Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[82SiouxGuy]

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

First, the settlement doesn't say "as part of routine maintenance of the building". It talks about imagery that will ultimately be replaced because of ordinary wear and tear, but then identifies exactly which items and a deadline for each one of them. For instance, it says that all brass etched logos must be replaced by Dec 31, 2011. Brass doesn't wear out that fast and those logos would not normally be replaced. The same with the logos on the ends of the rows of seats, which the settlement say need to be gone by Dec 31,2012. The settlement lists 2 different sets of etched glass doors. One of them has to be replaced by Dec 31, 2012 and the other by Dec 31, 2015. It even lists logos in the administrative offices of the REA which must be gone by Dec 31, 2013. These aren't seen by the general public. Glass doors don't wear out that quickly so why do those doors need to be replaced, especially since so many others are going to be left? So the REA isn't refusing to do regular maintenance, they are planning to refuse to dismantle the building based on the settlement schedule. You can read the settlement again at www.ag.state.nd.us/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf.

Second, your hatred of the REA is well established. But, unless you have read the contract between UND and REA, your accusations may not hold water. Everyone knows that Ralph Engelstad wanted to help support UND. But REA is a separate entity and is run by the Engelstad Foundation. As such they probably have pretty wide latitude to run the building the way they want, and to spend money how they want. I find it hard to believe that Ralph would tie himself to a contract that didn't give him room to make changes or decide how money was spent. His foundation now has those rights. I'm sure that UND got some language in the contract to protect itself since it owns the land. But I think the possibility of any civil or criminal liability is pretty small unless people are actually stealing from the foundation.

[dlsiouxfan]

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

If they are refusing to pay expenses they are contractually obligated to pay (repairs and maintenance at the arena) and began using available funds to pay bonuses to Hodgson or other REA boardmembers they could possibly face criminal liability, especially when dealing with a governmental entity like UND.

It doesn't matter that REA is not a party to the NCAA settlement, they do owe a fiduciary responsibility to UND. Revenue generated from hockey is rightfully UND's and UND allows REA to manage these revenues with the understanding that necessary expenditures be made or else the revenues be returned to the university. The revenue generated by hockey is not REA's to spend as they see fit.

[Goon]

If they are refusing to pay expenses they are contractually obligated to pay (repairs and maintenance at the arena) and began using available funds to pay bonuses to Hodgson or other REA boardmembers they could possibly face criminal liability, especially when dealing with a governmental entity like UND.

It doesn't matter that REA is not a party to the NCAA settlement, they do owe a fiduciary responsibility to UND. Revenue generated from hockey is rightfully UND's and UND allows REA to manage these revenues with the understanding that necessary expenditures be made or else the revenues be returned to the university. The revenue generated by hockey is not REA's to spend as they see fit.

I think 82Siouxguy covered this subject pretty well. There isn't going to be a criminal lawsuit. The REA has never said they weren't going to maintain the building. NO crime has been committed.

[dlsiouxfan]

First, the settlement doesn't say "as part of routine maintenance of the building". It talks about imagery that will ultimately be replaced because of ordinary wear and tear, but then identifies exactly which items and a deadline for each one of them. For instance, it says that all brass etched logos must be replaced by Dec 31, 2011. Brass doesn't wear out that fast and those logos would not normally be replaced. The same with the logos on the ends of the rows of seats, which the settlement say need to be gone by Dec 31,2012. The settlement lists 2 different sets of etched glass doors. One of them has to be replaced by Dec 31, 2012 and the other by Dec 31, 2015. It even lists logos in the administrative offices of the REA which must be gone by Dec 31, 2013. These aren't seen by the general public. Glass doors don't wear out that quickly so why do those doors need to be replaced, especially since so many others are going to be left? So the REA isn't refusing to do regular maintenance, they are planning to refuse to dismantle the building based on the settlement schedule. You can read the settlement again at www.ag.state.nd.us/ncaa/SettlementAgreement.pdf.

