Wisconsin Decision

[Matt]

A few questions: Was anyone in UND admin. aware of the scheduling policies of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota (even though they hadn't been following it); If anyone was aware, were such policies part of any of the recommendations concerning a potential move to D-1; was there any public discussion, even on this board, about these policies and their potential impact on a move to D-1?

When the original U of M story broke, I think I remember something about UND coaches having difficulties getting commitments from U of M officials for games. That would indicate to me that at least UND coaches were in the dark about the U of M policy (again, even though they may/may not have been following it at that point)

It just seems incredible to me that someone in the UND admin could know about the policies of those schools and not speak about their implications in some type of public forum.

Perhaps they did and I missed it. But then again if someone had discussed it, why were so many in the public surprised to learn about it? I doubt everyone missed it.

[star2city]

A few questions: Was anyone in UND admin. aware of the scheduling policies of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota (even though they hadn't been following it); If anyone was aware, were such policies part of any of the recommendations concerning a potential move to D-1; was there any public discussion, even on this board, about these policies and their potential impact on a move to D-1?

When the original U of M story broke, I think I remember something about UND coaches having difficulties getting commitments from U of M officials for games. That would indicate to me that at least UND coaches were in the dark about the U of M policy (again, even though they may/may not have been following it at that point)

It just seems incredible to me that someone in the UND admin could know about the policies of those schools and not speak about their implications in some type of public forum.

Perhaps they did and I missed it. But then again if someone had discussed it, why were so many in the public surprised to learn about it? I doubt everyone missed it.

Matt:

Since you began posting in early December, why do your posts always seem to be like fingernails screeching across a blackboard?

Everyone knew about Iowa's and Wisconsin's policies, the only question was were they going to selectively enforce those policies. Minnesota's policy wasn't codified until recently.

[dakotadan]

A few questions: Was anyone in UND admin. aware of the scheduling policies of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota (even though they hadn't been following it); If anyone was aware, were such policies part of any of the recommendations concerning a potential move to D-1; was there any public discussion, even on this board, about these policies and their potential impact on a move to D-1?

When the original U of M story broke, I think I remember something about UND coaches having difficulties getting commitments from U of M officials for games. That would indicate to me that at least UND coaches were in the dark about the U of M policy (again, even though they may/may not have been following it at that point)

It just seems incredible to me that someone in the UND admin could know about the policies of those schools and not speak about their implications in some type of public forum.

Perhaps they did and I missed it. But then again if someone had discussed it, why were so many in the public surprised to learn about it? I doubt everyone missed it.

Were we supposed to base our DI decision on Minn, Wisco and Iowa?!?! Quite frankly, I would rather see a game against UNI.

[PCM]

It just seems incredible to me that someone in the UND admin could know about the policies of those schools and not speak about their implications in some type of public forum.

Does it seems "incredible" to you that there was confusion at Minnesota and Wisconsin about what their university's policies actually meant? If administrators at those schools weren't certain of their policies, how is it that UND was supposed to know? How was UND supposed to know that Minnesota had a policy against playing the Fighting Sioux when it had scheduled athletic events against them in the past?

[Matt]

Does it seems "incredible" to you that there was confusion at Minnesota and Wisconsin about what their university's policies actually meant? If administrators at those schools weren't certain of their policies, how is it that UND was supposed to know? How was UND supposed to know that Minnesota had a policy against playing the Fighting Sioux when it had scheduled athletic events against them in the past?

PCM makes the pertinent point on this, and it is why I believe Star2City is wrong here. I don't think everyone was aware of these policies prior to the D-1 decision. There's no way UND could have been certain of anything (perhaps Iowa if it mattered at all) since both Wisconsin and Minnesota had to clarify their respective positions. The administrators really didn't know the boundaries of their policy.

Even if someone at UND had an inkling that scheduling those schools could be a potential problem, I agree with dakotadan in that such policies wouldn't stand in the way of a move to D-1 anyway.

ps-Star...keep it fun...its sports after all man.

[star2city]

PCM makes the pertinent point on this, and it is why I believe Star2City is wrong here. I don't think everyone was aware of these policies prior to the D-1 decision. There's no way UND could have been certain of anything (perhaps Iowa if it mattered at all) since both Wisconsin and Minnesota had to clarify their respective positions. The administrators really didn't know the boundaries of their policy.

Even if someone at UND had an inkling that scheduling those schools could be a potential problem, I agree with dakotadan in that such policies wouldn't stand in the way of a move to D-1 anyway.

ps-Star...keep it fun...its sports after all man.

It gets very tiring to read idiotic JBB-esque and Iowabison type postings, especially when they masquerade as Sioux backers, here in this forum.

