Alumni Association begins campaign against nickname

[Siouxperfan7]

Grant Shaft. My bad, he's not an UND administrator. Possible that Kelley and Faison echoed his sentiments, but don't know.

Remember when the UND delegation went to Indianappolis to talk to the NCAA about the nickname issue? This was after the law passed. They could care less about the law. They said UND would still be under the sanctions. As for now, nothing is going to change their mind on the issue. Only a legal injunction from the Spirit Lake lawsuit will force them to change their stance on the issue. But don't hole your breathe on that one.

The NCAA has made their point. They have a legally binding settlement that we did not meet its requirement. They will not change their tune on their own accord.

[ScottM]

Grant Shaft. My bad, he's not an UND administrator. Possible that Kelley and Faison echoed his sentiments, but don't know.

The only people who publicly thought the legislation would alter the NC$$'s thinking were Al Carlson and some of those who still don't grasp the fact North Dakota's laws don't extend past its borders. They should have been disabused of that notion after the pointless trip to Indianapolis when the NC$$ honchos tapped tapped their fingers on a copy of the settlement agreement while nodding politely.

[Benny Baker]

If you actually think that not playing MN and Wiskey in hockey doesn't hurt your program you're living under a tree. It has already hurt your football program as it's the only school in both Dakota's that hasn't played a couple of B10 teams during the transition. NDSU has sent over 80,000 fans to the Twin Cities for the Gopher games and most everyone thought it was a hoot and a big plus for the program. Playing all those D2 and D3 schools in hockey are not what the UND fans that pay the high price tickets are looking for. Without MN and WI a couple of bad years and you'll see.

Wow, some of you guys are real thick. This whole discussion had to do with Hakstol not publically supporting the nickname retirement. If you read the passage you quoted it says "I am focusing on hockey." In other words, I've made it very clear that the sanctions will hurt other programs, such as football, a lot more than hockey. But like I said, "I am focusing on hockey" while some people are focusing on words and phrases and ignoring the entire substance of what I've been saying.

Again, like I've also said, not playing Wisconsin because of the nickname issue is a loss. Yup, for anyone who doesn't believe me. Go back and check the posts. "So yes, Wisconsin is a loss for sure." However, if you think the success of North Dakota's hockey program depends on a couple of big ten schools (well, I won't use the tree allegory) you need to reconsider what you're saying. It's dissapointing to hear sioux fans, and athletic supportes in general, think that UND can't over come the fact that two schools won't be coming to the Ralph every year. And nor will they come to the Ralph every year even after UND finally retires the Sioux moniker. MINNESOTA WOULD NOT COMMIT TO PLAYING UND IN HOCKEY WHEN THE NICKNAME WAS RETIRED. Everyone say it one more time under their breath. Minnesota would not commit to playing UND in hockey when the nickname was retired. Games against Minnesota have to do as much, if not more, with conference realignment than nicknames.

[Benny Baker]

The only people who publicly thought the legislation would alter the NC$$'s thinking were Al Carlson and some of those who still don't grasp the fact North Dakota's laws don't extend past its borders. They should have been disabused of that notion after the pointless trip to Indianapolis when the NC$$ honchos tapped tapped their fingers on a copy of the settlement agreement while nodding politely.

I agree that Carlson headed this notion. But Grant Shaft did as well when he claimed that one of the possible outcomes of the meeting in Indianapolis was that the NCAA would modify their position based upon the new legislation." But the point of me referencing this is that I'm not going to simply believe what's told to me without some hard evidence. I'm told hockey recruiting will be hurt . . . and then today UND lands a huge hockey recruit. But I digress as this is completely collateral to any meaningful discussions.

[Benny Baker]

@BBaker: You said:

"Oh come one, have you bothered to consider that what you said was entirely speculation and, therefore, not grounded in truth nor fact?"

in response to me saying this:

"Have you bothered to consider that Brooks likely said that in large part because of the level of competition UND plays coupled with facilities and coaching??!!!"

Well, then, then give me some truth and fact as to the basis of Brooks' statement?Mine seems pretty plausible-->your's gave me nothing. And I am talking about the reason or reasons Brooks would have said that. Let's hear the truth and fact, as I am sure you heard it right from his mouth prior to him passing away!!!

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players.

http://www.uscho.com/2004/06/21/quick-picks/

[CAS4127]

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players.

http://www.uscho.com...21/quick-picks/

And "program" has nothing to do with competition-->got it-->thanks, but ou still haven't given me anything. BTW, and FYI, linking a hockey pick link doesn't explain what Herb Brooks meant!!

[Benny Baker]

And "program" has nothing to do with competition-->got it-->thanks, but ou still haven't given me anything. BTW, and FYI, linking a hockey pick link doesn't explain what Herb Brooks meant!!

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players.

