TBR Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 By all indications UND grads/former students not currently living in North Dakota such as me will have no say as to whether the Sioux logo/name stays or goes by being ineligible to vote in the June referral. I'm just wondering if anyone would like to speculate as to how many people will vote intentionally to harm UND (say Bison fans), and why? Will these types of voters be a factorin the outcome of the election? Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 By all indications UND grads/former students not currently living in North Dakota such as me will have no say as to whether the Sioux logo/name stays or goes by being ineligible to vote in the June referral. I'm just wondering if anyone would like to speculate as to how many people will vote intentionally to harm UND (say Bison fans), and why? Will these types of voters be a factorin the outcome of the election? The vote, if it happens, will be for North Dakota residents. So, you're correct that you would not be eligible to vote. You are also correct that there would probably be people that would vote to keep the name in order to do harm to UND. But I don't think there is any way to know how many would actually do it. They could very well be a factor. But, at this point I don't think there is any way to know which way a vote would go. If it were held today it would probably pass. That could change with a good education campaign to let people know the true consequences of the sanctions. The Supreme Court could change the entire story and end this before it happens. Then we would have to wait to see what happens with a possible constitutional amendment. Quote
Fetch Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 & maybe it's just the right thing to do KEEP THE NAME 1 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 & maybe it's just the right thing to do KEEP THE NAME Only if you don't like University of North Dakota athletics. 2 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 There is not going to be a vote so the point is moot. Quote
TBR Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 There is not going to be a vote so the point is moot. Why are you so certain of this? Quote
watchmaker49 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Why are you so certain of this? Because the law will get thrown out in court before there is a vote. Quote
GeauxSioux Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Because the law will get thrown out in court before there is a vote. Man, I hope you're right. Quote
sioux2013 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Because the law will get thrown out in court before there is a vote. I also hope you are correct. Quote
CMSioux Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Keep in mind that su students will also be gone - which might be the greatest source of vindictive Yes votes. Quote
FSSD Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I not worried by SU students - I am worried by SU alums 1 Quote
darell1976 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 There is not going to be a vote so the point is moot. I would give anything for you to be right on this!!! Quote
Hawkster Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 By all indications UND grads/former students not currently living in North Dakota such as me will have no say as to whether the Sioux logo/name stays or goes by being ineligible to vote in the June referral. I'm just wondering if anyone would like to speculate as to how many people will vote intentionally to harm UND (say Bison fans), and why? Will these types of voters be a factorin the outcome of the election? I'd worry more about UND fans voting to harm the university. Quote
Goon Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 Because the law will get thrown out in court before there is a vote. I don't know if that is a slam dunk... You never know when you get to the courts. Quote
Hawkster Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I don't know if that is a slam dunk... You never know when you get to the courts. I agree. The biggest problem is that this is going to have far reaching results from this ruling. It's not just the UND nickname, it's who controls the higher ed system, the SBoHE or the ND Legislature. Don't assume anything. Quote
dakotadan Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I'd worry more about casual Sioux hockey fans and willfully ignorant, stubborn people voting to harm the university. FIFY. Quote
CMSioux Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 The nickname preservationists should focus all their efforts on bringing down the NCAA - then they would have the support of the entire state of ND, UND alumni, and a growing media that is starting to shed light on the unfairness, hyprocracy and heavy-handedness of the NCAA. 1 Quote
watchmaker49 Posted March 4, 2012 Posted March 4, 2012 I agree. The biggest problem is that this is going to have far reaching results from this ruling. It's not just the UND nickname, it's who controls the higher ed system, the SBoHE or the ND Legislature. Don't assume anything. Al Carlson is the person who can not read what the NDSC says. He knows that the law will get overturned and that is why he is trying to change the control of higher ed from the SBoHE. If it is not plain as to who controls higer ed then why is the blowhard from Fargo trying ot change it? He is conceeding that under the NDSC the SBoHE has control now. By the way who negotiated with the NCAA? Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 Correction... only if you DO like University of North Dakota FIGHTING SIOUX athletics!!! If the Fighting Sioux name is kept there won't be any athletics at the University of North Dakota, at least not at the level that most of us want to see. You clearly don't have the ability to see this, but keeping UND Athletics strong and keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname can't both happen. A choice has to be made, only one of those two things can go forward. 4 Quote
