Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[82SiouxGuy]

About the most UND could host is the Summit League Bball tourney...Attendance is extremely low for those games...

Attendance would be good for a Summit League tournament if most of the Dakota schools were involved.

[star2city]

Attendance would be good for a Summit League tournament if most of the Dakota schools were involved.

Would fully agree with that - especially if UND men's basketball could ever get on track. Moreso, since the women's team would normally be competitive, the overall tournament would have great attendance. The one issue is that UND probably couldn't schedule a regular season game at the Ralph, as the Summit generally doesn't grant tournaments to a home court.

[Ranger]

You guys keep trying to keep the tournament out of the REA, but as hard as you try you're simply not correct.

Boise's Taco Bell Arena has been a first round host numerous times and has capacity of ~13k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco_Bell_Arena

Spokane's VM Arena is in the same boat, with capacity ~12k. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokane_Veterans_Memorial_Arena

stupid

[Ray77]

Definitely agree that the REA wouldn't be considered for as an NCAA Men's host, but for different reasons: lack of upper-end hotel rooms in the city and lack of flights/seats into GF or within an hour. The NCAA generally has minimums for these: even Fargo probably wouldn't qualify.

The REA could definitely go after hosting a women's NCAA 1st and 2nd round and the men's Summit championship. Those are much easily to qualify for. In both cases though, the Sioux logos could be counted against the REA. The Alerus could also go after those same events, as well as a men's hockey regional - but the rental ice capability would be costly.

What I didn't understand is why UND didn't pursue hosting the women's hockey national championship at the Urban Plains arena in Fargo. The NCAA clearly has an issue with the REA - as any bid it has is doomed to failure - but doesn't have one with the Alerus and the Urban Plains arena.

I think there may be some "issues" between the REA management and the management at the UP Center. If you remember when the REA placed a bid for next year's World Junior Championship the 2nd arena that the REA partnered with was the Moorhead Sports Center. I don't have details and I'm not in the know, but I do believe I heard rumblings that the REA said they'd never partner with the UP Center as long as the current management was in place at the UP Center, or something to that effect.

In my opinion, if this is true that's too bad. The REA partnering with the UP Center would be a perfect fit.

[mikejm]

I think there may be some "issues" between the REA management and the management at the UP Center.

Using the term "issues" is dramatically understating the situation.

[LeftyZL]

Fine - REA can be a private entity without UND hockey playing there.

UND does not have to play in that facility.

NCAA should sanction UND if they continue to play in a facility that purposefully thumbs its nose at the legal process that has been agreed to by the state, school and the NCAA.

You're absolutely right. UND doesn't have to play in the Ralph Engelstad Arena if it doesn't want to. They could always move over to Purpur Arena or Eagles Arena and play in a 3,000 seat arena. They could even renovate the old REA too while they're at it.

Stop being dumb.

Do you honestly believe the NCAA has any right to jump into the agreement that UND and the REA has with regards to the usage of the arena? Again, the REA is a private entity. No one has to do any business with them if they don't want to. Just like any other business, if they can't attract tenants/acts/concerts/etc., they will eventually fail and be gone.

[dlsiouxfan]

http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/3119

Sad day indeed. I'm glad to see the REA is going down swinging on that beautiful logo!

So if the REA is going to force UND to pay for all repairs and maintenance that results in a logo removal shouldn't there be that much more money for the REA foundation to return to UND at the end of the year? Somehow I doubt this will happen with that parasite Hodgson and the REA board calling the shots.

If REA really wants to play hardball on this I hope UND brings suit for breach of contract.

[82SiouxGuy]

So if the REA is going to force UND to pay for all repairs and maintenance that results in a logo removal shouldn't there be that much more money for the REA foundation to return to UND at the end of the year? Somehow I doubt this will happen with that parasite Hodgson and the REA board calling the shots.

If REA really wants to play hardball on this I hope UND brings suit for breach of contract.

Sorry, you lost me with your logic. Let's say that the REA turns over $X per year to UND. If REA pays for logo removal and such it would come out of operating profit, not from foundation funds, so they would turn over $X-removal costs. Or UND could pay for it out of the money they get from REA, so they would get $X and then subtract the costs. UND gets the same net income either way.