Second, your hatred of the REA is well established. But, unless you have read the contract between UND and REA, your accusations may not hold water. Everyone knows that Ralph Engelstad wanted to help support UND. But REA is a separate entity and is run by the Engelstad Foundation. As such they probably have pretty wide latitude to run the building the way they want, and to spend money how they want. I find it hard to believe that Ralph would tie himself to a contract that didn't give him room to make changes or decide how money was spent. His foundation now has those rights. I'm sure that UND got some language in the contract to protect itself since it owns the land. But I think the possibility of any civil or criminal liability is pretty small unless people are actually stealing from the foundation.

Perhaps you can enlighten me but what source of revenue does REA have other than revenues from UND hockey and other UND sports? Possibly some small revenue generated from concerts or other events but, if the Alerus is any indicator, any revenues generated from such events would be woefully inadequate to offset the costs associated with managing the venue.

If the REA refuses to replace the items according to the NCAA settlement then that's fine but I really hope they have a good explanation to give us as to why they think they should be able tell UND how to spend it's money. I have not looked at the contract between UND and REA but if it really says that REA has full discretion to spend all funds received from UND hockey however they see fit then the UND administrators who agreed to it are even bigger idiots than I initially thought.

Lastly, my hatred for REA is well established and I'll tell you it stems primarily from this reason. REA is a parasite entity that would be completely incapable of sustaining itself without the university yet routinely places it's own self interest above that of the university and the athletic department as a whole. Hodgson knows he has no job without UND hockey but he is willing to call our bluff because the UND administration to this point has displayed little if any willingness to stand up to REA management.

[Chewey]

If they are refusing to pay expenses they are contractually obligated to pay (repairs and maintenance at the arena) and began using available funds to pay bonuses to Hodgson or other REA boardmembers they could possibly face criminal liability, especially when dealing with a governmental entity like UND.

It doesn't matter that REA is not a party to the NCAA settlement, they do owe a fiduciary responsibility to UND. Revenue generated from hockey is rightfully UND's and UND allows REA to manage these revenues with the understanding that necessary expenditures be made or else the revenues be returned to the university. The revenue generated by hockey is not REA's to spend as they see fit.

Boy, you can sure tell that this guy knows nothing but hot air. Oh yes, a supposed contractual breach must automatically lead to criminal charges.

[dlsiouxfan]

I think 82Siouxguy covered this subject pretty well. There isn't going to be a criminal lawsuit. The REA has never said they weren't going to maintain the building. NO crime has been committed.

Foundations have extremely strict regulations when it comes to self-dealing. You can't set up a foundation to fund with a charitable gift, take the estate and income tax deductions associated with your gift, and then pay yourself or a family member whatever you see fit. The regulations penalize such behaviour especially if the charitable organization that is supposed to benefit from the charitable gift is negatively impacted as a result.

Furthermore, I have little doubt that REA foundation would qualify as a state contractor if their receiving all of the revenues associated with a state sponsored activity (UND hockey). This would subject them to all of the applicable restrictions and scrutiny that come with such a designation.

[dlsiouxfan]

Boy, you can sure tell that this guy knows nothing but hot air. Oh yes, a supposed contractual breach must automatically lead to criminal charges.

I'm full aware that a contractual breach has nothing to do with criminal charges. I've never said that one would lead to the other. If you actually read what I said it says "civil or possible criminal liability". Nowhere does that insinuate that the two are one in the same. You'd think for how much time most of you spend on this website you'd actually be able to read.

[yababy8]

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

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

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

It seems as if you are trying to achieve the label of moron as....

Who is demonstrating poor reading comprehension here?

I did not call you a moron- I said your supposition was moronic.

I did not assert that you made a claim 'as to how R.E. would feel..", I claimed that your statement, and I put it in bold, that we have "no idea" regarding what Ralph's position would be today was moronic and I even gave an analogy to help you see the moronic error in your post.

So, despite quoting your point and putting the subject of my criticism in BOLD and further giving an analogy, you were not able to demonstrate fundamental reading comprehension.

IF that is not pathetic enough, you go on to call me out For having a "stunning lack of reading comprehension".

You know I think Ralph was a much better man than me because if I had $150 million bucks to do with what I wanted I would NEVER give it away knowing people like you would benefit from it in any way.

[Shawn-O]

The name is being retired (unfortunately, in my opinion). Shouting down other posters will not change this.