Where did Herb mention competition, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Or was he simply too busy discusisng NORTH DAKOTA's program, facilities, and coaching?

Let me know when you're done digging that whole and I'll toss you a ladder.

[CAS4127]

Brooks said he had told Parise to go to the University of North Dakota because of its outstanding program and coaching staff. Later, in a radio interview, Brooks would add that if a player’s future goal was playing in the NHL, he’d recommend North Dakota because of its program, facilities, and coaching. In recent years, North Dakota has proved Brooks to be prophetic, by turning recruits into high draft picks and NHL players.

Where did Herb mention competition, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Or was he simply too busy discusisng NORTH DAKOTA's program, facilities, and coaching?

Let me know when you're done digging that whole and I'll toss you a ladder.

Digging what??!!! I'll say this and then I am done here: If you don't think the word or meaning of "program" stated in the context HB allegedly used it includes the schedule/level of competition a team plays, then I am going to have to reconsider whether any hockey fans have brains-->and it strikes me from what I read here on this board than most do. You're just making it hard for me to go all in on that!!

[MafiaMan]

If you actually think that not playing MN and Wiskey in hockey doesn't hurt your program you're living under a tree. It has already hurt your football program as it's the only school in both Dakota's that hasn't played a couple of B10 teams during the transition. NDSU has sent over 80,000 fans to the Twin Cities for the Gopher games and most everyone thought it was a hoot and a big plus for the program. Playing all those D2 and D3 schools in hockey are not what the UND fans that pay the high price tickets are looking for. Without MN and WI a couple of bad years and you'll see.

And how long do you envision Minnesota being willing to continue to schedule "patsies" like the NDSU Bison? NDSU has embarrassed Minnesota more than once now. "D1" teams playing "D1-AA" teams is a lose/lose venture: Just ask Michigan about Appalachian State.

[Benny Baker]

You know how I can tell when someone realizes that their argument has failed but is unwilling to concede? When “they” begin to pick at one’s grammar on an internet message “bored”, instead of sticking to the main point. You referenced it first, not me.

But anyone with logic skills would have realized if this was about "competition", Herbie would have told Zach to say close to home at Mankota. That way, Zach would have had the benefit of playing the tough competition from the Big Ten as well as North Dakota. This sticking point is UND's program, facilities, and coaches, which are UNIQUE from all other schools. That is why. It's not because UND plays two Big Ten schools every year.

If you keep it up, I'm not giving you a ladder and you can stay in you're whole.

[The Sicatoka]

Why would UND choose to play with one arm tied behind its back?

Being on sanctions is playing (be it on the court, trying to schedule, or trying to recruit) with one arm tied behind your back.

[Benny Baker]

Why would UND choose to play with one arm tied behind its back?

Being on sanctions is playing (be it on the court, trying to schedule, or trying to recruit) with one arm tied behind your back.

I don't think it's UND's choice to do so, not would it be if given the choice. I think it's the Legislature's.

But then again, why the hell won't the NCAA give up on their arbitrarily-enforced policy. The benefit thereof which will never be accomplished when the NCAA continues to allow half of the original schools to keep what originally was deemed a "hostile and abusive" nickname.

I hope they are well aware of the complete mess that they have created thousands of miles away in North Dakota.

[The Sicatoka]

I don't think it's UND's choice to do so, not would it be if given the choice. I think it's the Legislature's.

Others think it's the ND SBoHE. The NDSC will decide.

But then again, why the hell won't the NCAA give up on their arbitrarily-enforced policy. The benefit thereof which will never be accomplished when the NCAA continues to allow half of the original schools to keep what originally was deemed a "hostile and abusive" nickname.

Why? Their party. Their rules. As arbitrary and capricous as they may be.

I hope they are well aware of the complete mess that they have created thousands of miles away in North Dakota.

They. Don't. Care. That's the message they gave directly to Al Carlson et al this summer, in person.

Their party. Their rules. No. Wait. That's not wholly accurate. UND is part of the NCAA, so its our rules. When the full NCAA voted on the issue (to give the NCAA Executive Committee power to create and enforce this policy) UND and a few others voted "no" but a vast majority of the membership voted "yes".

[UND92,96]

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229449/

[Benny Baker]

Why? Their party. Their rules. As arbitrary and capricous as they may be.

They can't. Even SCOTUS had made it very clear that the NCAA must apply its policies in a consistent manner and NOT in an arbitrary or capricious manner. There's even published literature, a law review article, which discusses how arbitrary and unfair the NCAA's settlement with UND was relative to other institutions.

[zonadub]

They can't. Even SCOTUS had made it very clear that the NCAA must apply its policies in a consistent manner and NOT in an arbitrary or capricious manner. There's even published literature, a law review article, which discusses how arbitrary and unfair the NCAA's settlement with UND was relative to other institutions.

if you have a link, I would really like to read that. thank you!

