Chewey Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 So now UND is turning into the thought police??!?? I thought that was to be determined by sales and $$$$$$$. If I were Scheel's Sports, I would have told whomever called them to pound sand. The shirts sell and money is made. What else needs to be said?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I thought that was to be determined by sales and $$$$$$$. If I were Scheel's Sports, I would have told whomever called them to pound sand. The shirts sell and money is made. What else needs to be said?? My guess is that the decision was either made because of contractual obligations, or because of total dollars. In other words, total sales of UND merchandise versus sales of a couple shirts. I think the total UND sales of merchandise far surpasses a couple of shirts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Are you aware that UND coaches have gone on the record as being supportive of Al Carlson's plan? Do they have their heads up their asses too? Are they idiots too? Sorry to come across as harsh, but I'm getting annoyed at the number of former nickname supporters that have bought into this paranoia nonsense. You don't even realize you are now helping the anti-nickname side by spewing this garbage. Please think about the fact that the coaches are supportive of this bill before you jump to any wild conclusions about imagined repercussions. I haven't seen a single story that has quotes from UND coaches in support of Al Carlson's plan. If you have one please post the link. I can't imagine any of the coaches coming out in support of this bill. If so, they are clearly not understanding the repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I haven't seen a single story that has quotes from UND coaches in support of Al Carlson's plan. If you have one please post the link. I can't imagine any of the coaches coming out in support of this bill. If so, they are clearly not understanding the repercussions. lISTEN TO HAKS PRESS CONFERENCE, THERE IS A LINK TO IT ON THE SIOUXSPORTS HOME PAGE. THEN YOU CAN COME BACK ON HERE AND CALL HAK A STUPID UNIFORMED FAN LIKE THE REST OF US WHO DO NOTHING MORE THAN FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 lISTEN TO HAKS PRESS CONFERENCE, THERE IS A LINK TO IT ON THE SIOUXSPORTS HOME PAGE. THEN YOU CAN COME BACK ON HERE AND CALL HAK A STUPID UNIFORMED FAN LIKE THE REST OF US WHO DO NOTHING MORE THAN FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.. Hak is entitled to his opinion and I value his opinion, but in his position he is first and foremost responsible for the recognition and the operation of the hockey program. He doesn't have to apologize for taking a side that would possibly adversly affect the other sports programs at UND. That's not his concern- and not his problem, but I don't think for an instant that when he issues his thoughts on something like this that his opinion has been formulated with anything else in mind other than the hockey side. The fact his he isn't the one that has to face the piper when trying to make a whole athletic department work. Although right now he kind of does because the longer our other sports have difficulty gaining financial stability, his hockey program is going to have to hold the department up financially. Wouldn't be nice where some of the other programs could do well enough to take the financial burden somewhat away from hockey for a while? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Hak is entitled to his opinion and I value his opinion, but in his position he is first and foremost responsible for the recognition and the operation of the hockey program. He doesn't have to apologize for taking a side that would possibly adversly affect the other sports programs at UND. That's not his concern- and not his problem, but I don't think for an instant that when he issues his thoughts on something like this that his opinion has been formulated with anything else in mind other than the hockey side. The fact his he isn't the one that has to face the piper when trying to make a whole athletic department work. Although right now he kind of does because the longer our other sports have difficulty gaining financial stability, his hockey program is going to have to hold the department up financially. Wouldn't be nice where some of the other programs could do well enough to take the financial burden somewhat away from hockey for a while? Hak was also one of the staunchest proponents of the Big Sky - which doesn't effect hockey at all. Hakstol wants all other sports at UND to rise to a higher level. When and if Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the WCHA, UND athletics as a whole needs to be best positioned to be in the highest possible hockey league: an anti-Big Ten hockey conference with Notre Dame and Denver (among others). The competitive status of UND's entire athletic program may affect a hockey affiliation decision by Notre Dame(they could decide to go east with their hockey program). We may be the North Carolina of hockey, but UNC has used that basketball dominance (and finances) to raise their other programs and make basketball even stronger. If a tribal court rules that Standing Rock has already given their blessing to the name based on the peace pipe ceremony in 1969, the settlement requirements would in fact already be met and the NCAA likely wouldn't have any legal