[82SiouxGuy]

Perhaps you can enlighten me but what source of revenue does REA have other than revenues from UND hockey and other UND sports? Possibly some small revenue generated from concerts or other events but, if the Alerus is any indicator, any revenues generated from such events would be woefully inadequate to offset the costs associated with managing the venue.

If the REA refuses to replace the items according to the NCAA settlement then that's fine but I really hope they have a good explanation to give us as to why they think they should be able tell UND how to spend it's money. I have not looked at the contract between UND and REA but if it really says that REA has full discretion to spend all funds received from UND hockey however they see fit then the UND administrators who agreed to it are even bigger idiots than I initially thought.

Lastly, my hatred for REA is well established and I'll tell you it stems primarily from this reason. REA is a parasite entity that would be completely incapable of sustaining itself without the university yet routinely places it's own self interest above that of the university and the athletic department as a whole. Hodgson knows he has no job without UND hockey but he is willing to call our bluff because the UND administration to this point has displayed little if any willingness to stand up to REA management.

UND is making more money off the relationship with REA than they could have off the old buildings. They get more fans in the door, at a higher ticket price, sell a lot more concessions, and with a great deal more advertising dollars spent, than in the old building. In addition REA hosts concerts (that can be very lucrative at times), the Hockey Academy, tournaments and more camps than the old building could handle. REA probably would lose money without UND sports, but UND gets many benefits out of the relationship also. And increased revenue is at the top of the list. So I would hardly call REA a parasite. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. Each side benefits. UND pays so much for services rendered. REA adds value to those services and makes additional money. The net income is returned to UND. UND wins on the bottom line.

Jody probably wouldn't have a job in Grand Forks without UND hockey, but he had a pretty successful career before coming to REA. So I'm sure that he would be working somewhere else running another facility. He doesn't answer to UND, he answers to the board of the REA and to the Engelstad Foundation. They seem happy with his work so he is probably doing what his bosses want him to do. That doesn't always mesh with what UND or anyone else wants. That is what happens when you don't own the facility. Consider it part of the cost of doing business. And don't forget, the North Dakota Legislature is who decided that UND couldn't own the building until after a suitable period of time had passed (30 years comes to mind). That wasn't Ralph's idea. Under Ralph's original announcement I'm pretty sure that UND would already have title to the facility and could do whatever they wanted with it.

[82SiouxGuy]

It seems as if you are trying to achieve the label of moron as....

Who is demonstrating poor reading comprehension here?

I did not call you a moron- I said your supposition was moronic.

I did not assert that you made a claim 'as to how R.E. would feel..", I claimed that your statement, and I put it in bold, that we have "no idea" regarding what Ralph's position would be today was moronic and I even gave an analogy to help you see the moronic error in your post.

So, despite quoting your point and putting the subject of my criticism in BOLD and further giving an analogy, you were not able to demonstrate fundamental reading comprehension.

IF that is not pathetic enough, you go on to call me out For having a "stunning lack of reading comprehension".

You know I think Ralph was a much better man than me because if I had $150 million bucks to do with what I wanted I would NEVER give it away knowing people like you would benefit from it in any way.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure that Ralph didn't spend $150 million of his own money on the REA. The number quoted on the REA web site is $104+ million. I have heard estimates up to $112 million. If you are trying to include the amount to build the Betty, that was not a donation. IIRC, that money has come out of operating profits from REA.

His total gifts to UND may approach that $150 million number, including the donations for the old building (I believe the original number was about $6 million), an airplane, papers donated to the Chester Fritz Library and the $20 million the Foundation is in the process of giving for scholarships and such. But you keep accusing the media of not being accurate so you might want to be more accurate.

And I'm pretty sure that Ralph didn't worry what anyone else thought so he wouldn't have worried too much what any of us thought on any of these subjects.

[Stromer]

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

I really don't think they do. Otherwise they would have came out and banned UND from postseaosn play until the name was retired. However, they can't do that. All they had the authority to do was to not allow UND to host and not allow them to wear uniforms with the logo or name in postseason play. They couldn't tell UND what to do during the season nor will they be able to ban them if they continue to play in the REA.

