Spirit Lake vs NCAA

[82SiouxGuy]

Good! Promise? I would love to keep the name if not for the ramifications of it, but this could be a net win.

That would be a great outcome, but his promise would probably be worth as much as Fetch's.

[Chewey]

Every lawyer I've talked to or saw quoted, other than Soderstrom and Chewey, said that the lawsuit was going to fail. And the private organization factor was a major reason. You know diddly squat about the law. Stop making a fool out of yourself. You've become the Lakes of this site.

Standing was a bigger reason. The NCAA had made public pronouncements concerning the involvement of NA's in the nickname issue and sacred tribal customs have been construed as binding under ND and Federal law. The anti-trust claims were well asserted and had potential. There was some room for the Judge to allow some claims to proceed to trial if he had wanted and thought that SL had standing. The Judge was/is quite erudite and hardly a liberal or conservative hack and he certainly is not worthy (is anyone, let alone an Article III Judge?) of any threats. He made the decision. It is to be respected. It could be appealed if there is an appropriate basis.

The Judge and even NCAA's counsel indicated that the sanctions are "modest". Quite a different perspective from the extinction level event scenario posited by O'Keefe and company. With rhetoric about having 250K, jetting about in an NDSU plane and commenting amongst each other at "cocktail parties", one has to wonder if O'Keefe and company will receive a similar reception as the SBoHE? Looks like the SBoHE finally threw up its hands and is just deferring to O'Keefe and company now. Given the unpopularity of the SBoHE, kind of a predictable move but it's really just the passing of the Pope's ring from one similarly situated cocktail party-goer to another isn't it?

[UNDBIZ]

Standing was a bigger reason. The NCAA had made public pronouncements concerning the involvement of NA's in the nickname issue and sacred tribal customs have been construed as binding under ND and Federal law. The anti-trust claims were well asserted and had potential. There was some room for the Judge to allow some claims to proceed to trial if he had wanted and thought that SL had standing. The Judge was/is quite erudite and hardly a liberal or conservative hack and he certainly is not worthy (is anyone, let alone an Article III Judge?) of any threats. He made the decision. It is to be respected. It could be appealed if there is an appropriate basis.

The Judge and even NCAA's counsel indicated that the sanctions are "modest". Quite a different perspective from the extinction event scenario posited by O'Keefe and company. With rhetoric about having 250K, jetting about in an NDSU plane and commenting amongst each other at "cocktail parties", one has to wonder if O'Keefe and company will receive a similar reception as the SBoHE? Looks like the SBoHE finally threw up its hands and is just deferring to O'Keefe and company now. Given the unpopularity of the SBoHE, kind of a predictable move but it's really just the passing of the Pope's ring from one similarly situated cocktail party-goer to another isn't it?

Out of curiosity, if coaches, players, staff, alumni, and the board can't convince you that you're wrong, who could?

[The Sicatoka]

Chewey, are you familiar with the acronym DABDA? You should try to be. It'll help you sleep.

[82SiouxGuy]

Standing was a bigger reason. The NCAA had made public pronouncements concerning the involvement of NA's in the nickname issue and sacred tribal customs have been construed as binding under ND and Federal law. The anti-trust claims were well asserted and had potential. There was some room for the Judge to allow some claims to proceed to trial if he had wanted and thought that SL had standing. The Judge was/is quite erudite and hardly a liberal or conservative hack and he certainly is not worthy (is anyone, let alone an Article III Judge?) of any threats. He made the decision. It is to be respected. It could be appealed if there is an appropriate basis.

The Judge and even NCAA's counsel indicated that the sanctions are "modest". Quite a different perspective from the extinction event scenario posited by O'Keefe and company. With rhetoric about having 250K, jetting about in an NDSU plane and commenting amongst each other at "cocktail parties", one has to wonder if O'Keefe and company will receive a similar reception as the SBoHE? Looks like the SBoHE finally threw up its hands and is just deferring to O'Keefe and company now. Given the unpopularity of the SBoHE, kind of a predictable move but it's really just the passing of the Pope's ring from one similarly situated cocktail party-goer to another isn't it?