UND administrators were well aware of what the position of Iowa and Wisconsin were - the NCAA stated their positions in their infamous decrees of August 2005: NCAA Executive Committee Issues Guidelines for Use of Native American Mascots at Championship Events - August 5, 2005

The committee also strongly suggested that institutions follow the best practices of institutions that do not support the use of Native American mascots or imagery. Model institutions include the University of Iowa and University of Wisconsin, who have practices of not scheduling athletic competitions with schools who use Native American nicknames, imagery or mascots.

[NorthDakotaHockey]

Simply more proof that there are gutless weinies running amok, especially in our sister states. This has nothing to do with

the nickname at all. After all, the state universities in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the heartland of culture and history of the Plains Indians, could not be so arrogant, could they, to think that they will somehow change the world simply by refusing to play the Sioux in sport, except of couse when real money is involved?

The Sioux have always recruited and will continue to recruit heavily from Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. By not subjecting their fragile Big Ten egos to a potential embarrassing whipping at the hands of the Fighting Sioux, these "powerhouse" elites can better protect

the best players in their own back yards from giving more serious consideration to North Dakota, a school near home that both plays, and sometimes beats, the D-1 school from their own home state.

The name and logo argument is b.s., and the athletic departments of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin know it. They are conveniently seizing up this red herring, adopted by a field of clueless reds within their own administrations, in order to better seal up their own borders in the recruiting wars.

I just hope that most of the other D-1 schools have sufficiently sized gonads to refuse such ridiculous policies and simply and fairly

cry, "No foul here. Let's Play Ball!"

[PCM]

PCM makes the pertinent point on this, and it is why I believe Star2City is wrong here. I don't think everyone was aware of these policies prior to the D-1 decision.

That wasn't my point at all. UND was well aware of Iowa's and Wisconsin's policies long before the decision was made to move to DI. Minnesota's policy was probably something of a surprise given that the Gophers had played the Sioux in other sports besides hockey.

My point was that it's ridiculous to expect UND's administrators to understand each school's policy when the administrators at those schools didn't understand them, either.

[Matt]

It gets very tiring to read idiotic JBB-esque and Iowabison type postings, especially when they masquerade as Sioux backers, here in this forum.

UND administrators were well aware of what the position of Iowa and Wisconsin were - the NCAA stated their positions in their infamous decrees of August 2005: NCAA Executive Committee Issues Guidelines for Use of Native American Mascots at Championship Events - August 5, 2005

OK then. We can consider prior knowledge by UND admin of the Iowa and Wisconsin policies a given. Were the implications of those policies discussed publicly at some point? I have heard and read much discussion about scheduling both Wisconsin and Minnesota since the move to D-1 was announced, and I never heard any "but wait they won't schedule it" in the conversation until the Minnesota story broke. Again, maybe I missed it.

The questions I brought up on this topic are legitimate ones, star. On their own merits. Allegiances aside. I didn't come off half-cocked and make wild accusations. Heck, when I asked a question I leave open the possibility that I am missing some pertinent piece of info. However, since I am not from ND, but spent time at both the AG (I say that fondly), and UND, you will come to your own conclusion as to what loyalty or degree(s) I hold. I am also happy to remind you that you are not the arbiter of what is idotic, nor to what school someone is a backer of.

You are out of line.

[Matt]

Does it seems "incredible" to you that there was confusion at Minnesota and Wisconsin about what their university's policies actually meant? If administrators at those schools weren't certain of their policies, how is it that UND was supposed to know? How was UND supposed to know that Minnesota had a policy against playing the Fighting Sioux when it had scheduled athletic events against them in the past?

I can only go by what you write.

[PCM]

I can only go by what you write.

And where did I write that UND didn't know about Wisconsin's and Iowa's policies?

[Matt]

Does it seems "incredible" to you that there was confusion at Minnesota and Wisconsin about what their university's policies actually meant? If administrators at those schools weren't certain of their policies, how is it that UND was supposed to know? How was UND supposed to know that Minnesota had a policy against playing the Fighting Sioux when it had scheduled athletic events against them in the past?

It is clear now that you meant more than you posted, but you only referenced Minnesota and Wisconsin. I agreed with the assertion, in that post, that If the administrators at those schools (see above) weren't certain of their policies, how was UND supposed to know?

[PCM]

It is clear now that you meant more than you posted, but you only referenced Minnesota and Wisconsin. I agreed with the assertion, in that post, that If the administrators at those schools (see above) weren't certain of their policies, how was UND supposed to know?

No, it's clear that I meant exactly what I posted and you are purposely choosing to misinterpret what I wrote.

[Matt]

Does it seems "incredible" to you that there was confusion at Minnesota and Wisconsin about what their university's policies actually meant? If administrators at those schools weren't certain of their policies, how is it that UND was supposed to know? How was UND supposed to know that Minnesota had a policy against playing the Fighting Sioux when it had scheduled athletic events against them in the past?

