Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[MplsBison]

Hmm, Boise is a city of over 200k and a metro of almost 600k. That makes it roughly five times the size of Grand Forks. It's one of the largest 100 cities in the US. It has air service with Delta, United, Southwest, and four other smaller carriers. It's a half day drive from Salt Lake City(<6hrs) and a bit more from Portland(<8hrs); both are straight shots. It's also fills a void in the northern Rockies; the next closest major arena is in SLC.

In contrast, GF has one major airline(Delta), and one minor(Allegiant). It's a half day from MSP(<6hrs), but not a straight shot(though going through Fargo isn't exactly a big deal). But the real kicker is this: why would the NCAA chose to put a subregional in GF and have almost all of the people fly in through MSP rather than just choosing one of the three comparable or better venues in the Cities(Metrodome/Target/Xcel) plus everything else the Cities give you?

Budge or don't budge, I don't really care. But GF is not getting a MBB subregional no matter what REA does or doesn't do. And Fargo ain't getting one either, no matter what NDSU & the city do for a basketball arena. We could build a 25k seat palace to BB that would put the REA to shame and we still wouldn't get a sniff unless bribes were involved. MSP is just too close and too well equipped as a city. GF needs to focus on getting whatever hockey games they can, and Fargo needs to focus on WBB and as many Summit tourneys as possible. Anything else would be a waste of time, energy and money.

And with that, I'm done on the nickname forum for another couple months, or the next time I get really bored.

All it would take would be for GF to have a more attractive bid than the cities. Not impossible.

Take a hike.

[star2city]

All it would take would be for GF to have a more attractive bid than the cities. Not impossible.

Take a hike.

Mods:

Could something be done (i.e. banning) with this particular poster? Much of his "contributions" are merely to rile up others.

Many have him on ignore, but even that doesn't help when he goes in attack mode and multiple interchanges result.

[MplsBison]

Why is it so impossible for you to to ignore me?

[petey23]

Why is it so impossible for you to to ignore me?

You are kinda like your mom's case of herpes....even when you aren't visible(i.e. someone blocks your drivel), you still flare up on occasion(i.e. someone who hasn't blocked you, quotes your gibberish).

[Big A HG]

Yikes. I rarely come into this forum anymore, and when I do, the current topic being debated is one that can be put to bed with 10 minutes of researching. (Of course, the most recent tangent of the thread was started by MplsBison, so I really shouldn't be surprised.)

From the settlement agreement:

It looks like the only thing at stake is whether UND wants to host one of the DI men's hockey regionals, the DI women's hockey Frozen Four or a first round home game, or maybe a DI women's basketball subregional. That's it. If the REA refuses to make changes, things will continue to go on just as they have with these few exceptions(and the only one of those with a real shot is the first round women's hockey game).

Here's my crazy, should-have-been-a-lawyer-esque, idea. North Dakota is hated by many in the college hockey world due to our success and our physical play. However, UND does have friends. One great friend UND has had is Bemidji State. What if we could get Bemidji State to try and host a regional in Grand Forks at REA?

1) The terms of the NCAA's ruling states that UND can't host any events there if there are Sioux logos, but doesn't state anything about any other school.

2) Schools don't have to host in their respective cities. (Example: Michigan Tech hosts regionals in Green Bay, WI at the Resch Center which is not only not in Houghton, MI, but is in a completely different state. Also the distance from Houghton to Green Bay is farther than from Bemidji to Grand Forks. Tech could have chosen to try and host in a city like Detroit which is in its home state at an even bigger market and better arena, but didn't...which is similar to Bemidji which could host in the Twin Cities, but isn't as close as Grand Forks.).

Now, I'm sure the NCAA would still probably say no to this, and I doubt BSU would do it...but that is still a viable loophole worth checking into. BSU is a great school that UND had a large part in saving, so BSU does somewhat owe us one.

[redwing77]

It looks like the only thing at stake is whether UND wants to host one of the DI men's hockey regionals, the DI women's hockey Frozen Four or a first round home game, or maybe a DI women's basketball subregional. That's it. If the REA refuses to make changes, things will continue to go on just as they have with these few exceptions(and the only one of those with a real shot is the first round women's hockey game).

