Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[The Sicatoka]

Here's my prediction with all the legal haggling and everything else... We will arrive in November with a meeting which will resolve to retire the nickname. No one will have heard boo, from Standing Rock, leaving a bewildered SBoHE to go with the choice that they didn't want to have to make. The Summit will have waited for UND, to join the conference, however they did go ahead and schedule the season that needed to be scheduled leaving UND to join a year later than they would have preferred, forcing them at least for another year to throw more money covering costs to travel within the Great West. In the end we all will be poorer. No Nickname, Less Money in the bank to operate- after another year of heavy expenditures, missed recruits as they choose to go to rivals.

Not a pretty picture no matter how you slice it but I do think we will make it to November. But I don't think we'll hear anything from SR in that time.

Yup. I too believe everyone wants to just let the clock run out and start pointing fingers at everyone else.

So if the results of that is what you expect, or are planning for, why not just say it and act to head off what you can of it by acting now.

Stand up and do, or take the weak way out.

[Goon]

"We've stated our position to the media already. Please reference that." is better than not returning calls to Tu-Uyen Tran of the GF Herald.

When they fail to answer the phone it makes them act like they have something to hide.

[xI Hammer Ix]

When they fail to answer the phone it makes them act like they have something to hide.

I'm with you. Blowing someone off is one of the, if not THE, most rude things you can do. If you think you're too good to at least call someone back, or answer the phone and say "I'm sorry, I can't comment on that right now." then you need to get over yourself. I understand people being busy but how long does it take to make a phone call and say that, or at least send an email, come on! You could do that walking out of the building on your lunch break.

[star2city]

Why would Hanson need to state this explicitly?

Surely his predecessor served willingly and actively as an "ambassador for UND" for the good of the ND University System.

I mean there's no trackrecord of the predecessor of Hanson at NDSU acting untoward, fiscally or personally, in any forum or manner.

Hanson should have left that as understood, unsaid; unless it needed to be clarified and said.

5. Tom Douple

Claims the Summit League is not involved in this issue but then says the nickname issue must be resolved before the Summit will consider UND for membership. This, in spite of the fact that UND could not begin play until the 2011-2012 season and the issue will be resolved before the end of 2010 per the court settlement. All he would really need is a signed agreement with UND that the issue will indeed be resolved by then, maybe add a multi-million dollar penalty clause if it is not. IMO, there is an appearance of collusion with the NC$$, this just doesn't pass the smell test to me (maybe I just have a cold). If there are valid reasons why the Summit League will not consider UND right now, why won't he return reporters calls ? Why not give an interview and explain why it is important to the Summit to have this issue resolved prior to considering UND for membership ? Explain why it is important even though there is a court agreement that will have the issue resolved prior to any possible league play. Whether Douple likes it or not, he has interjected himself into this issue and he and the Summit League will take a share of the blame from nickname supporters which will carry into future Summit League play.

1+1=2

There is almost no doubt that Chapman contaminated the relationship between UND and the Summit. The SBoHE seems to have given Hanson the job of sanitizing all of Chapman's messes.

NDSU fans will fervently deny that Chapman, being of such stellar character, would ever do such a thing. But simultaneously, those same hypocritcal fans are likely ready to lynch Hanson for his "ambassador" words. Chapman was worshiped by bison fans precisely because he acted with the passive aggressive nature of much their fanbase.

[SooToo]

Why would Hanson need to state this explicitly?

Surely his predecessor served willingly and actively as an "ambassador for UND" for the good of the ND University System.

I mean there's no trackrecord of the predecessor of Hanson at NDSU acting untoward, fiscally or personally, in any forum or manner.

Hanson should have left that as understood, unsaid; unless it needed to be clarified and said.

1+1=2

There is almost no doubt that Chapman contaminated the relationship between UND and the Summit. The SBoHE seems to have given Hanson the job of sanitizing all of Chapman's messes.

NDSU fans will fervently deny that Chapman, being of such stellar character, would ever do such a thing. But simultaneously, those same hypocritcal fans are likely ready to lynch Hanson for his "ambassador" words. Chapman was worshiped by bison fans precisely because he acted with the passive aggressive nature of much their fanbase.

<<SIGH>>

82 Sioux Guy, you have the patience of a saint.

[mksioux]

I don't see why it's so hard for you guys to accept the Summit's clear position.

There are only two possible ways to conclude this matter: 1) get the SR's support and become compliant with the NCAA agreement or 2) officially retire the nickname.

NEITHER of those are *guaranteed* to happen on Nov 2010. Not saying this would happen, but someone could file some new lawsuit or the SBoHE could decide to have a change of heart and just let UND keep using the nickname per whatever punishments the NCAA set forth.

