darell1976 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The SC couldn't do their job....so its our turn. We need to get the word out that in June people need to vote against the name. UND needs to put up billboards explaining the harm this does to our athletic program. VOTE NO FOR THE FIGHTING SIOUX NAME!! (as painful as it is to say that) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 While I have no problem cheering for SL in their lawsuit against the Negligent Cashmongerers of Amateur Athletes, I would hate to have to count on that as our last ace in the hole. Ace? Maybe a deuce of clubs at best. And I always thought it was Nattering Cashmongers of Amateur Athletics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hayduke Posted April 3, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted April 3, 2012 I say just ignore it. Drop the name. The law has no teeth. So, why bother following it? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I see the dissenting judges saying that at this time that no harm is being done to anyone. If the law is struck down in June, they do not have to get in the middle of Carlson's fight with the SBoHE (at least yet) and start making legal precedents that will be much more far reaching than the nickname fight and is what Carlson was hoping for all along. Those judges do have a point, that being “you waited for almost a year to bring this up, now you want us to jump right on it." While I haven’t read the whole thing, it appears to me that it can and will be revisited if necessary (referral vote passing in June would be a good guess). Not the results I was hoping for but it definitely could have been a lot worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Ace? Maybe a deuce of clubs at best. And I always thought it was Nattering Cashmongers of Amateur Athletics. No better than an offsuit 8 at best. Where in the hell did you hear the word nattering, I actually had to look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 While I haven’t read the whole thing, it appears to me that it can and will be revisited if necessary (referral vote passing in June would be a good guess). Not the results I was hoping for but it definitely could have been a lot worse. It was an easy punt for them. Wait for the vote, if it passes, start over and you get past the "ripeness" hurdle and get into the separation of powers issues that may actually benefit the Board. Frankly I'm surprised they waited this long to do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benny Baker Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 For you legal eagles out there, was this the expected ruling at this time, deferring until after a vote? Not necessarily expected, but as a matter of jurisprudence; i.e., how court's generally choose to decide cases, this highly conforms with the position of all American courts. In other words, courts purposely avoid making constitutional rulings if they can dispose of the issue in another manner. Here, that is exactly what happened. It might not be the most pragmatic way of doing things, however, especially for those of us who are going to have to see this case get filed again if the june vote goes in favor of the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 " ... nattering nabobs of negativism ... " -- Spiro Agnew, former Vice-President of the United States Spiro had some beauties ... " ... nattering nabobs of negativism ... " " ... pusillanimous pussyfooters ... " " ... hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history ... " And a well before it's time description of the NCAA today: " ... an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals ... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't see where they are saying we'll revisit it later, they are saying we don't want to get involved. They figure let it live or die by the ballot box. And I'm still thinking that this thing will be worded in such a way that yes means no name, and no means the name stays. I hope not, but stay tuned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 I say just ignore it. Drop the name. The law has no teeth. So, why bother following it? I don't know if the University will do that though. They look like the bad guys if they ignore the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 " ... nattering nabobs of negativism ... " -- Spiro Agnew, former Vice-President of the United States Spiro had some beauties ... " ... nattering nabobs of negativism ... " " ... pusillanimous pussyfooters ... " " ... hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history ... " Sounds suspiciously like the Wizard of Oz browbeating the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't think adding one more line on the June ballot will make it much more expensive, but I get your point. I was referring to the future need of having another supreme court filing on the same case with multiple $300 lawyers along with their $175 assistants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 To those of you who insist this will kill sports at UND.... because you have been such condescending jerks about this, I can't wait to rub your noses in it after you've been proven wrong. I hope you're right Dave, unfortunately I know you're wrong. If you don't think home-field advantage is important for the success of the football team, then you don't know anything about football... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I just realized the happiest guy in ND today: Reed Soderstrom. If the court would have ruled in the SBoHE's favor, any chance of success in the case where he represents SL v. the NCAA would have been gone. Go to Fargo on 4/19 and see for yourself. 2 justices did not think the matter was properly before the court - yet. Justice Kapsner thought a ruling would infringe upon the voters' prerogative. Wouldn't scum the Supreme Court. 