Petitions

[MplsBison]

Even assuming SL and SR gave their consent now, or in 2007, what's to prevent them from pulling it at some point when the tribal winds change? They're sovereign nations. What would Clueless Al and some others do? Sue them? Trot out a few petitions? Write an angry "expose" on Say Anything?

I believe the plan was to require a 30 year agreement.

[CMSioux]

Has this been discussed? Make Fighting Sioux the Honorary Nickname Emeritus of the University - thus retiring it yet still keeping it for historical purposes. This would also appease the NCAA since UND is required to protect the logo. It would not appease the liberal professors and those who want to scrub the name from the campus (and area businesses it's been said).

[darell1976]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/227644/

“But I want the referral, too,” he said. “It’s going to be disappointing if we don’t get it. It’s an easy sell once we talk to people — everybody is for it, everybody wants to keep the name.”

Not everyone is for it. If it was so we would have gotten the SR tribal council on board for a vote of their whole tribe, also the NCAA is not for it or else that policy would have never been born. I am for the name but not at the risk of getting booted out of the Big Sky.

[Fetch]

baaaa humbug

[Blackheart]

Has this been discussed? Make Fighting Sioux the Honorary Nickname Emeritus of the University - thus retiring it yet still keeping it for historical purposes. This would also appease the NCAA since UND is required to protect the logo. It would not appease the liberal professors and those who want to scrub the name from the campus (and area businesses it's been said).

Is the name even found on the campus anymore? I know that Peter Johson and his crew were aggressively' hunting down and scrubbiing' all references to the Sioux name. As for area businesses changing their name or removing references to the name, good luck on that one.

[watchmaker49]

Is the name even found on the campus anymore? I know that Peter Johson and his crew were aggressively' hunting down and scrubbiing' all references to the Sioux name. As for area businesses changing their name or removing references to the name, good luck on that one.

It is a copyright that is owned by UND so a little letter saying....

[The Sicatoka]

It is a copyright that is owned by UND so a little letter saying....

If a private business is using the five-letter S word there's no limit on that.

If they are using the logo, yes, there's a copyright issue.

[The Sicatoka]

Is the name even found on the campus anymore? I know that Peter Johson and his crew were aggressively' hunting down and scrubbiing' all references to the Sioux name.

I like to think of it as "ethnic cleansing" or "racial cleansing".

[ScottM]

If a private business is using the five-letter S word there's no limit on that. If they are using the logo, yes, there's a copyright trademark issue.

FTFY.

Actually, it does raise the specter of how can UND assert trademark rights over a moniker it has officially discarded? In order to assert one's rights to a mark, you have to use it in commerce. If UND won't or can't use it, or doesn't assign it to say ... SL, they risk losing any control over it.

As for private businesses and individuals, plaster that moniker wherever you can ...

[The Sicatoka]

I copied what the other guy wrote. I got suckered.

Yes, the logo is a trademark.

[watchmaker49]

FTFY.

Actually, it does raise the specter of how can UND assert trademark rights over a moniker it has officially discarded? In order to assert one's rights to a mark, you have to use it in commerce. If UND won't or can't use it, or doesn't assign it to say ... SL, they risk losing any control over it.

As for private businesses and individuals, plaster that moniker wherever you can ...

Is there not something where they only have to use for something to keep in effect?

[darell1976]

(SIGH)...

Again, I must set the record straight and refute these illogical Chicken Little paranoia theories that have infested this place.

http://sayanythingbl...g-their-rights/

Please get your facts straight and try not to be so misinformed. Not attacking you personally, darell1976, as you seem to mean well... but I get really frustrated at the constant misconception that gets spewed around here and is accepted as gospel by way too many people. Don't fall for the scare tactics.

To paraphase the NCAA to ND lawmakers: "we don't care about your laws!!!"

[82SiouxGuy]

Please get your facts straight and try not to be so misinformed. Not attacking you personally, darell1976, as you seem to mean well... but I get really frustrated at the constant misconception that gets spewed around here and is accepted as gospel by way too many people. Don't fall for the scare tactics.

You need to learn not to believe everything you read in a blog. Much of what is written there has been refuted in other places on this forum. Just a few real simple facts as example. UND is not a full member of the Big Sky right now. According to the Big Sky bylaws a member has to be a full member of the NCAA Division I. UND is still a Division II member that is transitioning to Division I. Obviousy, UND does not meet the bylaw requirement for a member at this time. UND should become a full member in July as long as they complete the transition. UND has been attending Big Sky meetings the past year but are not able to vote on any issues because they are not a full member.