[Chewey]

I'm full aware that a contractual breach has nothing to do with criminal charges. I've never said that one would lead to the other. If you actually read what I said it says "civil or possible criminal liability". Nowhere does that insinuate that the two are one in the same. You'd think for how much time most of you spend on this website you'd actually be able to read.

You really need to read your own posts. Reading comprehension??? Handsome is as handsome does (or writes) in your instance. yababy made the call.

[MplsBison]

I really don't think they do. Otherwise they would have came out and banned UND from postseaosn play until the name was retired. However, they can't do that. All they had the authority to do was to not allow UND to host and not allow them to wear uniforms with the logo or name in postseason play. They couldn't tell UND what to do during the season nor will they be able to ban them if they continue to play in the REA.

Do you really think that the NCAA can't ban one of its member schools from post season games? Come on now...you are lying to yourself and you're not convincing anyone.

And even if, somehow, the current rules wouldn't allow them...they can just make new rules that do allow them.

This isn't hard.

And if UND doesn't like it? Then leave the voluntary association.

[MplsBison]

UND is making more money off the relationship with REA than they could have off the old buildings. They get more fans in the door, at a higher ticket price, sell a lot more concessions, and with a great deal more advertising dollars spent, than in the old building. In addition REA hosts concerts (that can be very lucrative at times), the Hockey Academy, tournaments and more camps than the old building could handle. REA probably would lose money without UND sports, but UND gets many benefits out of the relationship also. And increased revenue is at the top of the list. So I would hardly call REA a parasite. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. Each side benefits. UND pays so much for services rendered. REA adds value to those services and makes additional money. The net income is returned to UND. UND wins on the bottom line.

Jody probably wouldn't have a job in Grand Forks without UND hockey, but he had a pretty successful career before coming to REA. So I'm sure that he would be working somewhere else running another facility. He doesn't answer to UND, he answers to the board of the REA and to the Engelstad Foundation. They seem happy with his work so he is probably doing what his bosses want him to do. That doesn't always mesh with what UND or anyone else wants. That is what happens when you don't own the facility. Consider it part of the cost of doing business. And don't forget, the North Dakota Legislature is who decided that UND couldn't own the building until after a suitable period of time had passed (30 years comes to mind). That wasn't Ralph's idea. Under Ralph's original announcement I'm pretty sure that UND would already have title to the facility and could do whatever they wanted with it.

I suppose UND ends up making even more money off UND hockey by playing in the REA than they would have if they continued to play in the old arena.

But....again, I ask: how many NCAA championships has UND won playing in the REA?

I think if the REA won't back down and comply with the settlement...UND needs to take a hard look at the overall benefit of continued partnership with the REA.

[yababy8]

And by the way, I'm pretty sure that Ralph didn't spend $150 million of his own money on the REA. The number quoted on the REA web site is $104+ million. I have heard estimates up to $112 million. If you are trying to include the amount to build the Betty, that was not a donation. IIRC, that money has come out of operating profits from REA.

His total gifts to UND may approach that $150 million number, including the donations for the old building (I believe the original number was about $6 million), an airplane, papers donated to the Chester Fritz Library and the $20 million the Foundation is in the process of giving for scholarships and such. But you keep accusing the media of not being accurate so you might want to be more accurate.

And I'm pretty sure that Ralph didn't worry what anyone else thought so he wouldn't have worried too much what any of us thought on any of these subjects.

First, just for clarity- I have accused the media of spinning this issue and employing manipulative reporting techniques to brainwash their readers into conforming with the travesty we are being served.

It is in the nature of posts on a blog to "spin" as they are openly and overtly an argument such as an Op-Ed article in the paper.

Now as far as the accuracy of $150 million, I concede that is a guestimation. Now if it is say $136.8 million instead of the $150 guess I assert that it does not fundamentally change my point so it is of very very little relevance to the point I was making.

BTW, my $150 million dollar guess was loosely based on my memory of $110 million for the arena and $50 million (=$160 million and I rounded down) that I had a memory of him giving to the U at the same time he pledged the original $50 for the REA. I do not know if the increase from $50 to $100 plus million for the REA meant he did not give the other $50 to the school?

