star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The University of North Dakota has been a full (core) member of the Big Sky Conference since October 29, 2010 according to documents received from UND via an open records request. This would seemingly contradict concerns precipitated by the university and State Board of Higher Education that UND will not be able to enter the conference if they retain the Fighting Sioux name and logo, as the documentation shows UND is already a conference member. What is the over / under on how many days Kelley has left? How many member of the SBoHE will be forced to resign in disgrace? http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/are-the-university-of-north-dakotas-big-sky-conference-concerns-bogus/ Such collaboration by UND with a conference to help influence perceptions on the Fighting Sioux debate is not new. They reportedly asked Summit League Commissioner Tom Douple to influence the Fighting Sioux name and logo issue. See the SAB post ( http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/und-officials-asked-summit-league-officials-to-oppose-fighting-sioux-nickname-for-them/ ) from January 26, 2011 on this matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 What is the over / under on how many days Kelley has left? How many member of the SBoHE will be forced to resign in disgrace? http://sayanythingbl...concerns-bogus/ For all I know there were and are shenanigans. But this article is no bombshell. The docs that article sites are a press release and what is effectively a Letter of Intent. In addition to some wikipedia research and some opinion on what the BigSky is, was and needs. The letter of intent may be binding on its own, but it does nothing to define key terms that are included in it ( which a full contract would) . Key terms that the author of this story uses as the basis for the story. Like I said, there may have been shenanigans. But, this story doesn't tell me one thing I dont already know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Will be interesting if perjury charges are pursued against Kelley, based on what Kelley stated at legislative hearings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 For all I know there were and are shenanigans. But this article is no bombshell. The docs that article sites are a press release and what is effectively a Letter of Intent. In addition to some wikipedia research and some opinion on what the BigSky is, was and needs. The letter of intent may be binding on its own, but it does nothing to define key terms that are included in it ( which a full contract would) . Key terms that the author of this story uses as the basis for the story. Like I said, there may have been shenanigans. But, this story doesn't tell me one thing I dont already know. So you are stating UND is not legally in the Big Sky? You couldn't be more wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 None of this means squat to the NC$$, and they are the only game in town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 So you are stating UND is not legally in the Big Sky? You couldn't be more wrong. Oh, there is always a way to be more wrong. I draft contracts every day for business transactions. Not to say that it has no binding impact, but the letter looks to me like a precursor to another lengthy document. I'm just curious as to what the actual agreement looks like. As for the press release, who gives a crap what words some PR hack uses. They have no impact on anyone. I'm blown away that the author of the story even mentions it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 None of this means squat to the NC$$, and they are the only game in town. The NCAA would only forbid hosting of playoff games. Kelley needed a larger hammer than that - so he enlisted the loss of Big Sky membership as the hammer. Big Sky Presidents agreed to play along. The fear of losing Big Sky membership is what prompted the legislature to act and Sioux fans to cower in fear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Oh, there is always a way to be more wrong. I draft contracts every day for business transactions. Not to say that it has no binding impact, but the letter looks to me like a precursor to another lengthy document. I'm just curious as to what the actual agreement looks like. As for the press release, who gives a crap what words some PR hack uses. They have no impact on anyone. I'm blown away that the author of the story even mentions it. Oh, so you are stating that UND wasn't compliant to Open Records Laws when they were asked to release all legal documents relevant to Big Sky membership? The Big Sky bylaws are what spell out everything - they are the final contract - which is also included in the blog. Having an Indian nickname is not in violation of the Big Sky bylaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The NCAA would only forbid hosting of playoff games. Kelley needed a larger hammer than that - so he enlisted the loss of Big Sky membership as the hammer. Big Sky Presidents agreed to play along. The fear of losing Big Sky membership is what prompted the legislature to act and Sioux fans to cower in fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) What is the over / under on how many days Kelley has left? How many member of the SBoHE will be forced to resign in disgrace? http://sayanythingbl...concerns-bogus/ I will make a prediction, nothing, nix, nein, nadda, nay will happen to Kelley. The MSM will also not cover this because it's a non story to them. Edited December 27, 2011 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Since when is it illegal or criminal for the Und president or any BSC president to express an opinion to the media. For the most part, they have simply expressed the opinion that keeping the nickname could be detrimental to Und. You seem to havea lot of opinions, whats the difference. It seems like your president is trying to save you from yourself, even though i know that you would much rather fall on your sword. As for what full sanctions would entail? I dont think you want to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxman Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I will make a prediction, nothing, nix, nine, nadda, nay will happen to Kelley. The MSM will also not cover this because it's a non story to them. Did you mean "nein"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Kelley needed a larger hammer than that - so he enlisted the loss of Big Sky membership as the hammer. Big Sky Presidents agreed to play along. If you can link Kelley, the Board, the NC$$ and the BSC to the Trilateral Commission, Area 57, the Mayan Calendar, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds and the Queen of England, I think your hypothesis will have undeniable merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansel Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If you can link Kelley, the Board, the NC$$ and the BSC to the Trilateral Commission, Area 57, the Mayan Calendar, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds and the Queen of England, I think your hypothesis will have undeniable merit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I will make a prediction, nothing, nix, nine, nadda, nay will happen to Kelley. The MSM will also not cover this because it's a non story to them. It's already in the works, Goon. Chuck Haga is working on it as we speak. Stay tuned. Unless you don't include the Herald in the MSM. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 If you can link Kelley, the Board, the NC$$ and the BSC to the Trilateral Commission, Area 57, the Mayan Calendar, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds and the Queen of England, I think your hypothesis will have undeniable merit. ScottM: Your credibility on this board depends on this story having no legs, so I can understand why you make those comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Since when is it illegal or criminal for the Und president or any BSC president to express an opinion to the media. For the most part, they have simply expressed the opinion that keeping the nickname could be detrimental to Und. You seem to havea lot of opinions, whats the difference. It seems like your president is trying to save you from yourself, even though i know that you would much rather fall on your sword. As for what full sanctions would entail? I dont think you want to find out. What fantasy world are you living in? Kelley has for the record never ever stated he is opposed to the nickname. Kelley has however, for the record, stated that UND will be kicked out of the Big Sky conference if the nickname isn't dropped. He stated this to a legislative hearing, which constitutes perjury, based on the evidence supplied. Fullerton has never ever stated that UND will be kicked out of the Big Sky Conference - just that the nickname will do harm to UND athletics. The media never ever obtained a quote from any other Big Sky president. Instead, the media relied on the words of two men: Kelley and Fullerton. The media did the same thing with the Summit League: relied on the words of two men: Kelley and Douple. Douple later said they were both lying, yet the ND media still wants us to believe Kelley? How gullible are North Dakotans? Fool you twice and you still believe Kelley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Since when is it illegal or criminal for the Und president or any BSC president to express an opinion to the media. For the most part, they have simply expressed the opinion that keeping the nickname could be detrimental to Und. You seem to havea lot of opinions, whats the difference. It seems like your president is trying to save you from yourself, even though i know that you would much rather fall on your sword. As for what full sanctions would entail? I dont think you want to find out. Look at what happened to Ohio State, basically nothing. One year of no bowl games. Big deal they will be back next year. To me that is a hell of a lot more serious then a nickname. But the NCAA wants to show they have some power so they are trying to push around a small school in North Dakota. That is what this is all about, they want more power. If it was actually about nicknames, then FSU and Utah would be in the same boat as UND. It is power and money, and some schools have more power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 ScottM: Your credibility on this board depends on this story having no legs, so I can understand why you make those comments. I'm long past worrying about my "crediblity" on internet forums. If you're so certain about "wrongdoing" by any of these parties, why don't you and "Hannibal" file a private right of action, or see if North Dakota has a "private attorney general" statute? I doubt Stenjhem will do anything to enforce the Open Records statute, assuming there's a violation, so there's your opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Did you mean "nein"? No, he meant "nueve". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/225003/group/homepage/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Oh, so you are stating that UND wasn't compliant to Open Records Laws when they were asked to release all legal documents relevant to Big Sky membership? The Big Sky bylaws are what spell out everything - they are the final contract - which is also included in the blog. Having an Indian nickname is not in violation of the Big Sky bylaws. Dont misunderstand me here, I dont know if there are other agreements or if there will be. From my point of view, it just seems pretty odd for the BigSky to offer a letter of intent as the only executed document that indicates UND's membership and inclusion as a signatory in the Bylaws. As for the By-Laws as I read them, the members could view the NCAA ban on hosting as a "more stringent" rule than the Big Skys and decide the NCAA's rule precludes UND from hosting any BigSky playoff events as well. Note, I didnt say would, I said could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Dont misunderstand me here, I dont know if there are other agreements or if there will be. From my point of view, it just seems pretty odd for the BigSky to offer a letter of intent as the only executed document that indicates UND's membership and inclusion as a signatory in the Bylaws. FBS conferences and schools sign exhaustive agreements and/or require changes to bylaws to facilitate new members. Because there was less money and television issues involved here, the legal end of things is rather simple. Southern Utah signed nearly an identical contract. Southern Utah also referenced the bylaws as the legal document. If the Big Sky and Kelley didn't want UND as the Fighting Sioux in the conference, they needed to spell that out in the original contract. Both Kelley and the Big Sky failed to recognize that the Fighting Sioux name would come back to life when that contract was signed. As for the By-Laws as I read them, the members could view the NCAA ban on hosting as a "more stringent" rule than the Big Skys and decide the NCAA's rule precludes UND from hosting any BigSky playoff events as well. Note, I didnt say would, I said could. I speculated on this same issue this past summer: the Big Sky could ban UND from hosting Big Sky post-season conference events. But under the current bylaws, the Big Sky can not expel UND. But Kelley never stated that UND would be "expelled" from the Big Sky. Kelley has asserted numerous times that the Big Sky would not accept UND if the nickname continued. Kelley is either (a) incompetent, or (b) purposedly misleading alumni, people of ND, and the legislators. No other way to spin this. Freedom of Information requests sent to Big Sky Presidents when they are released will confirm: Kelley intentionally deceived us. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Tom Miller of the Herald is tweeting this: Blog entry has so many holes idk where to start... RT @gfherald Nickname supporters: UND, Big Sky misled Legislature | http://bit.ly/sZQPmW So what are the holes? Tom, you can't name one. Go and do some real journalism before you slam that article. A lot of leg work is behind that article and more to come. But Tom, what actual reporting have you done on this story, other than talking with Kelley and Faison and taking their word for it? None Have you filed any freedom of information requests with any Big Sky President or Institution? No Will your journalism credibility go down in flames after the many stories and columns you have written based on Kelley's and Faison's word? Yes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 FBS conferences and schools sign exhaustive agreements and/or require changes to bylaws to facilitate new members. Because there was less money and television issues involved here, the legal end of things is rather simple. Southern Utah signed nearly an identical contract. Southern Utah also referenced the bylaws as the legal document. If the Big Sky and Kelley didn't want UND as the Fighting Sioux in the conference, they needed to spell that out in the original contract. Both Kelley and the Big Sky failed to recognize that the Fighting Sioux name would come back to life when that contract was signed. I speculated on this same issue this past summer: the Big Sky could ban UND from hosting Big Sky post-season conference events. But under the current bylaws, the Big Sky can not expel UND Sure they could, If they were so inclined, they could use Article III Section 6 as cover. Not even much of a stretch for the type of folks that would be doing the voting. 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.