Negotiated Settlement?

[proudsioux]

no i switched to 99 bananas.

[Taz Boy]

I think the leaked information is incomplete, and therefore an assessment of whether or not the settlement as described is "good" or "bad" is difficult. I'm guessing that a 3-yr cooling off period indicates that the NCAA policy on nicknames remains pretty much unchanged. Therefore, it must be agreed that the policy was enacted without violation to bylaws or procedures-- with perhaps the only concession by the NCAA being the timeline for compliance was too aggressive, financially punitive. I'm sure the "hostile and abusive" language will also be rescinded, replaced by something else that is essentially the same thing.

Oh well, let's wait for the whole package and see what's there.

taz

[PCM]

Oh well, let's wait for the whole package and see what's there.

Agreed. Let's wait to see it all before going off the deep end.

[BigGame]

If the University cannot find an effective method of negotiation over the next three years they aren't being creative enough. Every group wants or needs something they don't currently have. Threatening to take things away generally is counter productive and not very clever.

Complete BS, it's no different then buying them off. Take something away they already have vs giving them something they want. Your statement works better if we are dealing with children though.

[NDSUguy]

You've got to be kidding me. Do you really want me to believe that "Fighting" is a negative reference? If you are trying to identify with the fighting spirit of a particular group, how else would you refer to it?

Give me a break.

Yes, I do believe that the term "Fighting" is a negative reference. While you claim that the word "fighting" is in reference to the Sioux tribe's spirit, generally the term "fighting" is not used in that fashion.

Fighting in general is in reference to verbal or physical conflict between more than one individual or group. The Sioux tribe never was a tribe that was known for their aggressive ways. So to label the Sioux with the word "fighting" is incorrect (and in the eyes of those who do not know of the tribe's "spriit") could possibly shed a negative light on a group that was not aggressive.

No, I am not kidding. I think that my original statement holds true.

[siouxhockeyfan11]

Complete BS, it's no different then buying them off. Take something away they already have vs giving them something they want. Your statement works better if we are dealing with children though.

apparently we are dealing with children the way everyone is going about this

[BigGame]

apparently we are dealing with children the way everyone is going about this

Every once in a while it's fun to behave like a child, don't think just react. Of course the result often aren't positive.

[The Sicatoka]

I think the leaked information is incomplete, ...

Oh to find out someone "false flagged" the information to the Fargo Forum to find a leak.

[PCM]

The Sioux tribe never was a tribe that was known for their aggressive ways.

Wow. I guess I've been reading real history books rather than watching the Kevin Costner version on the silver screen.

[SiouxMD]

Yes, I do believe that the term "Fighting" is a negative reference. While you claim that the word "fighting" is in reference to the Sioux tribe's spirit, generally the term "fighting" is not used in that fashion.

Fighting in general is in reference to verbal or physical conflict between more than one individual or group. The Sioux tribe never was a tribe that was known for their aggressive ways. So to label the Sioux with the word "fighting" is incorrect (and in the eyes of those who do not know of the tribe's "spriit") could possibly shed a negative light on a group that was not aggressive.

No, I am not kidding. I think that my original statement holds true.

You are entitled to your own opinion but I thought I would point out some other collegiate "Fighting" nicknames:

1) University of Notre Dame - Fighting Irish

2) University of Illinios - Fighting Illini

3) University of North Dakota - Fighting Sioux

4) Campbell University - Fighting Camels

5) Edinboro University of Pennsylvania - Fighting Scots

6) Ohio Valley University - Fighting Scots

7) St. Ambrose University - Fighting Bees

8) Western Illinois University - Fighting Leathernecks (current and future foe of NDSU ala the Gateway Conference and Summit League)

9) The College of Wooster - Fighting Scots

SOURCE

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

UND should do what ever it takes to keep the nickname. I do not care if the tribes support it or not. That, I believe, is not necessary. And if you have to go to court over that as well, then do it.

[PCM]

UND should do what ever it takes to keep the nickname.

We can keep the name right now. We just can't display it at any NCAA-sponsored events or host any NCAA tournaments.

[BringDeanBack]

You have never done business in Chicago, they do political corruption as an art form.

Your post is a perfect example of making any solution more difficult rather than easier. Thanks for helping.

No problem. I guess I missed the part where Chicago came into play.

[Yote 53]

From an outsiders perspective, if you want to fight for the "Fighting" part of the nickname I see nothing wrong with that. There are many "fighting" mascots out there so I don't see the issue. If you, however, dropped the "Fighting" part and just went with Sioux that would be pretty cool, also I don't see how the NC$$ has a leg to stand on, really. If just plain Sioux is hostile then Sioux City, Sioux Falls, The Big Sioux and Little Sioux rivers might want to think about changing their names, not to mention more than half of our State's that are NA names or native words.