The Big Sky has not lost top teams in recent years. The last school to leave was Cal State Northridge in 2001 when they gave up football. Northern Colorado basically took their place. Before that Boise State and Idaho left in 1996. I don't think you can qualify 11 and 16 years ago as recent. The Big Sky has been a very stable conference. They added several other schools about the same time as UND and currently have an odd number of teams, so losing UND wouldn't be a dealbreaker. Montana and Montana State are the lynchpins of the Big Sky. UND is not a lynchpin for a conference they haven't even started with yet.

Yes, it would take 100% of the Presidents to vote UND out of the Big Sky when they are a full member. It may be unlikely, but it isn't impossible (that seems to be the assumption of some people). It hasn't been established if that would also be required before they became full members. Even if that is true, they can impose other sanctions with only a 2/3 vote. For example, the NCAA has sanctioned the state of South Carolina because of a Confederate flag flying on the state capital grounds. The schools are not allowed to host NCAA post season events. The SEC and ACC have expanded on this and have rarely allowed league tournaments in South Carolina since this started more than a decade ago. Potentially, the Big Sky could implement a similar ban on UND.

I could probably go on, but you get the idea. I wouldn't take the information from your link as absolute fact if I were you.

[Chewey]

You need to learn not to believe everything you read in a blog. Much of what is written there has been refuted in other places on this forum. Just a few real simple facts as example. UND is not a full member of the Big Sky right now. According to the Big Sky bylaws a member has to be a full member of the NCAA Division I. UND is still a Division II member that is transitioning to Division I. Obviousy, UND does not meet the bylaw requirement for a member at this time. UND should become a full member in July as long as they complete the transition. UND has been attending Big Sky meetings the past year but are not able to vote on any issues because they are not a full member.

The Big Sky has not lost top teams in recent years. The last school to leave was Cal State Northridge in 2001 when they gave up football. Northern Colorado basically took their place. Before that Boise State and Idaho left in 1996. I don't think you can qualify 11 and 16 years ago as recent. The Big Sky has been a very stable conference. They added several other schools about the same time as UND and currently have an odd number of teams, so losing UND wouldn't be a dealbreaker. Montana and Montana State are the lynchpins of the Big Sky. UND is not a lynchpin for a conference they haven't even started with yet.

Yes, it would take 100% of the Presidents to vote UND out of the Big Sky when they are a full member. It may be unlikely, but it isn't impossible (that seems to be the assumption of some people). It hasn't been established if that would also be required before they became full members. Even if that is true, they can impose other sanctions with only a 2/3 vote. For example, the NCAA has sanctioned the state of South Carolina because of a Confederate flag flying on the state capital grounds. The schools are not allowed to host NCAA post season events. The SEC and ACC have expanded on this and have rarely allowed league tournaments in South Carolina since this started more than a decade ago. Potentially, the Big Sky could implement a similar ban on UND.

I could probably go on, but you get the idea. I wouldn't take the information from your link as absolute fact if I were you.

UND is not going to be precluded from D-1 status because of the nickname and logo. Period. If otherwise were the case, any anti-trust claim would be stronger. The attendance figures for the Big Sky, save UNC and the Montana schools, are abysmal. UND offers a lot of what the B.S. needs: a rabid fan base; strong teams; a school from a state flush with cash (i.e. financial backing for research, etc.); strong alumni/ae support. UND brings more assets to the table than most of the present conference membership

[Chewey]

Careful now... don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Agreed

[82SiouxGuy]

UND is not going to be precluded from D-1 status because of the nickname and logo. Period. If otherwise were the case, any anti-trust claim would be stronger. The attendance figures for the Big Sky, save UNC and the Montana schools, are abysmal. UND offers a lot of what the B.S. needs: a rabid fan base; strong teams; a school from a state flush with cash (i.e. financial backing for research, etc.); strong alumni/ae support. UND brings more assets to the table than most of the present conference membership

Obviously you need to read more carefully. I didn't say anything about the NCAA stopping UND from attaining DI status, and I definitely didn't say anything about the NCAA using the nickname and logo to do it. It's almost like you wanted to throw out a red herring to change the subject.

UND is currently classified as a DIvision II school transitioning to Division I by the NCAA. Exhibit 1, http://web1.ncaa.org/onlineDir/exec/divisionListing. UND is scheduled to finish transition in July of this year. It is probably a pretty safe assumption that they will finish the transition, but at this point it is just an assumption. Big Sky bylaws define a conference member, in part, as meeting NCAA Division I membership criteria. Exhibit 2, see Article V Section 2, http://bigskyconf.com/custompages/CODE10-11/Constitution.pdf. Therefore, UND does not meet the criteria of the bylaws to be a current member of the Big Sky Conference. Further evidence is that UND is not yet a full voting member of the conference. If you are not allowed to vote on conference matters, either you are probably not a full member of the conference or you are on some kind of probation.