Modest is a relative term. A severe penalty would be the "death penalty" where sports are shut down for a period of time, in this case until the nickname is changed. If the death penalty is the severe end, then the NCAA sanctions would be rated moderate. But that doesn't mean the sanctions won't have a major affect on the athletic program. You really don't understand collegiate sports if you don't understand that the sanctions will chase off athletes, chase off coaches and cause the program to lose games, fans and money. The sanctions will limit that ability to compete and will drag the program down to a low level, unlike the efforts to succeed that the program has spent years trying to achieve. That includes the hockey program, which is why Hakstol finally realized it was time to change his position. The athletic program will become as relevant as Alcorn State. That is quite a plateau to aspire to. I'm sure you will be proud when that status is attained.

The Alumni Association needs to be the ones to take the lead at this point because both the University and the State Board of Higher Education are severely limited in what they can do by law. But I'm sure you know that, you just want to take shots at people trying to protect the University. Or maybe you didn't realize that. The Alumni Association doesn't have the same restrictions, and they are normally tasked with working for the betterment of the University. Unfortunately that is the point we have reached. The Alumni Association has to work to protect the University by fighting to retire the nickname. What a waste of time and energy this has been by a group of misguided people, and the sad part is that they may still succeed.

[Teeder11]

Standing was a bigger reason. The NCAA had made public pronouncements concerning the involvement of NA's in the nickname issue and sacred tribal customs have been construed as binding under ND and Federal law. The anti-trust claims were well asserted and had potential. There was some room for the Judge to allow some claims to proceed to trial if he had wanted and thought that SL had standing. The Judge was/is quite erudite and hardly a liberal or conservative hack and he certainly is not worthy (is anyone, let alone an Article III Judge?) of any threats. He made the decision. It is to be respected. It could be appealed if there is an appropriate basis.

The Judge and even NCAA's counsel indicated that the sanctions are "modest". Quite a different perspective from the extinction level event scenario posited by O'Keefe and company. With rhetoric about having 250K, jetting about in an NDSU plane and commenting amongst each other at "cocktail parties", one has to wonder if O'Keefe and company will receive a similar reception as the SBoHE? Looks like the SBoHE finally threw up its hands and is just deferring to O'Keefe and company now. Given the unpopularity of the SBoHE, kind of a predictable move but it's really just the passing of the Pope's ring from one similarly situated cocktail party-goer to another isn't it?

You surprise me on this one. I thought for sure you'd have knowledge of the CPA (Corrupt Practices Act). Of course it's predictable; deferring to a private UND-supportive organization, like the Alumni Association is, to take the lead on this fight, is the most logical course of action for UND and the SBoHE. UND and SBoHE can't actively lobby or advocate for Measure 4, but the Alumni Association can. It has nothing to do with perceived popularity or lack there of.

[bincitysioux]

I understand you are making a point, and this isn't the first time you've used similar characterization, but I think it is bad form to minimize the nickname and logo to being a cartoon. That is certainly not what Ben Brien created. We all know it needs to go away but thats no reason to be disrespectful.

I suppose one could debate the definition of a "cartoon".

Let me be clear: I am in no way equating North Dakota's current logo to "Sammy Sioux" or "Chief Wahoo".

I think Bennet Brien's logo is a beautiful and tasteful work of art. I love it, and both my home and place of business is adorned with numerous examples of it.

My characterization of it as a "cartoon" is meant to compare it to an ever-changing abstract idea................

It is a painting....................

A drawing....................

An interpretation........................

It is no different than the cartoonish drawings on the helmets of the New England Patriots football team...........

It is no different than the drawings on the jerseys of the Chicago Bulls basketball teams..............

In the end, to me, it is just a piece of marketing.................

[johnsowe]

So Question Why has nobody beating down the door of the Standing Rock tribe to vote? Get them to approve then done deal. I have heard nobody try to get them to vote.

