SDSU won't play UND in Football?

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

I think you are right about the AD being caught off guard and initially saying case by case but later that day is when it was revealed we would not schedule them in anything until the name issue was resolved. So, in the span of 24 hours, we readjusted our position it seems.

TV reported that Sell had told him that they'll be taking it case by case. Then the following day(or possibly later that night) Sell went on the McFeely show in Fargo and said they'd honor only the existing contracts. I'm sure the debacle pissed off the administration as well and that may have helped guide their decision. It made SDSU look bad and it even made TV look bad because he reported something different. I thought it was really interesting that AJ had been trying to schedule UND but they turned State down. I think it's a cluster **** up there.

[Nidaros]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

TV reported that Sell had told him that they'll be taking it case by case. Then the following day(or possibly later that night) Sell went on the McFeely show in Fargo and said they'd honor only the existing contracts. I'm sure the debacle pissed off the administration as well and that may have helped guide their decision. It made SDSU look bad and it even made TV look bad because he reported something different. I thought it was really interesting that AJ had been trying to schedule UND but they turned State down. I think it's a cluster **** up there.

Yes a cluster of ERRORS AND MISTEPS. Be thankful the SDSU Foundation and Alumni Council do not have an issue like this to deal with and to waste their hard earned funds on which in reality are gifts from alums like you and I.

This reaction by SDSU AD Sells is confusing to say the least, but I am sure he was following orders from the Presidents office. I am glad you and KULaw paid more attention. I often listen McFeeley because of his politics, but this is one day I missed

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

The UND Alumni Council and Foundation are late to the game, but have recognized that there is no recourse left but to try to get the measure passed, allowing UND to move on in good standing with the NCAA. I am not interested in wishing that UND athletics would disappear, so I am glad they woke up and are now in concert with the school administration, the school's AD and coaches, the ND Board of Higher Education, and, if you will, the NCAA (regardless of how one feels about the NCAA position in this matter). They may have shaded some of the information in their ads, but I don't think anyone that understands the NCAA (and its position on this subject) will disagree that if the logo is kept, the NCAA sanctions will mean the end of UND athletics as it exists and yes, most schools of any quality will not schedule a school that is sanctioned (even if that is not written in the list of sanctions by the NCAA).

It will be interesting to see if the initiated measure is defeated (i.e., retaining the law that requires the logo be kept), if it can be attributed to NDSU voters who would just as soon see the school disappear, period. And one last reminder: if the measure is defeated, the lawsuit by the ND Attorney General, representing the ND Board of Education, will then still have to rule on the lawsuit...they punted earlier when they had the ball...and are watching the vote as closely as we are.

[tcbison]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

The UND Alumni Council and Foundation are late to the game, but have recognized that there is no recourse left but to try to get the measure passed, allowing UND to move on in good standing with the NCAA. I am not interested in wishing that UND athletics would disappear, so I am glad they woke up and are now in concert with the school administration, the school's AD and coaches, the ND Board of Higher Education, and, if you will, the NCAA (regardless of how one feels about the NCAA position in this matter). They may have shaded some of the information in their ads, but I don't think anyone that understands the NCAA (and its position on this subject) will disagree that if the logo is kept, the NCAA sanctions will mean the end of UND athletics as it exists and yes, most schools of any quality will not schedule a school that is sanctioned (even if that is not written in the list of sanctions by the NCAA).

It will be interesting to see if the initiated measure is defeated (i.e., retaining the law that requires the logo be kept), if it can be attributed to NDSU voters who would just as soon see the school disappear, period. And one last reminder: if the measure is defeated, the lawsuit by the ND Attorney General, representing the ND Board of Education, will then still have to rule on the lawsuit...they punted earlier when they had the ball...and are watching the vote as closely as we are.

The polls are showing a very small percentage of people are voting to hurt UND athletics. Most want the issue to be over with once and for all.

[Hammersmith]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

The UND Alumni Council and Foundation are late to the game, but have recognized that there is no recourse left but to try to get the measure passed, allowing UND to move on in good standing with the NCAA. I am not interested in wishing that UND athletics would disappear, so I am glad they woke up and are now in concert with the school administration, the school's AD and coaches, the ND Board of Higher Education, and, if you will, the NCAA (regardless of how one feels about the NCAA position in this matter). They may have shaded some of the information in their ads, but I don't think anyone that understands the NCAA (and its position on this subject) will disagree that if the logo is kept, the NCAA sanctions will mean the end of UND athletics as it exists and yes, most schools of any quality will not schedule a school that is sanctioned (even if that is not written in the list of sanctions by the NCAA).

It will be interesting to see if the initiated measure is defeated (i.e., retaining the law that requires the logo be kept), if it can be attributed to NDSU voters who would just as soon see the school disappear, period. And one last reminder: if the measure is defeated, the lawsuit by the ND Attorney General, representing the ND Board of Education, will then still have to rule on the lawsuit...they punted earlier when they had the ball...and are watching the vote as closely as we are.

The voting is the other way around. A yes vote means you want to drop the name, a no vote mean you want to force UND to keep it. It's hanging chad time, baby! Reminds me of a good line from Big Trouble: "Arthur Herk. One of the few Floridians who was not confused when he voted for Pat Buchanan."

Thankfully, there will be an explanation on the ballot that should clear things up as long as the voter actually reads it.

YES – means you approve Senate Bill 2370, the effect of which would allow the
University of North Dakota to discontinue the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.