Until one of the above two things happens, there is ZERO reason for the Summit to even consider UND's application. There is no reason to take the risk. Not when there are other schools to consider, espcially given the new DI membership rules and pending Big Ten expansion that will probably open up all of the DI conferences to re-alignment.

It's difficult for me to believe that ideology is not driving the Summit's position, at least to a certain extent. If all they cared about was the business risk of the possibility UND might go back on the NCAA sanctions list, all they would need to do is put a clause into the acceptance agreement that requires UND to pay a rediculously high liquidated damages payment to the conference if it ever goes back on that list. That would be the guarantee of resolution that the Summit says it wants.

[star2city]

<<SIGH>>

82 Sioux Guy, you have the patience of a saint.

Please, understand there are two entirely different situations here:

the sioux name, which will almost certainly be changed, regardless of what the Summit league does

the Summit's treatment of UND, considering there was a November 2010 deadline. If the Summit was really concerned about the name as it stands, why would it have allowed IPFW and UMKC to play UND?

I guess you believe Chapman was a saint, too.

[mksioux]

I'm coming around to the position that the risk of being left behind in the Summit is not that great. Maybe waiting until this November would delay membership by a year, but I don't think UND will be left behind. Changing the nickname prematurely would be far more devastating to the University than delayed entry into the Summit by one year.

Whatever the case, the way Tom Douple interjected himself into this issue in a real game-changing type of way will never be forgiven in Grand Forks, even if the Summit eventually accepts UND into the conference. He'll be about as popular as Greg Shepherd or Don Adam. And deservedly so.

[82SiouxGuy]

It's difficult for me to believe that ideology is not driving the Summit's position, at least to a certain extent. If all they cared about was the business risk of the possibility UND might go back on the NCAA sanctions list, all they would need to do is put a clause into the acceptance agreement that requires UND to pay a rediculously high liquidated damages clause to the conference if it ever goes back on that list. That would be the guarantee of resolution that the Summit says it wants.

Ideology may be a factor for the Summit, I really don't know. But another factor that many fans don't look at is negative publicity. We have to face the fact that UND has gotten some negative publicity around the country while fighting this issue. I believe that at least part of the reason that the Summit League wants the issue settled is that they don't want any negative PR from being associated with a school getting such negative PR. They have had to fight issues with schools like Chicago State in the past. If they let UND in now with a clause stating that it would depend on UND reaching a conclusion by the November 30th time line, they would still be associated with the issue for more than 6 months (as in the University of North Dakota, a member of the Summit League, etc.).

The other factor is the scheduling issue. The Summit will have league schedules for 2011-2012 completed by late summer or early fall to give member schools time to fill out the non-conference portion. If UND did have a clause to have the name issue settled by November and then didn't follow through, what would the Summit have to do? Drop them from the schedule and rework it entirely? Or try to find another school that could plug in? Neither one of those is a desirable outcome. If they are going to add a school they want to do it with the least problems possible. The nickname issue is a problem they don't want to deal with.

[82SiouxGuy]

I'm coming around to the position that the risk of being left behind in the Summit is not that great. Maybe waiting until this November would delay membership by a year, but I don't think UND will be left behind. Changing the nickname prematurely would be far more devastating to the University than delayed entry into the Summit by one year.

Whatever the case, the way Tom Douple interjected himself into this issue in a real game-changing type of way will never be forgiven in Grand Forks, even if the Summit eventually accepts UND into the conference. He'll be about as popular as Greg Shepherd or Don Adam. And deservedly so.

You may or may not be right about the timing. Faison seems to feel that the window is potentially closing, but he doesn't know for sure since it doesn't sound like they have given him a straight answer either.

You are completely right about the way people will accept Douple. But I don't think he really cares about that. I'm not too sure that Shepherd and Adam care that much either.

[rochsioux]

It's difficult for me to believe that ideology is not driving the Summit's position, at least to a certain extent. If all they cared about was the business risk of the possibility UND might go back on the NCAA sanctions list, all they would need to do is put a clause into the acceptance agreement that requires UND to pay a rediculously high liquidated damages payment to the conference if it ever goes back on that list. That would be the guarantee of resolution that the Summit says it wants.

We have a winner!

[DamStrait]

Ideology may be a factor for the Summit, I really don't know. But another factor that many fans don't look at is negative publicity. We have to face the fact that UND has gotten some negative publicity around the country while fighting this issue. I believe that at least part of the reason that the Summit League wants the issue settled is that they don't want any negative PR from being associated with a school getting such negative PR. They have had to fight issues with schools like Chicago State in the past. If they let UND in now with a clause stating that it would depend on UND reaching a conclusion by the November 30th time line, they would still be associated with the issue for more than 6 months (as in the University of North Dakota, a member of the Summit League, etc.).

