Spirit Lake vs NCAA

[Fetch]

But if SL were to win that could change

[dmksioux]

But if SL were to win that could change

So if their lawsuit gets thrown out this week, will you admit it's time to move on?

[Fetch]

I don't think that will happen but yes what else is there

So if it is not thrown out all of you will do all you can to help SL ?

[ScottM]

So if their lawsuit gets thrown out this week, will you admit it's time to move on?

I doubt the judge will rule from the bench, but the questions may be pretty pointed.

[dmksioux]

I don't think that will happen but yes what else is there

So if it is not thrown out all of you will do all you can to help SL ?

I have no problem supporting SL lawsuit. Voting to keep the name in June does not help their lawsuit. If I had the opportunity (I'm a Minnesota resident), I would vote in favor of dropping the name. Then let the lawsuit play out and see what happens. Retire the name now and see how the SL lawsuit plays out. If there is a chance to reinstate the name down the road, great! If not, then move on. No need to take the decision away fromt the University, which is what the vote is doing.

[Goon]

I don't think that will happen but yes what else is there

So if it is not thrown out all of you will do all you can to help SL ?

Most of us have and cheer them on... That's only hope we have...

[jodcon]

Most of us have and cheer them on... That's only hope we have...

You're right it is the last hope, although it feels very slim.

Is anyone going to the proceedings Thursday?

[TheGreatSiouxNation]

I have no problem supporting SL lawsuit. Voting to keep the name in June does not help their lawsuit. If I had the opportunity (I'm a Minnesota resident), I would vote in favor of dropping the name. Then let the lawsuit play out and see what happens. Retire the name now and see how the SL lawsuit plays out. If there is a chance to reinstate the name down the road, great! If not, then move on. No need to take the decision away fromt the University, which is what the vote is doing.

No need to take this decision away from the University? This is exactly why it needs to be! The University belongs to the State of North Dakota not the outsiders that have infested our great institution. My father is 83 and a life long Sioux fan and he said it best "University of North Dakota in name only."

Why is it so bad for the people who pay the bills at UND to finally have some say in where their tax dollars are going? I know most of you will say have fun playing Mayville and etc. but this issue is deeper and it is a fight worth fighting. Mike Mcfeely had an article a few years back making fun of us UND Alumni and Letterwinners by saying we need to get over it because it is just a nickname. I wrote to him and said he had solved the problem but never heard back because I asked him if it was just a nickname why change it?

[82SiouxGuy]

No need to take this decision away from the University? This is exactly why it needs to be! The University belongs to the State of North Dakota not the outsiders that have infested our great institution. My father is 83 and a life long Sioux fan and he said it best "University of North Dakota in name only."

Why is it so bad for the people who pay the bills at UND to finally have some say in where their tax dollars are going? I know most of you will say have fun playing Mayville and etc. but this issue is deeper and it is a fight worth fighting. Mike Mcfeely had an article a few years back making fun of us UND Alumni and Letterwinners by saying we need to get over it because it is just a nickname. I wrote to him and said he had solved the problem but never heard back because I asked him if it was just a nickname why change it?

Because most of them don't have a good idea about the ramifications of the sanctions. They don't understand that keeping the name will actually hurt the University. It isn't a simple question of should they keep the name or not, the sanctions and their cumulative effects on the school have to be factored into the decision.

What would be better for UND, keeping the nickname and playing schools like Mayville, Jamestown and South Dakota School of Mines constantly in all sports, or changing the name and playing Montana, NDSU, Minnesota, Wisconsin and other schools on a similar level? Playing small schools like Mayville and Jamestown does nothing for UND financially or for building recognition. Students won't be attracted to UND with those opponents, donors won't donate as much money. And the NCAA isn't going to be hurt by the decision. The only thing that UND gains is they would get to keep a cool nickname and logo. But they would lose much more than that.