Here's my crazy, should-have-been-a-lawyer-esque, idea. North Dakota is hated by many in the college hockey world due to our success and our physical play. However, UND does have friends. One great friend UND has had is Bemidji State. What if we could get Bemidji State to try and host a regional in Grand Forks at REA?

1) The terms of the NCAA's ruling states that UND can't host any events there if there are Sioux logos, but doesn't state anything about any other school.

2) Schools don't have to host in their respective cities. (Example: Michigan Tech hosts regionals in Green Bay, WI at the Resch Center which is not only not in Houghton, MI, but is in a completely different state. Also the distance from Houghton to Green Bay is farther than from Bemidji to Grand Forks. Tech could have chosen to try and host in a city like Detroit which is in its home state at an even bigger market and better arena, but didn't...which is similar to Bemidji which could host in the Twin Cities, but isn't as close as Grand Forks.).

Now, I'm sure the NCAA would still probably say no to this, and I doubt BSU would do it...but that is still a viable loophole worth checking into. BSU is a great school that UND had a large part in saving, so BSU does somewhat owe us one.

What's in it for Bemidji?

And, forgive my not fully understanding the meaning of the term but... would this not be collusion?

[The Sicatoka]

The NCAA is "concerned" about the imagery in the facility.

The host wouldn't matter if the imagery is the issue.

The NCAA will just not choose a facility with such imagery, no matter the host.

Of course, by taking that stance they daren't allow an NCAA event to be played in United Center in Chicago else they open themselves to charges of hypocricy and possibly even legal action from who knows which directions.

[MplsBison]

The NCAA is "concerned" about the imagery in the facility.

The host wouldn't matter if the imagery is the issue.

The NCAA will just not choose a facility with such imagery, no matter the host.

Of course, by taking that stance they daren't allow an NCAA event to be played in United Center in Chicago else they open themselves to charges of hypocricy and possibly even legal action from who knows which directions.

Not really - anyone can see the plainly obvious difference is that the NCAA has zero control over the United Center or it's affiliated teams.

On the other hand, NCAA has absolute power to govern the REA's affiliated team, UND.

[Goon]

Not really - anyone can see the plainly obvious difference is that the NCAA has zero control over the United Center or it's affiliated teams.

On the other hand, NCAA has absolute power to govern the REA's affiliated team, UND.

Really? The REA just like the United Center is a private facility so the NCAA really has no power, their only power would be over UND...

Go away skippy.

[Ray77]

Not really - anyone can see the plainly obvious difference is that the NCAA has zero control over the United Center or it's affiliated teams.

On the other hand, NCAA has absolute power to govern the REA's affiliated team, UND.

I think you misread The Sicatoka's comment. I don't believe that comment said anything about controlling the United Center or its affiliated teams. It was more about the imagery in the United Center and how hypocritical it would be to allow NCAA games or tournaments to be played there.

Just as the NCAA doesn't have any control over the REA, we unfortunately are witnessing that the NCAA does seem to have "absolute power" to govern UND - which is sickening.

[MplsBison]

I think you misread The Sicatoka's comment. I don't believe that comment said anything about controlling the United Center or its affiliated teams. It was more about the imagery in the United Center and how hypocritical it would be to allow NCAA games or tournaments to be played there.

Just as the NCAA doesn't have any control over the REA, we unfortunately are witnessing that the NCAA does seem to have "absolute power" to govern UND - which is sickening.

I was replying to the part where Sicatoka said that the NCAA could be sued if they allowed post-season games at the United Center.

Since NCAA can't govern the United Center's teams but can govern the REA's team, it's apples to oranges.

Plus, how is it possible to sue someone because they allowed a third party to do something that they didn't allow you to do? What is that called in law? It seems made up or nonsensical, ie if a judge ruled that they are allowed to disallow you, then that's that. That's the rule. What they and a third party do is irrelevant.

[Fetch]

your irrelevant.

[Goon]

your irrelevant.

I agree MPLSBISONFAN is a buffoon.

[The Sicatoka]

The NCAA selects the facility that its post-season games are played in.

