was the last thing you wanted to see, it was time to move on after the settlement and 'would you please repeal that law?!' Carlson seems convinced he did some great thing. He seems to think he has overwhelming support of ND voters. As long as he holds those opinions, you're stuck. He must be getting more feedback from people like "take my ball and go home DaveK" than the more reasonable UND fans.

The impact of this issue goes beyond UND. My undergrad alma mater, SDSU, has made it clear that it won't consider scheduling UND after the return football game already committed. I contribute (what to me is) significant money to SDSU athletics. I like it when there are opponents in the region -- better use of money! The ND legislature may have taken UND out of the picture for a while...that costs SDSU money because most other opponents will cost more than the trip to Grand Forks.

Final comment: I have said on other message boards that the actions of Carlson and his crew -- no matter what one thinks of their intentions -- does not mean NDSU will go unaffected by this mess. Lets said there's no change in UND's status. How long will it take the legislators to advance legislation requiring NDSU and UND to meet on the gridiron? Next session.

I don't know how much more popcorn I can eat watching this unfold.

[Teeder11]

Truth? By who's standard? Was there a disgusting float in a homecoming parade? Yes. Truth. Was it 30 years ago? Yes. Truth. Guess which matters to the NCAA and other "enlightened" types. Everyone has their "truth" that they operate from and are closed-minded to anything but.

The NCAA has their version of truth supplied by partisans of their ilk and moniker supporters have their version supplied by that side of the fence. That's where this gets to quagmire mode, as it is.

Agreed. Good points.

[GeauxSioux]

Yeah, I know this is a message board. But, part of the fascination I have with following this issue and the collateral discussion on this message board and others, is based on the "ideas" being thrown about. I don't mean to single you out, Chewey, but the statement you made serves as an example of at least part of what makes this issue so interesting. What basis on God's green earth would some judge have to order a reformation of the settlement agreement? Do you think getting a solemn agreement "amended" as you call it, is that simple?

I'll concede my opinion has no value on this issue but here it is anyway: The only way UND avoids a real train wreck (defined: getting the boot from Big Sky and then tryng to live in independent hell) is either (1) the legislature reverses course and repeals its law; or, (2) the Big Sky AND the NCAA change positions. #2 is not realistic and the NCAA's latest pronouncement says so. Getting legislators to admit they made a mistake will be near-impossible but it seems to me that's the best chance UND has for staying on the track.

If you read Bisonville posters on this topic, its readlly apparent many (most) are gleeful UND appears to be in a stew but note also that many BV posters point out (accurately so, in my view) that nutcase Carlson didn't do UND any favors. Carlson seems to be ready to stand by his vote.

I hope some of you write to Carlson and other legislators who voted for that goofy bill, telling them that even though losing the nickname/logo was the last thing you wanted to see, it was time to move on after the settlement and 'would you please repeal that law?!' Carlson seems convinced he did some great thing. He seems to think he has overwhelming support of ND voters. As long as he holds those opinions, you're stuck. He must be getting more feedback from people like "take my ball and go home DaveK" than the more reasonable UND fans.

The impact of this issue goes beyond UND. My undergrad alma mater, SDSU, has made it clear that it won't consider scheduling UND after the return football game already committed. I contribute (what to me is) significant money to SDSU athletics. I like it when there are opponents in the region -- better use of money! The ND legislature may have taken UND out of the picture for a while...that costs SDSU money because most other opponents will cost more than the trip to Grand Forks.

Final comment: I have said on other message boards that the actions of Carlson and his crew -- no matter what one thinks of their intentions -- does not mean NDSU will go unaffected by this mess. Lets said there's no change in UND's status. How long will it take the legislators to advance legislation requiring NDSU and UND to meet on the gridiron? Next session.

I don't know how much more popcorn I can eat watching this unfold.

#3 Said law could be declared unconstitutional. The SBoHE controls the university system, constitutionally, not the legislature. By not challenging this law, the SBoHE has set themselves up for future intrusion from the legislature, even if the legislature reverses course on this issue. Precedence has been set for the future mayhem.

[JackJD]

#3 Said law could be declared unconstitutional. The SBoHE controls the university system, constitutionally, not the legislature. By not challenging this law, the SBoHE has set themselves up for future intrusion from the legislature, even if the legislature reverses course on this issue. Precedence has been set for the future mayhem.

Yes, that should be an alternative but it seems the SBoHE has no stomach to making such a challenge. I've read where UND has said it'll follow the law and I assume that's the SBoHE's position. The courts won't step in unless some party asks it to look at the constitutionality of the legislation.

The relationship going forward between your legislature and the SBoHE will be another interesting story to follow.