[FSSD]

When the NCAA announced their policy they thought that the Oklahoma tribes were against Florida State using the nickname, and they were going to use that to help force Florida State to change. The NCAA thought that because they had received letters from a tribe member that is an attorney, and they understood that he spoke for the tribe. The Tribal Council in Oklahoma came out right after the NCAA announcement and said that this man did not speak for the tribe, and that they were not against Florida State using the nickname. Therefore the NCAA backed down since they didn't have any backup on the issue, and the standard became a single local tribe. For some reason people still believe that the Oklahoma tribes are against using the name.

The Oklahoma tribe has never "approved" the use of the the nickname.. like UND has had to get "approval" from all regional tribes prior to the lawsuit. As part of the settlement UND had to get "approval" from only two tribes SR and SL. Again, FSU was only required to get "approval" from the FL tribe and the Oklahome tribe has never approved the usage of the nickname - if this is out dated information, please provide a link because I would be interested in reading it.

[82SiouxGuy]

The Oklahoma tribe has never "approved" the use of the the nickname.. like UND has had to get "approval" from all regional tribes prior to the lawsuit. As part of the settlement UND had to get "approval" from only two tribes SR and SL. Again, FSU was only required to get "approval" from the FL tribe and the Oklahome tribe has never approved the usage of the nickname - if this is out dated information, please provide a link because I would be interested in reading it.

Here are 2 newspaper articles from shortly after the NCAA policy announcement, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1461861/posts and http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/081205/col_19484407.shtml. If you read what I said, the Oklahoma Seminoles announced that they were not against the nickname, it was decide by an 18-2 vote. They didn't vote on approval, they said they were not against. The NCAA didn't demand this 2nd approval from the Oklahoma tribe, but the fact that they weren't opposed probably changed how the NCAA handled the appeal process.

As I have stated several times, the original waiver process only needed approval by 1 tribe. But that needed to be in by 2006. UND couldn't get approval from 1 tribe by then, so they sued. As a part of the settlement the NCAA demanded approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. In return UND got an extra 4 years to get the approval, 1 year during the trial and another 3 years after the trial. The 2nd tribe approval was obviously the penalty they wanted in trade for the extra time. It is unrealistic to believe that the NCAA was going to give UND several extra years for nothing.

[The Sicatoka]

Can anyone find the link to the original story about SL filing against the NCAA in Federal court?

I'd like to go back and re-read the SL filing (and the NCAA's responses if there are links to those too).

[watchmaker49]

Can anyone find the link to the original story about SL filing against the NCAA in Federal court?

I'd like to go back and re-read the SL filing (and the NCAA's responses if there are links to those too).

Try and find it on the Bismarck Tribune site since the Herald of the Forum will want to charge you for it, greedy buggers. Only a short AP at the Bismarck Tribune. http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/spirit-lake-members-suing-ncaa-over-fighting-sioux-logo/article_21a2086a-04a6-11e1-97ec-001cc4c002e0.html

[FSSD]

Here are 2 newspaper articles from shortly after the NCAA policy announcement, http://www.freerepub...s/1461861/posts and http://jacksonville...._19484407.shtml. If you read what I said, the Oklahoma Seminoles announced that they were not against the nickname, it was decide by an 18-2 vote. They didn't vote on approval, they said they were not against. The NCAA didn't demand this 2nd approval from the Oklahoma tribe, but the fact that they weren't opposed probably changed how the NCAA handled the appeal process.

As I have stated several times, the original waiver process only needed approval by 1 tribe. But that needed to be in by 2006. UND couldn't get approval from 1 tribe by then, so they sued. As a part of the settlement the NCAA demanded approval from Spirit Lake and Standing Rock. In return UND got an extra 4 years to get the approval, 1 year during the trial and another 3 years after the trial. The 2nd tribe approval was obviously the penalty they wanted in trade for the extra time. It is unrealistic to believe that the NCAA was going to give UND several extra years for nothing.

I am sorry, if UND did not hvae approval from the Spirit Lake tribe by 2006. Why did the NCAA contact the tribe to try and get the tribe to rescind approval?

