Negotiated Settlement?

[The Whistler]

Far be it from me to cloud the issue with facts but it seems from the poll over on the news page

that there are many people that aren't very happy with the settlement so maybe the ones plugging it

are the ones that are in the minority. Just a thought.

I didn't vote. But those numbers are striking.

[PCM]

Far be it from me to cloud the issue with facts but it seems from the poll over on the news page

that there are many people that aren't very happy with the settlement so maybe the ones plugging it

are the ones that are in the minority. Just a thought.

Opinions aren't facts.

[The Whistler]

I think having no nickname at all is hands down the best alternative if the Fighting Sioux is retired.

I respectfully disagree. I will not personally wear another UND logo, but I'll continue to support the teams.

Where I disagree is that we should have a new logo so that the younger folks can build their own traditions.

[PCM]

I didn't vote. But those numbers are striking.

I'm guessing that the results of a statewide, scientific survey would look far different.

[The Whistler]

We did fight. We fought harder than any of the other 18 schools on the NCAA's list. Other than getting the exemption that five schools got, we got more than what any of the other 13 got. And if any of the tribes supporting the five with exemptions change their minds (and it's just a matter of time until some do), UND will have a better deal than any of them.

We did not fight We got to the point where we were ready to fight and then gave up. The NCAA got what they wanted and we gave it to them. It's like the Rocky movies ending an half hour before the movie's over.

If we would have continued the court fight and lost, we likely would've spent millions with absolutely nothing to show for it. And that's not even taking into account the possiblity that the NCAA could amend its bylaws and make a legal victory a moot point.

Or we could have won and kept the logo. As it is we spent a million and got nothing. You could have hired me and I would have caved in for half that much money.

[The Whistler]

I'm guessing that the results of a statewide, scientific survey would look far different.

Well we do know from the UND polling a few years back that 80% of the state wanted to keep the name. So I don't find these numbers that far off of the mark. I always thought that majority ruled. In this case there is nothing like a majority, not even on the reservations, that wanted to see the Sioux name retired.

[PCM]

As it is we spent a million and got nothing. You could have hired me and I would have caved in for half that much money.

Again, we didn't get nothing. But I guess we'll have to agree to diagree on that point.

[ScottM]

Well we do know from the UND polling a few years back that 80% of the state wanted to keep the name. So I don't find these numbers that far off of the mark. I always thought that majority ruled. In this case there is nothing like a majority, not even on the reservations, that wanted to see the Sioux name retired.

No, "majority rule" has long since been replaced with "He who whines loudest wins". :lol:

[PCM]

Well we do know from the UND polling a few years back that 80% of the state wanted to keep the name. So I don't find these numbers that far off of the mark.

I'm well aware of that, but that's not the same thing as polling the general public on whether the settlement with the NCAA is good, bad or somewhere in between. A non-scientific poll of people who frequent this site -- that vast majority of whom strongly favor keeping the name -- doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.

This statment Friday by Chancellor Bill Goetz is important to understand:

[Siouxtimestwo]

Again, we didn't get nothing. But I guess we'll have to agree to diagree on that point.

I tend to agree with both of you, if that makes any sense. As an alumni, I share Whistler's angst over the fact my alma mater will no longer be the Fighting Sioux. We put a lot of money into this fight and had higher expectations than what we came out with and I still feel like the AG did not have UND's best interests in mind throughout this whole process. That's what the most disappointing, not that we caved and settled, but that we pretty much just accepted what was given to us by the NCAA.

I also agree with PCM though, in the fact that had we played the whole process out and lost, the NCAA could have basically puffed out its chest and then we truly would have come away with nothing. As is, we still get to keep the sanctity of the Ralph, will be able to host post season events, and makes our transition to D1 smoother in that we aren't on any more naughty lists. Who knows, while I am certainly skeptical in all of a sudden gaining tribal support, maybe it will happen and the Sioux name will live on. I realize we could have possibly won the lawsuit and been able to keep the name through the legal process, but all indications pointed to us losing the name even if we won the lawsuit.

Just remember, this digestion period is going to be the toughest part of the process. It's just like after UND loses a big game. It sucks and everybody feels like jumping off a bridge as soon as the game's over, but give it some time and we'll adjust. No matter what our nickname ends up being, we will always be the University of North Dakota. The name might change, but the school and tradition will remain. When Marquette made the Final Four a couple years ago or when Stanford beat Cal with 'The Play', I doubt the first thought that went through fans' minds had anything to do with their mascot. It was probably the same elation we'll still feel if we win a national title in 2015. That's the important thing to remember right now, as hard as it may be.

