North Dakota Preps

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

The big difference there is private money vs public money. One person's donation has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

It is a nickname people. It's not someones child, it is a NICKNAME, I think that is what we forget. I don't want them to have to change it, but they are going to have too, because the NCAA has already came out and stood by their ruling. The "legislators" really stepped in one this time, when the bill comes back from a committee with a "DO NOT PASS" recommendation, maybe the congressmen should listen to the group that did the studying of the bill? Just a thought. The only people that will be affected by the nickname changing will be the student athletes, if it doesn't change they will have to deal with restrictions and banning.

ndlionsfan wrote:

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

The big difference there is private money vs public money. One person's donation has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

A Family's donation in this Case does, I would bet its the sole reason the Battle continues...and if my State tax dollars are being spent on UND then I'm fine with that.

winner-within wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

The big difference there is private money vs public money. One person's donation has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

A Family's donation in this Case does, I would bet its the sole reason the Battle continues...and if my State tax dollars are being spent on UND then I'm fine with that.

You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

old#63 wrote:

winner-within wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

The big difference there is private money vs public money. One person's donation has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

A Family's donation in this Case does, I would bet its the sole reason the Battle continues...and if my State tax dollars are being spent on UND then I'm fine with that.

You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

I personally (and obviously I'm not alone) have no problem with the Bill....I believe this will wake the NCAA up in their authoritative stance to other situations down the road...meaning they wont just jump to conclusions on touchy matters, they (IMO) regulate with to much of a dictatorship anyways.
As far as the political side to this Bill its neither Dem. or Rep. although the Majority of the Dems voted NO with the Rep. voting yes...which also is interesting considering the conservative stance these legislators normally take on issues...which brings me back to the fact that this isn't about Tax payers money as much as its about standing up for some thing that all Sioux people and people of ND should be able to voice on.

The reality is that most of the opposition to the Bill are not against spending more $$$$...they are happy that the Name was actually going to be retired and they dont have to listen to the Original ones who opposed it in the first place.....meaning never have to worry about the Sioux tribes again.
All in all I think its good to take a stance and make sure it was retired right, not just retired so UND can get into a certain conference before a deadline....

It's going to be interesting to see if Wisconsin and Minnesota will play UND in a couple years when they move to the big ten for hockey. If I remember right those two schools will not play UND in any other sport other then hockey. (only because they were in same conference for hockey)

Minnesota and Wisconsin will have to pick a side of the fence now. It was easy to say they didn't want to play them in anything but hockey (conference game), because with or without the name, they didn't want to play them in anything but hockey. It will be tough for the Goofers to go back on their big press conference, grand stand, "hostile and abusive" speech if they want to keep the hockey game going.

And I would think the Sioux/Gopher and Sioux/Badger hockey games are probably needed by all three hockey programs. Interesting.

One thing we need to consider also. The NCAA in all their wisdom, has deemed this logo and nickname offensive. I cant say the tribes have, because there has been no full vote. Many residents of both reservations take pride in the Fighting Sioux. Spirit Lake voted 68% to keep it. Standing Rock council won't let the people decide. Here on Ft Berthold, it is hard to find anyone who is offended by it.
What happenes when the nickname is gone? Will there will be more racial tension then they claim there aready is? This name has been around for 80 some years. There's a lot of history there. Put it to a vote. Let American Indians decide.

old#63 wrote:You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

Re-sue? I don't think that's even an option anymore due to the settlement. Isn't the only question right now to change the nickname or live with the consequences?

NDSportsFan wrote:

old#63 wrote:You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

Re-sue? I don't think that's even an option anymore due to the settlement. Isn't the only question right now to change the nickname or live with the consequences?

I believe you are right. I think the only sport that would really be hurt by it is the football team because it's the only sport that could probably have a home playoff game. With UND being a hockey school the hockey rubes would have no issue throwing the football team under the bus to keep the name. But thats just my opinion.

ndfan wrote:

NDSportsFan wrote:

old#63 wrote:You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

Re-sue? I don't think that's even an option anymore due to the settlement. Isn't the only question right now to change the nickname or live with the consequences?

I believe you are right. I think the only sport that would really be hurt by it is the football team because it's the only sport that could probably have a home playoff game. With UND being a hockey school the hockey rubes would have no issue throwing the football team under the bus to keep the name. But thats just my opinion.

