The Sicatoka Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Some have said, "Why doesn't Florida State have to change?" I've said, "Wait for it. After they knock over UND, they'll come for FSU soon enough." Most scoffed at me. Well, I'm just going to smirk for now. It's not quite time to roll out my four favorite words, but it seems my time to use them may have just gotten another clock tick closer. http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20120509/COLUMNIST04/205090305/Gerald-Ensley-Cimarron-offers-a-name-for-the-future?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1 Go Cimarron! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Some have said, "Why doesn't Florida State have to change?" I've said, "Wait for it. After they knock over UND, they'll come for FSU soon enough." Most scoffed at me. Well, I'm just going to smirk for now. It's not quite time to roll out my four favorite words, but it seems my time to use them may have just gotten another clock tick closer. http://www.tallahass...&nclick_check=1 Go Cimarron! Very interesting!! Let's just hope that UND's new mascot will not be inspired by the Disney Channel!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Huh, looks like Tallahassee has a Rob Port too. While it looks like this is nothing more than a marketing strategy to help with their $2.4 million athletic deficit (apparently they must really like to spend because Florida State has to be one of the biggest merchandise movers in college sports), it does bring a couple questions to mind...How long was the agreement with the Seminole tribe for and if there was no definite timetable what would stop them from pulling it at any given time? With the hoopla and national attention that the UND situation has drawn over the nickname issue I wouldn't be a bit surprised if FSU started hearing rumblings from the Seminole community someday. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 At some point, the NC$$'s creeping power will not be limited to schools, but will expand to include the states where member schools reside too ... (ahem, Mississippi and South Carolina, and maybe North Dakota?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Huh, looks like Tallahassee has a Rob Port too. While it looks like this is nothing more than a marketing strategy to help with their $2.4 million athletic deficit (apparently they must really like to spend because Florida State has to be one of the biggest merchandise movers in college sports), it does bring a couple questions to mind...How long was the agreement with the Seminole tribe for and if there was no definite timetable what would stop them from pulling it at any given time? With the hoopla and national attention that the UND situation has drawn over the nickname issue I wouldn't be a bit surprised if FSU started hearing rumblings from the Seminole community someday. Rumblings from the tribe and also from the NCAA. They could change their policy for schools with tribal approval and get rid of all native american names!! Which is precisely why we need to retire the name at UND now. We have no idea what the NCAA will do in the future in regards to native american names. Just add that to the ever growing list of "reasons to vote YES on June 12th." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Settlement Agreement, Section 2, subsection a, last two sentences: If the namesake exemption is completely repealed before UND secures namesake approval as set forth in this Agreement, then UND shall not be able to gain a namesake approval under this Subsection. If the namesake exemption is completely repealed after UND secures approval as set forth in this Agreement, then no school, including UND, will be entitled to the exemption. Read those sentences. It's not UND or the State that put those in. That's the NCAA, pure and simple. In poker, those sentences are pure "tells". The NCAA's end game is no namesake exemptions. This move by Florida State is no accident. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Can you imagine the squealing if Florida State would go under attack from the NCAA? Nationally few care about a nickname issue in some town called Grand Forks, North Dakota, but if FSU had to fight the same battle they would come out of the woodwork in every podunk town from coast to coast. That would be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Huh, looks like Tallahassee has a Rob Port too. While it looks like this is nothing more than a marketing strategy to help with their $2.4 million athletic deficit (apparently they must really like to spend because Florida State has to be one of the biggest merchandise movers in college sports), it does bring a couple questions to mind...How long was the agreement with the Seminole tribe for and if there was no definite timetable what would stop them from pulling it at any given time? With the hoopla and national attention that the UND situation has drawn over the nickname issue I wouldn't be a bit surprised if FSU started hearing rumblings from the Seminole community someday. Most people over-value the merchandise rights in college sports. The schools only get a small percentage of the merchandise value. In 2009-2010 Florida State brought in approximately $11.5 million for royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorship. My guess is that a large majority of that comes from advertising and sponsorship. Florida State ranked 19th in licensing that year. Auburn was 15th that year and received about $2.5 million. So Florida State probably is closer to $2 million in licensing. Auburn jumped to 4th place at $5.3 million the next year after winning the FBS title. The Seminoles haven't given a time limit on the approval. They could pull it today if they wanted and the NCAA would give FSU a year to transition away. Because of the casinos the tribe probably won't pull the approval any time soon. But that can always change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Rumblings from the tribe and also from the NCAA. They could change their policy for schools with