[Chewey]

Yeah, I know this is a message board. But, part of the fascination I have with following this issue and the collateral discussion on this message board and others, is based on the "ideas" being thrown about. I don't mean to single you out, Chewey, but the statement you made serves as an example of at least part of what makes this issue so interesting. What basis on God's green earth would some judge have to order a reformation of the settlement agreement? Do you think getting a solemn agreement "amended" as you call it, is that simple?

I'll concede my opinion has no value on this issue but here it is anyway: The only way UND avoids a real train wreck (defined: getting the boot from Big Sky and then tryng to live in independent hell) is either (1) the legislature reverses course and repeals its law; or, (2) the Big Sky AND the NCAA change positions. #2 is not realistic and the NCAA's latest pronouncement says so. Getting legislators to admit they made a mistake will be near-impossible but it seems to me that's the best chance UND has for staying on the track.

If you read Bisonville posters on this topic, its readlly apparent many (most) are gleeful UND appears to be in a stew but note also that many BV posters point out (accurately so, in my view) that nutcase Carlson didn't do UND any favors. Carlson seems to be ready to stand by his vote.

I hope some of you write to Carlson and other legislators who voted for that goofy bill, telling them that even though losing the nickname/logo was the last thing you wanted to see, it was time to move on after the settlement and 'would you please repeal that law?!' Carlson seems convinced he did some great thing. He seems to think he has overwhelming support of ND voters. As long as he holds those opinions, you're stuck. He must be getting more feedback from people like "take my ball and go home DaveK" than the more reasonable UND fans.

The impact of this issue goes beyond UND. My undergrad alma mater, SDSU, has made it clear that it won't consider scheduling UND after the return football game already committed. I contribute (what to me is) significant money to SDSU athletics. I like it when there are opponents in the region -- better use of money! The ND legislature may have taken UND out of the picture for a while...that costs SDSU money because most other opponents will cost more than the trip to Grand Forks.

Final comment: I have said on other message boards that the actions of Carlson and his crew -- no matter what one thinks of their intentions -- does not mean NDSU will go unaffected by this mess. Lets said there's no change in UND's status. How long will it take the legislators to advance legislation requiring NDSU and UND to meet on the gridiron? Next session.

I don't know how much more popcorn I can eat watching this unfold.

Jack, I appreciate your insights and singling me out certainly is no big deal; that what this board is for. I've been practicing law for over 16 years -- no great time line, but certainly not an insignificant one -- primarily in bankruptcy law and I've certainly seen stranger things happen. There have been discussions about encompassing REA within some framework of the settlement -- or a related but independent settlement (God only knows between whom - NCAA and REA and UND / NCAA and REA / UND and REA?). In addition to the points I made before, this would probably be a reason why either party or both would want to re-visit it. Obviously, sua sponte action would be out of the question but I don't think it's pollyannaish to think that it's beyond the realm of possibility.

I've always thought it strange that REA was not included in all of this at the beginning. I presume the following however: 1.) REA would have told them to pound sand; and 2.) The parties to the litigation and the powers that were at the time really perceived the surrender agreement as sort of a buffer period rather than a meaningful time period during which good faith and meaningful discussions to retain the nickname would seriously be pursued. I believe that they really thought that everyone would have 3 years to just get used to the idea and then acquiesce to it when November 30, 2010 rolled around. While no one obviously acknowledged this, It's pretty transparent and these things have basically been verified by the conduct of the SBoHE (imposing stupid time lines), the Summit League ultimatums, etc. after all of the "players" were shocked by the April, 2009 vote at Spirit Lake.

All of the super-speak by Walter Harrison, Goetz, et al about the settlement agreement being a vehicle for the native people themselves to have a voice on this issue was only the start of the on-going scatological storm of double-speak and feigned negotiations propagandized as "good faith" detente that was the implementation of the settlement agreement. Say what you want about Al Carlson and the legislature but they are the ones who truly took any action in fulfillment of the stated purpose behind the settlement agreement - to give the Native Americans, and everyone else for that matter, a voice on this issue. All of the parties that should have been able to participate in the 3 year negotiation period were ignored or, at best, begrudgingly tolerated while the clock ticked and while all of the players were fixated on November 30, 2010 and the expedient retiring of the logo and nickname. As I've said before and as I am reiterating now, if people are looking for villains or, to be more politically correct, people who had absolutely no good faith in this process, some of them are as follows: RRHIT, Jesse Taken Alive, Faison, Robert Kelley, Leigh Jeanotte, some of the administrators and professors on at UND on the taxpayer dime, John Hoeven, Rick Berg, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Earl Pomeroy, etc. Al Carlson is not one of them. So, all of the people who were ignored for 3 years email Al Carlson and the rest of the legislature AFTER November 30, 2010. Then, Al Carlson and the legislature take action to validate the will of the 98% who were ignored, including and especially Native Americans at both Standing Rock and Spirit Lake. He represented his constituents' collective viewpoint on this issue and that's what he was elected to do. Personally, I hope he's runs for and is elected to higher office. Whatever some may think his motivations are/were, there is this basic fact: He heard people who were ignored and disrespected and did something about it. What have Conrad, Berg and Hoeven, Dorgan and Pomeroy done? That's right, they left their spines in their closets irrespective of the super-majority that has been ignored. And, we're supposed to trust that they'll stick up for ND, or its institutions, on even greater and more consequential matters when they have been MIA as UND has been bullied by the NCAA and the NCAA's PC jackals?