I think you're right also, NDSportsFan. But the legislation that was passed clearly gives the attorney general the green light to use state funds to "sue" the NCAA if they impose sanctions on UND for keeping the name. My understanding is that the previous lawsuit was settled "with predjudice", meaning it couldn't be revisited. But, as we all know, anything can be filed in court. You can bring lawsuits even when you know you have no standing. They are simply unsecessful. But they still cost money. Lawyers don't work for free. So even if there is no legal standing, and even if they lose, the state could still end up spending taxpayer dollars on this.

And I also agree with you, ndfan, football takes the big hit by not hosting playoffs. But I think other programs such as track, etc.. will take hits as well. Not with playoff hosting, but with not being able to attend meets and such. Several schools have indicated that if UND is on the NCAA's "naughty list", they won't schedule games or invite UND to events. There aren't very many consequences to hockey (unless Big Ten Minnesota and Wisconsin won't schedule), but other sports need exposure if they are going to make the successful move up to D1.

I think the makers of this legislation somehow think the NCAA is just going to say, "oh, nevermind then, just keep the name." I doubt that will happen. The NCAA is going to reimpose the sanctions and I don't think anybody can change that.

Its a tangled mess, Like Nodaker pointed out there are Ft berthold members who embrace the name and I'm sure there are some that don't, in reality this really doesn't matter because they are The three Affiliated, then there is a college Professor who has taken a stance against it and he is from Turtle Mountain but is French Metis, which makes up 95% of the Turtle Mountain Reservation who have also have taken great advantage of the Medical opportunities offered by UND...and realize ultimately its the 2 Sioux Tribes who have to give consent.
So we have a whole bunch of Voices..who are calling it time to retire the name, many of them being recent and claiming the Tax Payer doesn't want to waist another dime, these folks are not against the name because of it being "Hostile and Abusive" they want to get the show on the road to Joining a Conference and holding post season tours and such, at the same time believing it should have never been a discussion in the first place and also thinking it should have never offended anybody.

Watching Florida State last weekend at one of the commercial breaks, they showed the sculpture of the Warrior on the horse, alot like the one outside the Ralph, I wonder why (and I think I know the answer) it can work in Florida but not North Dakota.

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

its not gonna matter anyways. a bill saying UND has to keep the nickname isnt going to change the mind of the NCAA and colleges choosing not to schedule UND. therefore it is a waste of time and money. not that that matters anyway. this is an area our legislatures should have no part of

winner-within wrote:

old#63 wrote:

winner-within wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:

winner-within wrote:

baseball18 wrote:

ndlionsfan wrote:I think this is just the legislature stepping in where they don't belong in my opinion. They have no control over something like this and I would rather see our tax dollars spent on more meaningful problems.

amen!

If a Man donates a Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars, and one of his mandatory requests is to Keep the Fighting Souix Name than I think a few Bucks spent by our Legislatures to uphold his Request should be competent to the task. The NCAA should have just not worried about it in the first Place.

The big difference there is private money vs public money. One person's donation has absolutely nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

A Family's donation in this Case does, I would bet its the sole reason the Battle continues...and if my State tax dollars are being spent on UND then I'm fine with that.

You probably are correct, winner, that the reason this debate is still on is mostly because of the REA. And you might be fine with state dollars being spent to "re-sue" the NCAA, but I bet there are a lot of people in the state who have a big problem with that. Just sayin'.

I personally (and obviously I'm not alone) have no problem with the Bill....I believe this will wake the NCAA up in their authoritative stance to other situations down the road...meaning they wont just jump to conclusions on touchy matters, they (IMO) regulate with to much of a dictatorship anyways.
As far as the political side to this Bill its neither Dem. or Rep. although the Majority of the Dems voted NO with the Rep. voting yes...which also is interesting considering the conservative stance these legislators normally take on issues...which brings me back to the fact that this isn't about Tax payers money as much as its about standing up for some thing that all Sioux people and people of ND should be able to voice on.

The reality is that most of the opposition to the Bill are not against spending more $$$$...they are happy that the Name was actually going to be retired and they dont have to listen to the Original ones who opposed it in the first place.....meaning never have to worry about the Sioux tribes again.
All in all I think its good to take a stance and make sure it was retired right, not just retired so UND can get into a certain conference before a deadline....

actually a lot of the votes were purely political in nature, mainly to keep jobs and win votes. i.e. al carlson for a potential senator or governor run