Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[Teeder11]

^{I guess I read the column like this. Sacramento St. is concerned with the travel costs to ND within conference play. I'm willing wager that they along with a number of other far west schools in the Big Sky would be more than thrilled to show us the door under the disguise of the nickname situation, to get the end result of getting out of travel to ND. Even though it proves that it's not really about the nickname...its the travel--by having the nickname it gives them the ammunition and an actionable item to vote on.}

Bingo! We have a wiener.

[the green team]

If travel was the issue why did they vote UND in? The nickname is retired. What is there to give them ammo about?

Who's to say that they voted in favor of us joining. Does it have to be unanimous? If not I would have been shocked if we got yes's from Sac St., Portland St. and N. Arizona. Now getting voted into a conference without those 3 probably not a big issue, but if those 3 all started to tell the conference that they would no longer play us due to the nickname---then that provides a problem and headache for those who were our allies and were in favor of us joining. This is all speculation on my part, but I'm just trying to read between the lines like anybody else.

[the green team]

Wow, I must have killed the conversation with my previous response. This thread it appears to have died.

[Teeder11]

Wow, I must have killed the conversation with my previous response. This thread it appears to have died.

Pragmatic and logical approaches to thinking tend to kill threads. Buzz kill!

[Hayduke]

Pragmatic and logical approaches to thinking tend to kill threads. Buzz kill!

You're right though. In a close decision, we did have a winner!

[gooner]

Fetch....nice touch with the upside down Sioux flag. For those of you that are not sure what this means.... it is a signal of dire distress. GO SIOUX!!!!

[dakotadan]

When UNC, NDSU & SDSU were up for membership, the BSC had said they would only expand with a unanimous vote by the presidents. I have not heard any similar comments about the last round of expansion. But I highly doubt they would add 2 full and 2 associate members without having a near unanimous agreement.

But this isn't somebody in their administration making these comments. If this shows anything it is that even if we strong-arm the NCAA into letting us keep the nickname, there will always be people trying to use it against us. This circus will not go away until the name does.

So for me the question becomes at what point is it better for the university as a whole to put this controversy behind us and move forward. This issue has been the most visible aspect of the university for well over a dozen years. I don't think that is good for the university.

[the green team]

Pragmatic and logical approaches to thinking tend to kill threads. Buzz kill!

Well it must have been a minor miracle and I guess I'll have to chalk it up to dumb luck that I actually I had a logical approach to things.

[82SiouxGuy]

Dave, I'm sure you realize that none of those prove anything other than that there are people that are upset about the name changing. Anyone can set up a Facebook page for pretty much anything. I'm sure you could do it. You might have created one or more of those. They don't prove anything. And Mr. Black Cloud has no proof of any of his allegations. I feel confident that he has no experience working with athletic departments in a college setting, or in a college conference. I also feel confident that he has no inside connections at the Big Sky or within the UND athletic department. It's easy to make an allegation, much harder to prove it.

[Teeder11]

http://www.wdaz.com/...ticle/id/11746/

Frank Black Cloud said Wednesday that Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton was spreading "deception and half-truths" about potential consequences for UND.

Black Cloud says Fullerton's words are "designed to scare and create fear" and are "strong words from a man who is the commissioner of a struggling DI conference."

Assistant Big Sky Commissioner Jon Kasper says the Big Sky has not lost any institutions during a period of conference transition, and has actually added two schools for all sports, and two others for football.

Why would the commissioner of the Big Sky want to "deceive" and "scare" people if the nickname, as Frank contends, is really no big deal to the Big Sky? Why would it even matter? Why would he even comment on it at all if it didn't matter to his conference? Why not just ignore the whole thing playing out in North Dakota?

Where is the payoff to the Big Sky for such tactics? If it doesn't matter to them, then why would they need to scare anyone about it? Just for shits and giggles, I guess.

And if you suggest the Big Sky is doing it as a favor to Kelley to get rid of the nickname, then I still have to ask why would the Big Sky go along with it if they could care less about the damn nickname? I just don't see how a quid pro quo scenario makes sense in this case. They'd (Big Sky) just look at Kelley and say, "Ya know, Bob, the nickname's cool with us, so we're gonna continue to stay out of that whole mess you've got brew'n over there."

