82SiouxGuy Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Could you be any more red herring? No one is talking about a court reviewing a new law for constitutionality! We're talking about a court interpreting a long existing law BEYOND what is written. Which they should not be allowed to do. The courts had their chance to review that law when it was written. If there was nothing wrong with it then, they shouldn't get to effectively add on to what is written now. The SL tribe should be requesting an amendment to the constitution to note that the SBoHE does not have the authority to tell the schools what athletics nickname they can use! That's all they really want! The courts can only review a law when a case is brought in front of it. There is no mechanism for the courts to review laws as they are passed. Are you sure you even live in the United States? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackburn87 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Kelley is already on record: he doesn't want the nickname controversy to detract from the academic operations of the school. And he's exactly right. In the grand scheme of things...he has a school to run! Athletics is a very periphery function of a school. And a nickname is a very insignificant part of that periphery function. He has more important things to do, as he should. Again, your arguments make my head hurt. I probably shouldn't waste my time and energy on your constant barrage of idiocy, but here goes... 1. You state that this issue is an "emotional" one and discount any other points of view. Why don't you admit this is emotional for you as well or you wouldn't be on this board at all? And what's wrong if it is emotional? Why do you care if we care so much? A little passion on this issue goes a long way. I drove 19 hours to attend the Sioux-Gopher game at the REA this October and you know what? It was totally worth it. Get it? 2. Emotional argument or not, this is also a logical argument Sioux Fans make as well. The majority of Sioux Tribal Members at Spirit Lake support the name. Standing Rock wants time to weigh in on this issue. The NCAA and UND had an adequate deadline set in place to do just that. The logo is not offensive. The SBoHE needs to allow this to play out. The most vocal opponents are not from the Sioux Tribe, or are a very small number of Sioux members, or white college professors and Oh, I guess, and you. Skippy, are you beginning to see the logic yet? 3. UND is a great school. The logo has much more unifying effect than a negative one between all sorts of people (Again, junior, follow the logic...) Ergo, the Sioux Logo does not harm the educational mission of UND unless idiots and cry babies say it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I'm no genious or anything, but isn't that exactly the reason for the courts - to interpret the law? I was under the impression it was, I am not sure what they are teaching the students at NDSU or in MPLS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Could you be any more red herring? No one is talking about a court reviewing a new law for constitutionality! We're talking about a court interpreting a long existing law BEYOND what is written. Which they should not be allowed to do. The courts had their chance to review that law when it was written. If there was nothing wrong with it then, they shouldn't get to effectively add on to what is written now. The SL tribe should be requesting an amendment to the constitution to note that the SBoHE does not have the authority to tell the schools what athletics nickname they can use! That's all they really want! Again, as everyone has tried so desperately to point out. THE COURTS EXIST TO INTERPRET THE LAW....the United States Constitution gives the courts that right.....it is a little thing called the system of checks and balances. Google it or try googling School House Rocks...they have some interesting videos that everyone can learn from. The court may not have interpreted the law that way when it was written because there was not an issue with it at the time and no need to see it that way. That is why courts routinely revisit laws and interpret them. Granted, I do not know much about law, so I do not know how this will turn out, but neither do you because only the law and the right system can determine that. Oh, and for those of you who think UND hockey fans are being "selfish" for supporting the nickname, keep in mind that fans of the "other sports" are in favor of the nickname too. Are they being selfish? Just because one supports the hockey team doesn't mean that they fail to support the other teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Yeah but again, why should the court get the power? They should not get to have the ability to interpret law. If someone wants to make a law more specific than it reads as-is, then they should have to amend that law! It shouldn't get to be left up to some judge's interpretation! Geez, MPls, you really ought to learn to known when to be quiet. You don't have the first clue as to how our constitutional republic works. There are elementary students who know that the courts job is to interpret the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Irrelevant only to you. You really seem to be pushing the limits of even your limited reality lately. The hard cold fact is that if a school wants to have an athletic department they have 2 choices, become a member of the NAIA or a member of the NCAA. An independent athletic department would not survive. The NAIA is a much less relevant choice and is mainly for smaller schools. That means that the only real choice for large schools is have an athletic department and join the NCAA or not have an athletic department. Just about everything in life is voluntary if you want to push the definition that far. Breathing is voluntary. There are ways to stop breathing if you decide you want to do that. Would you like some links to show how that could work for you? That's not a fact, it's your opinion. UND or any school or group of schools are free to leave the NCAA and start their own association or just be independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The courts can only review a law when a case is brought in front of it. There is no mechanism for the courts to review laws as they are passed. Are you sure you even live in the United States? Are you