[PCM]

No, "majority rule" has long since been replaced with "He who whines loudest wins". :lol:

So go on the campaign trail to vote out Hoeven, Stenehjem and any legislative leaders who agreed with their decision to change public policy toward UND's nickname issue. We all know that the lack of support from North Dakota's congressional delegation hasn't hurt Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy one bit. To think that the majority of voters in the state are going punish the current elected leaderhship of state government because of this settlement isn't dealing with reality.

[PCM]

I tend to agree with both of you, if that makes any sense. As an alumni, I share Whistler's angst over the fact my alma mater will no longer be the Fighting Sioux.

That's where your angst is misdirected. You are giving up by assuming that the name is gone. I am not making any such assumption.

[SiouxCrioux1]

I'm well aware of that, but that's not the same thing as polling the general public on whether the settlement with the NCAA is good, bad or somewhere in between. A non-scientific poll of people who frequent this site -- that vast majority of whom strongly favor keeping the name -- doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know.

This statment Friday by Chancellor Bill Goetz is important to understand:

[Siouxtimestwo]

That's where your angst is misdirected. You are giving up by assuming that the name is gone. I am not making any such assumption.

After all these years of never coming to an agreement with the tribes, what is going to change now? Even if it changes, we will still be at their whim and they can take the name away anytime they chose. Do you honestly feel that situation is best for our University?

[ScottM]

Clearly, this was a political decision made at the highest levels of state government. And that decision was that if North Dakota's elected leaders and the tribal leaders of the two Sioux tribes couldn't reach some consensus in three years, then the state was not going to expend any more time, effort or resources in fighting to keep the name.

So rather than directing so much vitriol toward Stenehjem and his supposed legal incompetence, I suggest that you put the blame at the highest levels of state government that changed the publicly policy regarding UND's nickname issue.

Anybody who, even under the influence of any combination of narcotics and booze, thought the SR band would suddenly support the name/logo or that Spirit Lake would actually step up to offer support really needs a kick in the teeth. This is an awful settlement. Basically UND and the state allowed the tribes to veto the name/logo under the guise of a three year grace period. The f'ing tribes weren't even part of the litigation. How in the hell could anybody effectively allow a non-litigant decide the terms of the settlement? If the tribes wanted to be a party to this, why not let them spend their own money? If anybody in our legal dept pulled this crap, they'd be fired and probably have an ethics claim filed against them. The NC$$ gets off with some mild platitudes, the tribes get UND to get rid of the name and UND gets away from being called "hostile or abusive" while effectively abandoning its integrity as laid out in missives to the NC$$ and the court. Yay.

That's some fine lawyering, there, Wayne.

[PCM]

That's some fine lawyering, there, Wayne.

What part of "change in public policy" don't you understand? That change obviously wasn't Stenehjem's call to make.

[PCM]

After all these years of never coming to an agreement with the tribes, what is going to change now?

You don't know until you try. Apparently many here don't even want to try. So who are the real quitters?

[Siouxtimestwo]

You don't know until you try. Apparently many here don't even want to try. So who are the real quitters?

What about the second part of my quote? Anybody can conveniently quote only the part they have a rebuttal for and ignore the rest. If we come to an agreement with currently tribal governments within the next three years, it can still be rescinded at any time after that. Tribal governments aren't exactly stable. Leaders come and go at a rapid pace and any one of them can cause any progress that's made in the next 3 years to go up in smoke. Do you honestly have that much faith in the tribes throughout our state. What is this faith based on?

Before this settlement, I was 100% in favor or keeping the name at all costs, but that's easy to do when it's a general statement. It's a little harder for me to say that now that the terms are laid out in front of us. If the choice is keeping the Fighting Sioux name at the cost of being slaves to the tribes, then my tune has changed. I don't think the Sioux name is worth that because no matter what, we're still the University of North Dakota! I attended a school that has a nickname, not a nickname that has school.

[Chewey]

You don't know until you try. Apparently many here don't even want to try. So who are the real quitters?

I can't believe that the tribes would not agree to something if they see that the conditions on the reservation will improve. Perhaps that's want the tribal councils are afraid of? If they are presented with something that will bring more resources and money to the reservations which would improve the lives of the indians, how could they refuse and be re-elected? I guess that presupposes that the tribal "leaders" would be rational and not simply reactionary. Maybe I'm presupposing too much?

