star2city Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Don't worry about it. Length of time here doesn't matter, it comes down to posting what certain people here want to hear. I've been a member for 4 years and was told a few days ago by StarCity that my posts weren't worth reading. Some people just like to run the show apparently. Content is what matters to me. ShilohSioux has posts have good information and good insight. TRex, on the other hand, has consistently posted four years of Debbie Downer / Chicken Little sky falling garbage without any real thoughts behind them. He must be a joy to be around. BTW, with the new board features, how does one place another poster on ignore? Can't seem to find the ignore feature anymore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Does the NC$$ settlement really matter that much in trying to keep the name ? The way I look at it, the settlement gave UND 3 years to get tribal approval. During those 3 years UND would not be subject to any sanctions for using the Sioux name. After the 3 years if UND got approval from both tribes they could continue to use the name without sanctions. Without approval they must drop the name or face the NC$$ sanctions (no playoff games at home). I believe that is basically what the settlement says. I don't think it says anything about what would happen in the future if UND keeps the name without approval and is put on the sanctions list and then gets the tribal approval at some later date. If they keep the name and then get approval next year I believe the NC$$ will have no choice but to remove UND from the sanction list. Otherwise they will be going against the wishes of the Sioux tribes to allow the name which was supposedly the whole point of the tribal approval exemption in the first place. Now we can argue whether Standing Rock will ever approve the name, at this point I see little or no chance of that unless they can force a full vote of the tribe through their court system. So, if they pass a law and force UND to keep the Sioux name then they will be subject to the NC$$ sanctions. Until UND is playoff eligible any sanctions have little meaning (sure some schools like Minny won't schedule UND but I haven't seen them schedule UND during the past three years anyway). For me, the ND legislature should have done something years ago, but I would support this effort as I would still like to find some way to keep the name. Basically buying some time to find a way to get Standing Rock to vote of the issue. Any sanctions have little meaning until the 2012-2013 season. Agree that the NCAA would have no choice but to remove UND from the sanction list , IF Standing Rock approves the name after the settlement date. The NCAA rightly judged that UND and SBoHE - by itself, with all the PC forces within it - would never allow the Sioux name to be reinstated once the name has been removed. However, the NCAA almost certainly misjudged some issues: it certainly didn't expect a referendum on Spirit Lake and hoped to high hell that Standing Rock wouldn't have one either. A state legislature vote and a statewide constitutional vote would be even more shocking to the NCAA. Legislative votes specifically aimed at the NCAA - whether in states or in congress - are something the NCAA wants to avoid at practically any cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 If the Big Sky is looking for a way to get rid of UND since USD changed their minds, this could be a dagerous slope to get on. I hope the Big Sky is as happy to have UND as a member as UND is to be a member of the Sky, but what if, what if they didn't feel the same way with UND on its own out here in the central time zone in an 11/13 team league? Has there been any indication from the BSC where they stand on the nickname issue? Also, its human nature, that when someone tells you that you have to do something or that you can't do something, that we all want to do the opposite of what we are being told. We don't want to give up the Sioux name because we are being told we have to. (we certainly wouldn't have done this on our own) The Standing Rock tribe has and will continue to feel the same way about being told they have to vote on the nickname. When this news first broke, it sounded like a great idea, but there are so many questions that need to be answered... UND is a member of the Big Sky. The Big Sky bylaws would have to have some type of provision for this type of thing for UND to be voted out without risking penalties and / or court costs. Eastern Washington has had some rather serious academic and cheating issues in the near past that never threatened it's status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 UND is a member of the Big Sky. The Big Sky bylaws would have to have some type of provision for this type of thing for UND to be voted out without risking penalties and / or court costs. Eastern Washington has had some rather serious academic and cheating issues in the near past that never threatened it's status. In the eyes of the NCAA Indian nicknames are worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The Big Sky has no position on the name, and never has...meaning their member institutions have played us during this period and at least of right now will continue to do so. Wisconsin only played our basketball teams after the NCAA allowed the 3 year window, and Wisco's policy reflected that. The thing that is troublesome to me is that, ok our state legislature gets its way and this becomes law and we now retain the name but are no longer in compliance of the settlement. Lets say our football team does make the playoffs 2 years from now, and we would have had a home game, but now we won't...that would be a bitter pill. Or lets say they finally get the Big 10 Hockey Conference together and Minnesota & Wisco leave, at that point we would no longer be a league member with them and they could in theory abide by the policy of their institutions and choose not to play us in non conference games... yet another possible bitter pill. The more reason comes into the argument like Atty Gen Wayne Stenjhem telling legislators the impracticality of this all, the more that I have a feeling that the legislature will move ahead and this will pass. Because if there is one certain thing in this state is that no legislator is going to be told how dumb their ideas are by someone like Stenjhem--they are to stubborn...thats just their cue to push it through just to say I told you