Later in the bylaws it discusses how to remove a school from the conference, how to change rules and how to put a school on probation. The one thing I did not see is if there is a different procedure to expell a school that has not attained full conference membership as of yet. They may or may not have a different procedure in a different document.

I also didn't say that UND would not be an asset to the Big Sky as a member. Obviously UND ranks higher than most of the conference in education, UND probably will have one of the largest and most loyal fanbases in the conference, and UND has a great athletic tradition. None of that means the Big Sky would crumble without UND, or even be damaged if UND were not a member of the conference. They have survived just fine without UND for many years. And don't forget, several other schools are joining the conference. The 2 California schools that are going to be football only members certainly help with the educational ranking reputation of the conference, as well as doing pretty well at the gate and on the field.

Further, UND also brings issues as a conference member outside of whether you believe the nickname would be an issue. The biggest issue is travel. Having UND in the conference will increase spending on travel by member schools. UND is a long way from all other members of the conference. In most cases, additional miles add additional cost to travel. The schools will have to hope that enough UND fans show up in their venues to help overcome that additional travel expense. Also, the conference is currently at a very awkward number of members. Starting July 1, 2012 the conference will have 11 full members and 13 football schools. Neither is a good number. 10 and 12 or 12 and 14 would be better. So either losing UND or finding another full member would be much easier for the conference. Again, the Big Sky would be fine without UND, it is probably better with UND.

[Fetch]

the sky is falling cluck cluck

[The Sicatoka]

Anyone can look at this objectively and see the problem in this dialog and why one side is desperately losing ground:

"82" explains, citing official document references, showing precedent (ACC, SEC actions; the NCAA's disregard for Carlson's folly), the issues to estabilish their position in the debate.

The other side references an anonymous blog making dubious claims (1996 is "recent"?) and makes animal noises.

[iramurphy]

UND is not going to be precluded from D-1 status because of the nickname and logo. Period. If otherwise were the case, any anti-trust claim would be stronger. The attendance figures for the Big Sky, save UNC and the Montana schools, are abysmal. UND offers a lot of what the B.S. needs: a rabid fan base; strong teams; a school from a state flush with cash (i.e. financial backing for research, etc.); strong alumni/ae support. UND brings more assets to the table than most of the present conference membership

You are correct on all points. Do what you can to help the Spirit Lake litigation or any other way you can think to regain the name without any harm to UND or UND athletics. We just can't handcuff or limit our choices by getting the legislature involved. We do not want the government of N.Dak. dictating how UND might be able to act and respond to any and all possibities that the future may hold.

[The Sicatoka]

Do what you can to help the Spirit Lake litigation or any other way you can think to regain the name without any harm to UND or UND athletics.

This sentence deserved to be repeated, individually, clearly, for everyone to see, understand, and really think about.

[fightingsioux4life]

Anyone can look at this objectively and see the problem in this dialog and why one side is desperately losing ground:

"82" explains, citing official document references, showing precedent (ACC, SEC actions; the NCAA's disregard for Carlson's folly), the issues to estabilish their position in the debate.

The other side references an anonymous blog making dubious claims (1996 is "recent"?) and makes animal noises.

[Goon]

The Sicatoka, on 28 January 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Anyone can look at this objectively and see the problem in this dialog and why one side is desperately losing ground:

"82" explains, citing official document references, showing precedent (ACC, SEC actions; the NCAA's disregard for Carlson's folly), the issues to estabilish their position in the debate.

The other side references an anonymous blog making dubious claims (1996 is "recent"?) and makes animal noises.

I wonder if this is the sound we are wondering about http://www.soundsnap...pig_03_snort_01

That one deserves a rim snot .

Edited January 28, 2012 by Goon

[Chewey]

Anyone can look at this objectively and see the problem in this dialog and why one side is desperately losing ground:

"82" explains, citing official document references, showing precedent (ACC, SEC actions; the NCAA's disregard for Carlson's folly), the issues to estabilish their position in the debate.

The other side references an anonymous blog making dubious claims (1996 is "recent"?) and makes animal noises.