capable of addressing arguments using logic? Or only ad hominems and emotional appeals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Again, your arguments make my head hurt. I probably shouldn't waste my time and energy on your constant barrage of idiocy, but here goes... 1. You state that this issue is an "emotional" one and discount any other points of view. Why don't you admit this is emotional for you as well or you wouldn't be on this board at all? And what's wrong if it is emotional? Why do you care if we care so much? A little passion on this issue goes a long way. I drove 19 hours to attend the Sioux-Gopher game at the REA this October and you know what? It was totally worth it. Get it? 2. Emotional argument or not, this is also a logical argument Sioux Fans make as well. The majority of Sioux Tribal Members at Spirit Lake support the name. Standing Rock wants time to weigh in on this issue. The NCAA and UND had an adequate deadline set in place to do just that. The logo is not offensive. The SBoHE needs to allow this to play out. The most vocal opponents are not from the Sioux Tribe, or are a very small number of Sioux members, or white college professors and Oh, I guess, and you. Skippy, are you beginning to see the logic yet? 3. UND is a great school. The logo has much more unifying effect than a negative one between all sorts of people (Again, junior, follow the logic...) Ergo, the Sioux Logo does not harm the educational mission of UND unless idiots and cry babies say it does. The settlement between the NCAA and the state does not bind the SBoHE in any way, shape or form into waiting until the deadline to instruct UND to retire the nickname. It could've legally and correctly done it the next day, if it wanted to. But they were logical and considerate of the emotional attachment that some UND alumns have for the nickname. They gave it due process. It's clear that SR is not being cooperative and will not support the nickname in a reasonable amount of time. Further, it is not even in the slightest way been demonstrated that either tribe will agree to a 30-year contract, another stipulation which seems to have been swept under the rug by nickname supporters who are desperate to get the SR to vote. So what if they vote? Is the SR tribal council (or SL for that matter) going to agree to a 30 year contract? Doubtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Again, as everyone has tried so desperately to point out. THE COURTS EXIST TO INTERPRET THE LAW....the United States Constitution gives the courts that right.....it is a little thing called the system of checks and balances. Google it or try googling School House Rocks...they have some interesting videos that everyone can learn from. The court may not have interpreted the law that way when it was written because there was not an issue with it at the time and no need to see it that way. That is why courts routinely revisit laws and interpret them. Granted, I do not know much about law, so I do not know how this will turn out, but neither do you because only the law and the right system can determine that. Oh, and for those of you who think UND hockey fans are being "selfish" for supporting the nickname, keep in mind that fans of the "other sports" are in favor of the nickname too. Are they being selfish? Just because one supports the hockey team doesn't mean that they fail to support the other teams. Please. The only UND team that even romotely loses if the Sioux nickname goes away is the hockey team. Considering the money they'll have to kick in to "fix" the REA. The football team doesn't care. They're already in the GWFC for the time being. And the bball and rest of the teams will be grateful to finally be in an auto-bid conference (Summit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackburn87 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The settlement between the NCAA and the state does not bind the SBoHE in any way, shape or form into waiting until the deadline to instruct UND to retire the nickname. It could've legally and correctly done it the next day, if it wanted to. But they were logical and considerate of the emotional attachment that some UND alumns have for the nickname. They gave it due process. It's clear that SR is not being cooperative and will not support the nickname in a reasonable amount of time. Further, it is not even in the slightest way been demonstrated that either tribe will agree to a 30-year contract, another stipulation which seems to have been swept under the rug by nickname supporters who are desperate to get the SR to vote. So what if they vote? Is the SR tribal council (or SL for that matter) going to agree to a 30 year contract? Doubtful. You have never answered the questions I have posed to you several times in several ways. Why are you on this message board? Why do you care? What are your motives? You pick fights with people on this board you can't possibly win. You feign intelligence, but I have yet to see it. Does the Sioux logo really hurt your feelings that much? (and again... I'm wasting my time and energy...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You have never answered the questions I have posed to you several times in several ways. Why are you on this message board? Why do you care? What are your motives? You pick fights with people on this board you can't possibly win. You feign intelligence, but I have yet to see it. Does the Sioux logo really hurt your feelings that much? (and again... I'm wasting my time and energy...) I don't care if UND keeps the Sioux nickname or doesn't. I want UND in the Summit because it gives UND bball players (and the rest of the sports) the only possible chance to get into the the post-season NCAA tournaments. I want the best possible chance for North Dakota's teams and in-state athletes to compete at the highest level (not JUST the hockey team). The only way that happens is for UND to join the Summit. And the only way that happens (IMO) is for UND to drop the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knickball2 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 That's not a fact, it's your opinion. UND or any school or group of schools are free to leave the NCAA and start their own association or just be independent. yeah, like that's realistic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Are you capable of addressing arguments using