Please update me on the conspiracy so I can connect the dots as well as you and Frank are.

[Chewey]

Why would the commissioner of the Big Sky want to "deceive" and "scare" people if the nickname, as Frank contends, is really no big deal to the Big Sky? Why would it even matter? Why would he even comment on it at all if it didn't matter to his conference? Why not just ignore the whole thing playing out in North Dakota?

Where is the payoff to the Big Sky for such tactics? If it doesn't matter to them, then why would they need to scare anyone about it? Just for shits and giggles, I guess.

And if you suggest the Big Sky is doing it as a favor to Kelley to get rid of the nickname, then I still have to ask why would the Big Sky go along with it if they could care less about the damn nickname? I just don't see how a quid pro quo scenario makes sense in this case. They'd (Big Sky) just look at Kelley and say, "Ya know, Bob, the nickname's cool with us, so we're gonna continue to stay out of that whole mess you've got brew'n over there."

Please update me on the conspiracy so I can connect the dots as well as you and Frank are.

Frank B.C.'s allegations are supported by the emails and documentation obtained by the FOIA. He's not making them in a vacuum. This isn't created out of whole cloth. The reason for the scare tactics is that they know the petition process will likely have enough signatures. The documentation/emails is right there. Do you really think Frank B.C. would make such allegations if there was no support? How would that be for the side he supports? He's a smart guy.

[Teeder11]

Frank B.C.'s allegations are supported by the emails and documentation obtained by the FOIA. He's not making them in a vacuum. This isn't created out of whole cloth. The reason for the scare tactics is that they know the petition process will likely have enough signatures. The documentation/emails is right there. Do you really think Frank B.C. would make such allegations if there was no support? How would that be for the side he supports? He's a smart guy.

But my question still remains. What would be in it for the Big Sky to enter into this alleged chicanery? The nickname is cool with them, right? Then why would they come out and say stuff that is contrary to their position, if that is indeed their position? Why not just let UND deal with it and move on unaffected? No one has shown me the reason why it behooves the Big Sky to make unnecessary waves on an issue that "is really no big deal" to them. Just doesn't add up.

The e-mails Frank cites prove nothing. The whole thing reminds me of religious zealots citing Bible versus, stretching and revising contexts and adding their own interpretation, all to fit their own particular ideology.

[jimdahl]

They prove that there are many more people out there on my side than on your side. Only on this forum are the majority of people in favor of moving forward with the retirement of the nickname.

They prove nothing of the sort, liking a "Long Live the Fighting Sioux" page and not supporting the petition drive aren't mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the vast majority who post here have supported almost every effort to keep the name in any way that didn't result in NCAA sanctions.

There's a big gap between supporting the name and wanting to force the school to keep it against its will in the face of those sanctions. I wouldn't guess that many who have clicked those "Like" buttons deliberately support the latter to quite the extent you do, in that such a position certainly isn't spelled out on them. I would guess that majority are just people who support the name and are sad to see it go, like most of us here.

[the green team]

Why would the commissioner of the Big Sky want to "deceive" and "scare" people if the nickname, as Frank contends, is really no big deal to the Big Sky? Why would it even matter? Why would he even comment on it at all if it didn't matter to his conference? Why not just ignore the whole thing playing out in North Dakota?

Where is the payoff to the Big Sky for such tactics? If it doesn't matter to them, then why would they need to scare anyone about it? Just for shits and giggles, I guess.

And if you suggest the Big Sky is doing it as a favor to Kelley to get rid of the nickname, then I still have to ask why would the Big Sky go along with it if they could care less about the damn nickname? I just don't see how a quid pro quo scenario makes sense in this case. They'd (Big Sky) just look at Kelley and say, "Ya know, Bob, the nickname's cool with us, so we're gonna continue to stay out of that whole mess you've got brew'n over there."

Please update me on the conspiracy so I can connect the dots as well as you and Frank are.

I completely echo your thought process here. I've been thinking "Am I the only one, that can't decipher a vast conspiracy when reading through the correspondences that have been released to the public between the Big Sky and UND?" I've been wondering if there is honestly something wrong with me? The fact that I can't see it so clearly as a Frank BC or the SA Blog guy can. Honestly, when a child does a connect the dots book- they usually result in a clear picture, but if your connecting the dots the way some of these people want you to connect them- the resulting picture would be a muddled mess.