Nothing's happening and if the one side had lost so much ground what was feared to happen would have happened already, presuming it would happen at all. If the requisite number of petition signatures are obtained and UND is known - again - as the "Fighting Sioux" nothing is happening to UND's transition to D1 or B.S. membership this summer, especially if the lawsuit remains. A tribe has sued the NCAA regarding its nickname policy and regarding how it operates. No one really appreciates the significance of this, evidently. The NCAA and all ancillary parties involved do and they understand the gravity of many of the counts. Doing anything to strengthen that would be foolhardy - yes, even more foolhardy (according to some of you) than gathering signatures for the petition drive. There is no better time to pursue the signatures, in truth, than now.

[Chewey]

Now is the time to fight the NCAA. The stars are aligned correctly - bad press from several corners, public references to the NCAA by families of athletes, coaches, U.S. Representatives as the Gestapo and the Mafia, a tribe who is supposedly a beneficiary of an asinine policy suing the NCAA over that policy and over anti-trust claims, etc. If you're so interested in taking down the monster and helping UND and retaining the nickname and logo, then go circulate some petitions. It is not the time for pusillanimity. WTF you guys? So, the NCAA could "retaliate", even in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit? Really? It's either right or it's not, as the below article illustrates. It's either abusive or it's not, as the below article indicates. You either have backbone to oppose this crap or you don't and you live with a bully's ongoing destructive antics. Many of you would have fit quite nicely in 1930's isolationist America. So, the coin of the realm is that it's ok for a tribe to be disrespected as long as that same bully - for now - does not assault us? It's ok for someone else to get beaten up and I can watch and do nothing and feel ok about it just as long as that bully does not touch me? Indeed, if it did who would be there to help you. Certainly, some other person abiding by the same reasoning would be of no help. It really does not take a lot to see how craven and insipid this position is.

http://www.nytimes.c...d.html?emc=eta1

"So long as schools continue to cower in the face of N.C.A.A. abuses, those abuses will continue.

The Temi Fagbenle case was a perfect opportunity for Harvard to stand up for what’s right. Maybe next time."

Many could learn from this and much good and timely corrective action would be obtained, if people listened to and followed this sage advice. You never stop fighting against this. Otherwise, go join the ranks of the Vichy French. Standing by and doing nothing is tantamount to collaboration, in my opinion. It's collaboration by inaction.

[ScottM]

Now is the time to fight the NCAA. The stars are aligned correctly - bad press from several corners, public references to the NCAA by families of athletes, coaches, U.S. Representatives as the Gestapo and the Mafia, a tribe who is supposedly a beneficiary of an asinine policy suing the NCAA over that policy and over anti-trust claims, etc. If you're so interested in taking down the monster and helping UND and retaining the nickname and logo, then go circulate some petitions. It is not the time for pusillanimity. WTF you guys? So, the NCAA could "retaliate", even in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit? Really? It's either right or it's not, as the below article illustrates. It's either abusive or it's not, as the below article indicates. You either have backbone to oppose this crap or you don't and you live with a bully's ongoing destructive antics. Many of you would have fit quite nicely in 1930's isolationist America. So, the coin of the realm is that it's ok for a tribe to be disrespected as long as that same bully - for now - does not assault us? It's ok for someone else to get beaten up and I can watch and do nothing and feel ok about it just as long as that bully does not touch me? Indeed, if it did who would be there to help you. Certainly, some other person abiding by the same reasoning would be of no help. It really does not take a lot to see how craven and insipid this position is.

http://www.nytimes.c...d.html?emc=eta1

"So long as schools continue to cower in the face of N.C.A.A. abuses, those abuses will continue.

The Temi Fagbenle case was a perfect opportunity for Harvard to stand up for what’s right. Maybe next time."

Many could learn from this and much good and timely corrective action would be obtained, if people listened to and followed this sage advice. You never stop fighting against this. Otherwise, go join the ranks of the Vichy French. Standing by and doing nothing is tantamount to collaboration, in my opinion. It's collaboration by inaction.

Um, yeah. UND did fight in 2007 and eventually agreed to the settlement surrender agreement. And it fought probably more aggressively than most schools would have. Where was Spirit Lake, and Clueless Al and Reed Soderstrom then? When the fight was most important all of these newfound fans of the Sioux name were nowhere to be found. Their self-indulgent opportunism does nothing for the school, as oppposed to their own bloated egos. F**k them.

Your continual histrionics about the isolationism, the Vichy French and selected media stories are better suited to Say Anything than any reasonable legal argument. Neither the Board nor UND will never make any additional arguments to keep the Sioux moniker. Soderstrom is playing both sides of the fence with his litigation on behalf of SL and his position behind the petitions since those "rights" to the Sioux moniker are in opposition to each other. Hopefully, the NC$$'s lawyers use that "conflict" in their defense, as if they really need any more ammunition.