[PhillySioux]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/207153/

New Editorial from Jacobs. I'll let others comment on his views. It is frustrating however, that the editor and publisher of the GFHerald doesn't have his facts straight.

Both Minnesota and Wisconsin are leaving the WCHA, and both have indicated that they’ll abide by the NCAA’s request that they not schedule UND in non-conference games as long as UND uses the name and logo.

What?!?

[GeauxSioux]

It is as plain as black and white...

Changing the name = the Fighting Sioux would no longer exist.

I didn't say they would be giving UND the death penalty, I said they would be giving the Fighting Sioux the death penalty. Of course UND would still have a hockey team, a football team, etc... but they would be like starting over from square one. There would be no more Fighting Sioux, they would be relegated to historical archives. They would no longer exist. The team by any other name would be to the Sioux what the Washington Wizards are to the Washington Bullets (not a continuation of the same thing but a brand new entity of its own). The next national championship in hockey would not be #8 as far as I'm concerned, it would be #1 for the new program that replaces the Sioux if and when they are put to death. I'm excited about the possibility of the Sioux football team competing in the Big Sky conference and Division I-AA playoffs, but a UND football by another name doing the same thing does not generate nearly the same excitement in me. The thought of it actually makes me rather disinterested altogether. It would be like my team no longer exists so why should I pay attention anymore. If and when the name is officially retired it will feel like the death of a loved one. Actually, it would be worse than just a death. It would seem more like a murder. To add insult to injury, there are some classless d-bags out there who will celebrate that murder if and when it happens.

Actually you said they would be giving the Fighting Sioux program a death penalty. The program will exist under another name.

So when you got married and your wife took your last name to she cease to exist? When she changed her name were you no longer interested in her?

I love the FIghting Sioux name, but I am and always will be a fan of UND athletics, whether they are the FIghting SIoux or something else.

[Ranger]

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/207153/

New Editorial from Jacobs. I'll let others comment on his views. It is frustrating however, that the editor and publisher of the GFHerald doesn't have his facts straight.

What?!?

Once again It appears the old man forgot to take his senile pills.

[Ole in MSP]

Once again It appears the old man forgot to take his senile pills.

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.

[The Sicatoka]

Changing the name = the Fighting Sioux would no longer exist.

... The next national championship in hockey would not be #8 as far as I'm concerned, ...

The University of North Dakota will still exist and it will be #8 for them.

Check the official record books: North Dakota has 7 National Titles.

[The Sicatoka]

Yes, folks, Wisconsin has made noise that if they are no longer in the same conference with UND the Wisconsin scheduling policy regarding teams with American Indian monikers could come into play, or should I say force no play.

[Uncle_Rico]

Check the official NFL record books: Baltimore has won 2 Super Bowls. 1 for the Colts and 1 for the Ravens.

The Fighting Sioux have 7 national titles. A potential national championship won by a team of a different name in the future would be the 1st championship for that team. To give the new team credit for those 7 national championships won by the Sioux would be an insult to the Sioux legacy in my opinion.

Your comparison is not even close. A better comparison would be the Washington Bullets and the Washington Wizards...same team.

[Ranger]

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.

I may have missed or misinterpreted something, but has the NC$$ requested opponents to stop scheduling UND unless the FS name is dropped, as the article suggests? I thought the agreement indicated UND could ultimately keep the FS name, but if so, could not host or use the FS name in post season play? That's different then what the article suggests. UMN and UW (also Iowa, Big Ten?) have an independent agreement not to schedule non-conference native named teams (that, however, doesn't apply to those teams that have been blessed by the NC$$, i.e. Seminoles, Utes, Chippewas). Maybe Indianapolis has reached out to the conferences and UND's historical opponents and strong-armed them. That would muddy the issues.

[ShilohSioux]

Check the official NFL record books: Baltimore has won 2 Super Bowls. 1 for the Colts and 1 for the Ravens.

