The lawsuit and DI

[HockeyMom]

If I didn't send money to the lit fund, I'd probably just "waste" it on booze and women ...

Since when is that wasting money?

[ScottM]

This article is dated May 10, 2007. Did I miss something? Again....

http://www.kxnet.com/t/und/122143.asp

I seem to recall Kupchella making some reference to out-of-court talks in another article. It may be referencing the same thing.

[Chewey]

I absolutely loathe this settlement talk. I don't know what jury in the state, unless it was comprised of UND or NDSU professors exclusively, would decide against UND. My uncle, a UND alum, name change "advocate," and general PC loon, concedes this point. Not that he's any vital source but I would surmise the rest of the name-change clowns feel similarly. Obviously, cost savings would be an issue justifying settlement; at least this would be the case for UND. Perhaps avoiding a precedent and face-saving would be the motivating factors for the NC00 scumbags. Given the seeming intrasigence of the parties with respect to keeping/getting rid of the nickname, I do not see how a settlement could be arrived at. What would the parameters of any settlement be? Taking the image off of the ice/player sweaters? A "phasing out" of the nickname (I can't see how that could be)? Lopping off "Fighting" and just keeping "Sioux"? Having a "prohibition" against he NC00 from challenging UND's nickname for 30 years?

The machinery has started and UND should take it all the way, in my opinion.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Since when is that wasting money?

Booze can be a health hazard.

I can't see a settlement happening without getting some sort of signoff from at least one of the tribes. That's the only way the NCAA could remain consistent.

And IMHO unless they get a significant number of the tribe members behind it, the agreement would be under constant fire from other Indians. That's where having a stated time period in the settlement would come in handy. Personally, I would recommend about a million years.

[Goon]

Booze can be a health hazard.

I can't see a settlement happening without getting some sort of signoff from at least one of the tribes. That's the only way the NCAA could remain consistent.

And IMHO unless they get a significant number of the tribe members behind it, the agreement would be under constant fire from other Indians. That's where having a stated time period in the settlement would come in handy. Personally, I would recommend about a million years.

I don't see any settlement unless it allows UND to remain the Fighting Sioux.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I don't see any settlement unless it allows UND to remain the Fighting Sioux.

If your school doesn't keep the name, it

[SoCalSiouxFan]

I absolutely loathe this settlement talk. I don't know what jury in the state, unless it was comprised of UND or NDSU professors exclusively, would decide against UND. My uncle, a UND alum, name change "advocate," and general PC loon, concedes this point. Not that he's any vital source but I would surmise the rest of the name-change clowns feel similarly. Obviously, cost savings would be an issue justifying settlement; at least this would be the case for UND. Perhaps avoiding a precedent and face-saving would be the motivating factors for the NC00 scumbags. Given the seeming intrasigence of the parties with respect to keeping/getting rid of the nickname, I do not see how a settlement could be arrived at. What would the parameters of any settlement be? Taking the image off of the ice/player sweaters? A "phasing out" of the nickname (I can't see how that could be)? Lopping off "Fighting" and just keeping "Sioux"? Having a "prohibition" against he NC00 from challenging UND's nickname for 30 years?

The machinery has started and UND should take it all the way, in my opinion.

I'm thinking settlement means we keep the name, NCAA apologises and pays all attorney fees, and in exchange North Dakota will be good sports and forget about seeking money damages.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I'm thinking settlement means we keep the name, NCAA apologises and pays all attorney fees, and in exchange North Dakota will be good sports and forget about seeking money damages.

And this would be a total capitulation by the NCAA-not that I would mind it...

But what would the NCAA say to Arkansas State, and William and Mary, and Illinois, and a few others who were told to knuckle under?

And that's not considering the schools that jumped the gun (oh sorry, that's an Oklahoma Sooners reference, isn't it?) a little earlier and became Redhawks or Red Storm or something.

[PCM]

-How could the NCAA let ND keep the name while saving face? One way is to get one of the bigger tribes to sign off.