[Chewey]

Yes. And many of the state-related officials have already tread preciously in that regard and on that very topic. Kelley's public letter. Faison's misstatements and commentary on Tom Miller's 2/9/12 article. UND, Shaft, NDUS leading up to the ND SC arguments and ruling. A law was in effect then as well as now. There have already been sufficient grounds. The CUR no doubt took the high road. For Shaft, et al to stand quiet now - a time no different from two months ago - is somewhat odd. They should have been complying with it all along. Perhaps the determination involved efficacy or lack thereof or popularity or lack thereof concerning the SBoHE; maybe not. It certainly is a plus for that side that some party other than the SBoHE is doing something. As to Measure 2, only the AG has standing but that issue is being appealed. A private citizen should be able to bring such a claim.

And yes Sic, I know about "DABDA". That's more of a concern for December or January, if at all. Nice turnout in Minot with basically two members of Brady Martz by the mic. Where were Reg Morelli, and the rest of the UND alumni?

[82SiouxGuy]

So Question Why has nobody beating down the door of the Standing Rock tribe to vote? Get them to approve then done deal. I have heard nobody try to get them to vote.

The settlement agreement didn't ask for a vote. It asked for written approval from the tribe, and the tribe could decide on that approval any way that their constitution allowed. They don't have a way to vote on issues in their constitution. And the Tribal Council wouldn't allow it any way. The Tribal Council has passed resolutions against UND using the nickname many times since 1992. So a vote wasn't possible, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway in the settlement.

Besides, no one could have forced the tribe to vote on any thing. They are a sovereign nation and control their own government. No one in the state could force them to do anything, much less force them to hold a vote on a sports nickname. Also, much of the reservation is in South Dakota, which would give North Dakota officials even less chance of control.

In addition, the time to get approval had a deadline of November 30, 2010. We are now in 2012. The NCAA has said that they plan to live up to the terms of the settlement, which means that any approval now is meaningless to the NCAA. So any vote taken now will not affect the situation in any way. There isn't any way to get any kind of approval that would be accepted by the NCAA.

[Chewey]

So Question Why has nobody beating down the door of the Standing Rock tribe to vote? Get them to approve then done deal. I have heard nobody try to get them to vote.

Avis Little Eagle and seven other members of the Tribal Council making an 8-6 vote against allowing one.

[Chewey]

The settlement agreement didn't ask for a vote. It asked for written approval from the tribe, and the tribe could decide on that approval any way that their constitution allowed. They don't have a way to vote on issues in their constitution. And the Tribal Council wouldn't allow it any way. The Tribal Council has passed resolutions against UND using the nickname many times since 1992. So a vote wasn't possible, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway in the settlement.

Besides, no one could have forced the tribe to vote on any thing. They are a sovereign nation and control their own government. No one in the state could force them to do anything, much less force them to hold a vote on a sports nickname. Also, much of the reservation is in South Dakota, which would give North Dakota officials even less chance of control.

In addition, the time to get approval had a deadline of November 30, 2010. We are now in 2012. The NCAA has said that they plan to live up to the terms of the settlement, which means that any approval now is meaningless to the NCAA. So any vote taken now will not affect the situation in any way. There isn't any way to get any kind of approval that would be accepted by the NCAA.

The settlement agreement didn't ask for a vote. It asked for written approval from the tribe, and the tribe could decide on that approval any way that their constitution allowed. They don't have a way to vote on issues in their constitution. And the Tribal Council wouldn't allow it any way. The Tribal Council has passed resolutions against UND using the nickname many times since 1992. So a vote wasn't possible, and it wouldn't mean anything anyway in the settlement.

Besides, no one could have forced the tribe to vote on any thing. They are a sovereign nation and control their own government. No one in the state could force them to do anything, much less force them to hold a vote on a sports nickname. Also, much of the reservation is in South Dakota, which would give North Dakota officials even less chance of control.

In addition, the time to get approval had a deadline of November 30, 2010. We are now in 2012. The NCAA has said that they plan to live up to the terms of the settlement, which means that any approval now is meaningless to the NCAA. So any vote taken now will not affect the situation in any way. There isn't any way to get any kind of approval that would be accepted by the NCAA.