Seriously, this whole fiasco that the NC$$ created could be settled real soon and that is a good thing for UND.

Even if you do have to drop the Fighting part, we all now that you are scrappers and fight for victory.

See you on November 10 in Verm, where you better be ready to fight.

[BringDeanBack]

Give the tribal councils a cut of license revenues. Say 25 cents for every t-shirt sold. Make it a long a** contract for say 25 or 30 years so we don't have to revisit this anytime soon. The tribes will stop listening to "outside forces" like the Bellecourt's of the world once the money starts flowing.

Also, find a Sioux artist to draw a new logo to be used going forward (with the understanding that existing logos are kept at REA). This should give those against the nickname one less thing to complain about.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

We can keep the name right now. We just can't display it at any NCAA-sponsored events or host any NCAA tournaments.

If that is what it ultimately came down to, I would support it. The name and logo stay.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Give the tribal councils a cut of license revenues. Say 25 cents for every t-shirt sold. Make it a long a** contract for say 25 or 30 years so we don't have to revisit this anytime soon. The tribes will stop listening to "outside forces" like the Bellecourt's of the world once the money starts flowing.

No, we should not bribe the tribes. We should just keep the name. It is stupid that we should need somebody's approval for the name and logo.

[Sioux-cia]

Doesn't UND have the names Fighting Sioux and Sioux trademarked?

[dagies]

Yes, I do believe that the term "Fighting" is a negative reference. While you claim that the word "fighting" is in reference to the Sioux tribe's spirit, generally the term "fighting" is not used in that fashion.

Fighting in general is in reference to verbal or physical conflict between more than one individual or group. The Sioux tribe never was a tribe that was known for their aggressive ways. So to label the Sioux with the word "fighting" is incorrect (and in the eyes of those who do not know of the tribe's "spriit") could possibly shed a negative light on a group that was not aggressive.

No, I am not kidding. I think that my original statement holds true.

Ask General Custer if he thinks "Fighting" is a negative reference for the Sioux. I read somewhere recently that the Sioux could arguably be considered the best light cavalry in the world in their time. Trying to identify with that fighting spirit is somehow negative? I don't get your point at all.

How does that go? "Imitation is the fairest form of flattery"? Something like that. I think you dig way too deep to be offended by "Fighting".

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Thanks for sounding a voice of reason on this.

At the risk of jumping the gun, let's assume the report is true. Seems like we can draw some important inferences about interim decisions (if not rulings) about the case:

* UND's claim that the NCAA didn't follow its own rules must have had enough merit that it created a loophole for the name to stay the same, conditionally. (Otherwise, the NCAA could stand by its original ruling.)

* If UND is settling, based on this important condition of gaining tribal support, I would bet the ranch that they believe they can GET tribal support. (Otherwise, the cheapest thing to do is change the nickname now.)

* Three years is enough time. If UND and the tribes can't agree by then, they never will.

* I'm proud to call myself an alumni of a school that is a leader in providing opportunities for Native Americans. As a nation, we've tended to forget their situations, and I'd like to see UND continue to be a leader. Equally important, I'd like for the local tribes to recognize that, and realize UND is a positive force for change.

If I read this post right, you seem to be of the opinion that three years of negotiations will yield a satisfactory result. I have to wonder what will make the years 2007-10 any different than 2004-07; or for that matter any 3-year period from apx. 1985 to the present. Certainly those years were just as long, and equally capable of being "enough time": yet nothing has been accomplished. Adding a deadline is counterproductive IMHO.

If there was enough of a loophole because of the NCAA's failure to follow procedures, what does the settlement do to remedy this? Neither a change in stated procedures nor a "follow thru" of current rules seems to be in the offing.

I don't understand exactly what will be required to obtain "tribal support" (and I suppose that tonight nobody outside the negotiations understands that). But if you need all the tribes to get behind your name, it seems to me that you have just handed veto power to a group as small as a plurality of the smallest tribe. If so, even if the largest tribe was to vote 5,000 to zero in support of the nickname, a tribe of 200 people could vote 101-99 the other way and negate the first tribe's overwhelming support. Again, I cannot see that as being productive.

IF you think that UND could get support, why even negotiate for a settlement with the NCAA? Announce the support and let the NCAA twist in the wind. And "cheap" can be measured in a number of ways. Yes, you stop the clock on the lawyers, but you start the clock on losing contributions the minute you announce an unpopular settlement. Which way is "cheaper" is a matter of opinion. And its JMHO, but only one of those ways has an unlimited downside.

At this point there are far, far more questions than answers and the three paragraphs in the paper aren't helpful at all IMHO. I'll be eager to see the actual terms, if and when they do come out.