[ScottM]

I completely echo your thought process here. I've been thinking "Am I the only one, that can't decipher a vast conspiracy when reading through the correspondences that have been released to the public between the Big Sky and UND?" I've been wondering if there is honestly something wrong with me? The fact that I can't see it so clearly as a Frank BC or the SA Blog guy can. Honestly, when a child does a connect the dots book- they usually result in a clear picture, but if your connecting the dots the way some of these people want you to connect them- the resulting picture would be a muddled mess.

It would also imply that the vast majority of UND alums, including the President of the Alumni Association, have somehow been turned into a anti-moniker "fifth column" by the NC$$ and the Ron His Horse is Thunder and Russell Means of the world.

I wasn't happy when Kendal Baker unilaterally tried to drop the name during a summer session in 1990 or 91, and I wasn't happy when the NC$$ trotted out the H&A list, but I knew that UND was going to eventually lose the Sioux moniker in 2007 when the settlement surrender was filed in Judge Jahnke's court. If not now, then when SR and/or SL would have withdrawn their consent after a change in tribal leadership.

It sucks, and it hurts, on a number of levels, but it's the landscape UND faces today, and it's our job to ensure that UND remains a successful institution, on and off the field, court and/or rink.

[Goon]

They prove nothing of the sort, liking a "Long Live the Fighting Sioux" page and not supporting the petition drive aren't mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the vast majority who post here have supported almost every effort to keep the name in any way that didn't result in NCAA sanctions. There's a big gap between supporting the name and wanting to force the school to keep it against its will in the face of those sanctions. I wouldn't guess that many who have clicked those "Like" buttons deliberately support the latter to quite the extent you do, in that such a position certainly isn't spelled out on them. I would guess that majority are just people who support the name and are sad to see it go, like most of us here.

Now you have done it!!!! You went and brought common sense and logic into the argument.

[jimdahl]

I believe there are a lot more people on my side than most here want to believe. I guess we'll find out for sure when we learn whether or not the petition drive produced the required number of signatures.

While that would certainly make things interesting, it won't actually prove that, either. Alas, the petitions don't actually make any mention of the corresponding harm, they just say "UND must be named Fighting Sioux". So, the petition drive is certainly gathering some signatures from people who don't realize that passing such a law will put UND back under NCAA sanctions.

There's simply no way for us to know how many signers realize it and want to reinstate the name anyway (like you) or how many incorrectly think that passing the law will somehow force the NCAA to drop the sanctions. Unfortunately, I would guess a lot of the signers think the latter, but there's really no way to know.

[yababy8]

Alas, the petitions don't actually make any mention of the corresponding harm, they just say "UND must be named Fighting Sioux".

I think the question is that of the "harm". What is the harm? That is the debate isn't it?

If I say that I will burn down your house if you don't stop playing loud music late at night, does that mean that if you play loud music at night your house will be burned down??

Nope..

Threats vs harms. Could be the same or not the same.

My problem is when people treat them as synonymous in order to make a decision, especially a decision that involves great loss..

[The Sicatoka]

The NCAA moniker policy remains in place to be either complied with or violated.

• No home post-season games.
  
• Special "no name, no logo" uniforms for NCAA post-season.
  
• An NCAA recommendation to member schools to not schedule schools on the sanctions list.
  

That's the real sanctions.

No home playoff games = Harm.

[yababy8]

The NCAA moniker policy remains in place to be either complied with or violated.

• No home post-season games.
  
• Special "no name, no logo" uniforms for NCAA post-season.
  
• An NCAA recommendation to member schools to not schedule schools on the sanctions list.
  

That's the real sanctions.

No home playoff games = Harm.

How long do you think the NCAA will punish UND with a constitutionally defined name added to the fact that the people they purport to protect have had such a strong position on the matter that they filed suit against them.

This issue is not going away. We should stay strong in the fight.

[The Sicatoka]

Ask South Carolina and Mississippi. They've been under NCAA sanction for a decade or more because of laws in those states.

I'm ready to move on. If the fight is to be won it'll only be won by Spirit Lake, not UND, not the State, and surely not me.