The Sioux tribe nearest to UND has given its permission. That should be enough. The size of the tribe or which namesake tribe in a state gave its permission wasn't a requirement for any other school. Why should it be for UND?

[UND85]

I am a UND alum, currently live in MN and was in ND this past weekend to visit my dad back on the farm. Every state highway sign had the Sioux head on it along with the name " SIOUX' on many steel grainerys. I guess that was the company name back in the 70's when we put up the bin. Funny how no one complains about our highway signs or our steel bin. I believe that when UND wins the suit, the other schools will regrett giving up so soon without a fight. GO SIOUX!

[The Walrus]

I am a UND alum, currently live in MN and was in ND this past weekend to visit my dad back on the farm. Every state highway sign had the Sioux head on it along with the name " SIOUX' on many steel grainerys. I guess that was the company name back in the 70's when we put up the bin. Funny how no one complains about our highway signs or our steel bin. I believe that when UND wins the suit, the other schools will regrett giving up so soon without a fight. GO SIOUX!

If I am not mistaken a indian head logo of some heritage is also on all the State of North Dakota's State Patrol Cars.....

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

The Sioux tribe nearest to UND has given its permission. That should be enough. The size of the tribe or which namesake tribe in a state gave its permission wasn't a requirement for any other school. Why should it be for UND?

An interesting question. But IMHO, the so-called "requirements" are quite fluid. If North Dakota had the support of a small minority of in-state Sioux, would the rest of the tribal members just walk away? Personally, I don't think so: that's when you would see the stories of how UND is taking advantage of some people by bribing them while others are starving, etc.

Strictly as an aside, I think the Seminoles got off because of both the in-state factor as well as the greater population of the Florida group over the Oklahoma group.

Another issue that would be brought up would be the "ownership" of the word Sioux. Does any one tribe own any more (or less) than the others? And by no means do I grant ownership of a word to any group, just a question for arguments sake.

One final question here: how would people on this board feel if they woke up on say, June 15th and heard that their school had changed its nickname to the "University of North Dakota Fighting Spirit Lake Sioux"? You've probably seen one of Michigan State's logos: the one with the word "State" in very large type and "Michigan" in much smaller type, above and between the letters "S" and "e". (Here's a picture: http://shop.thefabricfinder.com/item.asp?cID=58&PID=180 ) Your group is very imaginative, you could work out something similar. And by definition, you could keep your Chicago Blackhawks-style logo.

Quite a few people would be checkmated, wouldn't they?

Perhaps then the University Athletic Department would contribute $$ to the Spirit Lake tribe, and maybe after that some other tribes might re-vote; and sooner or later it would be decided that it's unwieldy to call them the "Spirit Lake/Standing Rock/XXX Sioux" and maybe they would just shorten it to Sioux. Would people think this is an acceptable compromise?

If I am not mistaken a indian head logo of some heritage is also on all the State of North Dakota's State Patrol Cars.....

The state of South Carolina has a Confederate flag in a Civil War Memorial on the grounds of their state capital building. Obviously, neither the University of South Carolina nor Clemson can do anything about that: but the NCAA wants to withhold competitions from the state universities based on the flag display. So I don't think state police cars can be far behind for the thought police in Indianapolis....

[PCM]

An interesting question. But IMHO, the so-called "requirements" are quite fluid.

Not really. All that was required for other schools to get exempted from the policy was approval from a namesake tribe in the same state. UND has that now. There were no conditions placed on where the tribe was located in relation to the school, the size of the tribe or how other tribes in other states viewed the issue. The NCAA has simply created a different standard for UND, and that's part of the reason why the state of North Dakota is suing the NCAA.

Strictly as an aside, I think the Seminoles got off because of both the in-state factor as well as the greater population of the Florida group over the Oklahoma group.