logic? Or only ad hominems and emotional appeals? I'm sorry I didn't use logic in this argument, I used facts. You don't seem to be able to recognize facts. The court system is not proactive, it is reactive. We don't have judges watching as laws are made, waiting to look at them and decide whether the law is constitutional or not. People, businesses, organizations and governmental units bring a case to the court system. Evidence and arguments are presented on both sides of the case. Then the judge or jury, depending on the type of case or what is agreed to in the case, will make a ruling. Sometimes that ruling involves interpreting laws that are applicable to that case (this part is done only by judges). Those laws may be brand new or may be centuries old. And they have to interpret the laws as an entire group or body of work. So they can rule a single law is or is not legal based on how it fits with the rest of the laws and the legal system. If you don't want to take a class on American Government, I have another suggestion. Here is a book that might help give you a basic understanding of the topic. We know you can read, although your comprehension level is very questionable at times. I know the book is available at Amazon.com and is probably available in many other places. Come back and talk to us when you have read the entire book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 That's not a fact, it's your opinion. UND or any school or group of schools are free to leave the NCAA and start their own association or just be independent. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking today. I obviously said that schools are free to leave the NCAA. The hard cold fact is that if a school wants to have an athletic department they have 2 choices, become a member of the NAIA or a member of the NCAA. An independent athletic department would not survive. The NAIA is a much less relevant choice and is mainly for smaller schools. That means that the only real choice for large schools is have an athletic department and join the NCAA or not have an athletic department. You may see a group of schools leave the NCAA in the future if the BCS schools get tired of dealing with smaller schools. A single school, especially a single mid-level type school in this part of the country would not be able to have a viable athletic department as an independent. There aren't other schools to compete against, fans would not be interested in attending meaningless games and students-athletes would not be interested in participating. The proof that it is a fact would probably be that there are no schools currently in that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I don't care if UND keeps the Sioux nickname or doesn't. I want UND in the Summit because it gives UND bball players (and the rest of the sports) the only possible chance to get into the the post-season NCAA tournaments. I want the best possible chance for North Dakota's teams and in-state athletes to compete at the highest level (not JUST the hockey team). The only way that happens is for UND to join the Summit. And the only way that happens (IMO) is for UND to drop the nickname. Do you think UND has no shot at the Summit after the Nov 30, 2010 deadline?? USD will not be members until 2011. UND and USD are not playoff eligible until 2012. What is so important to drop the name to join the summit in 2009?? Good things happen to those who wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Do you think UND has no shot at the Summit after the Nov 30, 2010 deadline?? USD will not be members until 2011. UND and USD are not playoff eligible until 2012. What is so important to drop the name to join the summit in 2009?? Good things happen to those who wait. The question is, when does the Summit need or want to make a decision on adding schools? That decision isn't up to UND or the SBoHE, it is up to the current members and staff of the Summit League. If they want the schools to start at the same time as USD, which is July of 2011, they are going to add those schools some time before July 1, 2010. They need at least a year for planning, scheduling, advertising, etc. And they need time before that to make a decision on which school or schools to add. UND won't be the only choice (although it is probably the best choice). That is why the timetable has been moved up. If the Summit would accept an assurance that the matter will be decided by Nov 30, 2010 (which they have not accepted so far) that date could be used. Or if the Summit decided to push back an expansion date by 1 year, since USD is basically replacing Centenary to keep the league at 10 members, then the Nov 2010 date is fine. But if they continue to push a deadline to apply some time in the next several months (the date has never been made public if there is an official date), that is going to be a major issue to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The question is, when does the Summit need or want to make a decision on adding schools? That decision isn't up to UND or the SBoHE, it is up to the current members and staff of the Summit League. If they want the schools to start at the same time as USD, which is July of 2011, they are going to add those schools some time before July 1, 2010. They need at least a year for planning, scheduling, advertising, etc. And they need time before that to make a decision on which school or schools to add. UND won't be the only choice (although it is probably the best choice). That is why the timetable has been moved up. If the Summit would accept an assurance that the matter will be decided by Nov 30, 2010 (which they have not accepted so far) that date could be used. Or if the Summit decided to push back an expansion date by 1 year, since USD is basically replacing Centenary to keep the league at 10 members, then the Nov 2010 date is fine. But if they continue to push a deadline to apply some time in the next several months (the date has never been made public if there is an official date), that is going to be a major issue to deal with. So can we get a quote from the head of the Summit League and get a deadline put in writing, also we know this will be resolved no later than Nov 30th since that is what UND agreed to in the lawsuit along with the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Please. The only UND team that even romotely loses if the Sioux nickname goes