tribal approval and get rid of all native american names!! Which is precisely why we need to retire the name at UND now. We have no idea what the NCAA will do in the future in regards to native american names. Just add that to the ever growing list of "reasons to vote YES on June 12th." If the NCAA does this, they could get a lot of push back from Florida State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 If the NCAA does this, they could get a lot of push back from Florida State. They were prepared for that push back in 2005. At the time they thought that the Seminoles in Oklahoma were against the nickname and they planned to use that as ammunition. Then they found out that their information was wrong, so they pulled back and set up an approval system. But the NCAA really wanted to get rid of all Native American names in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Can you imagine the squealing if Florida State would go under attack from the NCAA? Which is why I think the NC$$'s next move against NA imagery will be more broad and subtle. They may not take on individual schools, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them impose larger restrictions that may be tournament or geography based. More defensible on a number of levels, and I think SL's loss in court may also give them some basic defenses from attacks by third-parties. In fact, I find the relative silence from academia regarding the current Sioux moniker fight to be very "interesting". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Which is why I think the NC$$'s next move against NA imagery will be more broad and subtle. They may not take on individual schools, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them impose larger restrictions that may be tournament or geography based. More defensible on a number of levels, and I think SL's loss in court may also give them some basic defenses from attacks by third-parties. In fact, I find the relative silence from academia regarding the current Sioux moniker fight to be very "interesting". Sad to think that the subpar effort that was presented in the SL lawsuit may now be used as precedent against other schools/tribes in their efforts to retain their names, so in an ironic twist the SL lawsuit ends up a win for the NCAA on two fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 In fact, I find the relative silence from academia regarding the current Sioux moniker fight to be very "interesting". Because the last time they mobilized they looked like idiots - remember Spirit Lake referendum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Because the last time they mobilized they looked like idiots - remember Spirit Lake referendum I don't see it like that. They're watching us tear each other apart in the run up to the June referendum. If the Sioux moniker sticks, UND gets hung out to dry and made example of by the NC$$. The bedwetters then have the leverage to effectively demand that an entire state should bear the weight of its decision to maintain the moniker ala Mississippi and South Carolina. I see that geographic attack as a back door way to sanction those who are are not on the H&A list in a more comprehensive way without having to single out member schools. It's more defensible politically and legally. And it's actually more "intellectually honest" than granting a hodge-podge of exceptions based on tribal "consent". Every time FSU plays football on TV you can feel the academics cringe as the white rider drives his lance into the ground in front of thousands of war painted and tomahawk chopping fans ... Their hypocrisy must drive them nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Every time FSU plays football on TV you can feel the academics cringe as the white rider drives his lance into the ground in front of thousands of war painted and tomahawk chopping fans ... Their hypocrisy must drive them nuts. ...then they check their bank account balances and a warm smug feeling comes over them, and all is well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I don't see it like that. They're watching us tear each other apart in the run up to the June referendum. If the Sioux moniker sticks, UND gets hung out to dry and made example of by the NC$$. The bedwetters then have the leverage to effectively demand that an entire state should bear the weight of its decision to maintain the moniker ala Mississippi and South Carolina. I see that geographic attack as a back door way to sanction those who are are not on the H&A list in a more comprehensive way without having to single out member schools. It's more defensible politically and legally. And it's actually more "intellectually honest" than granting a hodge-podge of exceptions based on tribal "consent". Every time FSU plays football on TV you can feel the academics cringe as the white rider drives his lance into the ground in front of thousands of war painted and tomahawk chopping fans ... Their hypocrisy must drive them nuts. I don't see the State of North Dakota and the NCAA extending the sanctions to other schools in the state. If they did - just wow. I think the reason that Mississippi and South Carolina got in trouble was because of the State Flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I don't see the State of North Dakota and the NCAA extending the sanctions to other schools in the state. If they did - just wow. I think the reason that Mississippi and South Carolina got in trouble was because of the State Flag. The state wouldn't have anything to do with extending the sanctions, the NCAA would do that. South Carolina is on sanctions because they have a Confederate flag flying over a Confederate Memorial on the state capital grounds. It isn't the South Carolina flag. How does that flag flying over a memorial have anything to do with any of the colleges in South Carolina. Flying the flag in that location is in South Carolina state law. That is why it could be used as a precedent for putting all of North Dakota on sanctions because the nickname would be in state law. That being said, I