The Staff Committee nonetheless described the

resolution of the Spirit Lake Tribal Council as one “of questionable continuing efficacy” and

admitted that “NCAA efforts to speak with representatives of the Spirit Lake Nation have been

unsuccessful.” Ex. T, Jan. 18, 2006 Staff Comm. Memo at 13. Apparently, the NCAA has tried,

but failed, to persuade the Spirit Lake Tribal Council to formally rescind its prior approval of

UND’s use of the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Unable to secure a formal withdrawal of

the Spirit Lake Tribal Council’s approval, the NCAA has instead attempted to cast doubt on the

viability of an unambiguous resolution of the legitimate governing body of the Spirit Lake

Nation. In the same breath, the NCAA insists that the essence of the Namesake Exception is a

respect for tribal sovereignty.

http://www.ag.state....n-state-crt.pdf - go to page 65

[darell1976]

I am sorry, if UND did not hvae approval from the Spirit Lake tribe by 2006. Why did the NCAA contact the tribe to try and get the tribe to rescind approval?

The Staff Committee nonetheless described the

resolution of the Spirit Lake Tribal Council as one “of questionable continuing efficacy” and

admitted that “NCAA efforts to speak with representatives of the Spirit Lake Nation have been

unsuccessful.” Ex. T, Jan. 18, 2006 Staff Comm. Memo at 13. Apparently, the NCAA has tried,

but failed, to persuade the Spirit Lake Tribal Council to formally rescind its prior approval of

UND’s use of the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Unable to secure a formal withdrawal of

the Spirit Lake Tribal Council’s approval, the NCAA has instead attempted to cast doubt on the

viability of an unambiguous resolution of the legitimate governing body of the Spirit Lake

Nation. In the same breath, the NCAA insists that the essence of the Namesake Exception is a

respect for tribal sovereignty.

http://www.ag.state....n-state-crt.pdf - go to page 65

So if SL would have gave the NCAA permission for UND to use the name and logo in 06 like the above says then we wouldn't be in this boat. Thanks SL for coming to the table....LATE!

[82SiouxGuy]

I am sorry, if UND did not hvae approval from the Spirit Lake tribe by 2006. Why did the NCAA contact the tribe to try and get the tribe to rescind approval?

The Staff Committee nonetheless described the

resolution of the Spirit Lake Tribal Council as one “of questionable continuing efficacy” and

admitted that “NCAA efforts to speak with representatives of the Spirit Lake Nation have been

unsuccessful.” Ex. T, Jan. 18, 2006 Staff Comm. Memo at 13. Apparently, the NCAA has tried,

but failed, to persuade the Spirit Lake Tribal Council to formally rescind its prior approval of

UND’s use of the “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo. Unable to secure a formal withdrawal of

the Spirit Lake Tribal Council’s approval, the NCAA has instead attempted to cast doubt on the

viability of an unambiguous resolution of the legitimate governing body of the Spirit Lake

Nation. In the same breath, the NCAA insists that the essence of the Namesake Exception is a

respect for tribal sovereignty.

http://www.ag.state....n-state-crt.pdf - go to page 65

The document you cite was part of the lawsuit that resulted in the settlement in 2007 and is from the UND point of view. It looks like they were accusing the NCAA of trying to interfere with the process. That is just an accusation and since the case was settled we don't know if there was proof of that or not. But it may be the reason that the settlement stated the NCAA was not allowed to interact with the tribes.

In 2000 Spirit Lake passed a resolution saying that they were not opposed to UND using the nickname and logo as long as something good came out of the use. By 2005, when the NCAA issued their policy, there was some dispute whether that "good" had come out of the use. But the key part is that in the NCAA waiver process they demanded that each tribe provide written proof that they were in support of the schools using the Native American nickname or confirming support if the tribe had given support at an earlier time. Spirit Lake refused to issue that written statement confirming the 2000 resolution. Reports said that at least some members of the Tribal Council doubted that the "good" had resulted from UND using the name and weren't willing to take the step to write the letter. That is why several of us have said that if Spirit Lake had simply written a letter saying that the 2000 resolution was still in effect, then the NCAA would have given a waiver. The other schools that kept their names were able to get a letter of support from their local tribes.