ground to keep UND on the sanctions list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlsiouxfan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 lISTEN TO HAKS PRESS CONFERENCE, THERE IS A LINK TO IT ON THE SIOUXSPORTS HOME PAGE. THEN YOU CAN COME BACK ON HERE AND CALL HAK A STUPID UNIFORMED FAN LIKE THE REST OF US WHO DO NOTHING MORE THAN FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.. If you read any of my previous posts then you'd know that I am first and foremost a Sioux football fan. If Hakstol actually supports this and wants to kill off the other programs then he is in fact stupid and uninformed. Nickname fans can keep up this nonsense but as soon as the hockey program actually suffers even a little from keeping the Sioux nickname the cries on this board to change the nickname will be deafening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 If you read any of my previous posts then you'd know that I am first and foremost a Sioux football fan. Don't you mean 'North Dakota' football fan d1'nothdakota'fan? If Hakstol actually supports this and wants to kill off the other programs then he is in fact stupid and uninformed. Nickname fans can keep up this nonsense Do you think he is more stupid or more uniformed?? I can't decide. It is a tough call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the green team Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Hak was also one of the staunchest proponents of the Big Sky - which doesn't effect hockey at all. Hakstol wants all other sports at UND to rise to a higher level. When and if Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the WCHA, UND athletics as a whole needs to be best positioned to be in the highest possible hockey league: an anti-Big Ten hockey conference with Notre Dame and Denver (among others). The competitive status of UND's entire athletic program may affect a hockey affiliation decision by Notre Dame(they could decide to go east with their hockey program). We may be the North Carolina of hockey, but UNC has used that basketball dominance (and finances) to raise their other programs and make basketball even stronger. If a tribal court rules that Standing Rock has already given their blessing to the name based on the peace pipe ceremony in 1969, the settlement requirements would in fact already be met and the NCAA likely wouldn't have any legal ground to keep UND on the sanctions list. Where is this evidence that Hak was one of the staunchest proponents of the Big Sky--I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm just saying I guess I don't recall him doing cartwheels (figuratively) for or against in the media, other than saying he was happy and that it was great day for UND...typical speak. But of course he is going to be for it, why wouldn't anyone be for it...especially him, he desperately wants to see some of these programs keep themselves afloat for a change, (the Big Sky, gives them the best chance for that) and to be honest I don't blame him. It must be getting old to see all the $$$'s having to support so many other things other than hockey. All I'm saying is everyone revered Roebuck when they held the nickname press conference awhile back and he came out and said something to the effect "that he wouldn't trade the nickname to be in a conference"- of course he was going to say that, he doesn't have to take the larger view, like an athletic director or a president...Roebuck is a very wiley and he knows and knew that. In the mean time in other interviews during the same time his key phrase was how important it was that they get into a conference. But for that one nickname specific press conference, it was conference be damned. He knew the time place, and he knew what people would want to hear. Very shrewd, that's why I like the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Just remember this everyone. If somehow they accept the pipe ceremony and UND retains the name; next year or in the near future there could be change at the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribal Council they could vote against the name then the name is over completely....Again!!! (per settlement). Remember the 20 or 30 year plan they wanted to attach to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 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. Don't know all of the schools with NA nicknames, so I just googled Wisco and Central Michigan and it looks like Wisco played them at the beginning of this year in volleyball. They will have to stop playing the Chippewas if they decide to quit playing the Sioux. Or are they just going to be pollitically correct against the Sioux nickname? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Don't know all of the schools with NA nicknames, so I just googled Wisco and Central Michigan and it looks like Wisco played them at the beginning of this year in volleyball. They will have to stop playing the Chippewas if they decide to quit playing the Sioux. Or are they just going to be pollitically correct against the Sioux nickname? Actually the Chippewas are NOT on the sanctions list they got their blessing from their ONE tribe!