[Siouxtimestwo]

I can't believe that the tribes would not agree to something if they see that the conditions on the reservation will improve. Perhaps that's want the tribal councils are afraid of? If they are presented with something that will bring more resources and money to the reservations which would improve the lives of the indians, how could they refuse and be re-elected? I guess that presupposes that the tribal "leaders" would be rational and not simply reactionary. Maybe I'm presupposing too much?

My only question is what can UND offer them that our state hasn't already given? I know for a fact that there are Native American students in the medical school that would not be there if they weren't Native Americans. I know when I turned 18, I didn't receive any compensation from the government, I received a card telling me I had to register so I'd be eligible for the draft if it ever came to that. Despite all the things we've already done, they still don't support the name, so I don't see how that will change. And I am ruling out bribery because I'm going to give the leaders of both the tribes and our university more credit that that.

[Goon]

I'm guessing that the results of a statewide, scientific survey would look far different.

maybe... We will know from the fallout later this week...

[Goon]

That's where your angst is misdirected. You are giving up by assuming that the name is gone. I am not making any such assumption.

Anyone want odds?

[The Whistler]

This statment Friday by Chancellor Bill Goetz is important to understand:

[The Whistler]

Anyone want odds?

One can always hope, but I'm taking the tribes at their word. I really don't think we should be chided for doing so.

[dagies]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this question. Are you saying that either bringing or continuing the lawsuit had no value?

I will try to share what I personally saw as the value of the case. I think it would have been valuable to get the NCAA on record as to how many "complaints" they had about ONLY Indian nicknames. And I would ask how many complaints they got about the Irish: because I know the answer is at least one. Then I'd ask what the minimum number of complaints is for action. I would ask them if they thought it made a difference as to "who" complained, and get that answer on record. (E.G., if a full-blooded Ute complained but a half-Ute person said "no problem", is that still a vote against the Utes?) I would ask them if they saw any difference between names like Sioux, Seminoles etc. and Irish, Vikings, Aztecs and the like; and get their answer on record. If I was thinking more clearly tonight, I could probably list out a few more answers I would like. And yes, assuming UND won and then the NCAA took the new rules and regs to their full convention, I'd then be raising those same issues on the floor. Namely (er, no pun intended) are we as an organization being fair to people of all races?

After reading further, this earlier comment captures most of my thoughts on the value of continuing with the lawsuit vs. this settlement:

One more thing as a general comment on whether or not its advisable to adopt a new nickname. If Illinois had been forced to drop our nickname, I was in favor of NOT choosing another nickname. The long and short of it for me was that if we didn't call ourselves anything new, in the minds of most casual fans we'd still be the Illini. Once we started calling ourselves "Praire Wind" or whatever we'd lose the small, tenuous connection we had to Illini among those who don't follow college sports avidly (and I think that is the majority of people).

Not an expert here, but I don't think the questions you would like to pose were relevant to this case. I think this case was whether the NCAA had followed their own by-laws in instituting this policy, and UND was likely to win. I doubt those questions you posed would have been allowed, or answered. It would be great to force the NCAA to answer them, but I don't think that was part of the deal.

A. The case would have stayed in North Dakota. The North Dakota Supreme Court is very efficient often seeing cases within 6-8 months of having a case submitted. Must be all of those UND grads up there.

B. A properly done case would have concerned the matter with not only had the NCAA acted against their bylaws but is the logo itself hostile and abusive. Winning on that count would bar the NCAA from changing their policy again.

C. If we lose we lose. I can live with that.

As it is now we lost without fighting.

Stenejhem seems proud that the NCAA is going to put on a disclaimer that we are not hostile and abusive on their website. But if that's the case then we should keep the name, right?

Based on what little I have read, it's likely UND would have won this case. But what then. Already the involved parties knew that the NCAA was close or likely to instituting a revised by-law allowing the very process that implemented this policy in the future. So UND would have won, and shortly thereafter the NCAA would be smarter and come back with the same policy, lawfully enacted, and UND would have been up a creek.

IMO, wiser heads prevailed and got what was possible to get at this time. In addition, they got the NCAA to retract the "hostile and abusive" claim without even needing another suit to do it.

There's still some hope, and even if the nickname eventually changes, some concessions on our venue.