Do you realize your post contains three sentences, two of which reference "how was UND supposed to know"? But...if it moves along the conversation...I apologize, it was my misinterpretation.

Anyway, we know from star that UND admin had to know the policies because of the NCAA press release in...2005? It does seem incredible, but apparently true, that they knew and never brought it up publicly, even as many in the public discussed scheduling against those programs. It's not a catastrophe, but it would have been nice to discuss publicly a long time ago. Not to mention UND could have perhaps framed the issue on their terms by getting the final word from Iowa, Wisc, and Minn, then announcing the news themselves.

Well...hindsight and all that.

[PCM]

Do you realize your post contains three sentences, two of which reference "how was UND supposed to know"?

Do you realize that by selectively taking my words out of context, you have interpreted them to mean something that was never intended? Try reading all of what I wrote in context and you won't have that problem.

Anyway, we know from star that UND admin had to know the policies because of the NCAA press release in...2005? It does seem incredible, but apparently true, that they knew and never brought it up publicly, even as many in the public discussed scheduling against those programs. It's not a catastrophe, but it would have been nice to discuss publicly a long time ago. Not to mention UND could have perhaps framed the issue on their terms by getting the final word from Iowa, Wisc, and Minn, then announcing the news themselves.

Well...hindsight and all that.

Well, obtuseness and all that.

Many UND fans who frequent this board have known for years about Wisconsin's policy. It's been discussed on here almost as long as the Fighting Sioux nickname has been an issue. You seem to believe that because you didn't know about Wisconsin's policy, nobody at UND did either.

[star2city]

OK then. We can consider prior knowledge by UND admin of the Iowa and Wisconsin policies a given. Were the implications of those policies discussed publicly at some point? I have heard and read much discussion about scheduling both Wisconsin and Minnesota since the move to D-1 was announced, and I never heard any "but wait they won't schedule it" in the conversation until the Minnesota story broke. Again, maybe I missed it.

The questions I brought up on this topic are legitimate ones, star. On their own merits. Allegiances aside. I didn't come off half-cocked and make wild accusations. Heck, when I asked a question I leave open the possibility that I am missing some pertinent piece of info. However, since I am not from ND, but spent time at both the AG (I say that fondly), and UND, you will come to your own conclusion as to what loyalty or degree(s) I hold. I am also happy to remind you that you are not the arbiter of what is idotic, nor to what school someone is a backer of.

You are out of line.

You've been posting here since December 2006, yet your memory of this board goes well beyond that. Furthermore, everyone on this board knows JBB's postings are double-talk and idiocy. Only JBB himself would take offense at calling his posts idiotic. Your 'Matt' postings follow in that same vane, only with more cloaking this time. So are you the fourth, or is it fifth incarnation of JBB?

[Matt]

You've been posting here since December 2006, yet your memory of this board goes well beyond that. Furthermore, everyone on this board knows JBB's postings are double-talk and idiocy. Only JBB himself would take offense at calling his posts idiotic. Your 'Matt' postings follow in that same vane, only with more cloaking this time. So are you the fourth, or is it fifth incarnation of JBB?

I've read posts on this board as a guest for some time, possibly a year or more. I didn't register until pretty recently. If you've heard the phrase "long time listener, first time caller" you understand. Not that it should matter.

I'm not familiar with any one poster's postings well enough to distinguish one from any other. I don't know about whom, or what you are writing with your JBB reference. I post as Matt because that's the name mom gave me...well, Matthew, but only if I was in trouble, which it seems Star, I am with you. Furthermore, to write only JBB himself would take offense at having his posts called idiotic tells me more about you than your apparent nemesis, JBB. Most folks take offense at having their thoughts derided as "double talk and idiocy". Again, if I were wasting everyone's time by spouting half-cocked, nose tweaking nonsense, I would expect insults. But to the contrary, I asked reasonable questions, ones I would add don't amount to more of an indictment of our (assumably) beloved alma mater than a communication lapse. Yet in the end I have found myself receiving the shower of some juvinile territorial pissing match between two screen names. Grow up.

[Hawkster]

Every TRex post has been a bison dropping.

Many of my posts made no mention of NDSU. I'm a UND alum, slightly disgruntled about the way things have been going. What irks me most is the money wasted on this stupid lawsuit when it could be put towards better purposes. Maybe being a poly sci major makes me look at things a little differently.

[Sioux-cia]

What irks me most is the money wasted on this stupid lawsuit when it could be put towards better purposes. Maybe being a poly sci major makes me look at things a little differently.

This lawsuit is being financed by money that was donated to be used specifically for this lawsuit. I've donated money to UND's band and athletic programs. Money donated to the lawsuit is 'extra'.

Poly sci major??? And you don't see why it's important to fight the NC$$?? Hmm, I suggest you start paying attention in class.