so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 The Big Sky has no position on the name, and never has...meaning their member institutions have played us during this period and at least of right now will continue to do so. Wisconsin only played our basketball teams after the NCAA allowed the 3 year window, and Wisco's policy reflected that. The thing that is troublesome to me is that, ok our state legislature gets its way and this becomes law and we now retain the name but are no longer in compliance of the settlement. Lets say our football team does make the playoffs 2 years from now, and we would have had a home game, but now we won't...that would be a bitter pill. Or lets say they finally get the Big 10 Hockey Conference together and Minnesota & Wisco leave, at that point we would no longer be a league member with them and they could in theory abide by the policy of their institutions and choose not to play us in non conference games... yet another possible bitter pill. The more reason comes into the argument like Atty Gen Wayne Stenjhem telling legislators the impracticality of this all, the more that I have a feeling that the legislature will move ahead and this will pass. Because if there is one certain thing in this state is that no legislator is going to be told how dumb their ideas are by someone like Stenjhem--they are to stubborn...thats just their cue to push it through just to say I told you so. The bolded is the downside. Plus, it's never good to be on the bad side of NCAA bureaucrats. They can make life miserable for an athletic department in many different ways. Some day, the Standing Rock Council will become more reflective of the people on this issue. That may be partial the intent of the legislature - to stall until there is enough Council changes at Standing Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota fairways Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Content is what matters to me. ShilohSioux has posts have good information and good insight. TRex, on the other hand, has consistently posted four years of Debbie Downer / Chicken Little sky falling garbage without any real thoughts behind them. He must be a joy to be around. BTW, with the new board features, how does one place another poster on ignore? Can't seem to find the ignore feature anymore. look under My Settings / Profile / Manage Ingored Users I'm still a newbie, so don't know if that works, but that's where I have seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 look under My Settings / Profile / Manage Ingored Users I'm still a newbie, so don't know if that works, but that's where I have seen it. Thanks!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The bolded is the downside. Plus, it's never good to be on the bad side of NCAA bureaucrats. They can make life miserable for an athletic department in many different ways. Some day, the Standing Rock Council will become more reflective of the people on this issue. That may be partial the intent of the legislature - to stall until there is enough Council changes at Standing Rock. How will this reflected recruiting especially for football when they won't see a home playoff game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Does the NC$$ settlement really matter that much in trying to keep the name ? The way I look at it, the settlement gave UND 3 years to get tribal approval. During those 3 years UND would not be subject to any sanctions for using the Sioux name. After the 3 years if UND got approval from both tribes they could continue to use the name without sanctions. Without approval they must drop the name or face the NC$$ sanctions (no playoff games at home). I believe that is basically what the settlement says. I don't think it says anything about what would happen in the future if UND keeps the name without approval and is put on the sanctions list and then gets the tribal approval at some later date. This is a logical take and I can see UND making this argument if push comes to shove. But I don't think it's correct. I agree the settlement agreement does not specifically say what will happen in the event UND does not obtain tribal approval within the Approval Period, chooses to retain the nickname, and then later obtains tribal approval. But, in my opinion, that does not mean the NCAA must place UND on the namesake exemption list in that event. Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement says that UND will announce within 30 days of the agreement that it will transition to a new nickname if it is unable to obtain tribal approval prior to the expiration of the Approval Period. And, in fact, UND did issue a statement on October 26, 2007 stating exactly that. Section 2(d) goes on to say that if UND does not transition to a new nickname, UND will be placed on the sanctions list. Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement could easily be construed as, in exchange for a three-year reprieval, UND pledged to put up or shut up by November 30, 2010, and waived any perceived right for the NCAA to hold open admittance on to the namesake exemption list indefinitely. The NCAA has no legal obligation to hold open admittance on to its namesake exemption list in perpetuity. If they keep the name and then get approval next year I believe the NC$$ will have no choice but to remove UND from the sanction list. Otherwise they will be going against the wishes of the Sioux tribes to allow the name which was supposedly the whole point of the tribal approval exemption in the first place. Now we can argue whether Standing Rock will ever approve the name, at this point I see little or no chance of that unless they can force a full vote of the tribe through their court system. I don't trust the NCAA to do anything for UND that it is not legally obligated to do. So, if they pass a law and force UND to keep the Sioux name then they will be subject to the NC$$ sanctions. Until UND is playoff eligible any sanctions have little meaning (sure some schools like Minny won't schedule UND but I haven't seen them schedule UND during the past three years anyway). It matters immediately for football recruiting. If UND is under NCAA sanctions, other schools will bludgeon UND on the recruiting trail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP157 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 It seems that two of the three proposed bills acknowledge the importance and significance of the 1969 Pipe Ceremony at Standing Rock that granted permission to use the nickname. For whatever reason, the NC$$ would never acknowledge that, probably because it would hurt their stance and ultimate objective of banning the Fighting Sioux nickname. (especially after the overwhelming vote at Spirit Lake in favor of the nickname) Archie Fool Bear and others have argued all along that the Pipe Ceremony should be recognized, and rightfully so. The state legislature should officially recognize it too. That would mean that UND had actually met the NC$$ requirement the day that Spirit Lake certified it's vote....which was years before the November 2010 deadline agreed to in the settlement. Then, even if Al Carlson's proposed bill is not the version that ultimately gets passed, Standing Rock's Tribal Council would at least be forced to have a vote of the people before rescinding permission to use the nickname. And I, for one, think the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the nickname. Let it play out.... GO SIOUX!