As far as your point about Ralph not worrying about what others thought- I agree that he probably didn't. But that does not mean that we should so quickly forget about the AMAZING gift he gave us all and also continue to appreciate what we all know mattered to him- the FIGHTING SIOUX name and its part in the FIGHTING SIOUX tradition.

Here is another way of explaining how I look at this issue:

If I had given someone or some group over one hundred million dollars I would be very disappointed if that did not create a relationship between me and them where if something like this absolute injustice happens we don't give something in return to protect what all of us love.

Why is it so hard for people to motivate to fight for our name?

The Sioux people would fight to keep their name, Ralph would fight to keep the name (he did).

He gave so much to all of us and so far we have let him as well as each other down.

So I hope the REA fights for the name in EVERY goddamn way they can for as long as they can and maybe, just maybe, you all will get a fire lit under your collective asses and actually do something about what is being done to you. Then and only then will we all be free men. Until then we are all somewhere between slug and slave waiting eternally for the next gift to fall into our laps and crying about how the last one was taken from us.

[82SiouxGuy]

First, just for clarity- I have accused the media of spinning this issue and employing manipulative reporting techniques to brainwash their readers into conforming with the travesty we are being served.

It is in the nature of posts on a blog to "spin" as they are openly and overtly an argument such as an Op-Ed article in the paper.

Now as far as the accuracy of $150 million, I concede that is a guestimation. Now if it is say $136.8 million instead of the $150 guess I assert that it does not fundamentally change my point so it is of very very little relevance to the point I was making.

BTW, my $150 million dollar guess was loosely based on my memory of $110 million for the arena and $50 million (=$160 million and I rounded down) that I had a memory of him giving to the U at the same time he pledged the original $50 for the REA. I do not know if the increase from $50 to $100 plus million for the REA meant he did not give the other $50 to the school?

As far as your point about Ralph not worrying about what others thought- I agree that he probably didn't. But that does not mean that we should so quickly forget about the AMAZING gift he gave us all and also continue to appreciate what we all know mattered to him- the FIGHTING SIOUX name and its part in the FIGHTING SIOUX tradition.

Here is another way of explaining how I look at this issue:

If I had given someone or some group over one hundred million dollars I would be very disappointed if that did not create a relationship between me and them where if something like this absolute injustice happens we don't give something in return to protect what all of us love.

Why is it so hard for people to motivate to fight for our name?

The Sioux people would fight to keep their name, Ralph would fight to keep the name (he did).

He gave so much to all of us and so far we have let him as well as each other down.

So I hope the REA fights for the name in EVERY goddamn way they can for as long as they can and maybe, just maybe, you all will get a fire lit under your collective asses and actually do something about what is being done to you. Then and only then will we all be free men. Until then we are all somewhere between slug and slave waiting eternally for the next gift to fall into our laps and crying about how the last one was taken from us.

I try not to put a lot of spin into my posts. I try to use facts as much as possible.

The bequest was originally going to be $100 million, $50 for an arena and $50 for academics. As Ralph and others worked on the design for the arena they moved more and more money from academics to the arena. Pretty soon it became $100 million for an arena. And then it passed that mark. No further funds were allocated for academics at the time.

After Ralph died the Foundation pledged another $20 million to academics spread over time (I think it was $2 million per year for 10 years). Part of that money is for scholarships and part to support specific professor positions (Endowed Chairs). They are 2 or 3 years into that pledge.

There is a time to fight on an issue. But there is also a time when the best thing to do for all involved is to move on. We have reached that point on the Fighting Sioux nickname. The only chance that the name had was with the Standing Rock Reservation. But because of tribal politics, Standing Rock was a very long shot at best. The people in charge at Standing Rock wouldn't let it happen. That's the way that tribal politics can work. But there are no more cards to be played unless Archie Fool Bear and friends can pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next 4 1/2 months. After that continued fighting will do nothing more than cause problems for a school that is important to most of us here on SiouxSports, and cause more pain for most people involved. The chances of reversing the name change after November 30th will be zero.

As far as Ralph and the nickname go, the Fighting Sioux name was very important to him. But I believe that the school was even more important to him. He has given credit in the past to his time at UND, and the chance to go to college, as very important to his success. So my guess is that he would have fought to the very end to support the name. But he would probably have continued to support UND in the long run no matter how the issue was settled.