away is the hockey team. Considering the money they'll have to kick in to "fix" the REA. The football team doesn't care. They're already in the GWFC for the time being. And the bball and rest of the teams will be grateful to finally be in an auto-bid conference (Summit). WHAT THE HECK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT FANS OF SPORTS OTHER THAN HOCKEY SUPPORT THE NICKNAME? SINCE THAT IS WHAT MY SENTENCE WAS ABOUT? NICKNAME SUPPORTERS CAN BE FANS OF FOOTBALL, OR BASKETBALL, OR BASEBALL, OR VOLLEYBALL, OR SOFTBALL, OR SOCCER, OR SWIMMING AND DIVING, OR FILL IN THE NAME OF A SPORT HERE. I APOLOGIZE THAT BY SUPPORTING ALL UND SPORTS THAT I DO NOT FIT INTO YOUR OPINION OF A NICKNAME SUPPORTER, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE. MY SENTENCE WAS NOT ABOUT WHICH TEAM LOSES THE MOST IF THE NICKNAME IS RETIRED, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL THAT UND SPORTS ARE THE ONES THAT WILL LOSE! That is an entirely different story that I don't feel like going into right now. Which, the cost of "fixing" the Ralph can be lowered when you take into account that per the settlement with the NCAA, the Ralph does not have to replace all of the logos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I'm sorry I didn't use logic in this argument, I used facts. You don't seem to be able to recognize facts. The court system is not proactive, it is reactive. We don't have judges watching as laws are made, waiting to look at them and decide whether the law is constitutional or not. People, businesses, organizations and governmental units bring a case to the court system. Evidence and arguments are presented on both sides of the case. Then the judge or jury, depending on the type of case or what is agreed to in the case, will make a ruling. Sometimes that ruling involves interpreting laws that are applicable to that case (this part is done only by judges). Those laws may be brand new or may be centuries old. And they have to interpret the laws as an entire group or body of work. So they can rule a single law is or is not legal based on how it fits with the rest of the laws and the legal system. If you don't want to take a class on American Government, I have another suggestion. Here is a book that might help give you a basic understanding of the topic. We know you can read, although your comprehension level is very questionable at times. I know the book is available at Amazon.com and is probably available in many other places. Come back and talk to us when you have read the entire book. They (judges) should be able to interpret laws as they are currently written in order to make a ruling on a case. They should not be able to rule if a law is valid or not just because someone brings up a case. Laws need to be reviewed for validity when they are created...not post-creation in the court system. Thus, as I said, the correct method would have been for the SL group to seek an amendment to the current law in order to limit the power of the SBoHE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Your reading comprehension is severely lacking today. I obviously said that schools are free to leave the NCAA. You may see a group of schools leave the NCAA in the future if the BCS schools get tired of dealing with smaller schools. A single school, especially a single mid-level type school in this part of the country would not be able to have a viable athletic department as an independent. There aren't other schools to compete against, fans would not be interested in attending meaningless games and students-athletes would not be interested in participating. The proof that it is a fact would probably be that there are no schools currently in that position. Quite the contrary, what you said was: The hard cold fact is that if a school wants to have an athletic department they have 2 choices, become a member of the NAIA or a member of the NCAA. This is your opinion. Not fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xI Hammer Ix Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 This debate is great I could sit here with some popcorn and watch you two go back and fourth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Do you think UND has no shot at the Summit after the Nov 30, 2010 deadline?? USD will not be members until 2011. UND and USD are not playoff eligible until 2012. What is so important to drop the name to join the summit in 2009?? Good things happen to those who wait. UND is clearly the head and shoulders best choice of the possibilities...but the Summit will not wait until Nov 30th 2010 to make it's decision. It will live with other schools and exclude UND if it can not get this solved in a timely matter. There are serious $$$ (both directly and indirectly) related to Summit membership. The SBoHE knows this and they will not hesitate to speed up the retirement of the nickname in order to facilitate the process of joining the Summit. The SR has been given ample time and numerous extentions (both by the SBoHE and by frivolous lawsuits) to do something. It's clear that they are dragging their feet. It's time to move on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Oh, and for those of you who think UND hockey fans are being "selfish" for supporting the nickname, keep in mind that fans of the "other sports" are in favor of the nickname too. Are they being selfish? Just because one supports the hockey team doesn't mean that they fail to support the other teams. What MPLSBisonfan TROLL doesn't understand that a Native American group is trying to keep from UND changing the name. This has nothing to do with selfish Sioux hockey fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 So can we get a quote from the head of the Summit League and get a deadline put in writing, also we know this will be resolved no later than Nov 30th since that is what UND agreed to in the lawsuit along with the NCAA. Nov 30th is too late. At best you've got until Q1CY2010 or the Summit will move on, without UND. UND administration and the ND SBoHE will not let this happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Nov 30th is too late. At best you've got until Q1CY2010 or the Summit will move on, without UND. UND administration and the ND SBoHE will not let this happen. So when did you become a board member of the Summit League or a person in the know? 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.