The Lastest from S.A.B.

[GoalieMask]

The only thing I know about Alcorn St is that Steve McNair went there.

[Fetch]

maybe

[yababy8]

I am so sick and tired of people like you using Alcorn State as a prime example of how NCAA sanctions will do us no harm. Alcorn State is BAD in everything! Being under sanctions has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on Alcorn State.

Not such a "small price to pay" anymore, is it?

At least he is referencing actual facts, applicability is debatable but at least it is an instance. Now what people should be sick of is how the anti-fight for the name crowd continually references suppositions and hypothetical’s as justification for their position and on top of that they throw the hyperbolic labels like "name at all costs crowd" as if name supporters are insane murderers who believe that keeping the name is worth "all costs" ie maybe suggest that North Dakota declare war against the NCAA and nuke them?? Wouldn't that fall under the "all costs" rhetoric? right? Total propaganda crap is what it really is?

You all don't stop at hyperbolic rhetoric, ya gotta throw in the hypothetical’s too; ya know how you all just KNOW that we will get kicked out of the Big Sky, despite all of the bull crap that has happened since the Summit-Duple "UND asked me to spew rhetoric" days you are all still very SURE that the Big Sky is going to tank us. And the NCAA, well I guess you all just know them so goddam well that you are certain that they will never concede a thing, oh and Minnesota will NEVER EVER play us again, you all know this right.,... at least we know what happened at Alcorn State, and that is a huge step from where the anti-fight crowd is perched??

[82SiouxGuy]

At least he is referencing actual facts, applicability is debatable but at least it is an instance. Now what people should be sick of is how the anti-fight for the name crowd continually references suppositions and hypothetical’s as justification for their position and on top of that they throw the hyperbolic labels like "name at all costs crowd" as if name supporters are insane murderers who believe that keeping the name is worth "all costs" ie maybe suggest that North Dakota declare war against the NCAA and nuke them?? Wouldn't that fall under the "all costs" rhetoric? right? Total propaganda crap is what it really is?

You all don't stop at hyperbolic rhetoric, ya gotta throw in the hypothetical’s too; ya know how you all just KNOW that we will get kicked out of the Big Sky, despite all of the bull crap that has happened since the Summit-Duple "UND asked me to spew rhetoric" days you are all still very SURE that the Big Sky is going to tank us. And the NCAA, well I guess you all just know them so goddam well that you are certain that they will never concede a thing, oh and Minnesota will NEVER EVER play us again, you all know this right.,... at least we know what happened at Alcorn State, and that is a huge step from where the anti-fight crowd is perched??

You and several others on this site, like Dave and Fetch, have said that you would rather allow the UND athletic department be completely destroyed rather than lose the nickname. That is the very definition of nickname-at-all-costs.

The Big Sky conference has the right to get rid of UND if they want, and the ability to do that. None of us can predict whether it will happen or not. But it is a real possibility and UND needs to take that into consideration. It is a big risk to not consider it and would be irresponsible not to factor that risk into the equation. It would be bad business not to consider that when making decisions.

We know that the NCAA won't change their position based on how they have handled this issue in the past and based on how they have handled a similar situation. We have a 7 year history of how they are approaching the Native American policy, and the only time they moved at all was to create the appeal process. Plus they have the law and the legal system on their side, although I know that you don't understand the legal system at all. The similar situation is the Confederate flag policy in South Carolina and Mississippi. Again they haven't moved off their position in over a decade in spite of the fact that the states have put their position into their state law. Does that sound familiar at all? The NCAA position is not hypothetical.

The Minnesota and Wisconsin issue is not hypothetical either. The only way they have changed their policy in years is to adjust to fit with the NCAA policy. It makes it easier for everyone if they have a uniform policy. They are not going to change their policy back to allow them to play UND as long as UND is under sanctions.

My question has always been, what would make anyone think that the NCAA and the schools like Minnesota will change their policies? There is nothing in history to give that impression. As a matter of fact, history indicates that the policy will probably expand to more schools and that eventually the NCAA will expand their policy to include more cultural names. It is a pipe dream for people to believe that the NCAA will back down.