As long as UND can use the facility for regular season games and has very little chance of hosting tournament games anyway because of the way the NCAA chooses sites then I don't see a great chance of a breach of contract lawsuit.

[dlsiouxfan]

Sorry, you lost me with your logic. Let's say that the REA turns over $X per year to UND. If REA pays for logo removal and such it would come out of operating profit, not from foundation funds, so they would turn over $X-removal costs. Or UND could pay for it out of the money they get from REA, so they would get $X and then subtract the costs. UND gets the same net income either way.

As long as UND can use the facility for regular season games and has very little chance of hosting tournament games anyway because of the way the NCAA chooses sites then I don't see a great chance of a breach of contract lawsuit.

We're on the same page. If REA isn't going to pay for the repairs then UND should get that much larger of a payout. If REA starts spending the money saved on repairs elsewhere (such as Board or management salaries) then it's basically theft. REA's primary and most substantial revenue stream is provided by UND. If REA feels they now have the authority to spend our money in a manner that defies our wishes then I think it's fairly clear cut that they aren't living up to their end of the contract.

[mikejm]

I finally understand the whole declining test score thing.

[yababy8]

We're on the same page. If REA isn't going to pay for the repairs then UND should get that much larger of a payout. If REA starts spending the money saved on repairs elsewhere (such as Board or management salaries) then it's basically theft. REA's primary and most substantial revenue stream is provided by UND. If REA feels they now have the authority to spend our money in a manner that defies our wishes then I think it's fairly clear cut that they aren't living up to their end of the contract.

Guy spends $150 Million dollars of his OWN money on a Ice rink that we couldn't even have dreamed of before he made it happen. He only wanted one thing in return, to have the name he loved not be taken from us all becuase of PC knee jerk reactions to victim addict crybabies.

Now you say that the board, which was NOT a part of the settlement, should defy Ralphs only wish because why?

If you ever go inside the ralph to enjoy an event, hopefully the manager will throw your ass out and wont use the door gifthorse looker!

[redwing77]

I finally understand the whole declining test score thing.

I was thinking:

Poster child for why admission standards are set too low.

-------

In truth, I'd love to see the NCAA sue a private entity such as the REA for nickname hogwash. They won't stand a chance in hell. The judge will look at them and say "What does this have to do with NCAA rules and by laws? The NCAA is not a regulator of private businesses. Go back to trying to find more ways to rip off the public."

[dlsiouxfan]

I was thinking:

Poster child for why admission standards are set too low.

-------

In truth, I'd love to see the NCAA sue a private entity such as the REA for nickname hogwash. They won't stand a chance in hell. The judge will look at them and say "What does this have to do with NCAA rules and by laws? The NCAA is not a regulator of private businesses. Go back to trying to find more ways to rip off the public."

It's funny the two of you have the nerve to question my intelligence when both of you apparently have reading comprehensions skills that leave a lot to be desired.

I never said the NCAA had the standing to sue REA. They don't and definitely never will. UND would have a case as the contract between REA and UND provides that all hockey revenues go to the REA with the understanding that REA will use those funds to pay necessary arena expenses and return any profit to UND at the end of the year. If the REA is refusing to pay basic arena management expense (like repairs and maintenance) and then not returning those funds to UND, they are breaching the contract.

Despite what many hockey fans believe the hockey team is not owned and run by REA. It's still UND that pays for the scholarships, the coaches salaries, and UND student athletes make up the squad. Revenues from games played rightfully belong to UND and under the agreement REA is responsible for managing those revenues, but does not have sole disgression as to how they are spent. The REA has a fiduciary duty to manage those revenues appropriately and it appears here they may be breaching that duty.

If either of you think that I've misunderstood the agreement betwen REA and UND then feel free to state so here, it would probably be a much more effective strategy of defending your position than making flippant comments about my intelligence.

[dlsiouxfan]

Guy spends $150 Million dollars of his OWN money on a Ice rink that we couldn't even have dreamed of before he made it happen. He only wanted one thing in return, to have the name he loved not be taken from us all becuase of PC knee jerk reactions to victim addict crybabies.

Now you say that the board, which was NOT a part of the settlement, should defy Ralphs only wish because why?