On a totally different point: political corruption in CHICAGO?? Pshaw. Pure as the driven snow.

[kvinbe]

Does anyone out there remember seeing the Bison defeat the Gophers last weekend? Well, if you do, consider this. The Sioux may never even have the chance to play in such games. Even if the Sioux gain the approval of the tribes, there will be many schools who will not agree to play them because of the nickname. Florida State has the support of its local tribe, and yet there are schools that will not schedule them because of their nickname. This isn't a huge deal with a school like FSU that is already well-established in D-I, but for a school like UND that will just be starting the transition, it could seriously delay our development. Hanging on to the nickname will ultimately result in UND's development and reputation being damaged. It's over. The writing is on the wall. I've been a supporter of the Sioux nickname from the beginning. But geez, it's now reached the point of being ridiculous and absurd. It's time to move on.

And for those of you out there that think the name should be retained even if the tribes don't agree, I really don't have the slightest clue what the basis is for your argument. The people whose namesake is being used have to have the ultimate say. Anything else would just be plain wrong. If the majority of the tribespeople come forward and say they want to keep the name, in opposition to a few leadeers, then there is a solid basis for keeping the name. We would then be acting out of a position of integrity. That could change the minds of some of the D-I schools out there when it comes to scheduling -- but I doubt it. In the long run, it will only get worse.

It's time to look to a future that involves a new nickname. This is now primarily a political process that cannot be turned around. It's time to accept reality and embrace change by moving forward in a positive way as the transition to D-I is made. Case closed.

[82SiouxGuy]

Yes, I do believe that the term "Fighting" is a negative reference. While you claim that the word "fighting" is in reference to the Sioux tribe's spirit, generally the term "fighting" is not used in that fashion.

Fighting in general is in reference to verbal or physical conflict between more than one individual or group. The Sioux tribe never was a tribe that was known for their aggressive ways. So to label the Sioux with the word "fighting" is incorrect (and in the eyes of those who do not know of the tribe's "spriit") could possibly shed a negative light on a group that was not aggressive.

No, I am not kidding. I think that my original statement holds true.

That's an interesting take on history.

Going on the war path was part of a rite of passage for males. War was the underlying principle of the Sioux people, because through it men gained prestige, and their prestige was reflected in the family honor.

I guess the History Channel disagrees with you.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Florida State has the support of its local tribe, and yet there are schools that will not schedule them because of their nickname.

Really? Which ones? I'm not aware of any school that turns them down. Wisconsin will play them. As a matter of fact, they just played in basketball last year IIRC. Which schools "will not schedule (FSU) because of their nickname"?

The people whose namesake is being used have to have the ultimate say. Anything else would just be plain wrong.

The city fathers of Sioux City Iowa have to be wondering how much it will cost them to change. After all, if the tribes vote to make them change, keeping the name would "just be plain wrong".

Case closed.

Oh yes, everyone else sees the light now. You've raised so many issues that have never been discussed before; and with irrefutable logic too!

I really don't have the slightest clue...

Full agreement.

[Siouxstudent1]

Does anyone out there remember seeing the Bison defeat the Gophers last weekend? Well, if you do, consider this. The Sioux may never even have the chance to play in such games. Even if the Sioux gain the approval of the tribes, there will be many schools who will not agree to play them because of the nickname. Florida State has the support of its local tribe, and yet there are schools that will not schedule them because of their nickname. This isn't a huge deal with a school like FSU that is already well-established in D-I, but for a school like UND that will just be starting the transition, it could seriously delay our development. Hanging on to the nickname will ultimately result in UND's development and reputation being damaged. It's over. The writing is on the wall. I've been a supporter of the Sioux nickname from the beginning. But geez, it's now reached the point of being ridiculous and absurd. It's time to move on.

And for those of you out there that think the name should be retained even if the tribes don't agree, I really don't have the slightest clue what the basis is for your argument. The people whose namesake is being used have to have the ultimate say. Anything else would just be plain wrong. If the majority of the tribespeople come forward and say they want to keep the name, in opposition to a few leadeers, then there is a solid basis for keeping the name. We would then be acting out of a position of integrity. That could change the minds of some of the D-I schools out there when it comes to scheduling -- but I doubt it. In the long run, it will only get worse.

It's time to look to a future that involves a new nickname. This is now primarily a political process that cannot be turned around. It's time to accept reality and embrace change by moving forward in a positive way as the transition to D-I is made. Case closed.

Who's not going to schedule Florida State? Minnesota does have that policy, but if you look at their schedules they play the Central Michigan CHIPPEWAS and the Florida State SEMINOLES. They arent very strict on policy when it comes to big money games, I guess.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I guess the History Channel disagrees with you.

SHHH!!! Please do not interrupt the agenda!!