The other factor is the scheduling issue. The Summit will have league schedules for 2011-2012 completed by late summer or early fall to give member schools time to fill out the non-conference portion. If UND did have a clause to have the name issue settled by November and then didn't follow through, what would the Summit have to do? Drop them from the schedule and rework it entirely? Or try to find another school that could plug in? Neither one of those is a desirable outcome. If they are going to add a school they want to do it with the least problems possible. The nickname issue is a problem they don't want to deal with.

The vast majority of people think the other way - that there is nothing wrong with "Fighting Sioux" and those that agree with trying to force it being changed are a very tiny minority (ultra PC wackos) - therefore, there has been no net negative publicity, nor shall there be in the future.

[mksioux]

Ideology may be a factor for the Summit, I really don't know. But another factor that many fans don't look at is negative publicity. We have to face the fact that UND has gotten some negative publicity around the country while fighting this issue. I believe that at least part of the reason that the Summit League wants the issue settled is that they don't want any negative PR from being associated with a school getting such negative PR. They have had to fight issues with schools like Chicago State in the past. If they let UND in now with a clause stating that it would depend on UND reaching a conclusion by the November 30th time line, they would still be associated with the issue for more than 6 months (as in the University of North Dakota, a member of the Summit League, etc.).

The other factor is the scheduling issue. The Summit will have league schedules for 2011-2012 completed by late summer or early fall to give member schools time to fill out the non-conference portion. If UND did have a clause to have the name issue settled by November and then didn't follow through, what would the Summit have to do? Drop them from the schedule and rework it entirely? Or try to find another school that could plug in? Neither one of those is a desirable outcome. If they are going to add a school they want to do it with the least problems possible. The nickname issue is a problem they don't want to deal with.

I've heard of no timeline scenario that would have UND joining the Summit within the next six months. Absent the extremely unlikely scenario of UND choosing to go back on the sanctions list, this issue will be resolved by November, well before UND will ever be in the Summit. And the Summit can guard against that extremely unlikely scenario through contract. I'm talking a rediculously high liquidated damages number that no reasonable Board member could justify paying to keep the nickname (on top of the NCAA sanctions no less). My point is that through contract, you can remove any fears the Summit might have that UND might end up back on the sanctions list. In fact, even if UND gets permission from Standing Rock and the matter is presumably "resolved" according to Summit requirements, there is still no guarantee that approval would not be withdrawn at some point in the future and UND could theoretically go back on the sanctions list. No matter how you look at it, Tom Douple's public comments on this issue do not make sense. There has to be some other reason Tom Douple wants the nickname dropped.

I'm not saying we are entitled to an explanation. It is not our conference and he technically doesn't owe us an explanation. I just find his comments (and now his silence) to be less than genuine.

[MplsBison]

It's difficult for me to believe that ideology is not driving the Summit's position, at least to a certain extent. If all they cared about was the business risk of the possibility UND might go back on the NCAA sanctions list, all they would need to do is put a clause into the acceptance agreement that requires UND to pay a rediculously high liquidated damages payment to the conference if it ever goes back on that list. That would be the guarantee of resolution that the Summit says it wants.

Says some guy on a message board...

Dude, I feel for you ok? Yes it sucks that you're going to lose your nickname. But lashing out at the Summit with absolutely no basis for it is not going the help anything.

It's no where near as easy as you make it sound.

Simply, the Summit holds all the cards. They are the only conference UND can get into for some years now and they know UND wants in. As soon as the nickname is retired it all becomes moot.

But no one on this board has made even a reasonable argument for why the Summit should admit UND prior to that.

[The Sicatoka]

You may or may not be right about the timing. Faison seems to feel that the window is potentially closing, but he doesn't know for sure since it doesn't sound like they have given him a straight answer either.

Seems the Summit's position isn't that well known ...

Maybe Tu-Uyen Tran of the GF Herald should give Douple a call and as ... oh ... wait ... never mind.

[The Sicatoka]

But no one on this board has made even a reasonable argument for why the Summit should admit UND prior to that.

UND will only help the northern tier Summit schools (NDSU, SDSU, soon USD) via both lower travel costs, (bus travel instead of flights to a non-conference game) and better gates (as the potential for visiting fans increases when the opponent is in reasonable driving distance).

But no one is saying the Summit should allow UND in before the NCAA agreement kicks in in Nov 2010.

There, there's the case. Happy?

[rochsioux]

It's no where near as easy as you make it sound.

Actually, it really is just as easy as mksioux states.

There has to be something else here. I will reiterate what I said a month ago:

The Summit League Commissionor is Tom Douple. He is a member of the NCAA Leadership council. This council has regular meetings, one of the items they seem to review is the status of NC$$ litigation. Bernard Franklin is also an attendee at these meetings. Does that mean there is collusion between the NC$$ and the Summit to try and force UND to drop the nickname ? No, but it just adds another layer to a very confounding statement from the Summit League.