Nope. FSU got the exemption because the NCAA simply assumed that the Oklahoma Seminole tribal council was opposed to the tribe's name being used. That was the NCAA's stated reason for initially ignoring the wishes of the Florida tribe. When the Oklahoma tribe overwhelmingly and officially supported FSU, the NCAA created the namesake exemption out of thin air, suddenly recognizing that approval from the Florida Seminole tribe mattered after all.

Another issue that would be brought up would be the "ownership" of the word Sioux. Does any one tribe own any more (or less) than the others? And by no means do I grant ownership of a word to any group, just a question for arguments sake.

The word "Sioux" is widely used in geographical names and business names, some of which are non-Indian businesses. Nobody owns the word "Sioux," which isn't even a word from the Siouan language. Kupchella has made the point all along that nobody can claim ownership of words in the public domain.

One final question here: how would people on this board feel if they woke up on say, June 15th and heard that their school had changed its nickname to the "University of North Dakota Fighting Spirit Lake Sioux"?

That won't happen because the Spirit Lake tribe no longer refers to itself as the Spirit Lake Sioux.

[Goon]

I'm thinking settlement means we keep the name, NCAA apologises and pays all attorney fees, and in exchange North Dakota will be good sports and forget about seeking money damages.

Does UND have a good chance of that happening?

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Not really. All that was required for other schools to get exempted from the policy was approval from a namesake tribe in the same state. UND has that now. There were no conditions placed on where the tribe was located in relation to the school, the size of the tribe or how other tribes in other states viewed the issue. The NCAA has simply created a different standard for UND, and that's part of the reason why the state of North Dakota is suing the NCAA.

The original proclamation from August, 2005 said nothing about namesake tribes (or any other exemptions for that matter). The NCAA wanted to hold fast against one namesake tribe in Florida because they claimed they had an objection from another namesake tribe in Oklahoma. If you want to say "not really" to the idea that the policy isn't fluid and ever-changing, I can't agree. See below with the

[PCM]

You starting your response with

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

So the NCAA launched its policy knowing full well the position of the Florida Seminole tribe...

And they knew the position of the Chippewa tribe. And the Ute tribe.

Here's the difference: there were no dissenting tribes for either of those schools.

The NCAA didn't care about anything. (IMHO, that is.) They thought the PC police at the various schools would carry the day. The fact that they mentioned the Oklahoma Seminoles is (of course IMHO) a happy coincidence.

...but believing that it could safely ignore it because the Oklahoma Seminole tribe objected.

And the reason the NCAA believed it could ignore the Chips and Utes is..... ? ? ? ?

Only after the tribal council in Okahoma overwhelmingly threw its support behind FSU did the NCAA backtrack and invent the namesake exemption. If the NCAA had actually been interested in the position of the Florida Seminole tribe, it could have exempted FSU right from the start, but it didn't.

The "only" part of that statement is your opinion.

I disagree with your opinion.

My statement is fact...

Um, yeah: gotcha. Hey, good luck with that.

It doesn't matter because it didn't happen...

Wow. That's quite a statement.

Personally, I think it does matter.

Occassionally, things matter even though they don't happen. I have found it interesting (even helpful) to consider alternatives and options. You obviously feel differently. Again, much good luck to you with that.

Here's the original press release:

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance...;PreviewState=0

Here's a story from USA Today where they quote a CMU spokesman as saying ""Frankly, we wonder if (the NCAA) ever read some of the original documentation we filed in the first place," referring to a report filed two months before the August, '05 ban:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/z...-zillgitt_x.htm

[PCM]

And they knew the position of the Chippewa tribe. And the Ute tribe.

I don't pretend to know what the NCAA knew about those tribes. I can only go by what NCAA officials said about the FSU situation when they were very specifically asked about it during the news teleconference at which the nickname policy was announced.

Here's the difference: there were no dissenting tribes for either of those schools.

That is not correct. I've read that there's a Ute tribe in Colorado that opposes Utah's use of the Utes nickname. I know that Chippewa tribes in North Dakota and Minnesota have passed resolutions against UND's use of the Sioux name and have long been opposed in general to the practice of using Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery by sports teams.