If O'Keefe and the UND Alumni Association spent as much time publicly calling out and lobbying the Congressional invertebrates as they are flying around, there may be a different picture presented now.

[Chewey]

Out of curiosity, if coaches, players, staff, alumni, and the board can't convince you that you're wrong, who could?

"Curiosity"? The position I espouse is not "wrong." We've been there already with the whole "the NCAA policy is wrong" debate so no need to re-hash that. That and the fact that ND has a Congressional delegation that has been AWOL on this issue is where the term "wrong" needs to be used. Hoeven has no fear of being unseated. If Berg thinks taking a stand on this issue is going to cause him to lose to Heidi, he deserves to lose anyway. In ND with hardly one Democrat (I believe that's the case and I think Wayne Sanstead is the only one unless he's retired by now) in higher office, there is no way a Republican should lose to a Democrat who'd likely be in league with the EPA against fracking and aligned with the left on many other issues of economic importance to the state of ND. The Democratic Party used to be a good source of ideas - actual ideas and not propaganda like the Republicans - but that time has long passed.

[82SiouxGuy]

Yes. And many of the state-related officials have already tread preciously in that regard and on that very topic. Kelley's public letter. Faison's misstatements and commentary on Tom Miller's 2/9/12 article. UND, Shaft, NDUS leading up to the ND SC arguments and ruling. A law was in effect then as well as now. There have already been sufficient grounds. The CUR no doubt took the high road. For Shaft, et al to stand quiet now - a time no different from two months ago - is somewhat odd. They should have been complying with it all along. Perhaps the determination involved efficacy or lack thereof or popularity or lack thereof concerning the SBoHE; maybe not. It certainly is a plus for that side that some party other than the SBoHE is doing something. As to Measure 2, only the AG has standing but that issue is being appealed. A private citizen should be able to bring such a claim.

And yes Sic, I know about "DABDA". That's more of a concern for December or January, if at all. Nice turnout in Minot with basically two members of Brady Martz by the mic. Where were Reg Morelli, and the rest of the UND alumni?

Sorry if we don't take your legal advice, you haven't exhibited a high standard of expertise. I will listen to attorneys that I know and trust. The CUR may have tried to take the high road. Rob Port and many others they have associated with have not. You have followed the same path. The University and the State Board have been attacked over and over, many times with baseless and petty accusations. Most of the people on this site are trying to protect the University they care about. The Alumni Association is doing the same.

[82SiouxGuy]

Avis Little Eagle and seven other members of the Tribal Council making an 8-6 vote against allowing one.

That's kind of the way that government works. The side with the most votes wins. That is what is set up in their Constitution. You should listen to Eunice Davidson and respect their decision.

[82SiouxGuy]

If O'Keefe and the UND Alumni Association spent as much time publicly calling out and lobbying the Congressional invertebrates as they are flying around in publicly-owned - (although they claim to get around it by saying it's "leased") aircraft, there may be a different picture presented now.

You mean that whole day they spent flying around the state? And again with the baseless Rob Port accusation.

[UNDBIZ]

Out of curiosity, if coaches, players, staff, alumni, and the board can't convince you that you're wrong, who could?

"Curiosity"? The position I espouse is not "wrong." We've been there already with the whole "the NCAA policy is wrong" debate so no need to re-hash that. That and the fact that ND has a Congressional delegation that has been AWOL on this issue is where the term "wrong" needs to be used. Hoeven has no fear of being unseated. If Berg thinks taking a stand on this issue is going to cause him to lose to Heidi, he deserves to lose anyway. In ND with hardly one Democrat (I believe that's the case and I think Wayne Sanstead is the only one unless he's retired by now) in higher office, there is no way a Republican should lose to a Democrat who'd likely be in league with the EPA against fracking and aligned with the left on many other issues of economic importance to the state of ND. The Democratic Party used to be a good source of ideas - actual ideas and not propaganda like the Republicans - but that time has long passed.