Again I will go back to the fact that the NCAA is a private organization. Their club and they make the rules. They made all tribes provide written confirmation in 2005-2006. UND could not get that support. And the settlement cemented the fact that they had to provide written support. If you read the settlement you will see that the NCAA would accept the 2000 resolution from Spirit Lake if they would provide written proof signed by a tribal official with authority to give that proof. The whole vote on Spirit Lake wasn't needed by the NCAA, but that is what forced the Tribal Council to actually send the letter to the NCAA. And for Standing Rock the settlement says that the tribe could make the decision in any way allowed in the Tribal Constitution, but approval had to be sent in writing to the NCAA and signed by a tribal official with authority to send that approval.

[The Sicatoka]

... But the key part is that in the NCAA waiver process they demanded that each tribe provide written proof that they were in support of the schools using the Native American nickname or confirming support if the tribe had given support at an earlier time.

They made all tribes provide written confirmation in 2005-2006.

That's the one part that still grinds my gears in this.

Who the ---- does the NCAA think they are when they are demanding timelines from sovereign nations?

If the NCAA really respected the tribes and their soverign status and their opinion, they'd respect a decision whenever it came.

[Fetch]

& without the referral vote & halt to removing the name it would of been all over now - SL has a chance wait & see & won't most of you feel the dumber for almost surrendering before it was over

[ScottM]

& without the referral vote & halt to removing the name it would of been all over now - SL has a chance wait & see & won't most of you feel the dumber for almost surrendering before it was over

It was over in 2005 when the two tribes requirement was imposed. Deal with it.

[The Sicatoka]

It was over in 2005 when the two tribes requirement was imposed. Deal with it.

No, that was the beginning of the end of the end.

Al Carlson's folly was the middle of the end of the end.

The end of the end of the end comes when the Honorable Federal Judge Ralph Erickson rules sometime after 2 pm on Thursday of this week.

[fightingsioux4life]

& without the referral vote & halt to removing the name it would of been all over now - SL has a chance wait & see & won't most of you feel the dumber for almost surrendering before it was over

My friend, I will gladly feel dumb if indeed the name and logo are saved by Spirit Lake's lawsuit. I just don't think it will happen. And you are wrong about the name being retired too soon. The repeal of the law included a provision that we couldn't pick a new name until sometime in 2015. So if Spirit Lake does somehow save the name, we could go back to using it again. All this referral does is back us into a corner and put our membership in the Big Sky Conference in serious jeopardy.

[darell1976]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...roup/homepage/

The Spirit Lake and Standing Rock Sioux tribes "were not and are not indispensable parties" to the 2007 settlement agreement between UND and the NCAA, the association's attorney argued in U.S. District Court here Thursday.

Jonathan Duncan told the court that the agreement "gave UND a period of time" to seek authorization from the two tribes for continued use of the Fighting Sioux nickname. That agreement "didn't require the tribes to do anything or preclude the tribes from doing anything," he said.

"The NCAA claimed that Sioux voices mattered and would be heard" at the time the settlement was made, he said. "But the NCAA is not interested in hearing any arguments about the 1969 ceremony," an event at UND during which elders from both tribes endorsed UND's use of the Sioux name, according to nickname supporters.

"The Sioux people have repeatedly been denied a seat at the table."

The oral argument lasted about an hour and a half and supplemented extensive written briefs filed earlier with the court. At the conclusion of the hearing, Erickson said he "will try to render an opinion in the near future."

[Hayduke]

Well, he didn't rule from the bench. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Hawkster]

Well, he didn't rule from the bench. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I didn't expect a decision today. But this quote is telling:

Erickson said he “will try to render an opinion in the near future.”

I would anticipate a ruling in a week or so. I'm sure he'll look at it thoroughly and then rule that SL has no standing and that will render the rest of the issues moot.

[darell1976]

I didn't expect a decision today. But this quote is telling:

Erickson said he “will try to render an opinion in the near future.”

I would anticipate a ruling in a week or so. I'm sure he'll look at it thoroughly and then rule that SL has no standing and that will render the rest of the issues moot.

Or will he wait until June...13th?