[yababy8]

You and several others on this site, like Dave and Fetch, have said that you would rather allow the UND athletic department be completely destroyed rather than lose the nickname. That is the very definition of nickname-at-all-costs.

I made that statement some time back in the context of satire toward hyperbolic thinking and jim's alias pulled it out of the archives to make the point that I support the dismantling of the athletic program to keep the name, but if you read it, like I said, I was being dramatic to make a point(if I remember I made reference to NDSU being in the Rose Bowl). I didn't reply to the Jim alias comment because I got busy with things and forgot which one of these many name debate forums it was in... You anti name people are so black and white with your thinking it is tough to witness.

None of us can predict whether it will happen or not. But it is a real possibility and UND needs to take that into consideration. It is a big risk to not consider it and would be irresponsible not to factor that risk into the equation. It would be bad business not to consider that when making decisions.

I generally agree with what you say here except I would add that, given the Sioux Tribes push back to the NCAA policy, the probability of the Big Sky falling is greatly reduced. Of course this is speculation just like the Big Sky is falling is speculation. None of us know what will in the end happen here..

We know that the NCAA won't change their position

...ahhhhh no you don't.

although I know that you don't understand the legal system at all.

....ahhhhhh no you don't

The similar situation is the Confederate flag policy in South Carolina and Mississippi.

If the NAACP was suing the NCAA because of the NCAAs position against the Confederate flag this would be a good analogy, or "precedent" but since the NAACP is in fact not suing the NCAA your analogy/precedent is woelfully nongermane.

My question has always been, what would make anyone think that the NCAA and the schools like Minnesota will change their policies?

How about asking a different question, Ask what we COULD do to effectuate a change in their policy? ie diplomancy. Crazy concept huh? We all know we have not done a goddam thing in this regard. Why not? We all believe very strongly that keeping the name is right thing to do ethically, morally, yada yada yada.. so why are we not going to these universities hand in hand with the Spirit Lake Sioux and working it. Lord knows the anti-name crowd worked the hell out of it with about six activists, right? Why not try?? Minnesota and Wisconsin owe us some respect! They bailed on generations of some of the most notorious rivalries in all of college sports. They should be saying that out of respect for our relationship, history and the passionate feelings of the Sioux people they are going to defer this debate and conflict to others and not take such a stand as to condem our institution in such a mannor.

You AND others in the anti-fight to save the name crowd believe the future is set in stone if we continue the fight by resisting the NCAA by making the name law.

I believe that the approach I mentioned has great promise, if tried.

How sure are you that I am wrong?

although I know that you don't understand the legal system at all.

....ahhhhhh no you don't

[82SiouxGuy]

I made that statement some time back in the context of satire toward hyperbolic thinking and jim's alias pulled it out of the archives to make the point that I support the dismantling of the athletic program to keep the name, but if you read it, like I said, I was being dramatic to make a point(if I remember I made reference to NDSU being in the Rose Bowl). I didn't reply to the Jim alias comment because I got busy with things and forgot which one of these many name debate forums it was in... You anti name people are so black and white with your thinking it is tough to witness.

I generally agree with what you say here except I would add that, given the Sioux Tribes push back to the NCAA policy, the probability of the Big Sky falling is greatly reduced. Of course this is speculation just like the Big Sky is falling is speculation. None of us know what will in the end happen here..

...ahhhhh no you don't.

....ahhhhhh no you don't

If the NAACP was suing the NCAA because of the NCAAs position against the Confederate flag this would be a good analogy, or "precedent" but since the NAACP is in fact not suing the NCAA your analogy/precedent is woelfully nongermane.