The Fighting Sioux have 7 national titles. A potential national championship won by a team of a different name in the future would be the 1st championship for that team. To give the new team credit for those 7 national championships won by the Sioux would be an insult to the Sioux legacy in my opinion.

Uh, that's because they were two different teams. The Colts (a business), moved to Indianapolis. The Ravens are the former Cleveland Browns, who moved to Baltimore in the 1990s. The Wizards-Bullets analogy is spot on.

[Ole in MSP]

I may have missed or misinterpreted something, but has the NC$$ requested opponents to stop scheduling UND unless the FS name is dropped, as the article suggests? I thought the agreement indicated UND could ultimately keep the FS name, but if so, could not host or use the FS name in post season play? That's different then what the article suggests. UMN and UW (also Iowa, Big Ten?) have an independent agreement not to schedule non-conference native named teams (that, however, doesn't apply to those teams that have been blessed by the NC$$, i.e. Seminoles, Utes, Chippewas). Maybe Indianapolis has reached out to the conferences and UND's historical opponents and strong-armed them. That would muddy the issues.

Not sure what the NCAA has discussed with other schools, but obviously 3 major midwestern state universities will not schedule UND and there may be others (SDSU?). Once you smell like a skunk folks do not want to be associated you, i.e. the Big Sky inferences.

[GeauxSioux]

That is right, the Fighting Sioux would be given the death penalty in the scenario that has been discussed. UND will not be given the death penalty, but the Fighting Sioux will. They will not exist another another name, a brand new program that did not previously exist would replace them after they're gone.

If it is the same players, coaches and teams at the same school, how do you say it is a brand new program that did not previously exist?

[JackJD]

Jack, I appreciate your insights and singling me out certainly is no big deal; that what this board is for. I've been practicing law for over 16 years -- no great time line, but certainly not an insignificant one -- primarily in bankruptcy law and I've certainly seen stranger things happen....

Chewey: I've been practicing twice as long as you, 32 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean much -- just time. I stay out of bankruptcy court for exactly the point you made: stranger things have happened and I, too, have seen some stranger things come out of bankruptcy cases. So, I understand your point but I think a judge reforming the settlement in such a charged atmosphere won't happen --- now, if the settling parties could be pulled back together to fine tune the settlement, that's another story. Perhaps that's why Carlson is trying to set up a meeting. The NCAA would not exactly win a popularity contest these days so if they could be brought to the table, well, who knows what might happen.

As an outsider, I cannot have the appreciation for the various sides to the debate like those who are closer to the situation. I know this: UND as an institution received high marks in the past (I continually read that various measures placed UND above NDSU, SDSU and USD) but lately no one hears about UND as an institution. The talk is all about the name dispute and I don't think that reflects well on the institution. The name dispute has to be brought to an end.

If someday a book is written about the name dispute, I'll buy a copy.

[Teeder11]

If it is the same players, coaches and teams at the same school, how do you say it is a brand new program that did not previously exist?

Exactly.... I can go on and on and on citing examples of universities, big and small, that have changed their nickname for a myriad reasons, and in no case does the NCAA, the media or anyone start the clock back at zero as far as the number of regional, conference or national titles a school has earned. One example, and I repeat only one, and there are hundreds more, The Syracuse Orangemen won three national basketball titles (2 pre-NCAA tourney and one in 2003 in the NCAA tourney.) Since then, the school's athletic program has changed its name. They are still regarded by everyone as having won three Division I b-ball titles. No change. Nada, nil, zilch.

[mnbison]

The same way that the Tennessee Oilers became a brand new team when they changed their name to the Tennessee Titans. Yeah, it was the same franchise... same players, same coaches, same city. But they redefined their franchise with a new identity, forever leaving the Oilers relegated to oblivion.

Anybody who thinks it'll be the same thing after a name change obviously never cared that much about the name to begin with.

I'm sorry but I just have to ask this simple question Dave, do you like the name more than the university itself? I mean the stuff you come up with is beyond me but UND is still going to be UND. The teams will be the same, play in the same city or are they moving to Grafton and changing the name to the Spuds? If that's the case, then you might be onto something, if not, well then best of luck to you.

[ScottM]

Simple answer to a simple question : YES!!!

So you will no longer darken these boards, or comment on UND athletics, when the name/logo retire?

[WYOBISONMAN]

Simple answer to a simple question : YES!!!

I can't understand how the nickname of the team can be more important than the institution from which you received your degree. I would sure hope that despite the loss of the nick name (which is absolutely no fault of your University) would not change feelings and loyalty to the institution itself. I would hope that as time passes fans continue to support and be proud of the school from which they graduated.