UNDColorado Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Thank you, now that's what I've been asking for. Was this a UND-related event or with other schools? I cant say for certain if it is UND or Native American in general related; I just know that they will not schedule us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah because she is only thinking about the hyper boil that folks like you are getting out to the media Not talking about what if SL wins apples & oranges The entire story needs to be told & it would sure help if Kelly & Fasion would answer my question I have already said the referral is premature they should have waited until they won their lawsuit Too bad no one is asking for the Federal Lawsuit to be moved up so this could be answered before the vote Again if the referral was not happening UND Admin. would have buried the name by now. Just look at how so many of you are spreading fear & negativity. Imagine if there was folks coming out supporting SL the same way - The media might be looking at this in a different light. Thankfully all that is happening is still giving saving the name some hope. If many of us thought UND Admin. was sincerely willing to say if the Lawsuit makes the ncaa (In a judgement & settlement) lets SL give us permission to use the name & they UND & Big Sky would then be OK (even Happy) to keep the name - it will be worth it Like so many of you worry if it all goes bad & SL loses you can have another referral (as no one wants or will let UND ultimately suffer) If the SBOHE gets it thrown out - I don't think UND Admin. or most of you will step up & Help SL win - That is sad I can't believe you can't grasp what is happening. You are being misled by the current Admin. (Kelly & Fasion) that has never really tried to save the name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 http://www.e-referencedesk.com/resources/state-name/iowa.html The nickname, Hawkeye State, was adopted early in the state's history. First suggested by James G. Edwars as a tribute to Indian leader Chief Black Hawk. Two Iowa promoters from Burlington are believed to have popularized the name. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 FSSD most of these folks don't handle Truth or Logic real well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 ... the hyper boil ... Hyper. Boil? Is that like a really, really, really big pussy zit? If there is hyperbole going on around here it's in the predictions of SL's chances of winning in any near-term timeframe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Hawkeye" is not a "race, ethnicity, or national origin" based name. That's what the Aug 5, 2005, NCAA statement laid out. Yes, they're only targetting Native names ... at this time. But they left the door open, didn't they. Now if you'd be complaining about "IOWA" on the front of their jerseys you might be onto something. Iowa derives from the name of the indiginous Kiowa peoples of that region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Hawkeye" is not a "race, ethnicity, or national origin" based name. That's what the Aug 5, 2005, NCAA statement laid out. Yes, they're only targetting Native names ... at this time. But they left the door open, didn't they. Now if you'd be complaining about "IOWA" on the front of their jerseys you might be onto something. Iowa derives from the name of the indiginous Kiowa peoples of that region. I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned. It's just that the school's policy is kind of funny in light of the fact that its own nickname is a derivative of a Native American chief's name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 And when Pontiac motor cars existed they were an official sponsor of NCAA events. Pontiac was Ottawa tribe chief's name. In light of that, you shouldn't be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah because she is only thinking about the hyper boil that folks like you are getting out to the media Not talking about what if SL wins apples & oranges The entire story needs to be told & it would sure help if Kelly & Fasion would answer my question I have already said the referral is premature they should have waited until they won their lawsuit Too bad no one is asking for the Federal Lawsuit to be moved up so this could be answered before the vote Again if the referral was not happening UND Admin. would have buried the name by now. Just look at how so many of you are spreading fear & negativity. Imagine if there was folks coming out supporting SL the same way - The media might be looking at this in a different light. Thankfully all that is happening is still giving saving the name some hope. If many of us thought UND Admin. was sincerely willing to say if the Lawsuit makes the ncaa (In a judgement & settlement) lets SL give us permission to use the name & they UND & Big Sky would then be OK (even Happy) to keep the name - it will be worth it Like so many of you worry if it all goes bad & SL loses you can have another referral (as no one wants or will let UND ultimately suffer) If the SBOHE gets it thrown out - I don't think UND Admin. or most of you will step up & Help SL win - That is sad I can't believe you can't grasp what is happening. You are being misled by the current Admin. (Kelly & Fasion) that has never really tried to save the name As I pointed out in the other thread, none of us will have any effect on the Spirit Lake lawsuit. We couldn't help or hurt the lawsuit if we wanted to. It will be about the evidence plain and simple. And as many people have pointed out, the trial will take multiple years to finish even if neither side appeals. None of us are being misled by the current Administration. They have done exactly what their bosses want them to do. And they have been pretty honest about the actual circumstances. On the other hand, many people have been fed half-truthes and total lies by people with an agenda that has nothing to do with the nickname. They are using the emotion tied to the nickname to accomplish something totally different. And they don't care if they damage the University to accomplish that goal. The Administration will not make a promise when they would have no idea whether they could fulfill it or not, that's why they won't promise to reinstate the name if Spirit Lake wins. There are too many variables, including how long the trial is going to take, to know what things will be like at that time. Only a fool would make that promise. And one of the legal eagles can correct me, but if the referral wins I don't think it could be referred again for 7 years. That may be just enough time to destroy the Athletic Department. The only way to get rid of the law before that time would be a vote of at least 2/3 of the legislature. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 And when Pontiac motor cars existed they were an official sponsor of NCAA events. Pontiac was Ottawa tribe chief's name. In light of that, you shouldn't be surprised. Not at all. But I am amazed that the NCAA agreed to a corporate sponsorship with Kraft shortly before announcing its hostile and abusive policy in 2005. I get that they're all about money, but don't they have to team up with the corporation that makes Calumet Baking Power? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet_Baking_Powder_Company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Just look at how so many of you are spreading fear & negativity. "Spreading fear & negativty"............................... How about spreading the facts FOR ONCE of the consequences of NCAA sanctions? Tell the people the facts, and then let them decide................................. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Not at all. But I am amazed that the NCAA agreed to a corporate sponsorship with Kraft shortly before announcing its hostile and abusive policy in 2005. I get that they're all about money, but don't they have to team up with the corporation that makes Calumet Baking Power? http://en.wikipedia...._Powder_Company Before? Eh, whatever. But if they'd have done it after Aug 5, 2005, you might have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Before? Eh, whatever. But if they'd have done it after Aug 5, 2005, you might have a point. No, my point is entirely valid. It's amazing how the NCAA can sign on with a sponsor, which sell items boasting an American Indian in a headdress, while seven months later enacting a policy, which prevents its member institutions from having logo with an American Indian in a headdress. Don't lose your credability by suggesting otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 No, my point is entirely valid. It's amazing how the NCAA can sign on with a sponsor, which sell items boasting an American Indian in a headdress, while seven months later enacting a policy, which prevents its member institutions from having logo with an American Indian in a headdress. Don't lose your credability by suggesting otherwise. Nobody is really debating the NC$$'s own hypocrisy, or its greed. It's actually a pretty good business model and all of its members pay the price of admission. The NC$$ has the officially approved "Seminole" rider showing up on national TV every fall, and then you have the NC$$ telling William & Mary to remove a feather from its logo. You like law review articles, so here's a good one that really lays out the NC$$'s "thinking" on this matter. http://www.law.umary...ings_Harper.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 You shouldn't be surprised. The Pontiac logo during the NCAA sponsorship was an arrowhead. Before that ... The NCAA is a private organization. They can be as arbitrary and capricious in their rules making as they choose. Don't like it? Then don't waste your time here and instead find a way to win a suit against them proving them to be a state actor. (I've said that here about (hyperbole alert) a billion times.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 You shouldn't be surprised. The Pontiac logo during the NCAA sponsorship was an arrowhead. Before that ... The NCAA is a private organization. They can be as arbitrary and capricious in their rules making as they choose. Don't like it? Then don't waste your time here and instead find a way to win a suit against them proving them to be a state actor. (I've said that here about (hyperbole alert) a billion times.) I only wasted my time responding to you. Dude, you're the one who brought up corporate sponsorship not me. I was talking about the University of Iowa policy against UND, which is the topic of this thread. You started this NCAA sponsorship tangent. Follow your own rules and stay on point, Sicatoka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The sad reality is that you won't win with those that don't care about the University or the sanctions/ramifications that the athletic department have and will continue to face. It will be a continuously moving target as we have seen already. First it was "other schools are bluffing, nothing will happen". Since that statement has been proven false (Iowa WBB, Iowa track, MN and WI hockey, etc), it has changed to "those aren't that big of deal" or "it is only a few schools". As it becomes more and more prevalent, the target on "what is worth it" to those that don't care will continue to move until it is too late, because that is the thing, they don't care what the ramifications are as as they can keep a nickname/moniker. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 I only wasted my time responding to you. Dude, you're the one who brought up corporate sponsorship not me. I was talking about the University of Iowa policy against UND, which is the topic of this thread. You started this NCAA sponsorship tangent. Follow your own rules and stay on point, Sicatoka. No, you haranged Iowa for allegedly deriving a moniker from a chief's name. I pointed out why the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it (using the NCAA/Chief Pontiac example). You moved beyond to Kraft Foods. (Were you hungry?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 No, you haranged Iowa for allegedly deriving a moniker from a chief's name. I pointed out why the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it (using the NCAA/Chief Pontiac example). You moved beyond to Kraft Foods. (Were you hungry?) No,Ipointed out that the NCAA wouldn't have an issue with it when I said that "I don't think that anyone has said that Iowa should be sanctioned." You chose, for one reason or another, to bring up corporate sponsorships. I also said that "the school's policy is kind of funny" . . . so you need to look up the definition of "harrangue." I think that most of the things that you say are logical and valid, but you're really starting to stretch the truth with some of these statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 I (using Pontiac as the example) pointed out why "Hawkeyes" wouldn't be sanctioned by the NCAA, namely, the NCAA seems to be OK with derivatives from names of chiefs. You took my comment to relate to corporate sponsorships (and went to Kraft). harrangue - a speech addressed to a public assembly ... (my poor typing / spelling admitted) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 FSSD most of these folks don't handle Truth or Logic real well HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this coming from the farthest person from reality. You should be a comedian! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 harrangue - a speech addressed to a public assembly ... (my poor typing / spelling admitted) Sorry for sounding like a complete tool. But you just linked to the noun definition of harangue after using it as a verb. Nonethless, saying that something is "kind of funny" does not amount to a lengthy, aggresive, or critical speech. But keep on stretching the truth if you feel that it's necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Sorry for sounding like a complete tool. It's come to be expected. No one has answered this. I'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's come to be expected. No one has answered this. I'm not surprised. Pretty sure this is your answer. You won't get a concrete answer because then there is a benchmark for being proven wrong. As long as they can keep moving the goalposts back, there will always be the "we haven't lost enough, the fight is still worth it" crowd. Doesn't help that there are those that say it is worth losing the athletic department over, though at least they have made it clear where they stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It's come to be expected. Haha, well at least we can find common ground somewhere. 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.