MplsBison Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 If I am reading the agreement correctly the tribes can change their minds at any time and UND would be right back to where they are now. IE, the leaders of both tribes could come to an agreement with UND to let the school continue using the Sioux logo and name and then 5 years later a new leader could come back and say "not any more" and there's nothing UND could do about it. Is that what you guys really want? Plus, the U of MN is not going to play you guys in any sport other than hockey as long as you have the Sioux name and logo. No UND/UM football games. No basketball games. Etc. Why not just be "The University of North Dakota" and use the interlocked ND logo that the football team has been using? Quote
PCM Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 None of this has never, ever been discussed here before. Quote
Bleed Green Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 Thanks for the info ... WOW!!! ... eye opening and mind blowing!!! Just fell off the turnip cart I see ... welcome to the discussion Quote
Chewey Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 If the UofM does not play UND in any sport other than hockey, so be it. The hypocrisy of its policy will be even more evident when it plays other teams with indian nicknames. Other schools that have indian nicknames have won approval from namesake tribes and the UofM would play them. If UND got permission from the namesake tribes, UND would be off the list and, according to the UofM's own policy, it would be ok for UofM to play UND right? If UofM and WI and IA do not play UND, we can schedule Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado State, Montana, Boise ST (all schools that are, for the most part, just as close as UofM, WI and IA). The policy of the NCAA is that a school with an indian nickname is off the $#!% list if it gets approval from namesake tribes. If UND gets it, I don't see a problem right? I guess if UofM, WI and IA still would not play UND that would show some sort of unreasonable bias apart from the nickname itself. UND has a huge following in Minnesota so I would not be surprised to see the policy quietly go away in a few years, after further "reflection" spurred by numerous complaints from UND grads in the cities area. You have to laugh about the arbitrary and capricious absolutism of academia. Quote
dmksioux Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 If I am reading the agreement correctly the tribes can change their minds at any time and UND would be right back to where they are now. IE, the leaders of both tribes could come to an agreement with UND to let the school continue using the Sioux logo and name and then 5 years later a new leader could come back and say "not any more" and there's nothing UND could do about it. Is that what you guys really want? Plus, the U of MN is not going to play you guys in any sport other than hockey as long as you have the Sioux name and logo. No UND/UM football games. No basketball games. Etc. Why not just be "The University of North Dakota" and use the interlocked ND logo that the football team has been using? As PCM stated this has been discussed at length elsewhere. However, one thing I would like to add is that if (and it's a big IF) UND gets approval from both tribes I would guess that a contract would be signed for a length of time...ie a twenty year agreement to keep the name... Quote
Goon Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 If UofM and WI and IA do not play UND. My question is so what? We wouldn't even be competing against them UND will be a mid Major at best while these schools are big ten schools. Quote
MplsBison Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 one thing I would like to add is that if (and it's a big IF) UND gets approval from both tribes I would guess that a contract would be signed for a length of time...ie a twenty year agreement to keep the name... Yeah but contracts are thrown out of court all the time. All it would take is a pro tribal judge and a new tribe leader who claims that his tribe was coerced into signing the thing and it's thrown out and the situation reverts to the original agreement. Quote
SportsDoc Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Yeah but contracts are thrown out of court all the time. All it would take is a pro tribal judge and a new tribe leader who claims that his tribe was coerced into signing the thing and it's thrown out and the situation reverts to the original agreement. Then what would make that any different than UND being "forced" to accept the NCAA agreement by the AG and BOHE? Throw that one out with it and we'll just start over then, OK. Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 All it would take is a pro tribal judge and a new tribe leader who claims that his tribe was coerced into signing the thing and it's thrown out and the situation reverts to the original agreement. We get it. You don't think there's anything that UND can possibly do that will work. There are a number of different possibilities that could occur over the next three years. I am not going to assume that they're all bad just because that's what you choose to believe. Quote
Cratter Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 None of this has never, ever been discussed here before. Some people don't have the time and/or energy to sit here and read through countless posts (usually about nothing) to find substantial information. ....not that you said you did. I am thankful for people that start new threads to answer specific questions without weeding through "junk." Quote
