Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 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. If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." Since 2005, and even before that, we have known where these three schools stand regarding Native American mascots. Iowa wouldn't even have played UND before the NCAA started its sanctions, because Iowa's policy, like Wisconsin's, pre-dates the NCAA's actions. Simply put, Iowa not playing UND because of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is something I could have told you back in 2005, or 2000 for that matter. There is nothing new with this, move along already. But don't try to cloak Iowa's decision not to compete against UND as something new. it's disingenuous and you know it. All I have ever wanted to know is what new schools have said that they wouldn't participate against UND? If Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado take similar positions then I will definitely change my stance regarding this particular issue. If there have been schools that declined participating against UND, why hasn't UND sent out a press release like they did yesterday with Iowa? As for recruiting, I get where you are going. But remember, when UND transitioned to D-1 it said goodbye to games against St. Cloud St., Mankato, Winona St., Duluth, etc. So again, it's quite disingenuous to now say that not competing against UofM or Wisco puts us at a recruiting disadvantage when UND has already picked up and left Minnesota for New Jersey Tech, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Texas Pan-American, etc. Did you have these same recruiting concerns when UND, itself, chose to leave its Minnesota recruiting base for the Great West . . . and Big Sky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." Since 2005, and even before that, we have known where these three schools stand regarding Native American mascots. Iowa wouldn't even have played UND before the NCAA started its sanctions, because Iowa's policy, like Wisconsin's, pre-dates the NCAA's actions. Simply put, Iowa not playing UND because of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname is something I could have told you back in 2005, or 2000 for that matter. There is nothing new with this, move along already. But don't try to cloak Iowa's decision not to compete against UND as something new. it's disingenuous and you know it. All I have ever wanted to know is what new schools have said that they wouldn't participate against UND? If Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado take similar positions then I will definitely change my stance regarding this particular issue. If there have been schools that declined participating against UND, why hasn't UND sent out a press release like they did yesterday with Iowa? As for recruiting, I get where you are going. But remember, when UND transitioned to D-1 it said goodbye to games against St. Cloud St., Mankato, Winona St., Duluth, etc. So again, it's quite disingenuous to now say that not competing against UofM or Wisco puts us at a recruiting disadvantage when UND has already picked up and left Minnesota for New Jersey Tech, Southern Utah, Houston Baptist, Texas Pan-American, etc. Did you have these same recruiting concerns when UND, itself, chose to leave its Minnesota recruiting base for the Great West . . . and Big Sky? The difference now, especially with Wisconsin and Minnesota, is that they have changed their policy to fit the NCAA policy. So playing them would be possible, and even probable, if the name is changed. And with the changing conference landscape UND is losing any potential games with traditional hockey rivals in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Even though UND gave ups some of the recruiting advantage in Minnesota and Wisconsin with the move up to Division I, some of that would be gained back by getting those games with Big 10 schools. Everyone knew that the transition years would be difficult and that opponents would be constantly changing. Using that period as a basis for discussion is not genuine. The Great West was a stop gap measure and basically a scheduling alliance rather than a real conference. The new future starts with play in the Big Sky next year. But wanting to regain a presence in fertile recruiting ground like the Twin Cities and Wisconsin is just smart since so many regular students at UND come from those areas. It only makes sense that the Athletic Department would try to capitalize on that familiarity. That's why losing possible games with those schools has again become an issue. As far as announcing when other schools have refused scheduling because of the nickname, as I said yesterday, there are probably times when UND won't or hasn't found out that the nickname is the reason that a school won't schedule a game. Schools don't have to give reasons for not scheduling a game. It just doesn't happen. They just schedule someone else instead. So it may have happened an unknown number of times, or it may happen at some time in the future, and UND wouldn't know it was the reason. There are good reasons that schools wouldn't want to have a potential issue with either protestors or their fans saying stupid things. For example see UND versus Duluth in hockey 2 weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The difference now, especially with Wisconsin and Minnesota, is that they have changed their policy to fit the NCAA policy. Even though UND gave ups some of the recruiting advantage in Minnesota and Wisconsin with the move up to Division I, some of that would be gained back by getting those games with Big 10 schools. Everyone knew that the transition years would be difficult and that opponents would be constantly changing. Using that period as a basis for discussion is not genuine. I understand the change in policy but it truly is a distinction without a difference. They wouldn't compete against UND in 2005; they won't compete against UND now. Nothing has changed . . . other than the schools' choice to weaken their respective policies. I don't think im being disingenuous about recruiting, especially now that UND will be in the Big Sky. Whether it be during the transition period or in the Big Sky, UND gave up numerous regional games for ones out in California, Texas, Montana, etc. You have a sound argument in that schools simply won't be arsed