ScottM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 To prove our state’s ability to make it’s own decisions, rather than blindly following the NCAA’s arbitrarily enforced policy. To ensure that the amount of public time and resources expended in retaining the nickname are not wasted, rather than making reactionary decisions based upon other parties’ actions. To continue providing exposure to the Native American community, but I guess that is why SL is suing the NCAA in the first place. To encourage UND to recognize and continue providing educational opportunities for North Dakota’s Native American population, rather then see it dwindle away after the nickname is gone. To continue the proud tradition and history of Fighting Sioux athletics. . In other words, you and others will throw UND under the bus to "make a point" to the NC$$, when they don't give a damn what goes on in North Dakota, and they have a settlement agreement to support their indifference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slammer50111 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Where did I say that Central Michigan was under sanctions, idiot? Iowa's policy doesn't differentiate between sanctioned and unsanctioned universities. It's actually pretty well documented that the school applies its policy arbitrarily. It must be because the Hawkeye nickname is derived from Chief Black Hawk, who was of course, a Native American. The nickname Hawkeyes has nothing to do with Chief Black Hawk.The term "Hawkeye" originally appeared in the book The Last of the Mohicans and was later used in its plural form to describe the people of Iowa. The University of Iowa adopted this as the nickname for its athletic teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What I don't understand is the policy is intended to not stereotype NA yet just because the NCAA says FSU and Utah and CMU are ok that means those names don't offend anyone. It seems as though the NCAA is acting like GOD. The policy should be evenly applied and if the name is offense it shouldn't matter if they are on the sanctions list or not. I think that is a point that irritates a lot of people about this whole process. People need to get over that. The policy is in place. The members of the NCAA have okayed the process and the policy. It isn't going to change any time soon. LIFE ISN'T FAIR. We know what is going to happen to UND and that is what is important, not whether it's fair that FSU, Utah and other smaller schools didn't have to change. UND had the same chance as those schools and couldn't accomplish what those schools did. Deal with the here and now, not how the NCAA handles all of the other schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What I don't understand is the policy is intended to not stereotype NA yet just because the NCAA says FSU and Utah and CMU are ok that means those names don't offend anyone. It seems as though the NCAA is acting like GOD. The policy should be evenly applied and if the name is offense it shouldn't matter if they are on the sanctions list or not. I think that is a point that irritates a lot of people about this whole process. Iowa and Wisconsin's policies apply to all Native American mascots, whether the university is sanctioned or not. Schools like CMU, an FCS school, have fared just fine in the face of the Big Ten's policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 In other words, you and others will throw UND under the bus to "make a point" to the NC$$, when they don't give a damn what goes on in North Dakota, and they have a settlement agreement to support their indifference. Wow, Scotty. I'm glad I never served in the military with you. Nice give up attitude you have. Just because there are sanctions means UND has no shot as an athletic institution? There is no way the program knows how to persevere through the situation? Scotty, since you're the bastion of giving everyone direct responses and calling others out on their failure to do the same . . . i'm still waiting . . . I'll even broaden the scope, name three other schools who have refused to play Native American mascot institutions since 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Iowa and Wisconsin's policies apply to all Native American mascots, whether the university is sanctioned or not. Schools like CMU, an FCS school, have fared just fine in the face of the Big Ten's policies. Wisconsin changed their policy to follow the NCAA sanctions list. That was discussed and a link provided in another thread in this forum. I have not found an updated Iowa policy. However, since Wisconsin and Minnesota now follow the NCAA list it is not out of the question that Iowa may have changed their policy also. I do know that in years past Iowa has made statements that they would not schedule Florida State or other schools with NA mascots for non-conference games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slammer50111 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Iowa and Wisconsin's policies apply to all Native American mascots, whether the university is sanctioned or not. Schools like CMU, an FCS school, have fared just fine in the face of the Big Ten's policies. CMU is FBS they play in the MAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Iowa and Wisconsin's policies apply to all Native American mascots, whether the university is sanctioned or not. Schools like CMU, an FCS school, have fared just fine in the face of the Big Ten's policies. CMU is a FBS school in the MAC and they are not under sanctions. We are so that is why we have problems now. What don't you understand and what are you trying to get at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 CMU is a FBS school in the MAC and they are not under sanctions. We are so that is why we have problems now. What don't you understand and what are you trying to get at? I meant FBS, but thanks for the clarification. I would still prefer I-A and I-AA. I still need to see the holy trinity's respective policies, because from what I've read they apply all across the board: sanctioned or not. Even if they only apply to sanctioned schools, my point still stands. In all seriousness, what other schools have refused to play Native American mascot teams? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just sick of hearing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over and over and over and over and over and over again. We've known that they wouldn't play UND since 2005. There is no need to act like this is such a surprise now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Wow, Scotty. I'm glad I never served in the military with you. Nice give up attitude you have. Just because there are sanctions means UND has no shot as an athletic institution? There is no way the program knows how to persevere through the situation? Scotty, since you're the bastion of giving everyone direct responses and calling others out on their failure to do the same . . . i'm still waiting . . . I'll even broaden the scope, name three other schools who have refused to play Native American mascot institutions since 2005. Military? I'd have to guess air farce. I spent six years in the army, and really appreciated those flights in the back of a C-130 or 141 when we had to go somewhere. Three schools? ... Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Why do you need more? UND has scheduled these schools in the past, There are probably others that have been mentioned in the past, but feel free to look around. Would you prefer they look to Wake Forest or Auburn? Preserverance? I've been in this name fight over two decades since I was on campus in the late 80s. Check some of the earliest threads on this forum. Where the !@#$ were you until you recently showed up here? I know a losing deal when I see one, and this name that most of us grew up with has become a cancerous growth on UND. Answer this one: What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 CMU is FBS they play in the MAC ... and the MAC and the Big Ten have a scheduling agreement so CMU falls under "conference mandates" portion of the UM and UW policies, just like the "conference mandates" portion allowed Minnesota and Wisconsin to play UND in the WCHA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Military? I'd have to guess air farce. I spent six years in the army, and really appreciated those flights in the back of a C-130 or 141 when we had to go somewhere. Three schools? ... Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Why do you need more? UND has scheduled these schools in the past, There are probably others that have been mentioned in the past, but feel free to look around. Would you prefer they look to Wake Forest or Auburn? Preserverance? I've been in this name fight over two decades since I was on campus in the late 80s. Check some of the earliest threads on this forum. Where the !@#$ were you until you recently showed up here? I know a losing deal when I see one, and this name that most of us grew up with has become a cancerous growth on UND. Answer this one: What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students? You can just say: "No, I am unable to even name one more University." That'll do, try again. P.S. I have no qualms with UND playing against Auburn or Wake Forest whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I meant FBS, but thanks for the clarification. I would still prefer I-A and I-AA. I still need to see the holy trinity's respective policies, because from what I've read they apply all across the board: sanctioned or not. Even if they only apply to sanctioned schools, my point still stands. In all seriousness, what other schools have refused to play Native American mascot teams? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just sick of hearing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over and over and over and over and over and over again. We've known that they wouldn't play UND since 2005. There is no need to act like this is such a surprise now. It's not that it's a surprise. But being off the sanctions list had led to some scheduling with those schools. The group pushing the nickname has stated that there would be no repercussions to keeping the name. Losing the games that had been scheduled proves that this is false. Earlier in this thread I talked about why playing these schools is advantageous to UND. They could become somewhat regular opponents for UND and give UND a bigger platform within the region. That would be good for UND fans and for recruiting. UND will miss that because of the sanctions. That is actual loss of money and exposure that is a result of the sanctions. It is really that hard to understand why both might be important to UND? Nickname supporters say that UND would not be harmed by keeping the nickname, we have actual proof that this is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 If three significant NCAA members, not only by their size and conference membership but also by their geographic shadow over North Dakota, following "best practices" scheduling isn't enough proof, what is? Ten? Twenty? One hundred? All of Division I? All of the NCAA? Three majors of regional significance is enough for me to get the message. I point this out because if the three were Massachusetts, Washington, and UCLA with overt "best practices" policies I'm pretty sure they'd get poo-poo'd as "we'd never play them because that's too far away". We recruit in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Not having a means to have a presence there in competition is real damage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 In case it hasn't been added to the list, Summit League Commish Tom Douple's statements regarding UNDs potential entry in the Summit League was certainly a tangible consequence. Particularly taken in the new context of the Fullerton's public comment. Thanks Sic for starting this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I meant FBS, but thanks for the clarification. I would still prefer I-A and I-AA. I still need to see the holy trinity's respective policies, because from what I've read they apply all across the board: sanctioned or not. Even if they only apply to sanctioned schools, my point still stands. In all seriousness, what other schools have refused to play Native American mascot teams? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm just sick of hearing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa over and over and over and over and over and over again. We've known that they wouldn't play UND since 2005. There is no need to act like this is such a surprise now. Iowa State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You can just say: "No, I am unable to even name one more University." That'll do, try again. P.S. I have no qualms with UND playing against Auburn or Wake Forest whatsoever. Answer the question: "What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Iowa State Thank you, now that's what I've been asking for. Was this a UND-related event or with other schools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Answer the question: "What are your ties to UND? Or are you really just a fan of the moniker, and could care less how it impacts the school or its students?" Graduate. Fan. Care about how it impacts the school and students, I've made that well known. I just think that complaining about three Big Ten schools is barking up the wrong tree. Conference affiliation is number one; playoff sanctions are number two; recruiting efforts are number three; and Iowa, Wisco, and Minny might not even make the top ten. It is unfortunate, but the ball is in their court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxtimestwo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 As an alumni, I fully support the Fighting Sioux as they begin their difficult transition to NAIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 http://www.grandfork...icle/id/230113/ More fear that is not real & why doesn't anyone talk about SL's lawsuit ? BECAUSE UND ADMIN. DOES NOT TALK ABOUT IT or try to rally anyone to talk about it in the national media - the media gets spoon fed the same ol crap (& even that is not very clear) One Sided Thank goodness this referral vote is happening or else the name would be dead & no one will eventually learn that it is really about SL doing the right thing - I know way to late, but all this had to play out & with most only hearing one side (Big Sky Falling) the real story is lost Come on Kelly & Fasion say if SL wins - you are for the name Fighting Sioux & will bring it back - Get the Big Sky Presidents to say the same thing & get the National Media on the real story - That SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE should have been all that was needed to keep the name & the referral vote will at least show how Standing Rock People would have voted Lets pressure the ncaa to admit the agreement was flawed & not fair & consistent The National media should be questioning the ncaa at every chance to find out why we & SL have been wronged You Big Sky worry warts should be asking the same questions instead of rallying to give up, when the best chance to save the name is still yet to come Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Come on Kelly & Fasion say if SL wins - you are for the name Fighting Sioux & will bring it back - Get the Big Sky Presidents to say the same thing & get the National Media on the real story - That SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE should have been all that was needed to keep the name & the referral vote will at least show how Standing Rock People would have voted" If this would happen - I will be the leader of the drive to say vote no on the referral - If not the referral is the only thing keeping the name alive until SL has their day in court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticklethetwine Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think Fetch and Benny both make some very strong arguments and I so wish we could convince the NCAA to allow us to keep our beloved nickname. I so truly want to fight this with you guys(Fetch, Benny) but I think at this point it really is out of our hands. We need to pull our bootstraps up and move forward. I think the only hope is that somehow the tribes can win some sort of lawsuit but it might really be a longshot. I think fellow posters should try and not resort to any name calling or degrading these two. They are fellow sioux fans/family and they just want what we all truly would like to keep. I respect that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Thank You for that ...........seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 http://www.grandfork...icle/id/230113/ More fear that is not real & why doesn't anyone talk about SL's lawsuit ? BECAUSE UND ADMIN. DOES NOT TALK ABOUT IT or try to rally anyone to talk about it in the national media - the media gets spoon fed the same ol crap (& even that is not very clear) One Sided Thank goodness this referral vote is happening or else the name would be dead & no one will eventually learn that it is really about SL doing the right thing - I know way to late, but all this had to play out & with most only hearing one side (Big Sky Falling) the real story is lost Come on Kelly & Fasion say if SL wins - you are for the name Fighting Sioux & will bring it back - Get the Big Sky Presidents to say the same thing & get the National Media on the real story - That SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE should have been all that was needed to keep the name & the referral vote will at least show how Standing Rock People would have voted Lets pressure the ncaa to admit the agreement was flawed & not fair & consistent The National media should be questioning the ncaa at every chance to find out why we & SL have been wronged You Big Sky worry warts should be asking the same questions instead of rallying to give up, when the best chance to save the name is still yet to come The NCAA has to admit nothing. They will feel no pressure. They have an agreement that says that UND had to obtain the approval of two tribes. UND was not able to do that. All they have to do is point at the settlement and say nothing. Did you actually read the whole piece that you linked? This part.... Nickname supporters’ “refusal to face reality has escalated from the embarrassing to the destructive, endangered the school’s ability to succeed in Division I sports and harming its national image,” she wrote. “They are so single-minded in their attachment to a sports-team nickname that they want it engraved in the state constitution, as if it were essential to a free society. “If they truly treasured UND, they would recognize that no symbol—no matter how beloved—is worth this kind of blind allegiance.” She is talking about you and not in glowing terms. 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.