But I'm also ready to trade Sioux County (Standing Rock) to South Dakota for a bucket full of warm spit (and we'd be getting the better end of the deal). Sioux County (Standing Rock) has shown what kind of neighbors and friends they are.

[82SiouxGuy]

How long do you think the NCAA will punish UND with a constitutionally defined name added to the fact that the people they purport to protect have had such a strong position on the matter that they filed suit against them.

This issue is not going away. We should stay strong in the fight.

What is going to actually force the NCAA to change their position? Why should they give in? They have a legal settlement document that allows them to do what they are promising to do. The law is on their side. They have shown that they are not impressed with the sentiment of the citizens of North Dakota and a law in North Dakota, whether passed by the legislature or put into the constitution, does not affect what they are going to do. There isn't going to be a huge public outcry across the nation, and it probably wouldn't bother them even if there was because it wouldn't take long before people moved on to another outrage. This issue is a minor annoyance to the NCAA. They will enact their punishment and then just check back every season to see if UND is still using the nickname. If UND is using the nickname then the NCAA will say carry on with the punishment and move on to the next topic. The only way the NCAA would change this policy is if forced to by the Federal government in some way, most likely by the courts because Congress isn't going to worry about it.

[yababy8]

Ask South Carolina and Mississippi. They've been under NCAA sanction for a decade or more because of laws in those states.

I'm ready to move on. If the fight is to be won it'll only be won by Spirit Lake, not UND, not the State, and surely not me.

But I'm also ready to trade Sioux County (Standing Rock) to South Dakota for a bucket full of warm spit (and we'd be getting the better end of the deal). Sioux County (Standing Rock) has shown what kind of neighbors and friends they are.

But again, was there a law suit filed by the "victims the NCAA was "protecting" with those sanctions?

I'm saying it is the 1-2 punch, constitution and the fight in the Sioux people that will win this.

[The Sicatoka]

This has never been about those "victims" the NCAA claims to be "helping". This is about college administrators making grandstanding proclamations that make themselves look like heros in their wine and cheese party circuits. And those folks control the NCAA.

PS - The ND state constitution is not a "punch" to the NCAA. It's at most an annoyance, just like Al Carlson's state law was.

[82SiouxGuy]

But again, was there a law suit filed by the "victims the NCAA was "protecting" with those sanctions?

I'm saying it is the 1-2 punch, constitution and the fight in the Sioux people that will win this.

Unless the lawsuit is successful it's meaningless. The case won't even be started until next year and could take years. The NCAA isn't going to back down just because of the lawsuit. A lot of damage could be done to UND before it's settled.

This story, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=4316170, gives a pretty good summation of the South Carolina situation. Here are a few excerpts:

The Atlantic Coast Conference has had enough of that flag: Earlier this week it pulled the 2011, 2012 and 2013 ACC baseball tournaments out of Spurrier's state and relocated them to neighboring North Carolina. Myrtle Beach's loss becomes Durham's and Greensboro's economic and tourism gain.

Meanwhile, the NCAA won't touch the state of South Carolina with a vaulter's pole. Same goes for Spurrier's home conference, the SEC. And all because of a Confederate battle flag that first flew atop the state Capitol dome in 1962 and still flies prominently, defiantly and wrongly at a Confederate soldier's monument on the Capitol grounds in Columbia.

"It's like they're holding the state economically hostage," Burbage said of the NAACP-organized boycott. "I don't understand why an athletic conference has to get involved in the internal affairs of state politics. We're good people in this state. It's not like you're going to come into South Carolina and we're going to hurt an athlete, endanger your lives in any way."

But the NAACP isn't holding the state hostage -- just accountable. Big difference.

That flag continues to leave bruise marks on the university. Start with South Carolina's athletic department, which is the primary owner and operator of the Colonial Life Arena (no NCAA tournaments). And this being the hyperintense SEC, you can bet some rival recruiters use the flag controversy to their advantage. At the very least, it must cause some recruits to think twice about signing with the Gamecocks.

"It hurts basketball," Randolph said. "It hurts football immensely. We do get calls and letters from parents saying, 'I wouldn't want my child to go there.'"

Not a lot of give in the NCAA, ACC or the SEC.