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Archie Fool Bear and others have argued all along that the Pipe Ceremony should be recognized, and rightfully so. The state legislature should officially recognize it too. That would mean that UND had actually met the NC$$ requirement the day that Spirit Lake certified it's vote....which was years before the November 2010 deadline agreed to in the settlement. Well said & so true & worth asking / or forcing the NCAA for a ruling I just don't get why so many with influence & supposedly respected higher educations, can't for once publicly get behind something other than just let it go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 ND higher ed board won't actively fight proposed legislation on Fighting Sioux nickname Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Well said & so true & worth asking / or forcing the NCAA for a ruling I just don't get why so many with influence & supposedly respected higher educations, can't for once publicly get behind something other than just let it go Maybe because they actually believe that there are good reasons to let it go. Many people that still support trying to keep the nickname and logo are doing it just on emotion. They don't believe that there are consequences or potential consequences for keeping the name. Others belive that the consequences they see, or the potential consequences they see, are not worth the risk. They believe that the consequences would damage the University more than losing the name. Those consequences include nevering being eligible to host playoff games in football, women's basketball and other sports, which would also hurt recruiting a great deal, which would hurt attendance and hurt the Athletic Department financially. Another consequence is not being able to play teams that would ban the nickname and logo. We know that Minnesota and Wisconsin would do so immediately for any sports where they are not in the same league as UND. Other schools would do the same thing. Again this would hurt the school financially. The NCAA would also not be happy with UND because they would be fighting the rules. The NCAA could make life miserable for a school with very little effort, and who on this board believes that they wouldn't do that in a heartbeat to UND after fighting about this issue for more than 5 years already. You may not believe that continuing this fight could cause major problems for the University. Others really believe that it could become a huge thorn in the side of the school and the athletic department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackburn87 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I haven't posted for a while because I had resigned myself to the fact that this fight was over... but now? It's not over yet. And I'm glad. Too little too late? Maybe, but I'd rather go down swinging. Every problem has a solution. Perhaps we are on the cusp of one. Remember that we have the solid support of Spirit Lake and their voices have been ignored for far too long. They were forced to accept a settlement they had no part of. Their pleas to retain the Sioux name because of theirs OWN sense of identity and pride meant nothing to a bunch of white people who thought they knew better. Will Standing Rock have a referendum? I don't know but I really hope we rethink this settlement and look outside the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Well I guess I never really thought it would come to this. We now have a legislator, who graduated from NDSU, about to essentially put a bullet in the head of UND's athletic department while being cheered on by Sioux fans who have their heads so far up their own asses when it comes to this issue that they are completely blind to the repercussions that this will have on the athletic department. If this bill passes our football, basketball, and other non-revenue sports will immediately be handicapped to the point that it will destroy any chances of remaining competitive for the foreseeable future. Hockey will probaby will not be hurt until the Big Ten hockey conference is formed and Minnesota and Wisconsin discontinue their series with us. Fan interest would ultimately be destroyed as UND will be relegated to also-ran status as a collegiate hockey program. Eventually the whole university will be irreparably harmed by this decision and I'm sure at that point most of the idiot fans who thought this was an acceptable price to pay for the keeping the nickname will just move on and become fans of other teams. How do I know this? Well it's entirely apparent that some you never really gave a !