Am I supposed to assume that these tribes, while being opposed to UND in particular and Indian nicknames in general, had no problem with Central Michigan's use of the Chippewa nickname? How is it that I know these things but the NCAA doesn't? After all, we are repeatedly told that the NCAA spent four or five years investigating and researching this issue before enacting its policy.

The problem isn't with what the NCAA knew or didn't know. It's that from the very beginning, the association selectively used and based its decisions on information that supported what Myles Brand and Walter Harrison wanted to do while excluding all evidence and information that contradicted what they believed or assumed to be true. That's the arbitrary and capricious part of UND's lawsuit.

In the case of the Oklahoma Seminole tribe, there's one member of the tribal council who's been very active in the movement to ban American Indian nicknames from sports. The NCAA simply assumed that he spoke for the entire tribe. But guess what? He didn't, and the tribal council was only to happy to disabuse the NCAA of that notion.

After the Oklahoma tribe sent the clear message that it supported FSU, the NCAA did a complete 180 and decided that the support for FSU by the Florida Seminole tribe had to be respected. That brings me back to your original statement that started this urination competition:

Strictly as an aside, I think the Seminoles got off because of both the in-state factor as well as the greater population of the Florida group over the Oklahoma group.

You can hold whatever opinion you want, but the facts, the time line and the evidence don't support your opinion as to why the FSU Seminoles received an NCAA exemption. Had the NCAA insisted on keeping FSU on its list despite the official approval and strong support the university received from both Seminole tribes, the association would have looked like an arrogant bully for telling the tribes that they didn't know what was best for them.

The namesake exemption was created as a face-saving move to rescue the NCAA from the public relations disaster created by the executive committee when it enacted a policy based on sloppy research, selective information and faulty assumptions. The FSU situation served to magnify everything wrong with the manner in which the NCAA implemented the policy. Brand and company knew that the faster they put FSU behind them, the more likely they'd be to salvage something from the policy. And they were right.

The NCAA didn't care about anything. (IMHO, that is.) They thought the PC police at the various schools would carry the day. The fact that they mentioned the Oklahoma Seminoles is (of course IMHO) a happy coincidence.

No, it wasn't a "happy coincidence." The NCAA clearly believed that as long as at least one Seminole tribe anywhere in the nation stood behind its policy, the association was justified in applying that policy to FSU, no matter what the Florida Seminoles thought about it. Again, that is clearly stated during the news teleconference to announce the policy. It is not merely my opinion. Edited June 1, 2007 by PCM

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I've read that there's a Ute tribe in Colorado that opposes Utah's use of the Utes nickname. I know that Chippewa tribes in North Dakota and Minnesota have passed resolutions against UND's use of the Sioux name and have long been opposed in general to the practice of using Indian nicknames, mascots and imagery by sports teams.

That's fine. I've NEVER seen anything like written by anyone at CMU or Utah. Utah's people in particular seemed to bend over backwards to emphasize that they were considering all sides of the issue; yet AFAIK they never mentioned the Colorado group. Next time you see it cited on the web, drop in a link here.

How is it that I know these things but the NCAA doesn't?

I don't know the answer to that question. A few lines ago you wrote "I don't pretend to know what the NCAA knew about those tribes." So maybe they did know.

...but the facts, the time line and the evidence don't support your opinion....No, it wasn't a "happy coincidence"....