[Benny Baker]

if you have a link, I would really like to read that. thank you!

I'll definitely try to find it. I'll be able to get the name and title, but not sure about any online links as it's a published article.

[Teeder11]

I'll definitely try to find it. I'll be able to get the name and title, but not sure about any online links as it's a published article.

If true... you have found the missing link, cracked the code, discovered the key precedent that no one has been able to dredge up since this whole fiasco started, not even former speaker of the house Denny Hastert (in his battle against the NCAA on behalf of Illinois), not even Jerry Tarkanian, formerly of UNLV, after he sued the NCAA in 1992 (ended up settling with NCAA for $2.5 million) not even past UND administrations, not even our Congressional delegation, not even our current AG could find this "open sesame" clause. You're a genious!!! Where have you been our whole lives? I hope you're right.

[Benny Baker]

if you have a link, I would really like to read that. thank you!

dakota,

I believe the article I’m thinking of is entitled “Sioux Unhappy: Challenging the NCAA’s Ban on Native American Imagery, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 171 (2006-2007)” by Kelly P. O’Neill. I can’t find a link to the full article unfortunately. I’ll try again and see if I can find anything.

There is also a William and Mary Law Review article entitled “Playing Cowboys and Indians” that is pretty interesting. I believe this also discusses the inconsistent application of the NCAA policy and the fact that the policy violated the NCAA’s own constitution, which provides that “it is the responsibility of each member institution to determine independently its own policy regarding nondiscrimination.”

Piece by piece, these articles highlight a lot of interesting points. For example, before the policy was even put in place, the NCAA exempted the UNC-Pembroke Braves, which boasts an Indian head logo similar to North Dakota’s, because of its historical ties to the Native American community and that 20% of its students were Native American.

Some universities received approval to continue using a Native American based moniker because they amended their logo to remove Native American references. Bradley Braves, William and Mary Tribe, etc.

Illinois, which has no native American tribe that the university could even seek approval, was allowed to keep the name because “Illini” is closely associated with the state’s name. Their mascot was retired, however.

No school has been required to gain approval of more than one local tribe---obviously UND is the exception. Florida State only needed approval of the local Florida Seminole tribe despite the fact that most Seminoles both live in Oklahoma and are opposed to the Florida state nickname. I’m guessing a lot of it stems from the animosity of being kicked out of Florida altogether.

Here are some other links:

http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/Native%20American%20Team%20Names%20and%20Mascots.pdf

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/journals/sportslaw/documents/Fall%202008%20-%202.pdf

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/8/Mezey.pdf

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/rrgc/issues/RRGC_9_135_cummings_Harper.pdf

To be honest, there is a lot more out on the internet than I thought. If interested, just runs some google searches that quote law review; ncaa; hostile and abusive; fighting Sioux. Or any other combinations that you might find relevant.

[darell1976]

http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229449/

Please someone make Carlson just go away!

[82SiouxGuy]

dakota,

I believe the article I’m thinking of is entitled “Sioux Unhappy: Challenging the NCAA’s Ban on Native American Imagery, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 171 (2006-2007)” by Kelly P. O’Neill. I can’t find a link to the full article unfortunately. I’ll try again and see if I can find anything.

There is also a William and Mary Law Review article entitled “Playing Cowboys and Indians” that is pretty interesting. I believe this also discusses the inconsistent application of the NCAA policy and the fact that the policy violated the NCAA’s own constitution, which provides that “it is the responsibility of each member institution to determine independently its own policy regarding nondiscrimination.”

Piece by piece, these articles highlight a lot of interesting points. For example, before the policy was even put in place, the NCAA exempted the UNC-Pembroke Braves, which boasts an Indian head logo similar to North Dakota’s, because of its historical ties to the Native American community and that 20% of its students were Native American.

Some universities received approval to continue using a Native American based moniker because they amended their logo to remove Native American references. Bradley Braves, William and Mary Tribe, etc.

Illinois, which has no native American tribe that the university could even seek approval, was allowed to keep the name because “Illini” is closely associated with the state’s name. Their mascot was retired, however.

No school has been required to gain approval of more than one local tribe---obviously UND is the exception. Florida State only needed approval of the local Florida Seminole tribe despite the fact that most Seminoles both live in Oklahoma and are opposed to the Florida state nickname. I’m guessing a lot of it stems from the animosity of being kicked out of Florida altogether.

Here are some other links:

http://www.law.uconn...d%20Mascots.pdf

http://www.willamett...008%20-%202.pdf

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/8/Mezey.pdf

http://www.law.umary...ings_Harper.pdf

To be honest, there is a lot more out on the internet than I thought. If interested, just runs some google searches that quote law review; ncaa; hostile and abusive; fighting Sioux. Or any other combinations that you might find relevant.