3 indicated they'd consider it; SBoHE needed 4 but did not get it. End of story - for now. Let the voters decide. The issue's ripe if the voters approve it. 2 of the Justices did not seen any immediate harm or any harm at this point, especially since UND/SBoHE accessed the legislative process to get the law repealed, etc. Like it or not (and I agree with the two that declined consideration - Justice Maring was a surprise as I thought she'd decide like Justices Kapsner and Crothers) "estoppel" even though it was not argued I am sure played a part in their determinations. How can you present an argument without a District Court record being established and with having participated in the legislative process (lobbying, etc.) and with having waited so long to assert yourself? Another bungling moment by UND and SBoHE; I've lost count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stromer Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Awesome news!!! This keeps alive the possibility of the continued existence of UND Fighting Sioux athletics. To those of you who insist this will kill sports at UND.... because you have been such condescending jerks about this, I can't wait to rub your noses in it after you've been proven wrong. Perhaps it only appears that way to you because they are at an intelligence level you can't even dream about reaching? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Awesome news!!! This keeps alive the possibility of the continued existence of UND Fighting Sioux athletics. To those of you who insist this will kill sports at UND.... because you have been such condescending jerks about this, I can't wait to rub your noses in it after you've been proven wrong. Proven wrong about what? That it will affect UND athletics? It already has in scheduling, recruiting and the cost of purchasing new uniforms for teams. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 We will get to see how Sioux County votes & hopefully it will give SL some momentum But the broken record will keep singing their same lines over & over Will the people of ND agree the name is Hostile & Abusive ? Or stand by what we all know is the truth After the vote Maximum pressure can be put on Standing Rock if the vote there is yes & if the ncaa can't finally get it right - then the worry warts can have their own referral drive to try to keep us in the ncaa 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 We will get to see how Sioux County votes & hopefully it will give SL some momentum But the broken record will keep singing their same lines over & over Will the people of ND agree the name is Hostile & Abusive ? Or stand by what we all know is the truth After the vote Maximum pressure can be put on Standing Rock if the vote there is yes And that will still accomplish nothing..... I'm fairly certain hardly any of the Pro-UND crowd believes the nickname is "Hostile & Abusive," however, that isn't really even the question anymore. The question is whether keeping the name and suffering the NC$$ sanctions will cause harm to UND. With the negatives in scheduling and recruiting, it is apparent the sanctions are already beginning to have their desired effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 We will get to see how Sioux County votes & hopefully it will give SL some momentum But the broken record will keep singing their same lines over & over Will the people of ND agree the name is Hostile & Abusive ? Or stand by what we all know is the truth After the vote Maximum pressure can be put on Standing Rock if the vote there is yes & if the ncaa can't finally get it right - then the worry warts can have their own referral drive to try to keep us in the ncaa Augh... the people voting against the nickname don't all feel it's hostile and abusive. Most posters here feel the name isn't, however if it comes down to keeping the nickname or handcuffing the althletic department, then the nickname needs to go. It's extremely unfortunate, but the nickname should never be more important than the athletes and programs it stands for. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I would never go to a ncaa sponsored event again - They are wrong & I Hate them with all the power of hate a person can have 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Awesome news!!! This keeps alive the possibility of the continued existence of UND Fighting Sioux athletics. To those of you who insist this will kill sports at UND.... because you have been such condescending jerks about this, I can't wait to rub your noses in it after you've been proven wrong. There is incontinence and then there is what you write on this forum.... my goodness. You can't really be serious. What are we going to rub your nose in when we transition from D1 to NAIA when no D2 teams will play us? I used to want the nickname because I'm stubborn and Norwegian. But I also have a brain, its not hard to look down the tracks. There is a train coming and if we don't board we will be left behind looking like a bunch of fools thanks to morons like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The UND FIGHTING SIOUX football team will have home-field advantage in the playoffs again at some point in the future. Maybe not within the next 2 or 3 years while the legal matters are sorted out, but it WILL happen. Really? How much money do you want to put down on that? And while we are waiting, the FB program will be decimated by bad recruiting and scheduling. There won't be much left to salvage. But it's "a small price to pay", so I should just shut up, right? Guess again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I would never go to a ncaa sponsored event again - They are wrong & I Hate them with all the power of hate a person can have I'm sure UND and the NC$$ will grieve the loss of such a dedicated fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The UND FIGHTING SIOUX football team will have home-field advantage in the playoffs again at some point in the future. Maybe not within the next 2 or 3 years while the legal matters are sorted out, but it WILL happen. delusional.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The NCAA is nothing more than a bully. Don't be afraid of the bully, punch him in the mouth. He isn't half as tough as you think he is. An easy thing to say when you have no stake in the matter. When the NC$$ hits back it won't be you that gets hurt, it will be UND and its fans. 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.