NO – means you reject Senate Bill 2370, and would require the University of North
Dakota to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.

[BTownJack]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

The polls are showing a very small percentage of people are voting to hurt UND athletics. Most want the issue to be over with once and for all.

For any NDSU/UND poster - am I reading this right? Mock polls are showing this bill will pass (AKA - "yes" vote)??? And by a wide margin?

[jackmd]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

For any NDSU/UND poster - am I reading this right? Mock polls are showing this bill will pass (AKA - "yes" vote)??? And by a wide margin?

Not a fan of either but you are correct, the measure to allow UND to drop the nickname will pass.

[Hammersmith]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

For any NDSU/UND poster - am I reading this right? Mock polls are showing this bill will pass (AKA - "yes" vote)??? And by a wide margin?

Yep, the poll(500 votes collected by telephone) said 56%/44% to retire the name. Only 3% of those that planned to vote no said they were doing it to hurt UND(6 or 7 people). The margin of error was +/- 4.3%, so the name should be gone if the poll was representative and if people vote they way they said they would. I'm not willing to put money on it yet.

In contrast, the poll for the property tax elimination was 74%/26% against. That one is sure to fail.

The GF Herald article is still free to view:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...blisher_ID/40/

[Nidaros]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

Yep, the poll(500 votes collected by telephone) said 56%/44% to retire the name. Only 3% of those that planned to vote no said they were doing it to hurt UND(6 or 7 people). The margin of error was +/- 4.3%, so the name should be gone if the poll was representative and if people vote they way they said they would. I'm not willing to put money on it yet.

In contrast, the poll for the property tax elimination was 74%/26% against. That one is sure to fail.

The GF Herald article is still free to view:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...blisher_ID/40/

What about Measure 3? Its about religious freedom, but that is already guarenteed in the bill of rights. I think a bunch of ND voters will be happy with a yes on Measure 4 and a no on Measure 1.

[Hammersmith]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

What about Measure 3? Its about religious freedom, but that is already guarenteed in the bill of rights. I think a bunch of ND voters will be happy with a yes on Measure 4 and a no on Measure 1.

Measures 1 & 3 are basically meaningless.

Measure 1 closes a reverse loophole, but it would rarely come into play anyway. A previous measure several years ago made it illegal for a sitting legislator to be appointed to either a new position or one that had just be given a pay raise by the legislature. That's a pretty good law to avoid corruption. But what about simple cost of living raises that are given to an entire department? Even a one dollar raise would eliminate all legislators from the applicant pool. While that's not normally a bad thing, there could be times where the best qualified person is actually a legislator. Measure 1 rewrites the law to allow legislators to be appointed to a position that has had a pay raise as long as that raise was no more than the general percentage given to all state employees. Honestly, it really doesn't matter if the law passes or fails; it's probably a once-in-a-decade situation where it would really be needed. If I vote against it, it will probably be because Al Carlson is the guy who sponsored it. I'm not sure which way the vote is going to go because I don't think more than 5% understand what the measure actually is.

Measure 2 is going down; no doubt about that.

Measure 3 is just dumb and useless. I don't believe it does anything that the first amendment doesn't already do. I'm voting against it just because I don't like superfluous laws. I'm also very uncomfortable with the national movement that's been pushing these laws in dozens of states. It'll likely pass, though. North Dakota is about as religious as states come, and most won't look too deeply at the measure.

I still don't know which way measure 4 is going to go. My brain says to listen to the poll and expect it to pass. My gut is still telling me it's going to fail. I guess I'll find out the night of the election.

[Nidaros]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

Measures 1 & 3 are basically meaningless.

Measure 1 closes a reverse loophole, but it would rarely come into play anyway. A previous measure several years ago made it illegal for a sitting legislator to be appointed to either a new position or one that had just be given a pay raise by the legislature. That's a pretty good law to avoid corruption. But what about simple cost of living raises that are given to an entire department? Even a one dollar raise would eliminate all legislators from the applicant pool. While that's not normally a bad thing, there could be times where the best qualified person is actually a legislator. Measure 1 rewrites the law to allow legislators to be appointed to a position that has had a pay raise as long as that raise was no more than the general percentage given to all state employees. Honestly, it really doesn't matter if the law passes or fails; it's probably a once-in-a-decade situation where it would really be needed. If I vote against it, it will probably be because Al Carlson is the guy who sponsored it. I'm not sure which way the vote is going to go because I don't think more than 5% understand what the measure actually is.

Measure 2 is going down; no doubt about that.

Measure 3 is just dumb and useless. I don't believe it does anything that the first amendment doesn't already do. I'm voting against it just because I don't like superfluous laws. I'm also very uncomfortable with the national movement that's been pushing these laws in dozens of states. It'll likely pass, though. North Dakota is about as religious as states come, and most won't look too deeply at the measure.

I still don't know which way measure 4 is going to go. My brain says to listen to the poll and expect it to pass. My gut is still telling me it's going to fail. I guess I'll find out the night of the election.

Hammer, I will continue this discussion with a pm.

[Nidaros]

Re: SDSU won't play UND in Football?

Lloyd Omdahl is a former Politcal Science Professor at UND and also the former Lt Governor for ND. He often writes thoughtful columns that appear in ND news papers. The link to the GF Herald give you one of his best and one of the most thoughtful columns that he has written. Enjoy

http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...roup/homepage/