to consider scheduling UND. I'll leave it at that. As for Duluth, it seems like it's more of an issue with the student body rather than with the nickname. I'm sure you read about the Mankota incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 There are good reasons that schools wouldn't want to have a potential issue with either protestors or their fans saying stupid things. For example see UND versus Duluth in hockey 2 weeks ago. The Texas Tech game program flap ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you've been looking for an answer to this, I can give you my personal take. It doesn't even need to be ten. It just needs to be something beyond the three schools that have had this policy well before UND went back to the "Fighting Sioux." OK. South Dakota State has stated concerns about the return of the Sioux moniker and has made noise that they may pull out of the 2013 football game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota---Three schools with no history against UND outside of hockey." I said that an hour ago; I figured you had read that. As for the other programs, yes they'd probably be "toast" without a conference. But like I've constantly said, the most important issue is conference affilitation, not what Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota chose to do. The Big Sky season starts in a couple of months. Why haven't they removed UND yet? What are they waiting for? Do they want to wait until summer to take action so that the schools will have to face tight deadlines for rescheduling since UND would be out of the picture? Fat chance. Maybe Fullerton is waiting until the Big Sky has a "super major concern" with the nickname, rather than the simple "concern" and "major concern", which the conference currently has. No history of UND vs. Minnesota, Wisconsin or Iowa in anything other than hockey? C'mon, you've got to be kidding. UND has victories over Minnesota in both men's and women's basketball and have played on the gridiron about 20 times. UND defeated the Wisconsin Badgers the first time the teams played in softball just a short time ago. Sioux have played the Badgers three times in football, all in Madison. UND men's hoops team has played in Iowa City during the Phil Jackson era. A year ago the women's softball team defeated Big Ten Ohio State at a tournament in Iowa. Begging your pardon, but I don't think we're in any position to bargain very hard. I don't see Minnesota, Wisconsin or Iowa changing their position soon, no matter what we may think. We've also competed against Minnesota and Wisconsin in wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsowe Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 The ship is sinking. Some people want throw the water out while others put it back in the boat. The debate is over. Change the name. It is not worth the price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux 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. You make a concrete and valid point here. Nevertheless, at this point I wouldn't put it past the NCAA to do anything. Of course the NCAA is arbitrary and capricious, hypocritical at times and all that, perhaps at times not even following their own rules. But.....they have the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 You make a concrete and valid point here. Nevertheless, at this point I wouldn't put it past the NCAA to do anything. Of course the NCAA is arbitrary and capricious, hypocritical at times and all that, perhaps at times not even following their own rules. But.....they have the power. One thing I think we can all agree on regardless of where you stand on the nickname issue is that the NCAA has done a horrible job of implementing this policy, tweaking it as they went to favor certain schools (whether they admit it or not), and setting different standards for every school based on...and this is my opinion only...the profitability of each school to the NCAA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 One thing I think we can all agree on regardless of where you stand on the nickname issue is that the NCAA has done a horrible job of implementing this policy, tweaking it as they went to favor certain schools (whether they admit it or not), and setting different standards for every school based on...and this is my opinion only...the profitability of each school to the NCAA. Agreed. Their greed, hypocrisy, inconsistency, favortism and stupid "PC agenda" are readily apparent. But it's the NC$$'s club and their rules. And, frankly, they are the only game in town for UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Agreed. Their greed, hypocrisy, inconsistency, favortism and stupid "PC agenda" are readily apparent. But it's the NC$$'s club and their rules. And, frankly, they are the only game in town for UND. ...which in the end is going to be enough for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 One thing I think we can all agree on regardless of where you stand on the nickname issue is that the NCAA has done a horrible job of implementing this policy, tweaking it as they went to favor certain schools (whether they admit it or not), and setting different standards for every school based on...and this is my opinion only...the profitability of each school to the NCAA. No doubt about it,jodcon, the NCAA tweaked it as they went along. I believe the NCAA decided to add the stipulation of having tribe approval after Florida State people emphasized the Florida Seminole Nation was behind them, even though Oklahoma Seminole people were against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 like SD sioux were against us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Which is why we might want to stop and ask ourselves if it's really worth selling our souls to play their games? I personally have never been a fan of the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality, but to each their own I guess. For now I remain grateful for the efforts being made via petitions as well as the Spirit Lake lawsuit, how everything will look eventually when all of the dusts settles remains to be seen. We understand your desire to sell the school down the river "to prove a point". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBR Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I don't post much, just mainly lurk. But its hard for me to imagine that any bluechip HS athlete doesn't have to think twice about going to UND in the current environment. Its only going to get worse the longer this imbroblio persists. To think otherwise is willful ignorance. As a 1977 UND grad that has stayed loyal to his alma mater living in Vermillion and working at USD for fourteen years, put me down for retirement of the name and logo asap. And I'm sorry but the Spirit Lake initiative is years too late to be effective. I suspect what is going to happen is 1. retention of name (already occurring) 2. rejection by the Big Sky 3. retirement of name (permanently), followed by 4. UND joining Summit/Mo Valley. UND teams will be seriously depleted by the time step 4 takes place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Not the school, the athletic department. The school would be just as good at providing educations with or without an athletic department. Without a doubt the current academic dynamic would change without an athletic department. How much and for better or worse is unknowable. Enrollment would surely suffer. Alumni donations would drop as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Enrollment and donations would be dowm, no doubt. But costs would be down as well, so it all evens out in the end. More importantly, students would still receive the same quality education. Let's not lose track of the fact that a school is about education first and foremost. Athletics are merely extracurricular activities. But if the Athletic Department goes away, so would the nickname and logo. I have never figured out how that benefits people willing to kill the Athletic Department. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Enrollment and donations would be dowm, no doubt. But costs would be down as well, so it all evens out in the end. More importantly, students would still receive the same quality education. Let's not lose track of the fact that a school is about education first and foremost. Athletics are merely extracurricular activities. In other words, you think UND is worth throwing under the bus just so you can wear a hockey jersey for a defunct team. And if you think "costs" will go down, you know nothing about the "economics" of higher education. And those drivers aren't the athletic department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Enrollment and donations would be dowm, no doubt. But costs would be down as well, so it all evens out in the end. More importantly, students would still receive the same quality education. Let's not lose track of the fact that a school is about education first and foremost. Athletics are merely extracurricular activities. Then why are you so bothered by a nickname change by the teams involved in "mere extracurricular activities?" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 So you think that's the only way I can continue to wear my jersey? It seems to be the only thing you any affinity for in this fight. Nothing else. And you've just shown that your "principled stance" against the NC$$ is not very principled. In fact you're really nothing more than a caricature of the NC$$ writ small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 you mean the spirit of your old team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm a fan of the teams involved in said extracurricular activities. I've been cheering for the Sioux since I was very young, and I can only hope that there will continue to be a Sioux team for me to cheer for. If the name changes my favorite team becomes nothing more than a memory. You are just a fan of a nickname, not a fan of the teams. The teams are made of people, that are part of the University of North Dakota. The teams exist with or without the nickname. They are just called by a different name. Remember, a rose by any other name smells as sweet. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm a fan of the teams involved in said extracurricular activities. I've been cheering for the Sioux since I was very young, and I can only hope that there will continue to be a Sioux team for me to cheer for. If the name changes my favorite team becomes nothing more than a memory. Does that mean you would stop cheering for the unnamed UND team and stop coming to this website? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_sieve Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Let me try to help you understand where I'm coming from. When the NFL's Houston Oilers moved to Tennessee they kept the Oilers name for the first two seasons. Even though they changed their geographical location they were still the Oilers. Same team. When the Tennessee Oilers became the Tennessee Titans they were no longer the same team. The Oilers no longer exist in the NFL. They were never my favorite team, but if they were I would have lost interest not when they moved to Tennessee but when they changed the name from Oilers to Titans. Once you change the name you change the entire identity of your team. A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet. so for the record, Houston Oilers/ Tennessee Titans situation: Nickname change: check Oilers/Titans yearly roster turnover: check Oilers/Titans change in location: check for comparison, UND's situation: UND nickname change: check UND yearly roster turnover: check UND change in location: NOT HAPPENING Your relentless comparison to professional teams changing names and location doesn't work because the University of North Dakota isn't going anywhere. They're not going to have a change of heart and move the entire university. Even if they did move the university, it would still be the University of NORTH DAKOTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 In other words, you think UND is worth throwing under the bus just so you can wear a hockey jersey for a defunct team. And if you think "costs" will go down, you know nothing about the "economics" of higher education. And those drivers aren't the athletic department. Strange, isn't it? If they kill the athletic department, the jerseys will vanish from the shelf. If the Sioux name goes away, yeah, the jerseys will also vanish from the shelf, but they can still wear the jerseys to the games. Sure, it's a lose/lose for them. But, it's almost like they would prefer to burn down the house than live in one painted a different color. 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.