How about asking a different question, Ask what we COULD do to effectuate a change in their policy? ie diplomancy. Crazy concept huh? We all know we have not done a goddam thing in this regard. Why not? We all believe very strongly that keeping the name is right thing to do ethically, morally, yada yada yada.. so why are we not going to these universities hand in hand with the Spirit Lake Sioux and working it. Lord knows the anti-name crowd worked the hell out of it with about six activists, right? Why not try?? Minnesota and Wisconsin owe us some respect! They bailed on generations of some of the most notorious rivalries in all of college sports. They should be saying that out of respect for our relationship, history and the passionate feelings of the Sioux people they are going to defer this debate and conflict to others and not take such a stand as to condem our institution in such a mannor.

You AND others in the anti-fight to save the name crowd believe the future is set in stone if we continue the fight by resisting the NCAA by making the name law.

I believe that the approach I mentioned has great promise, if tried.

How sure are you that I am wrong?

....ahhhhhh no you don't

The Spirit Lake lawsuit is very weak. And even if they have a chance to win parts of it, it will take several years at a minimum to win. A great deal of damage will happen to the UND athletic department during that time. UND doesn't have the time it would take to work the angles you are talking about. Especially since there isn't a high probability of success.

This issue isn't because of 6 activists. The problem isn't just a UND issue. This is an NCAA edict that affected 18 schools. Plus a number of other schools changed their nicknames shortly before the NCAA got involved because of building pressure. The NCAA isn't going to change their policy just for UND. That would cause a great deal of anger and backlash from many of the other schools that have been affected. It would create a bad precedent for the NCAA. They aren't going to allow that. Anyone that believes they can negotiate with the NCAA on this issue hasn't paid attention to the NCAA in years past.

[UNDBIZ]

...ahhhhh no you don't.

Yes, he does.

....ahhhhhh no you don't

Yes, he does.

If the NAACP was suing the NCAA because of the NCAAs position against the Confederate flag this would be a good analogy, or "precedent" but since the NAACP is in fact not suing the NCAA your analogy/precedent is woelfully nongermane.

I wasn't aware the NAACP had entered the Sioux nickname situation on the side of the save the nickname crowd.

How about asking a different question, Ask what we COULD do to effectuate a change in their policy? ie diplomancy. Crazy concept huh? We all know we have not done a goddam thing in this regard. Why not? We all believe very strongly that keeping the name is right thing to do ethically, morally, yada yada yada.. so why are we not going to these universities hand in hand with the Spirit Lake Sioux and working it. Lord knows the anti-name crowd worked the hell out of it with about six activists, right? Why not try?? Minnesota and Wisconsin owe us some respect! They bailed on generations of some of the most notorious rivalries in all of college sports. They should be saying that out of respect for our relationship, history and the passionate feelings of the Sioux people they are going to defer this debate and conflict to others and not take such a stand as to condem our institution in such a mannor.

You AND others in the anti-fight to save the name crowd believe the future is set in stone if we continue the fight by resisting the NCAA by making the name law.

I believe that the approach I mentioned has great promise, if tried.

How sure are you that I am wrong?.

Apparently you're new here, as diplomacy has been the attempt for the last 7 years and the NCAA hasn't changed their policy to allow UND to keep the name.

....ahhhhhh no you don't

He really does....

[The Sicatoka]

This is an NCAA edict that affected 18 schools. Plus a number of other schools changed their nicknames shortly before the NCAA got involved because of building pressure. The NCAA isn't going to change their policy just for UND. That would cause a great deal of anger and backlash from many of the other schools that have been affected.

What would the NCAA tell Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Louisiana - Monroe, Arkansas State, and the others that changed due to the NCAA moniker policy? "Oops, changed our minds again. Our bad. Sorry for the hell we put you through."

The moniker policy will only expand in the future. How dare I say this? Look at the words in the Settlement Agreement that I posted yesterday. The NCAA added specific language talking about what happens if no tribal approval exceptions are allowed under the policy in the future. They added that because that is their end game and end goal.

[The Sicatoka]

Who said the football team can't have home playoffs ?

I'm assuming you misspoke here because if not you really, truly have missed the entirety of the discussions and should go back and re-understand the situation.