To not allow REA due to Indian related imagery but not hold that standard regarding United Center would open the NCAA to legitimate question. And I'm just talking buildings here, not teams.

[redwing77]

The NCAA selects the facility that its post-season games are played in.

To not allow REA due to Indian related imagery but not hold that standard regarding United Center would open the NCAA to legitimate question. And I'm just talking buildings here, not teams.

And I'm just recycling MPLSBison's rationale.

Despite UND not controlling or owning or operating the REA, the NCAA won't allow a regional there regardless of host because UND somehow controls the REA under the table somehow in some double secret (probation) method.

Wait.... what's this lease agreement REA Inc has with UND? That makes them a tenant of the REA? Close enough.

I know I rent an apartment in Omaha here. Because I do so, I can control Lund, the management company that owns my building, right?

[ScottM]

The NCAA selects the facility that its post-season games are played in.

To not allow REA due to Indian related imagery but not hold that standard regarding United Center would open the NCAA to legitimate question. And I'm just talking buildings here, not teams.

For some reason, now that the NC$$ has gotten its 'white whale" in the Fighting Sioux, and since Brand is now fertilizing daisies, I doubt they would pay much attention to REA's decorating. They have other issues like anti-trust issues, and their "lottery" in Indiana for FF tickets that will occupy them for some time.

[MplsBison]

The NCAA selects the facility that its post-season games are played in.

To not allow REA due to Indian related imagery but not hold that standard regarding United Center would open the NCAA to legitimate question. And I'm just talking buildings here, not teams.

Nope.

To even attempt to ask that question, you'll get denied because of an apples-oranges comparison: the NCAA governs UND, it does not govern pro sports teams.

You're trying to completely separate the building and the team - that's not logical or even reasonable.

[Ray77]

Nope.

To even attempt to ask that question, you'll get denied because of an apples-oranges comparison: the NCAA governs UND, it does not govern pro sports teams.

You're trying to completely separate the building and the team - that's not logical or even reasonable.

Are you on drugs? You don't think there would be any issues raised if the NCAA said that the REA could not host postseason games but they'd allow them to be held at the United Center - with both buildings having very similar imagery?

Neither building can be "governed" by the NCAA. Apples to apples.

[MplsBison]

Are you on drugs? You don't think there would be any issues raised if the NCAA said that the REA could not host postseason games but they'd allow them to be held at the United Center - with both buildings having very similar imagery?

Neither building can be "governed" by the NCAA. Apples to apples.

You're trying to completely separate the building and the team - that's not logical or even reasonable.

The NCAA has no ability to govern the Blackhawks. The United Center is tied to the Blackhawks.

The NCAA has absolute ability to govern UND. The REA is tied to UND.

It's apples to oranges. You can't take the team (and thus the governing body) out of the equation.

I'll make that argument and win every time in court.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Now, just to let me see if I understand this whole disagreement here.

I believe that The Sicatoka point was that for the NCAA to hold an NCAA sponsored event at the United Center could possibly be deemed hypocritical due to the similar imagery that is there and at the Ralph, where the NCAA has said that they won't hold an event. Correct, so far?

Now, if what i can figure out from only reading half of the conversation...MPLSBison disagrees because the NCAA can not control the United Center or their affiliatied organization, the Blackhawks and states that it is an apples to oranges discussion because of this. Am I still correct?

Now, assuming that the above info is correct....then the discussion of controlling the teams is irrelevant because you aren't talking about controlling the teams or the buildings...the main part of this disagreement is where the NCAA "hosts" (via certain teams) an event sponsored by them. This is something that they control making it both logical and reasonable to separate the teams and the buildings because the NCAA holds events in buildings that house professional teams.

Looking at both sides and all of the information that I can figure out so far, I would have to agree with The Sicatoka....it could be deemed hypocritcal because the NCAA is saying that it will not allow an event to be hosted in one building that has "hostile and abusive" imagery, but would allow it to be held in a building with similar imagery.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

[mikejm]

^way too logical.

[MplsBison]

Now, just to let me see if I understand this whole disagreement here.