Does anyone think the NC$$ would never target a school that had the audacity to sue them ?

It is apparent that Douple wants the name gone, otherwise an agreement could be reached immediately to consider UND's application without putting the Summit League in the middle of this issue.

[MplsBison]

Actually, it really is just as easy as mksioux states.

There has to be something else here. I will reiterate what I said a month ago:

The Summit League Commissionor is Tom Douple. He is a member of the NCAA Leadership council. This council has regular meetings, one of the items they seem to review is the status of NC$ litigation. Bernard Franklin is also an attendee at these meetings. Does that mean there is collusion between the NC$ and the Summit to try and force UND to drop the nickname ? No, but it just adds another layer to a very confounding statement from the Summit League.

Does anyone think the NC$ would never target a school that had the audacity to sue them ?

It is apparent that Douple wants the name gone, otherwise an agreement could be reached immediately to consider UND's application without putting the Summit League in the middle of this issue.

Tin-foil hat at best.

It just doesn't work that way. It's all about $$$ to these guys. They don't let emotions get in the way, unlike those on this board.

When UND no longer presents a business risk (negative image/PR) to the Summit, they will be admitted in a nano-second.

[darell1976]

I've heard of no timeline scenario that would have UND joining the Summit within the next six months. Absent the extremely unlikely scenario of UND choosing to go back on the sanctions list, this issue will be resolved by November, well before UND will ever be in the Summit. And the Summit can guard against that extremely unlikely scenario through contract. I'm talking a rediculously high liquidated damages number that no reasonable Board member could justify paying to keep the nickname (on top of the NCAA sanctions no less). My point is that through contract, you can remove any fears the Summit might have that UND might end up back on the sanctions list. In fact, even if UND gets permission from Standing Rock and the matter is presumably "resolved" according to Summit requirements, there is still no guarantee that approval would not be withdrawn at some point in the future and UND could theoretically go back on the sanctions list. No matter how you look at it, Tom Douple's public comments on this issue do not make sense. There has to be some other reason Tom Douple wants the nickname dropped.

I'm not saying we are entitled to an explanation. It is not our conference and he technically doesn't owe us an explanation. I just find his comments (and now his silence) to be less than genuine.

Douple is RHHIT's long lost brother.

[Blackheart]

Tin-foil hat at best.

It just doesn't work that way. It's all about $$$ to these guys. They don't let emotions get in the way, unlike those on this board.

When UND no longer presents a business risk (negative image/PR) to the Summit, they will be admitted in a nano-second.

...says some guy on a message board...

[the green team]

I guess the only question that matters is... Does anyone actually think that Standing Rock between now and November will address this issue? My thought is- no, unfortunately.

[darell1976]

I guess the only question that matters is... Does anyone actually think that Standing Rock between now and November will address this issue? My thought is- no, unfortunately.

No, but they will say something when either the SBoHE changes the name or the deadline passes. Then they will say we are the tribe that stood by and let the nickname die.

[MplsBison]

I guess the only question that matters is... Does anyone actually think that Standing Rock between now and November will address this issue? My thought is- no, unfortunately.

Not a chance.

[mksioux]

Says some guy on a message board...

We're all just "some guy on a message board," yourself included.

Dude, I feel for you ok? Yes it sucks that you're going to lose your nickname. But lashing out at the Summit with absolutely no basis for it is not going the help anything.

I'm not lashing out. I just don't believe Douple's public statements was his primary motivation for injecting himself in this mess.

It's no where near as easy as you make it sound.

Please explain why not. There are concerns in nearly every deal and lawyers draft contracts to alleviate those concerns. If Douple wants UND in the Summit but for the "business risk" associated with the remote possibility UND ends up back on the sanctions list, the lawyers could easily deal with that issue.

Simply, the Summit holds all the cards. They are the only conference UND can get into for some years now and they know UND wants in. As soon as the nickname is retired it all becomes moot.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying the Douple doesn't have the right to do what he's doing, I just think he's being disingenous.

But no one on this board has made even a reasonable argument for why the Summit should admit UND prior to that.

Then you haven't been paying attention. You said yourself that but for the nickname issue, UND is a great fit for the Summit. Therefore, the question is why shouldn't they be admitted because of the nickname issue.

[Chewey]

Assume that the stars align properly and SR grants approval - perpetual approval. Does anyone think the SBoHE would still be crazy enough to adhere to its 30 year timeline? That was never part of the settlement agreement, even the AG is opposed to it, Summit League has no position on it, etc.. Could anyone imagine the grinding and gnashing of the teeth that would occur? Could Dorgan, Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, actually redeem himself from 30 years of political graft (my opinion, even though he's a public figure) and broker a deal now that he no longer has to worry about impressing the PC police? Not likely but stranger things have happened, like the parting of the Red Sea.