@#$ about the school and the teams anyways so I have no doubt you'll abandon the school when things get really tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 ? ? ? By asking all our people in charge to ask the NCAA to reconsider (Having important people at least for once try) & for once maybe the NCAA will admit they made a mistake, by making us get approval from both tribes - one of which is being held hostage by their current Council ? ? ? From a tribe that really has already given us a prior OK ? ? ? Did the NCAA really know all the facts ? ? ? No one wants to go down the negative road you two are worried about But if there is even a glimmer of hope - it should be attempted Think Positive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Well I guess I never really thought it would come to this. We now have a legislator, who graduated from NDSU, about to essentially put a bullet in the head of UND's athletic department while being cheered on by Sioux fans who have their heads so far up their own asses when it comes to this issue that they are completely blind to the repercussions that this will have on the athletic department. If this bill passes our football, basketball, and other non-revenue sports will immediately be handicapped to the point that it will destroy any chances of remaining competitive for the foreseeable future. Hockey will probaby will not be hurt until the Big Ten hockey conference is formed and Minnesota and Wisconsin discontinue their series with us. Fan interest would ultimately be destroyed as UND will be relegated to also-ran status as a collegiate hockey program. Eventually the whole university will be irreparably harmed by this decision and I'm sure at that point most of the idiot fans who thought this was an acceptable price to pay for the keeping the nickname will just move on and become fans of other teams. How do I know this? Well it's entirely apparent that some you never really gave a !@#$ about the school and the teams anyways so I have no doubt you'll abandon the school when things get really tough. Not gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not gonna happen. Both schools have a policy of not playing schools that are on the NCAA restricted list unless they have to because of league rules. They have moved on that rule once in a while, but have followed most of the time. If they leave the WCHA for a Big Ten Conference they could very easily decide to not play a UND team that is on a restricted list. No guarantee that they will make that decision, but definitely is possible. Don't fool yourself into believing that it won't happen. The decision may be made by an advisory council made up of faculty, not the athletic department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Both schools have a policy of not playing schools that are on the NCAA restricted list unless they have to because of league rules. They have moved on that rule once in a while, but have followed most of the time. If they leave the WCHA for a Big Ten Conference they could very easily decide to not play a UND team that is on a restricted list. No guarantee that they will make that decision, but definitely is possible. Don't fool yourself into believing that it won't happen. The decision may be made by an advisory council made up of faculty, not the athletic department. Not gonna happen. You can tell me you told me so when it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 ? ? ? By asking all our people in charge to ask the NCAA to reconsider (Having important people at least for once try) & for once maybe the NCAA will admit they made a mistake, by making us get approval from both tribes - one of which is being held hostage by their current Council ? ? ? From a tribe that really has already given us a prior OK ? ? ? Did the NCAA really know all the facts ? ? ? No one wants to go down the negative road you two are worried about But if there is even a glimmer of hope - it should be attempted Think Positive How often has the NCAA admitted that they made a mistake? Did the NCAA want all of the facts, or did they just want a specific result? What incentive does the NCAA have to give up a win, and to give up a result that they originally wanted? Do they really care what the people of the reservations want, or did they just use the approval of the tribes as an easy excuse to get out of a fight with the really big schools like Florida State and Utah? What does the NCAA want in the long run? My opinions on these questions: They rarely admit mistakes unless they absolutely have to. They didn't want facts, they just wanted to eliminate all Native American nicknames and imagery and settled for eliminating as much as they could without causing too much trouble. No one has given any incentive that would tempt the NCAA into giving up a win and giving up ground in a battle. They don't care what the people on the reservations really want just like they don't care what the people of North Dakota really want. The long term goal of the NCAA is to eliminate all Native American nicknames and imagery, I don't see them giving up a win unless they absolutely have to. Sorry, I see nothing positive to hold onto any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not gonna happen. You can tell me you told me so when it does. Minnesota may or may not make that decision. Wisconsin is pushing the Big Ten Conference and would gladly give up regular games against UND to play a Big Ten schedule. It isn't far to go from there to not playing UND at all. I don't say I told you so, but I wouldn't be quite so sure of yourself either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Minnesota may or may not make that decision. Wisconsin is pushing the Big Ten Conference and would gladly give up regular games against UND to play a Big Ten schedule. It isn't far to go from there to not playing UND at all. I don't say I told you so, but I wouldn't be quite so sure of yourself either. Wisco and UM will not quit playing the Sioux in hockey if the BTHC is formed, or if the Sioux were to keep the name. Maybe these schools won't play the Sioux in other sports, but they will not stop playing out these rivalries in hockey. Good luck with that forecast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Wisco and UM will not quit playing the Sioux in hockey if the BTHC is formed, or if the Sioux were to keep the name. Maybe these schools won't play the Sioux in other sports, but they will not stop playing out these rivalries in hockey. Good luck with that forecast. They might not if we still have the name Fighting Sioux... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Wisco and UM will not quit playing the Sioux in hockey if the BTHC is formed, or if the Sioux were to keep the name. Maybe these schools won't play the Sioux in other sports, but they will not stop playing out these rivalries in hockey. Good luck with that forecast. You seem awfully sure of yourself. Unless you are part of the decision making process for the 2 schools in question, and were to remain in that postion for a long period of time, you can't be any more sure of that than anyone else is of their opinion. I'm not saying that it is definitely going to happen, just that it definitely is a possibility. Big Ten schools are more politically correct than most other colleges and that is saying a lot. 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.