I believe that The Sicatoka point was that for the NCAA to hold an NCAA sponsored event at the United Center could possibly be deemed hypocritical due to the similar imagery that is there and at the Ralph, where the NCAA has said that they won't hold an event. Correct, so far?

Now, if what i can figure out from only reading half of the conversation...MPLSBison disagrees because the NCAA can not control the United Center or their affiliatied organization, the Blackhawks and states that it is an apples to oranges discussion because of this. Am I still correct?

Now, assuming that the above info is correct....then the discussion of controlling the teams is irrelevant because you aren't talking about controlling the teams or the buildings...the main part of this disagreement is where the NCAA "hosts" (via certain teams) an event sponsored by them. This is something that they control making it both logical and reasonable to separate the teams and the buildings because the NCAA holds events in buildings that house professional teams.

Looking at both sides and all of the information that I can figure out so far, I would have to agree with The Sicatoka....it could be deemed hypocritcal because the NCAA is saying that it will not allow an event to be hosted in one building that has "hostile and abusive" imagery, but would allow it to be held in a building with similar imagery.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

Except that the only reason a building would likely have 'hostile and abusive' imagery in the first place is because of the team that plays there.

Thus, no, you have failed again to separate the "home team" from the building. Unless you can do that, you can't win the argument. United Center only has the imagery because of the pro team that plays there, which the NCAA has no authority over. Therefore, it would be invalid to deny post-season hosting to the United Center solely on the basis of the pro-team's "hostile and abusive" imagery.

The "home team" of the REA, on the other hand, is UND - which the NCAA has full authority over. Thus, it makes logical sense to deny post-season hosting to the REA for having "hostile and abusive" imagery that is only in the venue in the first place because of UND (even while at the same time granting it to the United Center)!

Find me an arena that has hostile & abusive imagery ingrained into the venue itself and does not or did not have a "home team" with such nickname/imagery, then you might have a chance.

[GeauxSioux]

Except that the only reason a building would likely have 'hostile and abusive' imagery in the first place is because of the team that plays there.

Thus, no, you have failed again to separate the "home team" from the building. Unless you can do that, you can't win the argument. United Center only has the imagery because of the pro team that plays there, which the NCAA has no authority over. Therefore, it would be invalid to deny post-season hosting to the United Center solely on the basis of the pro-team's "hostile and abusive" imagery.

The "home team" of the REA, on the other hand, is UND - which the NCAA has full authority over. Thus, it makes logical sense to deny post-season hosting to the REA for having "hostile and abusive" imagery that is only in the venue in the first place because of UND (even while at the same time granting it to the United Center)!

Find me an arena that has hostile & abusive imagery ingrained into the venue itself and does not or did not have a "home team" with such nickname/imagery, then you might have a chance.

There is no way you could have kept a straight face when you typed this.

[Diggler]

It is dumbfucks like MplsBison why this board now sucks and a number of people don't post here anymore. He has sucked the fun out of this place and he's been allowed to do so. I do not understand why he is continually allowed to post here as he purposely and continually acts like a braindead asshole. I do not know of any other place where this constant bullheaded and purposely jerkoff behavior is allowed. Who cares if he's not breaking the rules? When 99% of the posters can't stand a fellow poster, just ban him and make the board fun to be on once again. Isn't that what this place is supposed to ultimately be? Fun? Well it sure as hell hasn't been fun for the past year. So can you please just ban this joke? If not, please just delete my account here, as I don't need to it anymore.

[Ray77]

It is dumbfucks like MplsBison why this board now sucks and a number of people don't post here anymore. He has sucked the fun out of this place and he's been allowed to do so. I do not understand why he is continually allowed to post here as he purposely and continually acts like a braindead asshole. I do not know of any other place where this constant bullheaded and purposely jerkoff behavior is allowed. Who cares if he's not breaking the rules? When 99% of the posters can't stand a fellow poster, just ban him and make the board fun to be on once again. Isn't that what this place is supposed to ultimately be? Fun? Well it sure as hell hasn't been fun for the past year. So can you please just ban this joke? If not, please just delete my account here, as I don't need to it anymore.

And the post of the year award goes to...Diggler. I second this motion.