Teeder11 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 UND has done something wrong. They are planning on retiring the nickname. They have announced their intention to have the name gone by the new year. Where does it say that UND cannot plan for the future? This is what the NDUS told UND to do on Aug. 15, and this is exactly what UND said it would do on Aug. 15 in a public statement that was published in the media and on here. Why is it such a news flash all of a sudden today? I will say again: it is not against the law to plan ahead. It just make prudent sense to do so, instead of starting out flatfooted two months from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SooToo Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 UND has done something wrong. They are planning on retiring the nickname. They have announced their intention to have the name gone by the new year. How in the world does planning violate the law requiring UND to keep the nickname? Everyone in the state, except ol' Al, seems to have acknowledged that given the potential ramifications for UND the law has to go. When did it become illegal to think about making a change? As many noted from the beginning, this never was about UND or the Fighting Sioux nickname; this always was, for Al and his cronies, about asserting legislative control over the SBoHE. Now he wants to lay claim to the right to micromanage administrators at the campus level as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Perhaps Mr. Carlson phrased it wrongly or perhaps the University was actually going to take irrevocable action prior to any decision by the legislature. I don't mind that he pointed out that it's still the law of the state and they need to comply with it. Certainly they can plan for things that seem likely but they can't take action. After all the horse may learn to sing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I think anything Carlson says to the NDUS, his fellow constituents, or anybody else for that matter is now a moot point...almost everybody on both sides of the fence have realized that for the good of the University of North Dakota the law will have to be repealed. And looking at the way the legislators of North Dakota run their state compared to many of the other states in this region (including mine), I have no doubt they will make the right choice, in fact I'm sure they already have. I will give Carlson the benefit of the doubt and assume he proceeded with good intentions when pushing for enactment of the law, but as they say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and clearly he pushed this through without properly researching if enacting it would have any effect on the sanctioning by the NCAA and without regard for what it would mean to the University down the road if it had to live under that sanction cloud indefinitely, and for that I would have to label his actions irresponsible. The majority of people on this board where with Carlson in favor of the law, until the Big Sky conference spoke out against it. One poster on this board was boasting how the nickname issue meant nothing to the Big Sky, until he/she was stopped in mid-sentence by the Fullerton article. Until that article, the conventional wisdom was Al's state law, sanctions and sioux forever. Lots of short memories coming out now. I have no doubt that everthing will be resolved in UND's best interest by year end. That's all tha's important now. While Carson's earlier actions were not necessarily anti-Und, his recent actions are not good, and he needs to get out of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Al Carlson, NDSU graduate. No further comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Perhaps Mr. Carlson phrased it wrongly or perhaps the University was actually going to take irrevocable action prior to any decision by the legislature. I don't mind that he pointed out that it's still the law of the state and they need to comply with it. Certainly they can plan for things that seem likely but they can't take action. After all the horse may learn to sing. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The majority of people on this board where with Carlson in favor of the law, until the Big Sky conference spoke out against it. One poster on this board was boasting how the nickname issue meant nothing to the Big Sky, until he/she was stopped in mid-sentence by the Fullerton article. Until that article, the conventional wisdom was Al's state law, sanctions and sioux forever. Lots of short memories coming out now. I have no doubt that everthing will be resolved in UND's best interest by year end. That's all tha's important now. While Carson's earlier actions were not necessarily anti-Und, his recent actions are not good, and he needs to get out of the way. Of course most people were on board, they were erroneously misled into thinking that this law would somehow allow UND to both remain the Fighting Sioux AND would force the NCAA to allow UND to keep the name without sanctions. People (and the other legislators) trusted that Carlson had done his homework and the outcome would be favorable, and everybody got caught up in the moment. Only after the vote when the reality hit that nothing had changed with the NCAA did people start to backtrack because unlike Al the majority of people are smart enough to realize that being sanctioned by the NCAA would have a major negative impact on the University. His shortsightedness in pushing through the 'nickname law' in the 11th hour without researching what impact (none) it would have on the NCAA settlement has caused this whole fiasco, and now he needs to stay quiet and let it run its course. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Of course most people were on board, they were erroneously misled into thinking that this law would somehow allow UND to both remain the Fighting Sioux AND would force the NCAA to allow UND to keep the name without sanctions. People (and the other legislators) trusted that Carlson had done his homework and the outcome would be favorable, and everybody got caught up in the moment. Only after the vote when the reality hit that nothing had changed with the NCAA did people start to backtrack because unlike Al the majority of people are smart enough to realize that being sanctioned by the NCAA would have a major negative impact on the University. His shortsightedness in pushing through the 'nickname law' in the 11th hour without researching what impact (none) it would have on the NCAA settlement has caused this whole fiasco, and now he needs to stay quiet and let it run its course. Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 "Law is commands joined to threats of punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almostheavenin2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Why are all you guys freaking out? The majority of the people in ND wanted to keep the Sioux nickname by passing a state law. The majority of state legislators as well as the governor agreed and followed the will of the people and did exactly that. Carlson happens to be the leader of the majority in the legislator. He also sent a letter saying that NDUS and UND should comply with state law. What has he done wrong? Fifty years ago inter-racial marriages would have been voted into state law so your point is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 This call's for a play on an Allen Iverson press conference... "We're talkin about planning, not taking action....not taking action. Man we talkin bout planning. We talking about planning man- not taking action but planning man." This is honestly what certain people are now getting into a tizzy about? That the SBoHE and UND have implemented a process to plan for the retirement of the nickname...if indeed the law is rescinded. Am I