But just in case you really were serious, the answer is: The NCAA.

Sanctions under the moniker include (not a complete list):

- no use of the word or logo at NCAA post-season events

- no hosting of NCAA playoff games <-- devastating to FB and WH (NDSU's FB title run was done hosting maximum home games)

[darell1976]

If Alcorn State is so bad then perhaps you could tell me how they were able to recruit athletes the caliber of Steve McNair and Donald Driver? Anxiously awaiting you to go on spin cycle now.

Alcorn State football stars: Donald Driver--drafted in 1999; Steve McNair--drafted 1996. NCAA policy--2005!!

[jdub27]

How about asking a different question, Ask what we COULD do to effectuate a change in their policy? ie diplomancy. Crazy concept huh? We all know we have not done a goddam thing in this regard. Why not? We all believe very strongly that keeping the name is right thing to do ethically, morally, yada yada yada..

If you truly believed this, you would be advocating for the team to wear their normal jersey's this weekend and the University make a very public statement by doing so.

Where do you really stand on this? Is it the ethical and moral thing to do like you claim or it is the ethical and moral thing to do unless it causes actual harm, like forfeiting a game? If you say the latter (which is what I'm guessing), then all of your rambling nonsense is just that. You support what you say is the "right thing to do ethically, morally" until it comes time to deal with the consequences of doing it. The majority of people around here understand that consequences are not worth keeping the name and logo whether it is the right thing to do or not. Most people know when to cut their losses. Others keep yelling that there will be no losses, but when they show up, just pretend they aren't a big deal and they just keep hoping that something might change despite no evidence indicating they will. If you really believed it was about ethics and morals, then you would be calling for them to wear their regular season uniforms and accept the consequences.

Note - I am in no way, shape or form advocating that UND should wear their regular season uniforms and make a statement. It would be unfair to the fans, University and more importantly, the student athletes.

[krangodance]

Have you been sleeping or are you really stupid? One of the sanctions is not being able to host NCAA playoff games. The most obvious teams this can affect are the football team and the women's hockey team. UND could have the Number 1 ranked team in FCS football going into the playoffs and they would have to play the games on the road. UND will never host a playoff game in football as long as they are under sanctions. Of course if they are under sanctions very long they may not have a football team.

Fetch obviously was not aware of this rule but do you really have to be so insulting?

I'm all for a good debate but it really bothers me when people have the audacity to personally insult total strangers over something so trivial.

[The Sicatoka]

DaveK, Fetch, Chewey, somebody called and left a message for you:

“If anyone’s focus is on a jersey or what we’re wearing, that better change right away. We’ve got one focus." -- Mario Lamoureux, captain, University of North Dakota mens hockey.

Seems Mario believes what is in the jersey is far more important than what is on it.

Jersey, no jersey. Nickname, no nickname. Mario wants to win. Get out of his way.

[darell1976]

DaveK, Fetch, Chewey, somebody called and left a message for you:

“If anyone’s focus is on a jersey or what we’re wearing, that better change right away. We’ve got one focus." -- Mario Lamoureux, captain, University of North Dakota mens hockey.

Seems Mario believes what is in the jersey is far more important than what is on it.

Jersey, no jersey. Nickname, no nickname. Mario wants to win. Get out of his way.

I am sure all athletes feel this way. Its too bad certain fans can't see it this way.

[krangodance]

DaveK, Fetch, Chewey, somebody called and left a message for you:

“If anyone’s focus is on a jersey or what we’re wearing, that better change right away. We’ve got one focus." -- Mario Lamoureux, captain, University of North Dakota mens hockey.

Seems Mario believes what is in the jersey is far more important than what is on it.

Jersey, no jersey. Nickname, no nickname. Mario wants to win. Get out of his way.

Amen.

[Hayduke]

DaveK, Fetch, Chewey, somebody called and left a message for you:

“If anyone’s focus is on a jersey or what we’re wearing, that better change right away. We’ve got one focus." -- Mario Lamoureux, captain, University of North Dakota mens hockey.