fightingsioux4life Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 Al Carlson is the person who can not read what the NDSC says. He knows that the law will get overturned and that is why he is trying to change the control of higher ed from the SBoHE. If it is not plain as to who controls higer ed then why is the blowhard from Fargo trying ot change it? He is conceeding that under the NDSC the SBoHE has control now. By the way who negotiated with the NCAA? I think you can blame the Attorney General's office for the 2007 Terms of Surrender agreement with the NCAA. That is the piece of paper that guarranteed the retirement of the name and logo. Without that, we might still have a chance to pull this out of the fire. Alas, it is not to be. 1 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 I think you can blame the Attorney General's office for the 2007 Terms of Surrender agreement with the NCAA. That is the piece of paper that guarranteed the retirement of the name and logo. Without that, we might still have a chance to pull this out of the fire. Alas, it is not to be. The original deadline to get approval from a single tribe was back in 2006. UND didn't meet that deadline. Spirit Lake didn't give approval until 2009. The NCAA wouldn't have given any further deadlines without the lawsuit, and probably wouldn't have even considered the Spirit Lake approval. There is a pretty good chance that UND would have had to either live with the sanctions or get rid of the nickname by some time in 2006 without the lawsuit. The Attorney General and his office helped negotiate the settlement, but the State Board of Higher Education was in charge and had to approve the terms. All reports say that the NCAA wouldn't approve the settlement without having both tribes approval. As I have said before, if the lawsuit had gone through instead of settling, UND could have won and still gone back on sanctions with no chance of getting off by early in 2008. At that point UND didn't have any approvals and wasn't going to get any in 2008, plus Spirit Lake wasn't a sure thing. The settlement bought three years. The bottom line is that keeping the nickname was a long shot from the time the NCAA policy was announced. The main hope was getting quick approval from Spirit Lake, especially since they had voted to let UND keep using the name in 2000. But the Tribal Council wasn't willing to communicate that approval to the NCAA. And most people knew that it was an even longer shot when the settlement was announced. Unfortunately, UND wasn't able to get the approvals needed. Quote
watchmaker49 Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 The original deadline to get approval from a single tribe was back in 2006. UND didn't meet that deadline. Spirit Lake didn't give approval until 2009. The NCAA wouldn't have given any further deadlines without the lawsuit, and probably wouldn't have even considered the Spirit Lake approval. There is a pretty good chance that UND would have had to either live with the sanctions or get rid of the nickname by some time in 2006 without the lawsuit. The Attorney General and his office helped negotiate the settlement, but the State Board of Higher Education was in charge and had to approve the terms. All reports say that the NCAA wouldn't approve the settlement without having both tribes approval. As I have said before, if the lawsuit had gone through instead of settling, UND could have won and still gone back on sanctions with no chance of getting off by early in 2008. At that point UND didn't have any approvals and wasn't going to get any in 2008, plus Spirit Lake wasn't a sure thing. The settlement bought three years. The bottom line is that keeping the nickname was a long shot from the time the NCAA policy was announced. The main hope was getting quick approval from Spirit Lake, especially since they had voted to let UND keep using the name in 2000. But the Tribal Council wasn't willing to communicate that approval to the NCAA. And most people knew that it was an even longer shot when the settlement was announced. Unfortunately, UND wasn't able to get the approvals needed. Since the SBoHE was in charge of the lawsuit then can they not argue, as if they need more precedent, that the legislature conceded that they have the power seperate from the legislature? Feel free to comment ScottM and Chewey. Quote
luapsided Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 "At the end of the game, when the athletes hit the locker room, all their uniform is, is dirty laundry to them". So happy this guy isn't the attorney on my side. To make a comment like that is, well there are no words to put it. Sioux athletes are more honored than any other school across the country to throw on the uniform who they represent. To make a comment like that shows you have not even the slightest of what is actually going on. There will be a vote, and I know how I'll be voting. 1 Quote
luapsided Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 You people who think there is no way out other than changing the name are hilarious. 1 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 That is only true if you believe that myth that is being spewed by anti-nickname people. Is it a myth that UND can't host NCAA playoff games? NO! Is it a myth that schools have refused to schedule UND because of the sanctions? NO! Is it a myth that athletes have already decided not to consider UND because of the sanctions? According to Dale Lennon it's already happening. The sanctions have been in place for a month. Do you really believe that this is as bad as it's going to get? If you actually believe that you are even more clueless than you appear to be, and even more clueless than Carlson. Quote
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.