MplsBison Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 We get it. You don't think there's anything that UND can possibly do that will work. As the thread title implies, I'm only questioning why you would invest so much time and money into retaining it when such a risk of losing it all over again will always exist. If the agreement had been "come to an agreement with both tribes at one time and UND may use the nickname for all time afterward", that'd be different. Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 I am thankful for people that start new threads to answer specific questions without weeding through "junk." I get tired of people walking in on the middle of conversations and forcing everyone to repeat themselves for the 100th time. Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 As the thread title implies, I'm only questioning why you would invest so much time and money into retaining it when such a risk of losing it all over again will always exist. And losing it costs nothing? Quote
MplsBison Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 That's exactly my point. If just the prospect of losing it now causes so much grief, what is it going to be like in x years when the new tribe leader decides that he doesn't like UND being the Sioux and withdraws support? Would you spend a million dollars to build a house for you and your family to live in under the stipulation that, at any time and for any reason, the builder of the house can kick you and your family out of the house? Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Would you spend a million dollars to build a house for you and your family to live in under the stipulation that, at any time and for any reason, the builder of the house can kick you and your family out of the house? I'll repeat myself just because you're so fond of making people repeat themselves: You're assuming that's the only thing that can happen. I'm not. Quote
mksioux Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Yeah but contracts are thrown out of court all the time. All it would take is a pro tribal judge and a new tribe leader who claims that his tribe was coerced into signing the thing and it's thrown out and the situation reverts to the original agreement. They could tie in a percentage of licensing dollars. It would make it very difficult for a new tribal leader to come in and cut off a significant revenue stream over something most of the constituents don't care about. Quote
Bison Dan Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 They could tie in a percentage of licensing dollars. It would make it very difficult for a new tribal leader to come in and cut off a significant revenue stream over something most of the constituents don't care about. It always boils down to money! Quote
The Sicatoka Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 It always boils down to money! How many times do I have to say this: When you find yourself in a situation where nothing makes sense, where up is down and left is right, where nothing is as it seems: Stop. Rise above the situation. Look at it objectively from the outside. And then follow the Benjamins. All will become clear. Quote
dagies Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 It always boils down to money! So? If they used your photo on the cover of Bison Weekly, wouldn't you be compensated? Should we look sideways at the $ given you for your image? Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 So? If they used your photo on the cover of Bison Weekly, wouldn't you be compensated? Should we look sideways at the $ given you for your image? That not really the same thing. If my face or my name makes money, then I'm entitled to a share of it when someone uses it without my permission. There is no individual person and no group that owns the Sioux name. That's not to say that UND couldn't cut a deal to share profits with the tribes if it wanted to, but what the university is doing is not the same thing as using the face or name of some well-known person. Quote
dagies Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 That not really the same thing. If my face or my name makes money, then I'm entitled to a share of it when someone uses it without my permission. There is no individual person and no group that owns the Sioux name. That's not to say that UND couldn't cut a deal to share profits with the tribes if it wanted to, but what the university is doing is not the same thing as using the face or name of some well-known person. Understood. At the same time people may look at UND giving money to the tribes (in a hypothetical agreement) as a bribe, or blood money in some sense, and I don't see it that way. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 "Sioux" is derived from a French suffix for the diminutive. Shouldn't the money for the word go to the French? (Somewhere "ScottM" just spewed and sprayed his morning coffee all over his desk. ) Quote
MplsBison Posted November 7, 2007 Author Posted November 7, 2007 You're assuming that's the only thing that can happen. I'm not. Sure, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and neither of the tribes would ever decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen. Or, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and then one or both tribes would decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen. Quote
PCM Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Sure, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and neither of the tribes would ever decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen. Or, you could come to an agreement with both tribes and then one or both tribes would decide to go back on the agreement. That could happen. Or a giant astroid could hit the earth tomorrow and none of it would matter. That could happen. Quote
mksioux Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 It always boils down to money! It will be boil down to money if the tribes want it to boil down to money. If they don't, it won't. If the tribes grant permission, I'd actually like to see a continuing monetary element to the agreement for stability purposes. Quote
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.