Seems Mario believes what is in the jersey is far more important than what is on it.

Jersey, no jersey. Nickname, no nickname. Mario wants to win. Get out of his way.

Good for him. I'm sure they'd be happy to wear practice jerseys for a chance to go to the Frozen Four. What do they care?

The student-athlete is not going to sacrifice their chances to make some statement about a nickname. Anybody that thinks otherwise is a Godda$n moron.

[82SiouxGuy]

Fetch obviously was not aware of this rule but do you really have to be so insulting?

I'm all for a good debate but it really bothers me when people have the audacity to personally insult total strangers over something so trivial.

Fetch is very aware of this rule. He has been part of discussion about home games in the past. He doesn't feel that they are important, at least not as important as keeping the name. If you have been paying attention you would know that he posts off the wall things to agitate. I was just calling him on it. From his response you can tell that he didn't take it personally, and I didn't mean it personally.

[fightingsioux4life]

Fetch obviously was not aware of this rule but do you really have to be so insulting?

I'm all for a good debate but it really bothers me when people have the audacity to personally insult total strangers over something so trivial.

I agree with you on insults, but I don't think the possible destruction of UND athletics as we know them is "trivial" at all. This is serious business to those of us that care about UND as an institution.

[krangodance]

I agree with you on insults, but I don't think the possible destruction of UND athletics as we know them is "trivial" at all. This is serious business to those of us that care about UND as an institution.

Obviously nobody who loves this team would consider that trivial and I in no way meant to imply it was trivial.

I do think Fetch not realizing that the NCAA sanctions prohibit UND from hosting post-season NCAA sponsored events is trivial. He's just one person who is misinformed. That doesn't change anything. That's not important. It's also certainly not drastic enough to call him stupid.

I think you simply misunderstood what I was calling trivial.

[krangodance]

Fetch is very aware of this rule. He has been part of discussion about home games in the past. He doesn't feel that they are important, at least not as important as keeping the name. If you have been paying attention you would know that he posts off the wall things to agitate. I was just calling him on it. From his response you can tell that he didn't take it personally, and I didn't mean it personally.

I've been posting on this forum for years. I know who Fetch is and his posting history. I just view name calling as inappropriate on this forum and, really, you're just proving to Fetch that his jabs are getting to you when you sink to the level of name calling.

[krangodance]

I see both sides of this debate.

On one side you have a group of people who feel they'd be compromising their principles by accepting the fact that the logo must go. I can admire that. I think most of us agree that the NCAA have behaved like bullies throughout this process and nobody has been willing to stand up to them other than UND. Some people feel that if UND just rolls over like most other universities have done then what's next? What's to stop the NCAA from feeling emboldened to implement even more ridiculous rules simply because they know they can do so unchallenged? These are fair points and nobody can say for sure that continuing this fight won't prove worthwhile in the long run, reglardless of what negative scenarios we can envision in the short term.

On the other side you have a group of people who understand the potential penalty these sanctions could incur. Many of these people were fighting the good fight when it seemed there was a chance to save the logo but have since accepted that the time to save it has likely passed and the damage that could be done by keeping the name and logo outweighs anything that fighting to keep them could accomplish. Certainly the issues with Big Sky membership and hosting post-season events are major considerations that can't be ignored. Some on this forum will state confidently that the Big Sky is bluffing but reason tells us that we can't know that.

I don't think anybody is wrong in this debate. It's all a matter of what's personally important to each individual. It seems to me that both sides have thoroughly, and repeatedly, made their points and nobody seems to be influenced by the other points of view. It's becoming rather redundant at this point.

Whatever though. If people feel better by stating a point, whether for the first time or the 100th time, then so be it. State away. I'd just ask it's kept civil and respectful. If you realize somebody is incapable of that there's always the ignore functionality, which works much better at chasing these folks away than does retaliation in kind.

[fightingsioux4life]

Obviously nobody who loves this team would consider that trivial and I in no way meant to imply it was trivial.