Another difference in the UND case is that UND got an additional 5 or so years to get tribal approval. When the original deadline passed UND didn't have approval from either tribe. They didn't have approval when the settlement was signed. It has never been said by either side, but I still feel that getting the extra time to gain approval was a trade off for having to get a second tribal approval.

You mentioned the Seminoles in Oklahoma. The original report out of Oklahoma was that the OK tribe did not approve of the use. Later, I believe, it turned out that the tribe did approve and that the original report came from 1 individual, possibly someone in the tribal government.

I also believe that there is proof that Illinois used the Fighting Illini originally to honor the Illinois soldiers in World War I. That started in the early 1920's. It was approximately 5 or so years later that they started adding the Native American imagery. The NCAA let Illinois keep the name because of the original usage and just made them drop the imagery.

[Benny Baker]

Another difference in the UND case is that UND got an additional 5 or so years to get tribal approval. When the original deadline passed UND didn't have approval from either tribe. They didn't have approval when the settlement was signed. It has never been said by either side, but I still feel that getting the extra time to gain approval was a trade off for having to get a second tribal approval.

You mentioned the Seminoles in Oklahoma. The original report out of Oklahoma was that the OK tribe did not approve of the use. Later, I believe, it turned out that the tribe did approve and that the original report came from 1 individual, possibly someone in the tribal government.

I also believe that there is proof that Illinois used the Fighting Illini originally to honor the Illinois soldiers in World War I. That started in the early 1920's. It was approximately 5 or so years later that they started adding the Native American imagery. The NCAA let Illinois keep the name because of the original usage and just made them drop the imagery.

Yup, applying the policy inconsistenly. I'm glad we're in agreement about the important stuff.

[zonadub]

dakota,

I believe the article I’m thinking of is entitled “Sioux Unhappy: Challenging the NCAA’s Ban on Native American Imagery, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 171 (2006-2007)” by Kelly P. O’Neill. I can’t find a link to the full article unfortunately. I’ll try again and see if I can find anything.

There is also a William and Mary Law Review article entitled “Playing Cowboys and Indians” that is pretty interesting. I believe this also discusses the inconsistent application of the NCAA policy and the fact that the policy violated the NCAA’s own constitution, which provides that “it is the responsibility of each member institution to determine independently its own policy regarding nondiscrimination.”

Piece by piece, these articles highlight a lot of interesting points. For example, before the policy was even put in place, the NCAA exempted the UNC-Pembroke Braves, which boasts an Indian head logo similar to North Dakota’s, because of its historical ties to the Native American community and that 20% of its students were Native American.

Some universities received approval to continue using a Native American based moniker because they amended their logo to remove Native American references. Bradley Braves, William and Mary Tribe, etc.

Illinois, which has no native American tribe that the university could even seek approval, was allowed to keep the name because “Illini” is closely associated with the state’s name. Their mascot was retired, however.

No school has been required to gain approval of more than one local tribe---obviously UND is the exception. Florida State only needed approval of the local Florida Seminole tribe despite the fact that most Seminoles both live in Oklahoma and are opposed to the Florida state nickname. I’m guessing a lot of it stems from the animosity of being kicked out of Florida altogether.

Here are some other links:

http://www.law.uconn...d%20Mascots.pdf

http://www.willamett...008%20-%202.pdf

http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/8/Mezey.pdf

http://www.law.umary...ings_Harper.pdf

To be honest, there is a lot more out on the internet than I thought. If interested, just runs some google searches that quote law review; ncaa; hostile and abusive; fighting Sioux. Or any other combinations that you might find relevant.

Thank you, Benny. I have skimmed the 4 articles you linked, but not being an attorney, its going to take me a while to actually try to digest what they say. An early reaction to them is that basically, there is nothing that has not been discussed in these threads already. Seminoles, Chippewa & Utes got tribal approval, Illini got a pass by dropping the Chief & saying its about the state not a tribe, and almost everyone else changed their nicknames.

Illinois lost the chance to host an NCAA tennis tournament before the waiver was given to them. The NCAA did not keep them out of the tournament, but they could not host it.

but, as I said earlier, I'm a layperson when it comes to the law, so I don't know what I missed.

googling "Sioux Unhappy: Challenging the NCAA’s Ban on Native American Imagery, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 171 (2006-2007)” by Kelly P. O’Neill" brings up a lexis nexis link, but only gives the intro paragraph to the non-subscriber. Maybe one of the attorneys on this forum would be able the check it. You sound like you have a law background, Benny. Do you have access to lexis nexis?

Thank you again, Benny.

[Benny Baker]

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=facpubs

Here's a link to one of the first two. It may be of more interest. Not sure if its substance has been discussed on here, however.

[GeauxSioux]

Please someone make Carlson just go away!