[Chewey]

Many of my posts made no mention of NDSU. I'm a UND alum, slightly disgruntled about the way things have been going. What irks me most is the money wasted on this stupid lawsuit when it could be put towards better purposes. Maybe being a poly sci major makes me look at things a little differently.

Wow. That is definitely the same old trip trap advocated by the name changers. You have a right to your opinion but I think lack of familiarity with the realities of the issues has more to do with your statements than anything to do with being a poly sci major. If you are a poly sci major, you should know enough to look at both sides of an issue objectively. In the good ol' days, that was what politicians were supposed to do before being slimed with money from lobbying groups.

A law suit challenging a policy that treats similarly situated institutions differently to the financial detriment of those institutions that are affected is stupid? A lawsuit designed to get the NC$$ adhere to its CONTRACTUAL obligations with UND as it does with other institutions is stupid? A lawsuit designed to reveal the NC$$'s allegations against UND for what they are -- a bunch of baseless B.S. -- is stupid? What should be stupid is the attempted "enforcement" by the NC$$ of an illegitimate and arbitrary and capricious policy. What should be stupid are the baseless accusations of racism by the NC$$ against UND. What should be stupid is the NC$$ wasting its money, part of which is UND's money, to enforce its illegitimate "policy." What should be stupid is that brain fried, creatively lethargic and intellectually atrophied "educators" giving extra credit to students to "protest" and wasting tax payer money to "protest" themselves when they should be educating. What should be stupid is that the NC$$ conjoured up a "policy" at the whim of a minority of a minority of PC bed-wetters when a majority of the supposedly ill-affected group either supports indian nicknames or does not care. What should be stupid is the NC$$'s and the PC bet-wetters' attempted derogation of UND's legally protected trademark rights. What should be stupid is that the same NC$$ thugs and PC gauleiters are astonished, incensed and indignant when UND fights back against such attempted derogation.

I really get a kick out of the "waste of money" tripe that the name changes spout off. Anytime there is opposition to their antics, the people opposing them are "bigots" and the resources used to fight them are being "wasted." The types that you are apparently aligning yourself with like to squawk about "rights" and using the legal system to get a measure of "justice" against "wrongdoing." Those same claims are, apparently, not rightfully asserted by people outside of that group which only serves to accentuate the hypocrisy that both impugns and eviscerates any claim to logic or sense that the PC side tenders.

It's early in the semester. How many extra points are you getting? You have every right to your opinion and you have every right to state it here. These are things denied by the PCers to any side that opposes them. At least don't pass yourself off as someone whose objectivity may be jaded by poly sci studies. That's pretty transparent, my friend.

[PCM]

Isn't it wonderful how those who think the lawsuit against the NCAA is a waste of time automatically assume that the money donated to fund the lawsuit would have been used for some higher purpose of which they approved?

[petey23]

The only somehwhat acceptable replacement name I could come up with is "The Tribe" which could honor all the American Indians Tribes that existed in North Dakota.

[Hawkster]

This lawsuit is being financed by money that was donated to be used specifically for this lawsuit. I've donated money to UND's band and athletic programs. Money donated to the lawsuit is 'extra'.

Poly sci major??? And you don't see why it's important to fight the NC$$?? Hmm, I suggest you start paying attention in class.

I'm well aware that it is used with "private" money. However, how many people are diverting money to the lawsuit that otherwise would have gone to other university funds? People only have so much money to give, and they'll cut back somewhere else.

As a poly sci major, I know it's not in the best interest of the college to generate a lot of negative publicity. The name change is hurting us, I say get it over with before there are only a handful of colleges left that will play us.

[mksioux]

I'm well aware that it is used with "private" money. However, how many people are diverting money to the lawsuit that otherwise would have gone to other university funds? People only have so much money to give, and they'll cut back somewhere else.

That's pure speculation on your part. I can only speak for myself, but the money I gave to the NCAA Litigation Fund would not have been given to UND in some other form if the lawsuit hadn't happened.

[LB#11]

I'm well aware that it is used with "private" money. However, how many people are diverting money to the lawsuit that otherwise would have gone to other university funds? People only have so much money to give, and they'll cut back somewhere else.

As a poly sci major, I know it's not in the best interest of the college to generate a lot of negative publicity. The name change is hurting us, I say get it over with before there are only a handful of colleges left that will play us.

I don't agree that it is negative publicity. It certainly isn't a positive issue, but I would say that 80% of the United States would agree with the University's stance. I was in Florida last week wearing my Fighting Sioux apparrel...I was asked about the issue a few times...everyone I talked to was in full support of keeping up the fight for what is right. I work with people throughout the country everyday...most everyone thinks the issue makes no sense. Obviously it would be an issue if there was any truth to it...but to say the nickname is hostile & abusive makes absolutely no sense.