Nice avoidance of the question. Allow me to rephrase. If coaches, players, faculty, staff, alumni, and the board can't convince you that the Fighting Sioux name and logo will cause more harm than good to UND, who could?

[The Sicatoka]

Nice turnout in Minot with basically two members of Brady Martz by the mic. Where were Reg Morelli, and the rest of the UND alumni?

It was a press conference, not a pep rally.

And you're saying in Minot all there was were the speakers, the direct parties, media, and people paid to be there as part of their job responsibilities.

Sounds like the same folks who were in Judge Erickson's court room: the speakers (lawyers), the direct parties, media, and people paid to be there as part of their job responsibilities.

Oh, wait, there was one other person in the Fargo court room.

Was it Fetch? No.

Was it DaveK. No.

It was me.

[The Sicatoka]

The settlement agreement didn't ask for a vote. It asked for written approval from the tribe, and the tribe could decide on that approval any way that their constitution allowed. They don't have a way to vote on issues in their constitution.

Partial credit. All that the NCAA wants is an official stance statement from the Tribal Council, not a vote of the people of SR.

However, apparently, there is a way to vote on some issues at SR:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/tribe-rejects-changing-name-in-vote/article_15a342a9-041f-51ab-9373-3896f785fa05.html

The tribe can hold a special election to determine whether members want to be known as "Sioux" or "Oyate," and they can hold a special election on a new definition of tribal membership, but all too conveniently, after voters rejected Ron McNeil's preferred name for the tribe, it's suddenly impossible to let tribal members vote on UND's continued use of the Fighting Sioux nickname.

I suspect then Tribal Chair Ron McNeil viewed the vote in the article as a test. If tribal members weren't willing to stop being known as "Sioux," which, as we're constantly told, is a degogatory term for the tribe, then there was a pretty good chance they might also vote to let UND continue to use the "hostile and abusive" moniker.

And the NCAA, conveniently, will only accept documentation from the Tribal Council, not a vote. So the vote "can't happen" per McNeil.

The conspiracy, if there is one, is between Ron (His Horse is Thunder) McNeil and the NCAA, and the best evidence of it is right there. The NCAA got it into settlement agreement and that agreement is now binding, and UND and the State got blindsided.

[Chewey]

You mean that whole day they spent flying around the state? And again with the baseless Rob Port accusation.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and this claim has a basis.

[Chewey]

That's kind of the way that government works. The side with the most votes wins. That is what is set up in their Constitution. You should listen to Eunice Davidson and respect their decision.

You mean like how the SL Tribal Council's/Tribe's position has been respected? This sort of punt is somewhat of a surprise from you.

[82SiouxGuy]

You mean like how the SL Tribal Council's/Tribe's position has been respected? This sort of punt is somewhat of a surprise from you.

Spirit Lake's position has been respected. Unfortunately, the agreement required approval from both tribes. That didn't happen by the deadline. You should know that many contracts and legal agreements have deadlines that have to be followed. The deadline is past. That takes precedence over the position of Spirit Lake. And respecting the position does not have to mean honoring and following the position. Eunice Davidson was quoted in the Grand Forks Herald saying that the Standing Rock decision should be respected even if she disagreed with it. You said that the CUR took the high road, I'm just suggesting that you might want to follow.

Is Spirit Lake's opinion the only one that is to be honored? What about every other Sioux tribe in the country? What about the other Native American tribes in the region? Spirit Lake is the only tribe that has given approval. If you have 2 diametrically opposed opinions, how do you honor both sides? You can't honor both. You can respect both sides. Then you have to decide which side to follow. In this case the decision on which side to follow was built into the settlement agreement.

[johnsowe]

So it was a no win sitiuation from the start.

[82SiouxGuy]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and this claim has a basis.

If you think the claim has a basis you should follow through and try to make a case out of it. I don't see much coming from that. The Alumni Foundation rented a plane from the Fargo Jet Center.

[Let'sGoHawks!]

You are entitled to your opinion but you're wrong.

Oh, Dave K.