jedi Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Herald Link to Kelley's Statements on KFGO Considering that Kelley's administration almost certainly helped orchestrate the NCAA statement, should anyone be surprised that Kelley was "not surprised." Do you have anything to back your statement up? Anyone who has been following this issue rationally is not surprised by the NCAA's statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 What's with the personal attacks! Though I agree with your sentiment, why would you resort to calling Leigh a name like that? I violently disagree with Leigh when it comes to the nickname and logo, and I have told him as much. But nowhere in my dealings with him have I ever thought that he acted as you describe him just because of an ideological difference. Leigh is a nice person and a gentleman who has strong opinions. I think they are misguided opinions rooted in fallacious ideology but that does not make him any less of a person. Wow! We are better than this, aren't we? I don't know the man. My problem with him is that he cannot come up with a single credible reason for why the name should be changed - it all boils down to "because I said so". Some of the things that come out of his mouth are so ridiculous that he is either disingenuous (i.e. a flaming jackass) or a moron - I figure I gave him the benefit of the doubt. For instance, I believe he made some statement about the amount of money that was being spent on defending the nickname, saying something to the effect that he wished it could be spent on indian programs instead. Did he not understand that his actions were a good bit of the reason why the donors felt the nickname had to be defended in the first place? Did he not understand that it was not a choice of one (spending on defending the nickname) or the other (spending on indian programs) - that is to say that no portion (however small) of that money would have gone to indian programs even if none of it had been spent on defending the nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Guess what, and this will be hard to believe until you see/understand the reason for the answer, there are many people who would like UND to keep the nickname/logo more so than even DaveK and star2!!! You know who they are--Bison fans who despise UND/Sioux!!!! Now, why do you think that is?? I ain't one of them, but they are out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSiouxFan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Guess what, and this will be hard to believe until you see/understand the reason for the answer, there are many people who would like UND to keep the nickname/logo more so than even DaveK and star2!!! You know who they are--Bison fans who despise UND/Sioux!!!! Now, why do you think that is?? I ain't one of them, but they are out there. Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. I'm not Kelley's biggest fan and I hate to lose our traditions, but if we don't let go we will lose everything. I for one will always wear my Fighting Sioux jerseys to all sporting events and still refer to UND as the Sioux but I absolutely do not want UND to lose BSC membership. I love UND and always will no matter what we are called but I'm starting to think that this fight is over and it's time to soldier on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Guess what, and this will be hard to believe until you see/understand the reason for the answer, there are many people who would like UND to keep the nickname/logo more so than even DaveK and star2!!! You know who they are--Bison fans who despise UND/Sioux!!!! Now, why do you think that is?? I ain't one of them, but they are out there. I'm sure there are good number of Bison fans that would like nothing better than for UND to languish in this turmoil for years to come. Now is the time to end the controversy and move forward, not only the athletic department, but the entire University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I'm sure there are good number of Bison fans that would like nothing better than for UND to languish in this turmoil for years to come. They may enjoy watching UND et al. twist and squirm a bit, but I would suspect most thoughtful 'SU fans see Carlson's bill as nothing but cynical power grab that could set a trend that would imapct 'SU in some way later. He detests the fact the Board is constitutionally insulated from the legislature's politicking and used the name-issue as a way to possibly chip away at that wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 They may enjoy watching UND et al. twist and squirm a bit, but I would suspect most thoughtful 'SU fans see Carlson's bill as nothing but cynical power grab that could set a trend that would imapct 'SU in some way later. He detests the fact the Board is constitutionally insulated from the legislature's politicking and used the name-issue as a way to possibly chip away at that wall. I see you have read Omdahl's piece from this morning..... Is the higher ed board dysfunctional? Article VIII of the North Dakota Constitution grants sweeping powers to the Board of Higher Education for the management of the state’s colleges and universities. But a number of recent events suggest that the board may not be measuring up to its constitutional mandate. First, the board failed to defend itself against encroachment by the Legislature in the Fighting Sioux logo issue. By failing to assert itself, the board left a precedent that will be pointed out in future legislative invasions of the board’s authority. Instead of fighting, the board just “rolled over.” This is more or less how this whole thread started. I see long term repercussions from the legislature taking an issue that belonged to the SBoHE and the SBoHE allowing it to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I see you have read Omdahl's piece from this morning..... Is the higher ed board dysfunctional? This is more or less how this whole thread started. I see long term repercussions from the legislature taking an issue that belonged to the SBoHE and the SBoHE allowing it to happen. I'd argue that the SBoHE never should have gotten involved with the issue in the first place. The Board should be setting policy, not micromanaging things that have nothing to do with an institution's mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 I'd argue that the SBoHE never should have gotten involved with the issue in the first place. The Board should be setting policy, not micromanaging things that have nothing to do with an institution's mission. I agree. UND should not have relinquished control on the issue. They thought they were doing Kupchella a favor by "handling" it for him. Unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Herald Link to Kelley's Statements on KFGO Considering that Kelley's administration almost certainly helped orchestrate the NCAA statement, should anyone be surprised that Kelley was "not surprised." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I see you have read Omdahl's piece from this morning..... Is the higher ed board dysfunctional? This is more or less how this whole thread started. I see long term repercussions from the legislature taking an issue that belonged to the SBoHE and the SBoHE allowing it to happen. In all fairness, I don't think the Board's early thinking was helped by the wishy-washy performance of its attorney: The Attorney General. If he had come out and drew a line in the sand about this legislation early on, or acted to cut it off by getting a TRO, writ of mandamus, etc. to protect the consitutional purview of the Board I doubt the Board and/or UND would be in this soup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Here's another thought that should make you cringe: Mr. Holder has reopened a division at DOJ They'll come a'callin', bank on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Here's another thought that should make you cringe: Mr. Holder has reopened a division at DOJ They'll come a'callin', bank on it. Talk about a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almostheavenin2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 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. Actually they could easily ban it. Just like a restaurant that will not serve you unless you have a sports jacket or suit jacket on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The plot thickens. I believe Carlson. Carlson also made some real good points. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/207286/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The plot thickens. I believe Carlson. Carlson also made some real good points. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/207286/ What I've been saying for a week: Objecting to Kelley calling for repeal of the state nickname law prior to a planned meeting between NCAA and North Dakota leaders, Carlson said 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 “Where does that come from?” Carlson asked, referring to the Big Sky raising its concerns “all of a sudden,” adding that “we are being worked on by people at the university.” Thats a hell of an accusation. Its one thing for some anonymous blowhard like me to speculate on a message board. Its an entirely different thing for the House Leader to publicly accuse the University of North Dakota of backdooring him and the rest of the legislature. He better have some proof (and he may for all I know) fast. If he doesn't he is bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase" poisoning the well." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Thats a hell of an accusation. Its one thing for some anonymous blowhard like me to speculate on a message board. Its an entirely different thing for the House Leader to publicly accuse the University of North Dakota of backdooring him and the rest of the legislature. He better have some proof (and he may for all I know) fast. If he doesn't he is bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase" poisoning the well." Amen, brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Carlson is a truly delusional egomaniac. "They're out to get me, man!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Carlson is a truly delusional egomaniac. "They're out to get me, man!" He his, but he is powerful and he does hate the Higher Ed system (though not as much as dosch or skarphol). IMO, Kelly made a tactical error today. It wasn't appropriate for him (as an unelected state employee) to publicly call for repeal. He may have made this personal for Big Al. Its not a leap to think that in Carlson's eyes that was disresepectul to the legislature and the "will of the people" he likes to bend to when it suits him. Carlson will close ranks on this and go on the defensive (he's already started), dont think for a second he wont send UND or the state board down the river now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 He his, but he is powerful and he does hate the Higher Ed system (though not as much as dosch or skarphol). IMO, Kelly made a tactical error today. It wasn't appropriate for him (as an unelected state employee) to publicly call for repeal. He may have made this personal for Big Al. Its not a leap to think that in Carlson's eyes that was disresepectul to the legislature and the "will of the people" he likes to bend to when it suits him. Carlson will close ranks on this and go on the defensive (he's already started), dont think for a second he wont send UND or the state board down the river now. I'm thinking that Kelley has some allies in this. Goetz for sure. Others? Won't Carlson be gone by the time the next biennium funding bill comes up? There will be House members that will make an example of the SBoHE next time around, but I'm sure many will look back and say that that this was a bad deal for UND and regret voting for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 He his, but he is powerful and he does hate the Higher Ed system (though not as much as dosch or skarphol). IMO, Kelly made a tactical error today. It wasn't appropriate for him (as an unelected state employee) to publicly call for repeal. He may have made this personal for Big Al. Its not a leap to think that in Carlson's eyes that was disresepectul to the legislature and the "will of the people" he likes to bend to when it suits him. Carlson will close ranks on this and go on the defensive (he's already started), dont think for a second he wont send UND or the state board down the river now. And yet so many still think Clueless Al is right up there with Jesus and PBR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm thinking that Kelley has some allies in this. Goetz for sure. Others? Won't Carlson be gone by the time the next biennium funding bill comes up? There will be House members that will make an example of the SBoHE next time around, but I'm sure many will look back and say that that this was a bad deal for UND and regret voting for it. Yes. All was foretold with Goetz indicating that he wished this matter to be expeditiously resolved. Kelley should have kept his mouth shut. I don't know why he couldn't just do that until after the NCAA meeting. Perhaps he thinks there is at least a possibility for a course change by the NCAA and wants to try and stymie it from the outset. I can't say that I know anything about Al Carlson except for his involvement in this issue so I don't know the history from which all of the egomaniac accusations originate. Had the SBoHE and all parties participated in good faith regarding the settlement agreement's terms, he never would have been involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 They may enjoy watching UND et al. twist and squirm a bit, but I would suspect most thoughtful 'SU fans see Carlson's bill as nothing but cynical power grab that could set a trend that would imapct 'SU in some way later. He detests the fact the Board is constitutionally insulated from the legislature's politicking and used the name-issue as a way to possibly chip away at that wall. Indeed......this is not just about UND. Carlson is an enemy of Higher Ed in North Dakota. 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.