[Crevec]

But....again, I ask: how many NCAA championships has UND won playing in the REA?

I think if the REA won't back down and comply with the settlement...UND needs to take a hard look at the overall benefit of continued partnership with the REA.

So how many other schools should reevaluate their relationships with the venues they compete in?

Michigan hockey- Considered to be the "premier" college hockey team, their last championship was in 1998. Two years before UND's last one. Maybe it is time to move out of Yost Arena for them.

Wisconsin hockey- Before their championship in 2006 they hadn't won since 1990. That is 16 years. And I am sure that before they finally won that one their fans were just tearing down the doors to get out of the Kohl Center.

Minnesota hockey- Before their back to back championships in '02 and '03 they had gone since 1979 without one. That is 23 years between championships. How many of their fans are ready to just shut the doors on Mariucci Arena?

And to make it even more understandable to you I will go to the end all, be all sport of college basketball (which by the way is ruled by the NDSU Bison as evidenced by you and the Flood coverage in 2008)

Kentucky basketball- Did not even make the Final Four in the 2000's, which was the first decade since the start of the tournament that has happened. They also haven't won a national title since 1998. When are they gonna get rid of Rupp Arena?

UCLA basketball- The most national championships in the sport at 11. They haven't won since 1995. I don't think they are going to leave Pauley Pavillion anytime soon either

So to get to my point, I think it has very little to do with the type of facility in order to WIN championships, that I believe takes a little bit of luck and good play at the right time of the season. But I do think that if the UND hockey team did move out of REA it would hurt their chances in recruiting the top level players who help a team get to winning championships. Facilities are an important factor in any recruits decision on the school they are attending both positive and negative. So I think that if the team moved back to the old REA or to any other venue in the city it would have a very negative effect on the team. I am almost positive that the coaches know this as well and would balk at any attempt by the UND athletic dept. to force them out of the arena.

[dlsiouxfan]

You really need to read your own posts. Reading comprehension??? Handsome is as handsome does (or writes) in your instance. yababy made the call.

My apologies for interrupting your groupthink. I'll refrain from commenting in this thread and you and yababy can continue to worship your Ralph Englestad idols while sporting your WWRD bracelets.

[passit_offthegoalie]

Taking-the-high-road Fail ^^^^^^^^^

[Stromer]

Do you really think that the NCAA can't ban one of its member schools from post season games? Come on now...you are lying to yourself and you're not convincing anyone.

And even if, somehow, the current rules wouldn't allow them...they can just make new rules that do allow them.

This isn't hard.

And if UND doesn't like it? Then leave the voluntary association.

Then why wouldn't they have banned them to start with? I don't remember the details but the NCAA is definitely limited as to what they can do under current rules. Now yes, I suppose your right that they could make new rules. However, I believe that they would have to go through the general assembly and not a committee as the nickname issue went through. And what reason does the general assembly have to vote in favor of a nickname ban or postseason sanctions against UND?

[SiouxFanatic]

I suppose UND ends up making even more money off UND hockey by playing in the REA than they would have if they continued to play in the old arena.

But....again, I ask: how many NCAA championships has UND won playing in the REA?

I think if the REA won't back down and comply with the settlement...UND needs to take a hard look at the overall benefit of continued partnership with the REA.

Gotta just love the stupidity. That gave me a chuckle.

[MplsBison]

So how many other schools should reevaluate their relationships with the venues they compete in?

Michigan hockey- Considered to be the "premier" college hockey team, their last championship was in 1998. Two years before UND's last one. Maybe it is time to move out of Yost Arena for them.

Wisconsin hockey- Before their championship in 2006 they hadn't won since 1990. That is 16 years. And I am sure that before they finally won that one their fans were just tearing down the doors to get out of the Kohl Center.

Minnesota hockey- Before their back to back championships in '02 and '03 they had gone since 1979 without one. That is 23 years between championships. How many of their fans are ready to just shut the doors on Mariucci Arena?

And to make it even more understandable to you I will go to the end all, be all sport of college basketball (which by the way is ruled by the NDSU Bison as evidenced by you and the Flood coverage in 2008)

Kentucky basketball- Did not even make the Final Four in the 2000's, which was the first decade since the start of the tournament that has happened. They also haven't won a national title since 1998. When are they gonna get rid of Rupp Arena?