don't think the NCAA would do that any time soon because they are already getting the results they want from UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I don't see the State of North Dakota and the NCAA extending the sanctions to other schools in the state. If they did - just wow. I think the reason that Mississippi and South Carolina got in trouble was because of the State Flag. So a state law isn't as bad as a state flag?? (I also don't see the sanctions being expanded to ndsu, just questioning the reason stated) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I don't see the State of North Dakota and the NCAA extending the sanctions to other schools in the state. If they did - just wow. I think the reason that Mississippi and South Carolina got in trouble was because of the State Flag. Now extend that logic to the NC$$, and the academics that run it. In MS and SC, the legislatures effectively memorialized the Southern Cross on state land under threat of NC$$ sanctions. The state of North Dakota has the potential to do the same with regard to the Sioux moniker. Those same cries of racism and insensitivity that brought the NC$$ "riding to the rescue" in the south were heard in the pretty recent past in North Dakota too. The NC$$ and their allies in academia are on a crusade of sorts to remove NA imagery from college sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The NC$$ and their allies in academia are on a crusade of sorts to remove NA imagery from college sports. In hindsight I bet they wish they could go back to 2005 and fight this battle at its core and just set a date for EVERYONE to give up their nicknames, like say December 31, 2006. If they would have done that rather than playing "Let's Make a Deal Which We're Going to Break Eventually Anyway", everybody would have been treated equally, everybody would have their nickname retired and replaced, and they would have saved themselves and the schools all the money and grievances these 'deals' have caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 In hindsight I bet they wish they could go back to 2005 and fight this battle at its core and just set a date for EVERYONE to give up their nicknames, like say December 31, 2006. If they would have done that rather than playing "Let's Make a Deal Which We're Going to Break Eventually Anyway", everybody would have been treated equally, everybody would have their nickname retired and replaced, and they would have saved themselves and the schools all the money and grievances these 'deals' have caused. They would have had to fight several battles at one time in your scenario. Florida State would have fought, UND fought, Illinois was fighting, and all of these would have emboldened some other schools. This way might be easier. With UND in a corner it would be hard to see anyone other than Florida State and maybe Utah willing to fight an all out ban. If they can control Florida State they would be done. So one step at a time might have been the best way from their perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 They would have had to fight several battles at one time in your scenario. Florida State would have fought, UND fought, Illinois was fighting, and all of these would have emboldened some other schools. This way might be easier. With UND in a corner it would be hard to see anyone other than Florida State and maybe Utah willing to fight an all out ban. If they can control Florida State they would be done. So one step at a time might have been the best way from their perspective. In my own view, the UND saga lays the groundwork for them to assert themselves over the member schools, directly by sanctioning members, or indirectly by sanctioning states. They've established the internal framework to give their agendas legitimacy and, thanks to SL and similar cases, have started to establish the "voluntary membership" defense in the courts. And they can probably defend their moves against collateral attacks from tribes, alumni associations, states, etc. They may be idealistic eggheads, but these people also honed their strategic thinking skills as they climbed the ladder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 They would have had to fight several battles at one time in your scenario. Florida State would have fought, UND fought, Illinois was fighting, and all of these would have emboldened some other schools. This way might be easier. With UND in a corner it would be hard to see anyone other than Florida State and maybe Utah willing to fight an all out ban. If they can control Florida State they would be done. So one step at a time might have been the best way from their perspective. I don't know, drawing a line in the sand versus everything that has happened and is still happening and probably has yet to happen...if it was me I would rather fight it up front especially since they have the hammer...but who are we to question their tactics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The state wouldn't have anything to do with extending the sanctions, the NCAA would do that. South Carolina is on sanctions because they have a Confederate flag flying over a Confederate Memorial on the state capital grounds. It isn't the South Carolina flag. How does that flag flying over a memorial have anything to do with any of the colleges in South Carolina. Flying the flag in that location is in South Carolina state law. That is why it could be used as a precedent for putting all of North Dakota on sanctions because the nickname would be in state law. That being said, I don't think the NCAA would do that any time soon because they are already getting the results they want from UND. However, the State Law applies to only one school UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 So a state law isn't as bad as a state flag?? (I also don't see the sanctions being expanded to ndsu, just questioning the reason stated) Because, it is a state law that is applied toward one school UND. I just don't see it being applied to NDSU. 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.