Listen, I simply can't make it any plainer. Three schools had long-term support from their local tribes: CMU, FSU and Utah. (Yeah, yeah: I know that you are NOT certain about the Chips and the Utes. Okay, fine. I'm going with it anyway.) The NCAA banned them all in early August, '05. Only one thing changed in the next few days: The assumption that a small Oklahoma tribe opposed Osceola and the Seminoles was corrected. But in the next six weeks or so, the effect (namely, the rescindment of the ban) were shared by all three school despite your cause applying to only one school (FSU). I simply cannot draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the Okie Seminole tribe issuing a clarification, and two other schools totally unrelated to the Oklahoma tribe (CMU/Utah) suddenly becoming list non-members. I have to look elsewhere, and I see the possibility of a lawsuit by the supportive Chippewa, Ute and Florida Seminole tribes as being the far, far, far more likely cause of the NCAA dropping their objections. And in particular, the NCAA feared a lawsuit from the Seminoles because they're supported by the most people (fans), and politicians from a powerhouse state stood behind them in no uncertain terms. I'd opine that Utah and CMU would have been happy to delay their lawsuits while FSU and their rabid supporters tore the NCAA a new one, and then just ask Miles Brand "you ready for another round in court?"

I just can't help you anymore than that. Its as plain and simple as I can possibly make it. As far as I'm concerned, whoever disagrees with that simply doesn't want to consider any other possibilites (or probabilities), and no amount of words will ever convince them. I've spent far too much time on this; you're on your own from here on out. As previously noted, best of luck.

[PCM]

Listen, I simply can't make it any plainer. Three schools had long-term support from their local tribes: CMU, FSU and Utah.

As did UND at the time the NCAA put its policy into effect. The last official act of the Spirit Lake tribal council on the issue occurred back in late 1999 when the council passed a resolution in support of UND. It hasn't changed or rescinded that resolution, despite NCAA pressure to do so. Based on that fact, the NCAA could just as easily have given UND an exemption.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

That is not correct. I've read that there's a Ute tribe in Colorado that opposes Utah's use of the Utes nickname.

Google cannot find this.

What's more, here's a quote from the letter of appeal sent by William and Mary a full NINE MONTHS after the NCAA first put Utah on the H&A list and then took them off:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida approved not only Florida State

[PCM]

If anyone wants to reply with references to "known facts", "long-established timelines" and statements like "nope": don't bother to do so on my account. As far as I'm concerned, that dog won't hunt.

As far as I'm concerned, you're so far off the track of the original point you made (which I can easily disprove) that your continued blathering on this subject is barely even worth this reply. Best of luck as you continue to debate yourself.

[Sioux-cia]

This resolution was passed in 2001.

WHEREAS, the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes is an organization that united

the tribal governments of the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee,

Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations, representing over 400,000 Indian

people throughout the United States;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes

joins the United States Commission on Civil Rights call to eliminate the stereotypical

use of American Indian names and images as mascots in sports and other events and

to provide meaningful education about real American Indian people, current

American Indian issues, and, the rich variety of American Indian cultures in the U.S.

(Signed)

Jerry Haney

Principal Chief

Seminole Nation

http://aistm.org/fr.2001.civilized.tribes.htm

And then in 2005,

Ken Chambers, principal chief of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, in a story Thursday in The Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, said he had no objection to the school's use of Seminoles as a nickname and mascot, reversing the position of a tribe spokesman earlier this summer.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/200...t-support_x.htm

So children, what is the moral of the story? The Native American sports teams names and logos use is dependent on one's own perception/opinion/feeling. Oh, and more important, on who is in charge on any given day.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

As far as I'm concerned, you're so far off the track of the original point you made (which I can easily disprove) that your continued blathering on this subject is barely even worth this reply. Best of luck as you continue to debate yourself.

LOL! What a gem. The original point is summed up in this thread. Sorry if anyone can

[PCM]

Absolutely hilarious.

I don't know why we're arguing about this because we're essentiallly on the same side of the issue. The fact is, I've been following events related to the NCAA policy from Day 1. I listened to the NCAA news teleconference the day the policy was announced. (It's still online on the NCAA Web site if you care to listen yourself.) I also transcribed the teleconfernce the day it happened. I know what was said and the rationale behind what the NCAA originally did and the rationale they've used since to grant exemptions. I don't need to prove anything to you because I know how and why things happened and the order in which they happened.