If you ever go inside the ralph to enjoy an event, hopefully the manager will throw your ass out and wont use the door gifthorse looker!

Ralph donated the money for the arena under a whole different set of circumstances. He is no longer around to express his wishes. We have no idea what his wishes would have been if the circumstances surrounding the nickname were the same back then as they are now. He may have clung to his guns on this issue or he may have been more pragmatic given the harm keeping the nickname in the face of NCAA opposition would cause UND. No one can really know.

The administration at UND had to make a decision given the circumstances presented to them. Whether they were right or wrong is up for debate, but I would guess that they thought about a whole lot more than the perceived wishes of a deceased benefactor before making their decision.

[Stromer]

Ralph donated the money for the arena under a whole different set of circumstances. He is no longer around to express his wishes. We have no idea what his wishes would have been if the circumstances surrounding the nickname were the same back then as they are now. He may have clung to his guns on this issue or he may have been more pragmatic given the harm keeping the nickname in the face of NCAA opposition would cause UND. No one can really know.

The administration at UND had to make a decision given the circumstances presented to them. Whether they were right or wrong is up for debate, but I would guess that they thought about a whole lot more than the perceived wishes of a deceased benefactor before making their decision.

UND will never challenge REA on the issue of the logos. All UND cares about is making sure their programs are not adversely affected by the NCAA ruling. By changing the name and dropping the logo, they will meet the criteria for that. They could care less that the hockey team will still play in an arena full of the old logo because the NCAA can't do a thing to UND over that. Now if down the road the NCAA changes things (such as hockey tourney 1st round games play on campus sites), then UND might take issue as that would affect the hockey program. But until then, UND will embrace REA's decision because it keeps the logo semi alive without any visible support from the university.

[82SiouxGuy]

It's funny the two of you have the nerve to question my intelligence when both of you apparently have reading comprehensions skills that leave a lot to be desired.

I never said the NCAA had the standing to sue REA. They don't and definitely never will. UND would have a case as the contract between REA and UND provides that all hockey revenues go to the REA with the understanding that REA will use those funds to pay necessary arena expenses and return any profit to UND at the end of the year. If the REA is refusing to pay basic arena management expense (like repairs and maintenance) and then not returning those funds to UND, they are breaching the contract.

Despite what many hockey fans believe the hockey team is not owned and run by REA. It's still UND that pays for the scholarships, the coaches salaries, and UND student athletes make up the squad. Revenues from games played rightfully belong to UND and under the agreement REA is responsible for managing those revenues, but does not have sole disgression as to how they are spent. The REA has a fiduciary duty to manage those revenues appropriately and it appears here they may be breaching that duty.

If either of you think that I've misunderstood the agreement betwen REA and UND then feel free to state so here, it would probably be a much more effective strategy of defending your position than making flippant comments about my intelligence.

The question is whether the changes would qualify as repairs and maintenance. If REA was not maintaining the building, was not keeping it safe for customers or employees, was not keeping up the appearance which would make it less than desirable for customers to attend games, then REA would probably be in breach of contract (I can't say absolutely because I haven't seen the contract). The changes the settlement with the NCAA want are mainly cosmetic. Normally a renter is responsible for those costs. For instance, if you lease a building and want to change the way it looks, you would have to pay those costs rather than the owner. REA owns the building. Depending on the language in the contract, they may or may not have control over the decorations in the building. But refusing to pay for changes in decor is probably not a breach of contract.

[yababy8]

We have no idea what his wishes would have been if the circumstances surrounding the nickname were the same back then as they are now. He may have clung to his guns on this issue or he may have been more pragmatic given the harm keeping the nickname in the face of NCAA opposition would cause UND. No one can really know.

The administration at UND had to make a decision given the circumstances presented to them. Whether they were right or wrong is up for debate, but I would guess that they thought about a whole lot more than the perceived wishes of a deceased benefactor before making their decision.

WOW!

That is about the most impressively moronic suggestion think I have ever heard.

You might as well say, Five years after William Wallace died he might have supported England's acquisition of Scotland with the caveat that Scotland be included in the rotation for the national archery championships.