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Simple answer: CMU got their namesake tribe's permission and isn't on the NCAA shiznitlist. Wisco and UM choosing not to play us has nothing to do with the NCAA's sanctions list. It is each school's policy not to play school's with NA nicknames. If a BTHC is formed there is the possibility that the school's would end the 50+ year rivalries, but something tells me that they would reevaluate their stance on the issue if the Sioux were allowed to keep the name. If they decide to never play the Sioux again in hockey I guess my feeling on this is completely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Actually the Chippewas are NOT on the sanctions list they got their blessing from their ONE tribe!!! That's why I never understood why UND agreed to get two tribes' ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 That's why I never understood why UND agreed to get two tribes' ... Somebody made a good point the other day stating that there must have been some kind of bargaining that went on between Stenjehm and the NCAA as in 2 tribe approval in exchange for an extra year to get things done or something of that nature. At the time of the settlement, Stenjehm would not have had any idea that Spirit Lake would have voted the way they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 We may on occasion be beaten, but we will never be broken. We are North Dakota. Although I appreciate the sentiment, the legislature has waited too long. A couple of years ago would have been nice, but even then, with constitutional issues and if it had no impact on the actions (or inactions) of Standing Rock, it still would have gone for naught. The deck was stacked against us as soon as the NCAA became unjustly and officiously determined to meddle in that which was not their concern. Goliath slew David 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDNSioux Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 These repercussions that you speak of are a figment of your imagination. Please stop doing the dirty work for the anti-nickname crowd. Now here is the link showing not only Hakstol but also Roebuck supporting the Carlson bill. People Want to Keep Sioux Nation I like the poll at the bottom also. Should North Dakota continue to fight to save the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo? Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far: YES - Listen to the people. 80% NO - It's time to put this to rest 18% Not Sure 2% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Time Hockey Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I am in total support of our legislatures moving forward. Let this play out! Who cares if we get our hand slapped by the NC$$ for a couple of years? Wouldn't it be worth it if it helps us retain the name in the end? It is time that someone stands up to the political correctness in this country? Would it be great if the Fighting Sioux were the ones to prevail against all this crazy PC BS? It's is more than just an name and logo....................We are the Fighting Sioux!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets eat Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I like the poll at the bottom also. Should North Dakota continue to fight to save the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo? Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far: YES - Listen to the people. 80% NO - It's time to put this to rest 18% Not Sure 2% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxu31 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 This isn't a conspiracy against UND. It has everything to do with the "sanctions list" (which UND is currently not on, but was, and might well return to if this legislation is passed). UM and WISC said, "we will continue to honor conference affiliation (WCHA), but will not play any schools on the "list"." This is why they played CMU, would play Utah, would play FSU, and would play and school with approval to use an NA name (those not on the "list"). This is the same reason the Summit League told UND to "get their house in order" before membership would be investigated. It'll be interesting to see how the Big Sky handles this issue if the nickname returns, the BS has never had to take a stand. Not according to this article: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/article_79960c4d-387f-51c5-a731-b04558a85e27.html "Athletic Director Joel Maturi said the school's Advisory Committee on Athletics approved a policy in 2003 that discourages games with teams using American Indian mascots and nicknames. The policy has not been strictly enforced, but it will be now, Maturi said Monday." "At least two other Big 10 schools - the University of Wisconsin and the University of Iowa - have policies stating the schools will not play teams with American Indian mascots unless contract or conference obligations require them to do so." Although they may follow this sanctions list, I can't find anywhere that they state they do. All I have found are articles like this one that said they refuse to play teams with NA nicknames. I trust you know what you are talking about, so you don't have to go digging anything up for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not according to this article: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/article_79960c4d-387f-51c5-a731-b04558a85e27.html "Athletic Director Joel Maturi said the school's Advisory Committee on Athletics approved a policy in 2003 that discourages games with teams using American Indian mascots and nicknames. The policy has not been strictly enforced, but it will be now, Maturi said Monday." "At