getting this. Al Carlson, you sir are a beauty. Just when you think that your craziness is going to be put on double snooze for the time being, you come right out with more crazy. I frankly love him, he makes me laugh so hard so often. I would honestly be disappointed if he were not to come out with some zinger every 2 to 4 days. Al, bud...I hate to tell you this- but to prepare to have one's ducks in a row before what is possibly going to be one of the most significant changes within our favorite institutions history is really quite logical and on top of that- somewhat- dare I say, responsible. Wow, your just too much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 This call's for a play on an Allen Iverson press conference... "We're talkin about planning, not taking action....not taking action. Man we talkin bout planning. We talking about planning man- not taking action but planning man." Classic! This is honestly what certain people are now getting into a tizzy about? That the SBoHE and UND have implemented a process to plan for the retirement of the nickname...if indeed the law is rescinded. Am I getting this. Al Carlson, you sir are a beauty. Just when you think that your craziness is going to be put on double snooze for the time being, you come right out with more crazy. I frankly love him, he makes me laugh so hard so often. I would honestly be disappointed if he were not to come out with some zinger every 2 to 4 days. Al, bud...I hate to tell you this- but to prepare to have one's ducks in a row before what is possibly going to be one of the most significant changes within our favorite institutions history is really quite logical and on top of that- somewhat- dare I say, responsible. Wow, your just too much. Amen and +1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Sayanything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 GRAND FORKS, ND 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 I have to wonder what your obsession is with this subject? You are not a UND alum, nor are you a resident of the state of ND. I strongly suspect an ulterior motive on your part and I'm quite sure we are fully able to handle this on our own, thank you. I am a native North Dakotan and have more than a passing interest in my home state. Good god what a numbnuts...... Maybe you need to seek a little help for your paranoia issues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Wow, there are some pathetic views being spewed on this thread. Yes FRED, you are correct, the SBOHE is not breaking the law by virtue of its "planning" a name transition Any more than you wouldn't be breaking the law by planning a bank robbery. But The question is, how do the citizens of North Dakota (owners of UND) feel about the administration spending their money to plan something which is currently EXPLICITLY against North Dakota State Law! -well It's not like any of you give a !@#$ that a million + of your money is getting extorted to pay for a name change that has no business being changed. Did all of you upstanding citizens simply choose to forget about the concept of the law. It is not Al's law or the governor's law. It is THE LAW! OF COURSE WE ARE ALL SAYING WE SHOULD PISS ON THE LAW-OSHIE STYLE-SINCE THE NCAA FACIESTS TOLD US WE BETTER BREAK IT OR ELSE. Who's the bad guy? Hmmmmmm??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticklethetwine Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I am a native North Dakotan and have more than a passing interest in my home state. Good god what a numbnuts...... Maybe you need to seek a little help for your paranoia issues. Bison fan I am going to inform you though there is only one Flagship institution in ND and it is UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Bison fan I am going to inform you though there is only one Flagship institution in ND and it is UND. LMAO......so typical of some of the idiots on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Grant Shaft's letter back to Carlson. Your "surprise and disappointment" is curious to me in that the actions taken by the Board were precisely those I discussed with NCAA President Emmert in your presence during the August 12, 2011, meeting. As you and all members of the delegation will recall, the NCAA made it clear UND would be placed on sanctions as of August 15, 2011. The Governor argued that being on sanctions could cause significant and irreparable harm to UND during the months of September and October with respect to scheduling and conference affiliation. The NCAA responded by agreeing to assist in alleviating the effects of the NCAA sanctions over the next couple of months so long as the Governor's office, Legislature and Board of Higher Education could demonstrate that they were diligently working toward a resolution of the nickname and logo by the November 2011 special session. All parties agreed on this course of action. I am concerned that your letter and other comments you have made to the media since the meeting with the NCAA will ultimately hurt UND as it addresses scheduling and conference affiliation between now and the November special session. In my view, your evolving stances conflict with the good faith efforts of the entire delegation that met with the NCAA and also conflict with your personal pledge not to take any action that would hurt UND. Your choice to publish what I had believed to be a private letter to me seems to indicate that your actions on this matter arise out of political motivation rather than what is in the best interest of UND athletics. Carlson is the one that wanted the meeting with the NCAA and now wants to disregard what was discussed and agreed upon. Hopefully the voters of Fargo will show him the door next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The GFH weighs in... Some controversies are inevitable. These recent ones were not. They were generated by Carlson. As a result, he has the whole state wondering what Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The GFH weighs in... I get the impression that Carlson does not want a healthy, vibrant and whole UND. Get out to the way Mr. Carlson.. I absolutely agree with you. Also, was driving through Dickinson last weekend and saw a letter to the editor from Mike Schatz a representative from New England talking about how he cannot support the law change as he feels it takes away our freedom of speech. I wonder if all the delegates from Carlson and Schatz's districts are going to be the ones purchasing season tickets and donating money to the athletic programs if the sanctions get placed on us and our athletic teams feel the immediate effects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The GFH weighs in... I get the impression that Carlson does not want a healthy, vibrant and whole UND. Get out to the way Mr. Carlson.. I doubt Carlson's idiocy has much to do with UND per se, so much as the constitutionally protected Board. Cluess Al used UND's name/logo as a strawman in an attempt to grab vested authority from the Board. Now that he's been slapped down, he refuses to get out of the way and keeps acting like a spoiled a$$clown. Again, where was he in this fight 4-5 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Carlson said Monday that his objections are 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Either way, someone with equal or more power and influnce MUST step up and publicly (pardon my language here) BITCH SLAP Carlson. CAREFULL NOW!!! We don't want the NDHP coming to your place of work to interview you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Again, where was he in this fight 4-5 years ago? Yeah good point that would have been more helpful... Now that I think about this more is Al trying to injure UND because he is an NDSU grad. 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.