[MplsBison]

You're absolutely right. UND doesn't have to play in the Ralph Engelstad Arena if it doesn't want to. They could always move over to Purpur Arena or Eagles Arena and play in a 3,000 seat arena. They could even renovate the old REA too while they're at it.

Stop being dumb.

Do you honestly believe the NCAA has any right to jump into the agreement that UND and the REA has with regards to the usage of the arena? Again, the REA is a private entity. No one has to do any business with them if they don't want to. Just like any other business, if they can't attract tenants/acts/concerts/etc., they will eventually fail and be gone.

Of course the NCAA has the right to place sanctions on UND, limiting their post season options, if UND is going to play their games at (privately owned and operated) facilities that have no respect for the NCAA and their rules.

[MplsBison]

Guy spends $150 Million dollars of his OWN money on a Ice rink that we couldn't even have dreamed of before he made it happen. He only wanted one thing in return, to have the name he loved not be taken from us all becuase of PC knee jerk reactions to victim addict crybabies.

Now you say that the board, which was NOT a part of the settlement, should defy Ralphs only wish because why?

If you ever go inside the ralph to enjoy an event, hopefully the manager will throw your ass out and wont use the door gifthorse looker!

Then fine - the REA should keep every last, single logo in place. Don't replace any of them.

And then UND should take it's hockey games elsewhere. The REA can be for concerts, shows, etc.

[MplsBison]

You know, for all the potential problems and headaches this could cause UND in the future moving forward....is playing at the REA really worth it?

Yes, it's the nicest NCAA hockey venue in the nation...but is UND hockey better off because of it? I already know the first response: it allows us to recruit the best players in the nation because we have the best facilities in the nation.

Oh...ok. How many championships has UND won since moving into the REA? Right.

Sadly, this almost exactly reflects NDSU football's situation of moving into their own Taj Mahal only to see a program go from nationally dominate to winning no championships since.

[Goon]

MplsBison IQ: <90; possibly lower

Actually it's probably closer to 75...

[Goon]

The settlement with the NCAA says to host post-season play about 1800 of the 2500 logos in the Engelstad Arena would have to be removed. It says that any logo that is part of the structure of the building- like logos etched in the floors and walls- could remain. All logos that were superficial would have to be removed for UND to host post-season play.

Hodgeson has maintained that he and the REA board are against changing anything in the arena, and that UND would have to pay for any future changes that may be made to the building.

I don't see anything wrong with these statements, all it says is UND will pay for future changes.

[dlsiouxfan]

I don't see anything wrong with these statements, all it says is UND will pay for future changes.

The settlement say logos only need to be replaced as part of the routine maintenance of the building. This means when it's time to put in new seat cushions that the seat cushions be replaced with new ones that don't bear the Sioux logo. If REA has a problem with this and refuses to replace the cushions altogether then there had better be a higher payout coming to UND at the end of the year since it's obvious the REA isn't using the funds to pay for routine maintenance. If there isn't then REA has breached their fiduciary duty. It should be obvious that by taking this stance the REA management is inviting increased scrutiny of their spending. It would be nearly impossible for them to justify any discretionary expenditures without subjecting them to possible civil or even criminal liability.

[dlsiouxfan]

WOW!

That is about the most impressively moronic suggestion think I have ever heard.

You might as well say, Five years after William Wallace died he might have supported England's acquisition of Scotland with the caveat that Scotland be included in the rotation for the national archery championships.

Well I guess we have another person calling me a moron while demonstrating a stunning lack of reading comprehension.

Where in my post did I ever make any claim as to how Ralph Englestad would feel about the nickname decision? It's impossible for either you or I to ever make such a claim which is essentually what I stated in my previous post.

Heck, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt as his position probably would have been a lot closer to yours than mine. Still it would be incredibly foolish of our administration to have given any consideration to what may or may not have been a dead man's thoughts given the current situation. A lot of things have changed since Ralph donated his money for the arena and the current or future administrators at UND shouldn't be forced to wear WWRD (What would Ralph Do) bracelets and consider what Ralph would have to say about every situation affecting UND athletics.

[Goon]

It would be nearly impossible for them to justify any discretionary expenditures without subjecting them to possible civil or even criminal liability.

How crminally? What crime have they committed? They were not a party to the settlement.