I do think Fetch not realizing that the NCAA sanctions prohibit UND from hosting post-season NCAA sponsored events is trivial. He's just one person who is misinformed. That doesn't change anything. That's not important. It's also certainly not drastic enough to call him stupid.

I think you simply misunderstood what I was calling trivial.

Okay, fair enough. You have a good point. I think some of us just get tired of the same tired old misinformation and wishful thinking being presented as "fact" and promoted by people like Rob Port and it gets the best of us (including myself).

[yababy8]

If you truly believed this, you would be advocating for the team to wear their normal jersey's this weekend and the University make a very public statement by doing so.

Where do you really stand on this? Is it the ethical and moral thing to do like you claim or it is the ethical and moral thing to do unless it causes actual harm, like forfeiting a game? If you say the latter (which is what I'm guessing), then all of your rambling nonsense is just that. You support what you say is the "right thing to do ethically, morally" until it comes time to deal with the consequences of doing it. The majority of people around here understand that consequences are not worth keeping the name and logo whether it is the right thing to do or not. Most people know when to cut their losses. Others keep yelling that there will be no losses, but when they show up, just pretend they aren't a big deal and they just keep hoping that something might change despite no evidence indicating they will. If you really believed it was about ethics and morals, then you would be calling for them to wear their regular season uniforms and accept the consequences.

Note - I am in no way, shape or form advocating that UND should wear their regular season uniforms and make a statement. It would be unfair to the fans, University and more importantly, the student athletes.

I mentioned nothing in regard to what uniforms the Fighting Sioux should wear. For the record, I think that they should follow the NCAA mandate and be very expressive about how they disagree with the NCAA's position. After we win the national championship, and they hand the players the championship trophy, the team should all take off their North Dakota sweaters and expose Sioux undershirts. Then if the NCAA attempted to take the trophy back that would be worth every second of the fight, a worthy cause indeed. I know I for 1 will be throwing my jersey on the ice after the game. I spent 100 dollars on the jersey and I'm not a rich man but it will be worth it for me for sure.

[jdub27]

I mentioned nothing in regard to what uniforms the Fighting Sioux should wear. For the record, I think that they should follow the NCAA mandate and be very expressive about how they disagree with the NCAA's position. After we win the national championship, and they hand the players the championship trophy, the team should all take off their North Dakota sweaters and expose Sioux undershirts. Then if the NCAA attempted to take the trophy back that would be worth every second of the fight, a worthy cause indeed. I know I for 1 will be throwing my jersey on the ice after the game. I spent 100 dollars on the jersey and I'm not a rich man but it will be worth it for me for sure.

But if it is morally and ethically right (your words), why should they wait to show Fighting Sioux gear. Isn't that running from the problem and letting the NCAA win? Why not advocate taking it head on? Why not make the statement upfront and come out with the logo on right away?

Following the NCAA mandate and being expressive about how they disagree with it are complete opposite things. If they follow the mandate, you won't see any logos. If they express how they disagree with it, you will. You can't have your cake and eat it to. They hypocrisy of saying how it is moral and ethical to fight the fight and then say that they should follow the mandates until after the tournamnet is over is nothing short of amusing.

Again - I am in no way, shape or form advocating that UND should wear their regular season uniforms and make a statement. It would be unfair to the fans, University and more importantly, the student athletes.

[yababy8]

I wasn't aware the NAACP had entered the Sioux nickname situation on the side of the save the nickname crowd.

Apparently you're new here, as diplomacy has been the attempt for the last 7 years and the NCAA hasn't changed their policy to allow UND to keep the name.

Ive been a part of this fight and going to this site since 1995.

Diplomacy??, common man?? Japan used more diplomacy with united states in days and weeks before pearl harbor than the university has sincethe current admin has been in place.

BTW, the Spirit Lake Tribe's involvement in the Sioux name fight is the equivalence to the NAACP regarding my challenge to the confederate analogy..