least two other Big 10 schools - the University of Wisconsin and the University of Iowa - have policies stating the schools will not play teams with American Indian mascots unless contract or conference obligations require them to do so." Although they may follow this sanctions list, I can't find anywhere that they state they do. All I have found are articles like this one that said they refuse to play teams with NA nicknames. I trust you know what you are talking about, so you don't have to go digging anything up for me. I don't have time to back and find the links, but mooncountry is right as to Wisconsin and Iowa. After the settlment agreement where the NCAA was required to not discourage their members from playing UND, both universities came out and said they would abide by the NCAA sanctions list in determining whether or not to blackball a team with an Indian nickname. Minnesota, on the other hand, as far as I can recall, is not definitive on their policy and whether they follow the guidance of the NCAA. Either way, if UND retains the Sioux nickname and is placed on the NCAA sanctions list, there is a strong possibility (I'd say it is likely) that Minnesota and Wisconsin will discontinue playing UND once they leave for the Big Ten Hockey Conference. It will become a very high-profile and sensitive issue and the PC forces at both institutions will insist that UND not be scheduled. I don't see anyone at either institutions standing up to those forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I don't have time to back and find the links, but mooncountry is right as to Wisconsin and Iowa. After the settlment agreement where the NCAA was required to not discourage their members from playing UND, both universities came out and said they would abide by the NCAA sanctions list in determining whether or not to blackball a team with an Indian nickname. Minnesota, on the other hand, as far as I can recall, is not definitive on their policy and whether they follow the guidance of the NCAA. Either way, if UND retains the Sioux nickname and is placed on the NCAA sanctions list, there is a strong possibility (I'd say it is likely) that Minnesota and Wisconsin will discontinue playing UND once they leave for the Big Ten Hockey Conference. It will become a very high-profile and sensitive issue and the PC forces at both institutions will insist that UND not be scheduled. I don't see anyone at either institutions standing up to those forces. So if UND met the Gophers or Badgers for a national title they would have to forfeit. I like that outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 So if UND met the Gophers or Badgers for a national title they would have to forfeit. I like that outcome. Exceptions are obviosuly built in for conference and post-season play. I think they have exceptions for other tournaments as well (i.e. Great Lakes Invitational, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota fairways Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Not according to this article: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/article_79960c4d-387f-51c5-a731-b04558a85e27.html "Athletic Director Joel Maturi said the school's Advisory Committee on Athletics approved a policy in 2003 that discourages games with teams using American Indian mascots and nicknames. The policy has not been strictly enforced, but it will be now, Maturi said Monday." "At least two other Big 10 schools - the University of Wisconsin and the University of Iowa - have policies stating the schools will not play teams with American Indian mascots unless contract or conference obligations require them to do so." Although they may follow this sanctions list, I can't find anywhere that they state they do. All I have found are articles like this one that said they refuse to play teams with NA nicknames. I trust you know what you are talking about, so you don't have to go digging anything up for me. According to this article, the Gophers will not play any non-conference teams with a Native American nickname/logo from 2006 forward (other than the Illini in the Big Ten). I didn't go back, but the only game I could find for this year is the women's BB team played the San Diego State Aztecs. So, the Gophers will play teams that have Native CENTRAL American nicknames! They did not play anyone in men's BB or FB with a NA nickname, nor in men's or women's hockey. Granted, there are not many NA nicknames left, but they have managed to avoid them this year. So the question does become relevant if the Big Ten Hockey Conference becomes a reality. Wasn't there an article earlier this week that said other hockey teams hate playing UND because they know it is going to be a tough series? Here's Minnesota's excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7>4 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 We may on occasion be beaten, but we will never be broken. We are North Dakota. Although I appreciate the sentiment, the legislature has waited too long. A couple of years ago would have been nice, but even then, with constitutional issues and if it had no impact on the actions (or inactions) of Standing Rock, it still would have gone for naught. The deck was stacked against us as soon as the NCAA became unjustly and officiously determined to meddle in that which was not their concern. Goliath slew David 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.