UCLA basketball- The most national championships in the sport at 11. They haven't won since 1995. I don't think they are going to leave Pauley Pavillion anytime soon either

So to get to my point, I think it has very little to do with the type of facility in order to WIN championships, that I believe takes a little bit of luck and good play at the right time of the season. But I do think that if the UND hockey team did move out of REA it would hurt their chances in recruiting the top level players who help a team get to winning championships. Facilities are an important factor in any recruits decision on the school they are attending both positive and negative. So I think that if the team moved back to the old REA or to any other venue in the city it would have a very negative effect on the team. I am almost positive that the coaches know this as well and would balk at any attempt by the UND athletic dept. to force them out of the arena.

Every comparison in your post is apples to oranges. Why? Because none of them have two reasons to leave their current venues, like UND now does.

As you point out, they all either have or had long periods of time in the venue where they did not win championships playing in that venue. That reason alone would not be enough to leave, I agree.

But none of them have the 2nd reason to leave, like UND does have with the REA. None of their venues are potentially doing damage to their school by directly violating the wishes of the NCAA.

That's the 2nd reason that UND has and none the others have and that's the real reason that UND should re-evaluate leaving the REA, not just because they haven't won a championship in the REA since they started playing there. I brought up that point merely to say that UND hockey would not end if they didn't play in the REA. They didn't before and arguably the team was better without the REA back then, per the statistics.

And as I predicted, you tried to defend the REA by saying it's critical to the future success of the program.

So then make a counter point to the valid point I already raised: how was UND able to win all those NCAA championships in the past if they didn't have the REA as a recruiting tool?

NCAA DI hockey has not changed that much since 2000. I don't buy that as a reason why UND needs the REA.

[MplsBison]

Then why wouldn't they have banned them to start with? I don't remember the details but the NCAA is definitely limited as to what they can do under current rules. Now yes, I suppose your right that they could make new rules. However, I believe that they would have to go through the general assembly and not a committee as the nickname issue went through. And what reason does the general assembly have to vote in favor of a nickname ban or postseason sanctions against UND?

What reason did the NCAA have to go after UND in the first place? Maybe it was for a good reason (I've argued before that the hostile and abusive campaign was a risk mitigation strategy by the NCAA) or maybe it was just ideology run amok.

But someone decided that UND's 'Fighting Sioux' nickname was not acceptable and so they placed UND on the hostile and abusive list and sanctioned them accordingly.

So why didn't those original sanctions for being placed on the hostile and abusive list include a post season ban, you ask? I can't really answer that. Perhaps they didn't feel that level of punishment was necessary at that time, so long as the school complied within a few years? Who knows.

My point is this: just because they didn't go to that level of sanction back then does not mean they can't go to that level now!

Your argument is the same thing as telling a policeman "you can't give me a ticket for speeding, I was going less than the posted limit!" and then expecting to get away scot-free. While that might be technically true that he can't give you a ticket for speeding, he can instead give you a ticket for wreckless driving as his disclosure, which is probably twice the fine and a mandatory court date.

The NCAA is the policeman in that analogy, in case you haven't figured out.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by antagonizing and defying the authority. The NCAA is the authority. You're a member of their association. You will bend to their will and there's really not a whole lot you can do about it.

I know there's this colloquial "anti-government" sensibility in North Dakota...and thus any time the NCAA acts like a government, they draw the ire of the state.

But just try to realize that this battle was long and hard fought and both sides are tired and extremely weary of further fighting. Any attempt to start-up something new after the fact, like this, is just going to bring the heavy hand of the authority (NCAA) down that much harder and faster.

In other words: do you really want to find out just exactly what the NCAA can do when they're pissed?

[MplsBison]

Gotta just love the stupidity. That gave me a chuckle.

I can only make a guess as to what you're getting at.

You tried to take my statement literally (even knew you knew better) as me asking how many NCAA hockey championship games UND has won when playing the championship game at the REA. The answer would obviously be none, as no championship games have ever been played at the REA.

Duh. Don't take it literally because I didn't mean it literally. You knew what I meant.